Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clamped a tight security lid on the increasingly pessimistic reports coming out of field commanders in Iraq, threatening swift action against any military personnel who leak details to the press or public.

The wife of a staff sergeant with Kilo Company, the Marine Unit charged with killing civilians at Haditha, tells Newsweek magazine that the unit was a hotbed of drug abuse, alcoholism and violence.

"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."

Journalists stationed with the unit described Kilo Company and the Third Batallion of Marines as a "unit out of control," where morale had plummeted and rules went out the window.

Similar reports emerge from military units throughout Iraq and even the Iraqi prime minister describes American soldiers as trigger happy goons with little regard for the lives of civilians.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says the murder of Iraqi civilians has become a "daily phenomenon" by American troops who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable," Maliki said. The White House tried to play down Maliki's comments, saying the prime minister was "misquoted" although Maliki himself has yet to made such a public claim.

''Can anyone blame Iraqis for joining the resistance now?'' Mustafa al-Ani, an Iraqi analyst living in Dubai, told The Chicago Tribune. ''The resistance and the terrorists alike are feeding off the misbehavior of the American soldiers.''

As the resistance mounts and daily violence escalates, the overstressed U.S. units are unable to control the mounting violence and conclusions escalate that the war is lost.

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," says Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

The former commander of American forces in Northern Iraq admits incidents like Haditha add to the impression that the U.S. cannot win the war.

"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," says Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham.
Others say the incident just shows the U.S. has lost he "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.

"When something like Haditha happens, it gives the impression that Americans can't be trusted to provide security, which is the most important thing to Iraqis on a day-to-day level," says Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It tends to confirm all of the worst interpretations of the United States, and not simply in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and in the region."

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Sun-Tzu did not disappoint. At almost the very beginning of the second chapter I found a near perfect description of Dubya's ill-fated war on Iraq. To quote:

"Master Sun said: The art of warfare is this:

"In joining battle, seek the quick victory. If battle is protracted, your weapons will be blunted and your troops demoralized. If you lay siege to a walled city, you exhaust your strength. If your armies are kept in the field for a long time, your national reserves will not suffice. Where you have blunted your weapons, demoralized your troops, exhausted your strength and depleted all available resources, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of your adversity to strike. And even with the wisest of counsel, you will not be able to turn the ensuing consequences to the good. There never has been a state that has benefited from an extended war."

What a simple and concise description of the quagmire in Iraq! Here Sun-Tzu is providing counsel for an invading army. For the invaded, or in our era for the colonized or occupied, protracted struggle and the inevitable atrocities committed by the invader are both keys to victory. It is certain that the military and the neocon architects of the war know these classical principles of warfare even if Dubya is clueless. One is led to suspect that the neocons knew that a quagmire would ensue in Iraq, and in fact there is evidence for this, but they did not care. They had other goals. (Think Mearscheimer and Walt.*)

In the third chapter, Sun-Tzu makes some further pertinent observations.

"Master Sun said: The art of warfare is this:

"It is best to keep one's own state intact; to crush the enemy's state is only a second best. The highest excellence is to attack strategies; the next to attack alliances; the next to attack soldiers; and the worst to attack walled cities. . Therefore the expert in using the military subdues the enemies forces without going to battle."

In other words going to battle is a sign of weakness, a sign that other means were not available. The very fact that the U.S. wages war on Iraq is a sign either of weakness or lack of wisdom, the latter a failure to perceive one's own interests. (Think Mearscheimer and Walt again.*)

In Chapter 13,

"Master Sun said:

"Intelligence is of the essence in warfare ­ it is what the armies depend upon in their every move."

And this has a dual application. In Iraq the Americans are surrounded by the Resistance; it seeps into their every pore like water even though they inhabit the desert. And so the Americans have no intelligence, and all the Abu Ghraib's in the world will not extort the information they want. One does not readily betray one's family and friends.

Finally, in the very first words of Chapter 1, Sun-Tzu offers perhaps his most important observation which we have left for last:

"Master Sun said:

"War is a vital matter of state. It is the field on which life or death is determined and the road which leads to either survival or ruin, and must be examined with greatest care.

"Therefore to gauge the outcome of war we must appraise the situation on the basis of the following five criteria, and compare the two sides by assessing their relative strengths. The first of the five criteria is the way (tao). The way (tao) is what brings the thinking of the people in line with their superiors."

(Think the polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans feel that the war in Iraq is a mistake and not worth fighting, certainly not worth dying for. This amounts to bad tao for Bush and his accomplices in both War Parties.)

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com or late on Friday afternoons in Boston picketing against AIPAC or the Dem establishment, the "left" wing of the bird of prey.

"Much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," Mr Malloch Brown said in a speech in New York on Tuesday. Depending on the UN while tolerating "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping" was "simply not sustainable", he said. "You will lose the UN one way or another."

John Bolton, the US envoy and an outspoken critic of the UN, called the comments "a very, very grave mistake". He said he told the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, yesterday morning: "I've known you since 1989, and I'm telling you, this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time." He called on the secretary-general to repudiate the speech.

Tensions between the UN and George Bush's White House have been simmering since the war in Iraq, but they also encompass deep splits over the international criminal court and the new human rights council, whose formation the US was one of only four states to oppose. But the diplomatic tradition according to which UN officials do not publicly attack specific member states has a longer history still.

Washington was angered by Mr Malloch Brown's references to middle America, and the influence upon it of conservative commentators such as Mr Limbaugh. Mr Bolton said the speech demonstrated a "condescending, patronising tone about the American people. Fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant. It's just illegitimate."

The deputy secretary-general, a Briton who was previously head of the UN development programme, called his speech "a sincere and constructive critique of US policy toward the UN by a friend and admirer". But he may have felt liberated to speak his mind: his term of office ends in December, at the same time as Mr Annan's, and he is understood not to be planning to stay at the UN.

As speculation over Mr Annan's successor mounts, some reports have suggested Tony Blair is angling for the job - and that a speech he gave at Georgetown University two weeks ago, in which he outlined his ideas on UN reform, constituted a job application of sorts.

Mr Malloch Brown also used his speech to defend 18 peacekeeping missions around the world and to criticise continuing efforts by the US to use its leverage - as by far the UN's largest funding source - to press for more rapid reforms.

The UN needed to be overhauled, he acknowledged, but "in recent years the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage", he said. Other nations had the perception that the US adopted "maximalist positions" in diplomatic negotiations, he added, rather than seeking compromise.

A UN official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Guardian the speech was intended to be "a warning call" about a broader crisis. On many issues, including UN reform, "what the US is doing is absolutely right from our point of view", the official said. "It's just that almost nobody else, in the current environment, believes them." The state of public discourse about the UN in America meant that "the rest of the world thinks that the US has a hidden agenda, or is trying to use the process to manipulate the UN".

A senior UN official, Shashi Tharoor, said on Tuesday that the UN risked having to shut down if the US and Japan carried out a threat to withhold funding because management reforms had not been sufficiently implemented.

But Mr Annan, an old friend of Mr Malloch Brown who has promoted him to a series of top jobs in the UN system, retires on December 31 after a decade in office and was in no mood to back down.

"The Secretary-General stands by the Deputy Secretary-General and agrees with the thrust of his speech," Mr Annan's spokesman said last night. "The speech was not a mistake."

In his speech on Tuesday, Mr Malloch Brown attacked the US for "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years. From Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN," he said.

"But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," he added.

"That is what I mean by 'stealth' diplomacy: The UN's role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world."

Mr Bolton told Mr Annan that Mr Malloch Brown's comments were "the worst mistake by a senior UN official" that he had seen in many years and would damage the world body.

Analysts say that the clash could imperil congressional funding for the UN. The US, which pays 22 per cent of the UN's administrative budget, is already threatening to block its budget for the second half of this year unless it adopts a set of management reforms.

Mr Malloch Brown's speech was delivered to a think-tank seminar attended by prominent Democrat foreign policy experts and supporters. The audience included Madeleine Albright, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of State, Anthony Lake, National Security Adviser to President Clinton, and Richard Holbrooke, the former UN Ambassador.

Mr Bolton, a longtime UN critic, denounced Mr Malloch Brown's "condescending, patronising tone about the American people".

He said: "Fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American Government, by an international civil servant . . . It's just illegitimate." He said he feared that the fallout would hurt the UN far more than the US and warned Mr Annan of the "potential adverse effects these remarks would have on the organisation". Mr Bolton is expected to comment further on the controversy in a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies in London today.

Mr Malloch Brown last night defended his remarks, saying the crisis facing the UN demanded that he speak out. "For the life of me, I cannot understand how that can be construed as an anti-American speech," he said.

The row comes after months of tension between the blunt-speaking US envoy and Mr Malloch Brown, a former journalist and political consultant who was drafted in to do damage control during the Oil-for-Food scandal.

IN THE US CORNER . . .

JOHN BOLTON

Age 57

Trademark Walrus moustache

Background Yale-educated lawyer. Served Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior. US chief arms control negotiator and ambassador to UN since 2005

Best known for Helping George W Bush to clinch victory in disputed 2000 election in Florida. Denounced North Korea as "hellish nightmare". Accused of bullying subordinates in State Department

Quote "There is no such thing as the United Nations. The United States makes the UN work, when it wants to work. If the UN building in New York lost ten stories, it would not make a bit of difference"

IN THE UN CORNER . . .

MARK MALLOCH BROWN

Age 52

Trademark Transatlantic twang

Background Marlborough College and Cambridge University. Worked as a journalist on the Economist before joining the World Bank and heading the UN's Development Programme

Best known for Accepting job as UN deputy secretary-general to reform it after allegations of corruption, bribery and sexual harassment. Lives in home owned by the financier George Soros

Quote "If you look at the past 60 years of the UN, things rarely go well when there are strains in the relationship with the US. We must learn to trust the US without being seen as a poodle of America"

Then Matt said "and this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: 'These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much.'

"Because they dare to speak out?," Matt then asked.

Ann Coulter then said something to the effect that the left loves the fact that by being widows, these women exude a certain gravitas of quotability.

Well, Ann, if you believe these are "reveling," "millionaire" "broads," then I invite you to be a fly on the wall tonight.

A fly on the wall as one of these widows looks at her dead husband's picture on her desk and remembers the finer times.

A fly on the wall as one of these widows looks at the other side of what was her marriage bed and sees no one there.

A fly on the wall as one of these widows introduces a new male friend to her children, and they instantaneously - yet only to themselves, wonder if he will be as kind and as loving to their mother as their slain father was.

A fly on the wall as one of these widows listens to a new audio tape by Osama Bin Laden, and wonders why the man who was the ultimate mastermind of her husband's murder has not been caught.

A fly on the wall as one of these widows kneels in prayer, looks up to heaven at the projected presence of her slain husband's spirit, and with tears in your eyes, says, "I am doing this (speaking out) for you - because you can't, sweetheart."

A fly on the wall as one of these widows reads or hears Ann Coulter's hurtful, spiteful words and damns Ann Coulter to hell.

I am no authority on the next life, Ann Coulter, but I know something about this life.

And in this life, consigning you to "bitch-dom" is too kind an assignation.

I've got a better word for you, Ann Coulter.

The word that rhymes with what football teams often do on fourth down.

In response, a group of five 9/11 widows, who may have been the prime targets of Coulter's remarks, issued a statement denouncing Coulter's views. The New York Daily News on Wednesday featured a smiling Coulter and this headline on its front page: COULTER THE CRUEL. One story inside was topped with "Massive Chip on Her Coulter " and another called her a "a model of meanness."

The Star-Ledger in Newark, meanwhile, carried a story today with the headline "For 9/11 widows, book adds insult to injury." It featured interviews with some of the widows. The New York Post headlined a story: "RIGHTY WRITER COULTER HURLS NASTY GIBES AT 9/11 GALS."

The Post interviewed one of the widows, Mindy Kleinberg of East Brunswick, N.J. -- part of a group Coulter dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick." Kleinberg said, "We are trying to make sure that nobody else walks in our footsteps. And if she [Coulter] thinks that's wrong, so be it." Newsday (Melville, N.Y.) carried an Associated Press story.

On a separate matter -- charges that she knowingly voted in the wrong precinct in Florida last year -- Coulter said on Fox News Tuesday night that reporters who wrote about the case are "all retarded" and accused Palm Beach officials of having a sexually transmitted disease. "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains," she said. "This is all false, I'm telling you."

Universal syndicates Coulter's column. A spokesman there told E&P it had no response to the latest firestorm.

The five widows' statement is reprinted below (it first appeared at crooksandliars.com).

***

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter's accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation's attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world - particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President's NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

-- September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

On the Christian Coalition of America's website banner, the group proclaims that it is "America's leading grassroots organization defending our godly heritage." This statement begs the question, "Is our heritage a godly one?" The answer is a resounding "No." The United States of America was founded as a secular nation with a firm "wall of separation" between church and state. The Founding Fathers were against establishing a national religion because they were keenly aware of the results of such tyranny throughout history. This caution did not prevent them, however, from giving all American citizens the right to privately practice freedom of religion, even the freedom to have no religion at all. Everyone had the right to go to church, but the pew and the pulpit were not fit places for partisan politics, and vice versa.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, once wrote, "Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project." Those are strong words that could justifiably be leveled at the Religious Right today.

Have you read the Constitution lately? The words "God," "Christ," "Christian," and "Jesus" do not appear even once. The word "religious" appears but a single time, in Article VI:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The word "religion" can be found only in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When we see the words "religious" and "religion" in the Constitution, it is in the context of a warning against the use of religious pressure as a weapon of tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson, a leading voice behind including the Bill of Rights as an addendum to the Constitution, was adamant about building a "wall of separation" between church and state. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

When Jefferson wrote the following words that are carved on his memorial in Washington, D.C., he was specifically referring to the tyranny of state-sponsored religion:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

In their book The Godless Constitution, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore robustly point out Jefferson's attitudes toward religious tyranny. I think it will be clear that what Jefferson said about priests is applicable today to those of the Religious Right who proselytize that the only real American is a "Christian" American.

How shocking Jefferson's vitriolic attacks on ministers of God, especially those who meddled in politics, seem to late-twentieth-century sensibility. Christ saw no need for priests, Jefferson wrote. They were not necessary "for the salvation of souls." He suggested to John Adams, his friend after they had left politics, that "we should all, then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests," and "moralize for ourselves, following the oracle of conscience." The ... irritable tribe of priests had subverted the pure morality of primitive Christianity to serve their own selfish interests, according to Jefferson. They "perverted" Christianity "into an engine for enslaving mankind, a mere contrivance to filtch wealth and power to themselves." On another occasion he labeled this as the priestly quest for "pence and power," which "revolts those who think for themselves." The clergy stood condemned, along with monarchy and the nobility, as the people's enemies. Like kings and aristocrats "in every country and in every age," Jefferson wrote, "the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

One can argue, of course, and use hundreds of quotations for support, that the Founding Fathers often thought and wrote about God and religion. But whether or not Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison believed in a Christian God is not the issue. The important thing is that these Founders wanted to keep religion out of politics for the good of religion. They saw religion as a moral and ethical guide for the individual, not the state. Moral men should establish the state; the state should not dictate morality to men. That's why the Founders were so adamant about personal freedom of religion, no matter what that religion was. They indeed went even further and defended everyone's right to full freedom of thought, even atheistic thought. Jefferson wrote:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights.

The Founders also believed that if religion were a part of politics, religion would lose its value as a moral force. After all, politics is a rat's nest of deceit, backstabbing, and manipulation. Why soil religious thought by embroiling it in politics? Religious principles, the Founders held, were an antidote of sorts to the detrimental chimeras and that try to crawl their way into the political mind. This is Jefferson again:

State support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

The idea of establishing a Christian nation was anathema to the Founding Fathers, as it should be to all thinking people. Jefferson wrote, "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." So do not believe those proselytizers on the Religious Right who claim that they are true Americans, and that they uphold the true ideals of our Founding Fathers, when they make the specious claim that America is a Christian nation. They are spouting un-American nonsense.

Joseph Smigelski teaches English at two Northern California community colleges.

American Vice President Cheney attended a European Democratic Congress on May 4, held in Lithuania [the Common Vision of Common Neighborhood conference]. Such conferences are not usually very interesting, nor do they attract many viewers. However, because Cheney created an incident in his speech by criticizing Russia [RealVideo], this conference garnered quite a bit of attention.

Cheney stated at the meeting that in many areas, from freedom of religious belief to freedom of the press, the Russian government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. He further accused Russia of backtracking in their democratic development; and of using oil and gas as tools of intimidation or blackmail. This language, which had the Russian public opinion in an uproar, led some commentators to believe that Cheney's rhetoric just might provoke a second Cold War between America and Russia [RealVideo].

Comparisons with the Cold War are perhaps exaggerated, but Cheney's speech did serve to illustrate the level of White House suspicion of, and dissatisfaction with, the Putin government. Recent American opinion has been that Russia is backsliding on democracy. This position's loudest proponent has been Republican Senator John McCain. On the campaign trail for upcoming American presidential elections [in 2008], he not only has praised Cheney's criticism as spot on, but has appealed to President Bush to continue the criticism at the G8 Summit, to be held in [St. Petersburg] Russia in July. They all support Cheney's promotion of American democratic values and ideas.

However, what they didn't expect was that a day later, Cheney would be in Kazakhstan, actually praising that central Asian nation. There he was, grasping President Nazarbayev's hand, calling him as my friend, and saying, the United States is proud to be your strategic partner [RealVideo]. This left the American media particularly puzzled, since according to so-called American democratic standards, Nazarbayev (a former Communist cadre) is an even a bigger dictator than Putin, having held sole power for 15 years.

This [American discomfort] was seen in particular after Nazarbayev was re-elected last December, with support as high as 91%. Western observers, including in the United States, recognized that the election failed to conform to many international standards. Also, the U.S. State Department this March issued its International Report on Human Rights, in which it accused Kazakhstan of a poor human rights record [RealVideo].

But there was Vice President Cheney again clearly expressing, my admiration for what has transpired here in Kazakhstan over the last 15 years. Both in terms of economic development, as well as political development. That comment was a real eye-popper for the American media: The New York Times and Washington Post, the two most influential mainstream newspapers, together sounded the alarm: These are two completely different Cheneys!

Actually, it's not that there are two different Cheneys, but rather that people are judging him according to two standards.

A Washington Post editorial RealVideo stated that this strange event in U.S. diplomacy has occurred because Kazakhstan is rich in the petroleum and natural gas that the U.S. needs. Therefore they say, our flawed energy policies are forcing us to pursue a contorted foreign policy. But isn't this a case of failing to see the forest for the trees? Does anyone dispute that Russia is rich in the petroleum and natural gas resources that the West so desperately needs?!

After all, American prejudice against Russia is not just due to the failure of Russia's democratic system to conform to American democratic standards; it is even more the case because the United States remains anxious and guarded over Russia's policy to maintain contact but obstruct.

For two years, the U.S. has been executing color revolutions in countries around Russia's periphery: not only has it allocated a special fund to help opposition groups in various countries seize power, but it has encouraged and subsidized American civil groups, for them to go to the scene and add their support in person. And in the end, it's the U.S. that accuses Russia of repeatedly attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of neighboring countries! If the U.S. really regards Russia, like itself, as a member of Western society, then why this great effort to undermine it?

From another perspective: in the present world, China remains far from being able to contend with the United States. Only Russia controls the kind of military force that could seriously challenge American might, and this is why the American superpower cannot lower its guard.

Thus it can be seen that when it comes to Russia's development, America has a tendency toward unwarranted criticism. On the one hand, this is because of different historical and cultural traditions that have led to clear disagreements over values; on the other, the conservative politicians holding power in the U.S. stick stubbornly to Cold War ideology. Whether they [the Americans] realize it or not, they always see Russia's development through a Cold War lens, and will always regard Russia as a military competitor. That is why, to a greater or lesser extent, they have no alternative but to be vigilant toward Russia, and by no means treat it as a trusted friend. In the future, we may look back on this period as the time that the cancer first began to grow.

La Paz: Already condemned by Bolivian President Evo Morales, a desperate conspiracy to undertake a coup d'etat confronted the Commander of the Army, General Freddy Bersatti, who publicly proclaimed his loyalty.

Yesterday, the military leader took this stance during Alo, Presidente, the televised program of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, which was transmitted near the border with Peru from the pre-Colombian ruins of Tiahuanaco, Prensa Latina reported.

After greeting President Chavez, Bersatti revealed that in 2005, while in command of the Army Officer's School, he had opposed an uprising against then-President Carlos Mesa, which may or may not have handed the government to the military high command, but in either case, would have shut down the Congress.

He said he rejected the plan (at the time) because he was a simple soldier, as he remains today. By making this statement, he showed his respect toward and support for President Evo Morales, as well as the unity of Latin America.

Minutes earlier, Chavez warned that Washington had begun giving an earful [inciting] to the Bolivian military, to persuade it to pit itself against Morales, and he declared the hope that Bolivia would not suffer a bloody coup attempt, as Venezuela did in 2002.

He accused the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, David Greenlee, of being behind the plan to seize power, and he called on uniformed Bolivians to remain on alert.

The Bolivian leader pointed out that among the agreements of cooperation signed last Friday between Bolivia and Venezuela, one pertains to defense and security.

Yesterday, Morales himself confirmed a desperate conspiracy against his government, during a speech in the southern mining region of Uncia. He made the comments while inaugurating the sixth ophthalmologic center of Operation Miracle, a Cuban program that provides care for poor patients.

What my partner Chavez has said is in no way untrue, Morales said, in reference to accusations first made by the Venezuelan government on Friday.

According to Chavez, North American President George W. Bush, gave the green light to the conspiracy to overthrow Morales, by declaring that there is a supposed deterioration of democracy here.

The indigenous leader added that since the nationalization of the petroleum, transnational corporations and some people who escaped after murdering the nation [a reference to associates of former President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, currently residing in the United States], want to organize the overthrow of Bolivian democracy.

He then asked the crowd of Bolivian miners if they would defend the nationalization of the oil industry, which was achieved by virtue of the unity of the Bolivian people? He was answered in the affirmative with cheers.

He also stressed the importance of the election of delegates to the Constituent Assembly, which will be held on July 2, and warned that allowing the enemies of the nation to regain seats and foment unrest is not an option.

Morales underlined that he has absolutely no fear of the conspirators and that he is determined to confront them to make possible the recovery of Bolivia's natural resources, through the help of the citizenry.

Morales announced the withdrawal of troops that, as a precaution, have been guarding petroleum installations since they were nationalized on May 1, and he reiterated his gratitude to the Armed Forces for having participated in that operation.

He promised never to use the Armed Forces against the people of this land, and he said that uniformed personnel must defend national sovereignty and territory, including the country's national resources.