- Signs of the Times for Mon, 04 Sep 2006 -

• Signs Editorials
• Burning Bush?
• Or Business As Usual?
• King Tony's "Empire"
• Zionism in Action
• Middle East Madness
• Big Blue Marble
• Going For Broke
• Here We Go Again
• Today's SOTT Awards

Gold closed at 634.20 dollars an ounce on Friday, up 0.4% from $631.60 at the close of the previous Friday. The dollar closed at 0.7791 euros Friday, down 0.6% from 0.7841 for the week. That put the euro at 1.2836 dollars compared to 1.2753 at the end of the previous week. Gold in euros, then, would be 494.08 euros an ounce, down 0.3% 495.37 for the week. Oil closed at 69.19 dollars a barrel Friday, down 4.8% from $72.51 at the end of the previous week. Oil in euros would be 53.90 euros a barrel, down 5.5% from 56.86 for the week. The gold/oil ratio closed at 9.17, up 5.3% from 8.71 at the end of the week before. In the U.S. stock market, the Dow closed at 11,464.15, up 1.6% from 11,284.05 at the close of the previous week. The NASDAQ closed at 2,193.16, up 2.5% from 2140.29 for the week. In U.S. interest rates, the yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note closed at 4.72% Friday, down five basis points from 4.79 for the week.

The monthly jobs report was released last week and the estimated job growth was 128,000, which cheered the analysts and the stock market. It was just large enough to convince people that the economy is not collapsing but small enough to keep inflation fears at bay. Lots of talk about "easing" growth and such:

Data Point To Cooler Growth, Steady Rates

By Tim Ahmann
Fri Sep 1, 4:18 PM ET

U.S. employers added 128,000 workers to their payrolls in August, evidence of a cooler -- but still solid -- pace of economic growth that could let the Federal Reserve hold interest rates steady.

The closely watched Labor Department report, issued on Friday just ahead of the Labor Day holiday weekend, showed the unemployment rate dipped to 4.7 percent from 4.8 percent in July, suggesting the job market remains sturdy.

Other reports on Friday showed a slight slowing in factory activity last month and big drops in both construction spending and pending home sales in July that offered the latest evidence of the faltering U.S. housing market.

But consumer sentiment held up better in August than many economists had expected and analysts said the economy appeared to be decelerating, though not abruptly.

"It looks an awful lot like a soft landing, at least for now," said Dana Johnson, chief economist at Comerica Bank in Detroit. "It's an economy that is not firing on all cylinders -- it's got a clear concentration of weakness in the housing sector -- but, otherwise, an economy that is moving ahead at something resembling a trend-like pace."

The deluge of data left financial markets comfortable with bets that the U.S. central bank has finished raising interest rates and would turn to cut them next year, with bond prices and the dollar little changed.

Stock prices, however, got a boost, as investors welcomed the not-too-hot, not-too-cold economic picture. The blue chip Dow Jones industrial average closed up 83 points.

INFLATION TEA LEAVES

The closely watched employment report showed a slight pickup in payroll growth after an upwardly revised 121,000 job gain in July and was largely in line with analysts' forecasts.

Some details, however, were softer than expected.

Average hourly earnings rose a slim 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, last month. While that left the 12-month gain at a five-year high of 3.9 percent, economists had braced for a sharper monthly rise.

In addition, the length of the average work week dipped by 0.1 hour to 33.8 hours, pulling down an index of overall hours worked, in a potential sign of softer growth.

"All in all, it's a very inflation-friendly and Fed-friendly report," said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research in New York. "It doesn't suggest any economic frailty, but it supports a sidelined Fed."

After raising benchmark borrowing costs in 17 small steps dating back to June 2004, the Fed stepped to the sidelines at its last meeting on August 8 and held interest rates steady.

Interest-rate futures contracts put the implied chances of a increase in borrowing costs at the Fed's next meeting on September 20 at only about 6 percent after Friday's data.

A Reuters poll of 21 top Wall Street firms that deal directly with the Fed in the markets found only one expecting a rate rise later this month. Twelve said the Fed was likely finished raising rates.

FACTORIES COOLER, HOUSING ON ICE

Separately, the Institute for Supply Management said its index of factory activity slipped to 54.5 in August from 54.7 in July, showing continued growth at a slightly slower pace.

At the same time, the prices paid index fell to 73.0 from 78.5, a sign of receding price pressures.

Another report showed consumer sentiment falling in August, but by less than expected. The University of Michigan's sentiment index fell to 82.0 from 84.7 in July.

Two other reports combined to underscore the sharp weakening that has been evident in the U.S. housing market.

The Commerce Department said construction spending tumbled by 1.2 percent in July, the biggest drop since August 2001, as spending on homebuilding plummeted 2 percent.

At the same, the National Association of Realtors said its index of pending homes sales -- a gauge of contracted sales waiting to close -- plunged 7 percent in July to the lowest level in more than three years. The drop was the biggest on records dating to 2001.

The jobs report, however, showed construction payrolls expanded by 17,000 in August, with residential construction employment up marginally for a second straight month.

Today is Labor Day in the United States. The U.S. celebrates Labor Day in September rather than May 1, when the rest of the world does, because Communists and Socialists celebrate May 1, and we can't have any of that. The veterans group in the town I live in put up American flags on all the telephone poles. What nationalism has to do with Labor Day, I can't imagine, but some people can't imagine a holiday without nationalism or religion. But I have to say, fascist sentiment has almost completely drained away from the general public in the United States. Much of this is due to the clear and complete disaster of the Iraq war. Some of it also has to do with the public pessimism about the economy as housing values are falling, wages are stagnant, and job and pension security are practically non-existent, while the few at the top make out like bandits. The propaganda meisters will have their work cut out for them in convincing the public to attack Iran. If we survive Bush's presidency, maybe that will prove to be his achievement: completely discrediting fascist nationalism, fundamentalist Christianity and Republican economic policy by his extreme incompetence. A person can hope, anyway.

As for U.S. labor, Jason Miller points out that upper class gains have come right out of the pocket of workers, and that most people realize this:

Labor's Pains

Friday, September 01, 2006

In 1898, Samuel Gompers, one of the original founders of the American Federation of Labor, called Labor Day "the day for which the toilers in past centuries looked forward, when their rights and their wrongs would be discussed." This Labor Day, U.S. workers have many grievances that deserve attention. The New York Times reported recently that the median real hourly wage for American workers has declined two percent since 2003, despite the fact that productivity has been steadily rising. Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent. Among the reasons economists offer to explain this phenomenon are that workers' bargaining power is being slowly eroded and "trade unions are much weaker than they once were." The trends have left U.S. workers feeling bleak about the future. A poll of laborers conducted recently found that 63 percent of the workforce believes the country and the economy are on the wrong track; a majority now believe their children are going to be worse off economically than they are. The Progress Report details some of the problems facing today's workforce:

WORKING HARDER, EARNING LESS: "Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947." A majority of today's workers say the number one issue they face is that the wages they are paid are not keeping up with the cost of living. Aug. 20th marked 10 years since the last time the federal minimum wage has been raised. Frozen at an unlivable $5.15/hour, the minimum wage is at the lowest buying power it has been in 51 years. Workers earning above the minimum wage are struggling as well. According to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, "Real median earnings for men working full-time and year-round were lower in 2005 than in 1973. In inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars, a typical man working full-time in 1973 earned $42,573. Thirty-six years later, this figure has fallen to $41,386." Yet, productivity -- as President Bush likes to frequently point out -- remains high. "What jumps out at you is the gaping hole between productivity growth and earnings," said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). People are "working harder and smarter but not really seeing remuneration that they ought to be seeing." The wage crunch isn't affecting the entire labor force, however. The top one percent of earners -- including many corporate CEOs -- received 11.2 percent of all wage income in 2004, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than six percent three decades ago.

SICK ABOUT HEALTH CARE: According to new Census data released this week, the number of people living in the United States without medical insurance rose 2.9 percent -- 1.3 million people -- to a record 46.6 million over the last year alone as health-care costs climbed three times as fast as wages. The statistics indicate 6.8 million people have lost coverage since 2001, and this total has climbed every year since Bush has been in office. The Census Bureau also reports the percentage of uninsured children rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005 due to state budget struggles. This reverses a trend that started in 1998 of declining uninsured rates for children. "Due to the rising cost of health care and health-care insurance, you see a continued decline in workers accepting coverage when it's offered and employers offering it," said Emory University Professor Ken Thorpe. Indeed, three million people have lost employer-based insurance, while the rate of uninsured, full-time workers has increased by 13 percent since 2000. The bottom line is sadly simple: "Uninsured workers can't afford to get sick." Ultimately, this is a moral question -- it is wrong for anyone who works hard and plays by the rules to go without health coverage. "People who don't have coverage, can't afford preventive care, and don't see a doctor until a disease has progressed often suffer needlessly, drive up the cost of care, and lower the nation's productivity."

ORGANIZED VOICES BEING REPRESSED: In a recent report on the boom in profits, economists at Goldman Sachs wrote plainly, "The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income." "If I had to sum it up," said Bernstein, "it comes down to bargaining power and the lack of ability of many in the work force to claim their fair share of growth." Wal-Mart, America's largest employer and heralded as the corporate model for today's economy, has opposed every effort of its employees to form a union. (Ironically, Wal-Mart has given its approval to its China-based workers organize.) "According to Cornell labor relations professor Kate Bronfenbrenner, at least 5 percent of workers involved in unionization campaigns are fired, which is both quite illegal and quite routine: Companies would rather pay the nominal fines than pay their workers higher wages and lose the absolute control they hold over the work lives of their employees." Today's labor movement faces union-busting law firms and consulting agencies which are increasingly enlisted by union-wary employers to keep labor from organizing. Today, the vast majority of union members -- 84 percent -- live in only 12 states, leaving workers with little organized power in much of the country. But despite internal struggles in the past, union leaders are now making moves to unite and mobilize workers around "pocketbook" issues.

While wages were up slightly (but not in inflation-adjusted terms) last week saw the release of some frightening personal saving data:

Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays -- was a negative $83.5 billion in July, compared with a negative $67.6 billion in June. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was a negative 0.9 percent in July, compared with a negative 0.7 percent in June. Negative personal saving reflects personal outlays that exceed disposable personal income. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods.

Negative saving rates are a trend that simply cannot continue forever. As The Roxylander in Flame blogger puts it:

The Hole In The Pants Gets Bigger

The consumer spending rose by 0.8% in July and personal savings are -0.9%, which means the average consumer is spending 0.9% more than his salary is.

As noted here, the 16-months period of negative savings is the longest since the Great Depression.

Do you like the news that a certain economic indicator is the worst since the Great Depression? So do I, my friends, so do I.

On the housing bubble front, the following piece by Mike Whitney was published on the Signs page last week but bears reposting:

Pop Goes the Bubble!
The Great Housing Crash of '07

By Mike Whitney
August 30, 2006

This month's figures prove that the so-called "housing bubble" is not only real, but that its cratering faster than anyone had realized. As the UK Guardian reported just yesterday, "the orderly housing slowdown predicted by the Federal Reserve will (soon) become a full-blown crash".

All the indicators are now pointing in the wrong direction. Consumer confidence is down, inventory is at a 10 year high, and the number of homes sold in July was 22% lower than last year. As Paul Ashworth, chief economist at Capital Economics said, "Things seem to be getting worse very quickly. Freefall is a strong word, but I think it's the right one to use here." (UK Guardian)
The housing bubble is a $10 trillion equity balloon that will explode sometime in 2007 when more than $1 trillion in no-interest, no down payment, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) reset; setting the stage for massive home devaluation, foreclosures and unemployment. ("By some estimates housing activity has accounted for 40% of all the jobs created since 2001". Times Online) July's plunging sales are just the first sign of a major slowdown. The worst is yet to come.

The blame for this rapidly-approaching meltdown lies entirely with the Federal Reserve, the privately-owned collection of 10 central banks who cooked up a way to shift wealth from one class to another through low interest rates.

Sound crazy?

Well, just as high interest rates cause the economy to slow down; low interest rates have the exact opposite effect by stimulating the economy through increased spending. It's all pretty clear-cut.

When the stock market nose-dived in 2000 the Fed lowered rates 17 times to an unbelievable 1% to keep the economy sputtering-along while the Bush administration dragged the country to war, gave away $450 billion a year in tax cuts, and awarded zillions in no bid contracts to their friends in big business. All tolled, the Bush-handouts amounted to roughly $3 trillion dollars, the largest heist in history, and it was carried out under the nose of the snoozing American public.

At the same time, America's debts and deficits have continued to mushroom behind the smokescreen of low interest rates.

Rather than face the recession which should have followed stock market crash, the Fed chose to increase the money supply (which doubled in the last 7 years) and lower the qualifications for getting mortgages. (I read recently that 90% of first time home buyers not only lie on their mortgage applications, but that 50% of them say that they earn TWICE as much as they really do. The applications are not cross-checked with IRS statements) Now, tens of thousands of Americans live in $400,000 and $500,000 homes without a penny of equity in them and with loans that are timed to increase dramatically in 2007. (Many of the monthly payments will double)

So, how can we blame the Fed for the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the average homeowner?

Well, because they knew the effects of their "cheap money" policy every step of the way.

First of all, the Fed knew exactly where the money was going. Greenspan endorsed the shabby new lending-regime which put hundreds of billions of dollars in the hands of people who never should have qualified for mortgages. They were set up to fail just like the victims in the stock market scam who kept dumping their life savings in the NASDAQ when PE's were shooting through the stratosphere.

Secondly, the Fed knew that wages had actually regressed (2.3%) since Bush took office, so they knew that the soaring value of real estate was entirely predicated on debt not real wealth. In other words, home values increased because of the availability of cheap money which inevitably creates a buying-frenzy. It had nothing to do with real demand or growth in wages.

And, thirdly, according to the Fed's own figures, "the total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and 2006, up from $10.4 trillion to $20.4 trillion". Times Online.

UP $10 TRILLION IN 7 YEARS! That is the very definition of a humongous, economy-killing equity monster. In other words, the Fed knew the ACTUAL SIZE OF THE BUBBLE and chose to steer it towards the nearest iceberg without warning the public.

This is what Greenspan called "a little froth".

There is no real growth in the American economy. Figure it out. Last year Americans saved less than 0% of their net earnings while they borrowed a whopping $600 billion from their home equity to piss-away on a consumer spending-spree. Once home prices begin to retreat, that $600 billion will evaporate, real GDP will shrivel, and the economy will begin flat-lining. (Consumer spending is 70% of GDP)

The Federal Reserve's plan is so simple; we shouldn't dignify it by calling it a conspiracy. It's merely a matter of hypnotizing the masses with low interest rates while trillions of dollars of real wealth is diverted to corporate big-wigs and American plutocrats.

It might not be rocket science, but it worked like a charm.

Now, the trap-door has been sprung; the country is dead-broke and all the levers are in place for a police state. As the housing-balloon slowly limps towards earth, the new Halliburton detention centers are up and running, the National Guard is in Rummy's control, the Feds are able to listen-in on every phone call we make.

The noose is beginning to tighten.

New Orleans was just a dress rehearsal for the new world order; 300,000 million Americans reduced to grinding poverty while the economy explodes into sheets of flames.

Now that it is too late, publications such as Business Week are sounding the alarm about risky mortgages:

Nightmare Mortgages

They promise the American Dream: A home of your own -- with ultra-low rates and payments anyone can afford. Now, the trap has sprung

For cash-strapped homeowners, it was a pitch they couldn't refuse: Refinance your mortgage at a bargain rate and cut your payments in half. New home buyers, stretching to afford something in a super-heated market, didn't even need to produce documentation, much less a downpayment.

Those who took the bait are in for a nasty surprise. While many Americans have started to worry about falling home prices, borrowers who jumped into so-called option ARM loans have another, more urgent problem: payments that are about to skyrocket.

The option adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) might be the riskiest and most complicated home loan product ever created. With its temptingly low minimum payments, the option ARM brought a whole new group of buyers into the housing market, extending the boom longer than it could have otherwise lasted, especially in the hottest markets. Suddenly, almost anyone could afford a home -- or so they thought. The option ARM's low payments are only temporary. And the less a borrower chooses to pay now, the more is tacked onto the balance.

The bill is coming due. Many of the option ARMs taken out in 2004 and 2005 are resetting at much higher payment schedules -- often to the astonishment of people who thought the low installments were fixed for at least five years. And because home prices have leveled off, borrowers can't count on rising equity to bail them out. What's more, steep penalties prevent them from refinancing. The most diligent home buyers asked enough questions to know that option ARMs can be fraught with risk. But others, caught up in real estate mania, ignored or failed to appreciate the risk.

There was plenty more going on behind the scenes they didn't know about, either: that their broker was paid more to sell option ARMs than other mortgages; that their lender is allowed to claim the full monthly payment as revenue on its books even when borrowers choose to pay much less; that the loan's interest rates and up-front fees might not have been set by their bank but rather by a hedge fund; and that they'll soon be confronted with the choice of coughing up higher payments or coughing up their home. The option ARM is "like the neutron bomb," says George McCarthy, a housing economist at New York's Ford Foundation. "It's going to kill all the people but leave the houses standing."

Because banks don't have to report how many option ARMs they underwrite, few choose to do so. But the best available estimates show that option ARMs have soared in popularity. They accounted for as little as 0.5% of all mortgages written in 2003, but that shot up to at least 12.3% through the first five months of this year, according to FirstAmerican LoanPerformance, an industry tracker. And while they made up at least 40% of mortgages in Salinas, Calif., and 26% in Naples, Fla., they're not just found in overheated coastal markets: Through Mar. 31 of this year, at least 51% of mortgages in West Virginia and 26% in Wyoming were option ARMs. Stock and bond analysts estimate that as many as 1.3 million borrowers took out as much as $389 billion in option ARMs in 2004 and 2005. And it's not letting up. Despite the housing slump, option ARMs totaling $77.2 billion were written in the second quarter of this year, according to investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc.

The First Wave

After prolonging the boom, these exotic mortgages could worsen the bust. They also betray such a lack of due diligence on the part of lenders and borrowers that it raises questions of what other problems may be lurking. And most of the pain will be borne by ordinary people, not the lenders, brokers, or financiers who created the problem.

Gordon Burger is among the first wave of option ARM casualties. The 42-year-old police officer from a suburb of Sacramento, Calif., is stuck in a new mortgage that's making him poorer by the month. Burger, a solid earner with clean credit, has bought and sold several houses in the past. In February he got a flyer from a broker advertising an interest rate of 2.2%. It was an unbeatable opportunity, he thought. If he refinanced the mortgage on his $500,000 home into an option ARM, he could save $14,000 in interest payments over three years. Burger quickly pulled the trigger, switching out of his 5.1% fixed-rate loan. "The payment schedule looked like what we talked about, so I just started signing away," says Burger. He didn't read the fine print.

After two months Burger noticed that the minimum payment of $1,697 was actually adding $1,000 to his balance every month. "I'm not making any ground on this house; it's a loss every month," he says. He says he was told by his lender, Minneapolis-based Homecoming Financial, a unit of Residential Capital, the nation's fifth-largest mortgage shop, that he'd have to pay more than $10,000 in prepayment penalties to refinance out of the loan. If he's unhappy, he should take it up with his broker, the bank said. "They know they're selling crap, and they're doing it in a way that's very deceiving," he says. "Unfortunately, I got sucked into it." In a written statement, Residential said it couldn't comment on Burger's loan but that "each mortgage is designed to meet the specific financial needs of a consumer."

The loans certainly meet the needs of banks. Option ARMs offer several payment choices each month. Among Burger's alternatives were one for $2,524, about what a standard fixed-rate mortgage would be on the new amount, and the $1,697 he pays. Why would his bank make the minimum so low? Thanks to a perfectly legal accounting practice, no matter how little Burger pays each month, the bank gets to record the full amount.

Option ARMs were created in 1981 and for years were marketed to well-heeled home buyers who wanted the option of making low payments most months and then paying off a big chunk all at once. For them, option ARMs offered flexibility.

So how did these unusual loans get into the hands of so many ordinary folks? The sequence of events was orderly and even rational, at least within a flawed system. In the early years of the housing boom, falling interest rates made safe fixed-rate loans attractive to borrowers. As home prices soared, banks pushed adjustable-rate loans with lower initial payments. When those got too pricey, banks hawked loans that required only interest payments for the first few years. And then they flogged option ARMs -- not as financial-planning tools for the wealthy but as affordability tools for the masses. Banks tapped an army of unregulated mortgage brokers to do what needed to be done to keep the money flowing, even if it meant putting dangerous loans in the hands of people who couldn't handle or didn't understand the risk. And Wall Street greased the skids by taking on much of the new risk banks were creating.

Now the signs of excess are crystal clear. Up to 80% of all option ARM borrowers make only the minimum payment each month, according to Fitch Ratings. The rest of the money gets added to the balance of the mortgage, a situation known as negative amortization. And once balances grow to a certain amount, the loans automatically reset at far higher payments. Most of these borrowers aren't paying down their loans; they're underpaying them up.

Yet the banking system has insulated itself reasonably well from the thousands of personal catastrophes to come. For one thing, banks can sell some of their option ARMs off to Wall Street, where they're packaged with other, better loans and re-sold in chunks to investors. Some $182 billion of the option ARMs written in 2004 and 2005 and an additional $83 billion this year have been sold, repackaged, rated by debt-rating agencies, and marketed to investors as mortgage-backed securities, says Bear, Stearns & Co. (BSC) Banks also sell an unknown amount of them directly to hedge funds and other big investors with appetites for risk.

The rest of the option ARMs remain on lenders' books, where for now they're generating huge phantom profits for some lenders. That's because, according to generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, banks can count as revenue the highest amount of an option ARM payment -- the so-called fully amortized amount -- even when borrowers make only the minimum payment. In other words, banks can claim future revenue now, inflating earnings per share.

For many industries, so-called accrual accounting, which lets companies book sales when they contract for them rather than when they receive the cash, makes sense. The revenues will eventually come. But accrual accounting doesn't apply well to option ARMs, since it's more difficult to know if unpaid interest will ever cross a banker's desk. "This is basically an IOU that may never get paid," says Robert Lacoursiere, an analyst at Banc of America Securities. James Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer recently wrote that negative-amortization accounting is "frankly a fraudulent gambit. But what it lacks in morality, it compensates for in ingenuity." The Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is responsible for keeping GAAP up to date, stands by its standard but told BusinessWeek in a written statement that it is "concerned that the disclosures associated with these types of loans [are] not providing enough transparency relative to their associated risks."

Camouflaged Losses

Risks or not, the accounting treatment is boosting reported profits sharply. At Santa Monica (Calif.)-based FirstFed Financial Corp. (FED), "deferred interest" -- what an outsider might call phantom income -- made up 67% of second-quarter pretax profits. FirstFed did not respond to requests for comment. At Oakland (Calif.)-based Golden West Financial Corp. (GDW), which has been selling option ARMs for two decades, deferred interest made up about 59.6% of the bank's earnings in the first half of 2006. "It's not the loan that's the problem," says Herbert M. Sandler, CEO of World Savings Bank, parent of Golden West. "The problem is with the quality of the underwriting."

In the middle of one of the hottest U.S. markets, Coral Gables (Fla.)-based BankUnited Financial Corp. (BKUNA) posted a $14.8 million loss for the quarter ended June, 2005. Yet it reported record profits of $23.8 million for the quarter ended in June of this year -- $20.9 million of which was earned in deferred interest. Some 92% of its new loans were option ARMs. Humberto L. Lopez, chief financial officer, insists the bank underwrites carefully. "The option ARMs have gotten a bit of a raised eyebrow because we generate and book noncash earnings. But...it's our money, and we do feel comfortable we'll get it back."

Even the loans that blow up can be hidden with fancy bookkeeping. David Hendler of New York-based CreditSights, a bond research shop, predicts that banks in coming quarters will increasingly move weak loans into so-called held-for-sale accounts. There the loans will sit, sequestered from the rest of the portfolio, until they're sold to collection agencies or to investors. In the latter case, a transaction on an ailing loan registers on the books as a trading loss, gets mixed up with other trading activities and -- presto! -- it vanishes from shareholders' sight. "There are a lot of ways to camouflage the actual experience," says Hendler.

There's no way to camouflage what Harold, a former computer technician who asked BusinessWeek not to publish his last name, is about to face. He's disabled and has one source of income: the $1,600 per month he receives in Social Security disability payments. In September, 2005, Harold refinanced out of a fixed-rate mortgage and into an option ARM for his $150,000 home in Chicago. The minimum monthly payment for the first year is $899, which he can afford. The interest-only payment is $1,329, which he can't. The fully amortized payment is $1,454, which his lender, Washington Mutual (WM), gets to count on its books. WaMu, no fly-by-night operation, said it couldn't comment on Harold's case, citing confidentiality issues. A spokesman says the bank "accounts for its option ARM product in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles." WaMu has about $12 billion in loans negatively amortizing right now, up from $2.5 billion in 2005, estimates CreditSights' Hendler. In a written statement, WaMu said "borrowers who request an adjustable loan with payment options should understand those options and potential adjustments throughout the life of the loan. We make detailed disclosures to customers that are designed to develop a more informed consumer of mortgage products and ensure that our customers are comfortable with the loan products they select."

Hard Sell

To get the deals done, banks have turned increasingly to unregulated mortgage brokers, who now account for 80% of all mortgage originations, double what it was 10 years ago, according to the National Association of Mortgage Brokers. In 2004 banks began offering fatter sales commissions on option ARMs to encourage brokers to push them, says Gail McKenzie, assistant U.S. attorney in Atlanta, who is investigating mortgage brokers for improper practices.

The problem, of course, is that many brokers care more about commissions than customers. They use aggressive sales tactics, harping on the minimum payment on an option ARM and neglecting to mention the future implications. Some even imply verbally that temporary teaser rates of 1% to 2% are permanent, even though the fine print says otherwise. It's easy to confuse borrowers with option ARM numbers. A recent Federal Reserve study showed that one in four homeowners is mystified by basic adjustable-rate loans. Add multiple payment options into the mix, and the mortgage game can be utterly baffling.

Billy and Carolyn Shaw are among the growing ranks of borrowers who have taken out loans they say they didn't understand. The retired couple from the Salinas (Calif.) area needed to tap about $50,000 in equity from their $385,000 home to cover mounting expenses. Billy, 66, a retired mechanic, has diabetes. Carolyn, 61, has been caring for her grandchildren, 10-year-old twins, since her daughter's death in 2000. The Shaws have a fixed income of $3,000 a month that will fall by about $1,000 in November after Billy's disability benefits run out. Their new loan's minimum payment of about $1,413 is manageable so far, but the fully amortized amount of about $3,329 is out of the question. In a little over a year, they've added some $8,500 to their loan balance and now face a big reset if they continue to pay only the minimum. "We didn't totally understand what was taking place," says Carolyn. "You have to pay attention. We didn't, and we're really stuck here." The Shaws' lender, Golden West, says it routinely calls customers to ask them if they are happy and understand their mortgage loan.

Then there's the illegal stuff. Mortgage fraud is one of the fastest-growing white-collar crimes in the nation, costing $1 billion in 2005, double the year before. A slower housing market could foster more wrongdoing. "With a tighter market, you are going to find there is more incentive to manipulate," says Tim Irvin of Irvin Investigations & Research Services in Spring, Texas. "Brokers are having a harder time getting business, so they're getting creative..."

The practices of the mortgage industry, and indeed the whole financial system, expose a system much worse than merely "flawed" as the Business Week reporter put it. It should be clear to anyone with a working conscience that the neoliberal economic system, like most others, has been set up by and for psychopaths. The fact that the article details case after case of morally repugnant behavior by the lenders BEFORE getting to the "Then there's the illegal stuff." That means of course that a whole array of conscienceless lending practices are legal. We have to ask ourselves, what kind of people wrote these laws?

What do the banks say when challenged?

Analyst Frederick Cannon of Keefe Bruyette & Woods says most banks don't apologize for their option ARM businesses. "Almost without exception everyone says [the option ARM] is a great loan, it's plenty regulated, and don't bug us," he says. In an April letter to regulators, Cindy Manzettie, chief credit officer for Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati, said it's not the "lender's responsibility to help the consumer determine the appropriate payment option each month.... Paternalistic regulations that underestimate the intelligence of the American public do not work."

I suppose Ms. Manzettie thinks that banks that precisely estimate the intelligence of the American public and devise products to that public do "work." As usual, the psychopath is skilled at using words with a twisted meaning. Surely these practices work in a selfish sense for those using them. But they don't work for society as a whole, and it is time for those in the Anglo-American world to question the big lie of neoliberalism: that that which benefits a few psychopaths at the top benefits us all.

In a little-noted article printed in early August in the Armed Forces Journal, a monthly magazine for officers and leaders in the United States military community, early retired Major Ralph Peters sets out the latest ideas in current US strategic thinking. And they are extremely disturbing.

Ethnically Cleansing the Entire Middle East

Maj. Peters, formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence where he was responsible for future warfare, candidly outlines how the map of the Middle East should be fundamentally re-drawn, in a new imperial endeavor designed to correct past errors. "Without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East," he observes, but then adds wryly: "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."

Thus, acknowledging that the sweeping reconfiguration of borders he proposes would necessarily involve massive ethnic cleansing and accompanying bloodshed on perhaps a genocidal scale, he insists that unless it is implemented, "we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own." Among his proposals are the need to establish "an independent Kurdish state" to guarantee the long-denied right to Kurdish self-determination. But behind the humanitarian sentiments, Maj. Peters declares that: "A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan."

He chastises the United States and its coalition partners for missing "a glorious chance" to fracture Iraq, which "should have been divided into three smaller states immediately." This would leave "Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn." Meanwhile, the Shia south of old Iraq "would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf." Jordan, a US-Israeli friend in the region, would "retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan." Iran too would "lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan." Although this vast imperial program could be impossible to implement now, with time, "new and natural borders will emerge", driven by "the inevitable attendant bloodshed."

As for the goals of this plan, Maj. Peters is equally candid. While including the necessary caveats about fighting "for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy", he also mentions the third important issue -- "and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself".

The whole thing sounds disturbingly familiar, especially to those who have read the musings of then Israeli Foreign Ministry official Oded Yinon.

Keeping the World Safe… for Our Economy

"For the world masses, devastated by information they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is ‘nasty, brutish ... and short-circuited.'" In "every country and region," these masses who can neither "understand the new world", nor "profit from its uncertainties … will become the violent enemies of their inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United States." The coming clash, then, is not really about blood, faith, ethnicity, at all. It is about the gap between the haves and the have-nots. "We are entering a new American century", he says, in a veiled reference to the Bush administration Project of the same name founded in the same year he was writing. In the new century, "we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent."

In predicting the future course for the US Army, Maj. Peters argues that: "We will see countries and continents divide between rich and poor in a reversal of 20th-century economic trends." In this context, he says, "we in the United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves," and therefore, "terrorism will be the most common form of violence," along with "transnational criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars." Meanwhile, "in defense of its interests", the US "will be required to intervene in some of these contests." And then he sums it all up in one tidy paragraph:

There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

So what's prompted Maj. Peter's decision to air his vision for the Middle East in the Armed Forces Journal at this time in the wake of the latest Middle East crisis? A number of critical developments.

Source: Imminent Global Crises Converge

According to an American source with high-level access to the US military, political and intelligence establishment, Western policymakers are in no doubt that the world faces the imminent convergence of multiple global crises. These crises threaten not only to undermine the basis of Western power in its current military and geopolitical configurations, but also to destabilize the entire foundations of industrial civilization.

The source said that the latest petroleum data indicates that "global oil production most likely peaked two years ago." This is consistent with the findings of respected geologists such as leading oil depletion expert Dr. Colin Campbell, who in the late 90s predicted that world oil production would peak in the early 21st century. "We have come to the end of the first half of the Oil Age," said Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in geology from the University of Oxford and more than 40 years of experience in the oil industry. Similarly, Kenneth Deffeyes, a geologist and professor emeritus at Princeton University, estimates the occurrence of the peak near the end of last year.

The source also said that leading US financial analysts privately believe that "a collapse of the global banking system is imminent by 2008." Although the warning is consistent with the public findings of other experts, this is the first time that a more precise date has been estimated. In a prescient analysis drawing on highly placed financial sources, US historian Gabriel Kolko, professor emeritus at York University, concluded in late July that:

All the factors which make for crashes -- excessive leveraging, rising interest rates, etc. -- exist... Contradictions now wrack the world's financial system, and a growing consensus now exists between those who endorse it and those, like myself, who believe the status quo is both crisis-prone as well as immoral. If we are to believe the institutions and personalities who have been in the forefront of the defense of capitalism, and we should, it may very well be on the verge of serious crises.

The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 meters over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon.

In this context, it would seem that the musings of Maj. Peters issue less from a concerted confidence in US power, than from a sense of growing desperation and unease as the political, financial and energy architecture of the global system is increasingly fragmenting under the weight of its own inherent instability. Despite the seeming gloominess of the situation, however, there is clearly fundamental dissent about the current trajectory of American and Western policy at the highest levels of power. The source remarked that "humanity is on the verge of a precipice, and either we'll all just drop off the edge, or we'll evolve. I'm not sure what that new human being might look like, but it will clearly have to involve a completely new set of ideas and values, a new way of looking at the world that respects life and nature."

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry. He teaches courses in International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, where he is doing his PhD studying imperialism and genocide. Since 9/11, he has authored three other books revealing the realpolitik behind the rhetoric of the War on Terror: The War on Freedom, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism. In summer 2005, he testified as an expert witness in US Congress about his research on international terrorism.

Dear Lew, the Honorable Ron Paul’s piece on why Americans are angry really stirred me to respond. Mr. Paul’s piece speaks about many issues facing Americans today.

I am a 51-year-old woman. I have been married to the same man since 1976. I am the secretary/office manager for a small legal firm in the D.C. suburbs. My husband manages a wine and spirits store. I have two sons, aged 26 and 22. After realizing it wasn’t possible to support themselves and the government at the same time, both returned to the nuclear nest. Along with most people in my economic situation, I believe I am living what is supposed to be the American dream. I know why I am an angry American. I am frightened because America isn’t the same country it was when I was my children’s age. Allow me to share with you some of the reasons why I am an angry American.

I am angry because my government has been taken over by liars, thieves, thugs, deviants, and micromanagers. The propaganda it produces rivals that of the most fascist dictatorship.

I am angry that my government perceives my intelligence to be that of a jar of pickles incapable of making the smallest decision.

I am angry that my government takes it upon itself to shove its clucking nose into my pantry, medicine chest, bedroom, family room, doctor’s office, workplace, and everywhere else it thinks I need guidance to keep me safe from myself.

I am angry that the will of the American people is ignored on every issue imaginable. If voting really mattered, it would have been outlawed long ago.

I am angry that I am called a conspiracy theorist because I dare to think on my own and question authority and its lies.

I am angry that the more I read about 9-11 the more it looks like an inside job that was allowed to happen, enabling the Patriot Act to be conveniently enacted into law with the ensuing "war on terrah" following closely on its heels.

I am angry that the evil puppets in power think laws are created for the peon masses and it is their right to ignore the ones that get in the way of their agenda.

I am angry that the media has sold its soul to the evil forces running the world.

I am angry that my "leaders" have taken to calling my country the "homeland." It reeks of socialism.

I am angry that my government has invaded yet another sovereign nation and caused untold death and destruction based on a flimsy lie. I am expected to believe that weapons of mass destruction threatened my freedom and then I am told several years and billions of squandered dollars later that a massive intelligence network got the wrong information. A select group of businesses profit enormously from war. When Bush announced his intention to save Iraq from itself and that its oil would pay for the overthrow of Hussein, I laughed so hard I nearly choked. I remember the instability in the Middle East during the 1970s and the gas "shortages" that followed. I knew which direction gas prices would go. How stupid does Mr. Bush and his cronies think I am?

I am angry that the world stands silently by while my government bombs foreign lands with weapons containing depleted uranium and the news magazines wonder on their front covers why lung cancer has increased six-fold in the last year.

I am angry that Americans accept as gospel the propaganda that is routinely cranked out of the Washington lie machine. The lies become more transparent and brazen with each passing year, yet the only thing that seems to matter in living rooms across America is who will be the next American Idol.

I am angry that I am punished with high energy and gas prices and the resulting inflation because tree-hugging terrorists masquerading as environmentalists have handcuffed my country’s ability to produce its own energy. It would be easy to tell the Middle East what to do with their oil if restrictions on exploration and production were lifted in our own backyard.

I am angry that I am constantly admonished by minimalists for being a greedy consumer because I live where I choose, drive the vehicle of my choice, eat meat, and use tin foil to cover my leftovers.

I am angry that my life doesn’t belong to me anymore.

I am angry that I am required to obtain permission, fill out mandated paperwork in quadruplicate, and obtain the correct license or permit for just about everything imaginable. The tentacles of government are strangling my freedom, choice, and privacy at an alarming rate. The wrath of the machine is a constant threat should I dare do anything without leaving a neon paper trail and of course ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

I am angry that property rights are a thing of the past thanks to court-approved eminent domain theft.

I am angry that the Constitution is routinely declared irrelevant making it easier for a fascist police state and new world order to take over.

I am angry that legislation is in the works that will require me to carry "papers" to "prove" who I am. Another coming law I will ignore.

I am angry that my right to own and carry a firearm is drastically regulated and restricted.

I am angry every time I see a young person detained on the side of the road while cops paw through their possessions looking for anything that could enable them to be arrested and dragged through the criminal justice system. This has become so commonplace it is now the accepted norm.

I am angry that roadblocks are set up under the guise of keeping roads free of drunk drivers. What has happened to my right to travel freely? Why am I presumed guilty without probable cause? I am afraid to have a few drinks when I go out to dinner for fear I will be pulled over and end up in court-ordered drug rehabilitation.

I am angry when I read stories of Americans terrorized in airports and treated like common criminals by government minions after they have paid for the right to travel within a private system, yet pilots are blocked from carrying firearms.

I am angry that America has become a nation of busybodies. We are constantly bombarded with messages to be on the lookout for terrorists around every corner, report "suspicious activity," and rat on our neighbor whenever the opportunity presents itself. Is this not how the Nazis gained control of Germany and then most of Europe?

I am angry that the government requires me to sign a form every time I purchase a prescription. Whose business is it that I choose to take a thyroid medication, an antibiotic, a painkiller, an appetite suppressant, or any other substance? Am I dying of cancer? Am I facing debilitating chronic pain? Do I simply want to get HIGH? Heaven forbid someone out there might get their hands on something that might make them FEEL GOOD! No substance should be illegal or unobtainable. If a person wishes to self-medicate, that is their right. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing personal choices of any kind as long as those choices don’t infringe on another’s rights.

I am angry that my government meddles in the lives of people all over the world but looks the other way on the catastrophic issue of what to do about the millions of illegals who have crashed the gates of this nation. My country’s laws are ignored and mocked, yet I am told I must accept with open arms those who are here illegally. My taxes are used to educate their children in their native language. Hospitals are overrun with indigent people seeking medical care. Untaxed dollars earned in the underground economy are sent to the family back home while social services here are stretched to the limit. I read job want ads stating if you aren’t bilingual don’t bother to apply. What would happen to me if I placed an ad that said don’t bother to apply if your English isn’t understandable? Marches are conducted in my cities’ streets waving their countries’ flags as they shamelessly demand their "rights." I am told they deserve the same opportunities that brought my forefathers here. I am scolded that it is un-American to ask why they are not sent home. I am told that the term "illegal alien" offends them and that they prefer to be called "undocumented workers" and that my economy would die without them. I will happily pay more for fruits and vegetables if it means enforcing sensible immigration laws. But immigration isn’t about the cost of lettuce. It is another facet of an agenda that is bent on changing the face of America. When America is no longer a wealthy country of white European descent, it will be a place worse than anything Orwell could have imagined.

I am angry that my country is the only nation on earth who declares that a baby born on its soil is automatically an American citizen.

I am angry that the thugs that run my country don’t have the guts to declare English my nation’s official language.

I am angry that I have to search a package for English and push a button on every telephone system and ATM machine to continue in English.

I am angry that Washington, D.C.’s Metro is now being pressured to replace every station sign with bilingual verbiage to the tune of millions of dollars. Are bilingual road signs going to be the next mandated law of the land? I am currently forced to pay for voting ballots printed in 15 different languages and my tax dollars pay for interpreter services for people who are summoned to court for breaking laws. If English is the international language of the world, why isn’t it good enough to be the official language of the United States?

I am angry when I am told I am a bigot when I thumb my nose at political correctness.

I am angry when I wonder whether an expressed belief or opinion could land me in litigation if someone doesn’t like what I said and wants to silence my voice.

I am angry that diversity and sensitivity training is being forced on people whose only crime is to dare to speak freely.

I am angry that the symbols, customs, and roots of my Judeo-Christian country are being systematically outlawed because my culture offends newcomers. When we freely choose to go somewhere, are we not accepting the customs and cultures of that place? I am weary of being made to feel guilty for being an American.

And finally, I am angry that after working my entire adult life, I don’t see retirement in my life’s picture. My husband and I earn over a hundred thousand dollars a year, but by the time we pay federal taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, energy taxes, telecommunication taxes, savings taxes, fees, permits, etc., there isn’t much left. But please don’t think that I mind supporting every deadbeat and down-and-outer with his hand out for a piece of my pie that I worked so hard for. I love supporting the world. After all, it’s the American way, isn’t it?

July 5, 2006

Susan Fassanella [send her mail] was born in Washington, D.C. and resides in Frederick County, Maryland with her husband and two sons.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

"Our global furnace is out of control. By 2020, 2025, you will be able to sail a sailboat to the North Pole. The Amazon will become a desert, and the forests of Siberia will burn and release more methane and plagues will return."

"There's no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is changing," Lovelock says. "Maybe 200 million people will migrate close to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps, it would take the world 1,000 years to recover."

ST. GILES-ON-THE-HEATH, England

Through a deep and tangled wood lies a glade so lovely and wet and lush as to call to mind a hobbit's sanctuary. A lichen-covered statue rises in a garden of native grasses, and a misting rain drips off a slate roof. At the yard's edge a plump muskrat waddles into the brush.

"Hello!"

A lean, white-haired gentleman in a blue wool sweater and khakis beckons you inside his whitewashed cottage. We sit beside a stone hearth as his wife, Sandy, an elegant blonde, sets out scones and tea. James Lovelock fixes his mind's eye on what's to come.

"It's going too fast," he says softly. "We will burn."

Why is that?

"Our global furnace is out of control. By 2020, 2025, you will be able to sail a sailboat to the North Pole. The Amazon will become a desert, and the forests of Siberia will burn and release more methane and plagues will return."

Sulfurous musings are not Lovelock's characteristic style; he's no Book of Revelation apocalyptic. In his 88th year, he remains one of the world's most inventive scientists, an Englishman of humor and erudition, with an oenophile's taste for delicious controversy. Four decades ago, his discovery that ozone-destroying chemicals were piling up in the atmosphere started the world's governments down a path toward repair. Not long after that, Lovelock proposed the theory known as Gaia, which holds that Earth acts like a living organism, a self-regulating system balanced to allow life to flourish.

Biologists dismissed this as heresy, running counter to Darwin's theory of evolution. Today one could reasonably argue that Gaia theory has transformed scientific understanding of the Earth.

Now Lovelock has turned his attention to global warming, writing "The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity." Already a big seller in the United Kingdom, the book was released in the United States last month. (He will speak in Washington, at the Carnegie Institution, Friday at 7 p.m.) Lovelock's conclusion is straightforward.

To wit, we are poached.

He measured atmospheric gases and ocean temperatures, and examined forests tropical and arboreal (last year a forest the size of Italy burned in rapidly heating Siberia, releasing from the permafrost a vast sink of methane, which contributes to global warming). He found Gaia trapped in a vicious cycle of positive-feedback loops -- from air to water, everything is getting warmer at once. The nature of Earth's biosphere is that, under pressure from industrialization, it resists such heating, and then it resists some more.

Then, he says, it adjusts.

Within the next decade or two, Lovelock forecasts, Gaia will hike her thermostat by at least 10 degrees. Earth, he predicts, will be hotter than at any time since the Eocene Age 55 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic Ocean.

"There's no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is changing," Lovelock says. "Maybe 200 million people will migrate close to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps, it would take the world 1,000 years to recover."

Such dire talk no doubt occasions much rolling of eyes in polite circles, particularly among scientists in the United States, that last redoubt of global-warming skeptics. Lovelock's so intemperat e, and more than a few of his peers distrust his preference for elegant nouns and verbs served with no crusting of jargon. His grim predictions tend to be twinned in the press with those of the skeptics, each treated as a radical diversion -- purveyors of "climate porn," an English think-tank called them recently -- from a moderate mean.

Lovelock's radical view of global warming doesn't sit well with David Archer, a scientist at the University of Chicago and a frequent contributor to the Web site RealClimate, which accepts the reality of global warning.

"No one, not Lovelock or anyone else, has proposed a specific quantitative scenario for a climate-driven, blow the doors off, civilization ending catastrophe," writes Archer.

The headline on Archer's essay, which is in fact respectful of Lovelock's science, calls the Englishman a "renegade earth scientist." It's a curious description.

Lovelock works independently on various biochemistry projects, in a lab in an old barn behind his farmhouse in Devon. He often quarrels with the scientific establishment, which he sees as crippled by clubby orthodoxy. (Nor does he hesitate to tweak environmentalists -- Lovelock is a passionate backer of nuclear power as a carbon-clean palliative for global warming.) But it's difficult to see Lovelock, an inventor with 50 patents to his name, a fellow in the Royal Society -- England's scientific society -- as a Gaian bandito.

What's perhaps as intriguing are the top scientists who decline to dismiss Lovelock's warning. Lovelock may be an outlier, but he's not drifting far from shore. Sir David King, science adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, saluted Lovelock's book and proclaimed global warming a far more serious threat than terrorism. Sir Brian Heap, a Cambridge University biologist and past foreign secretary of the Royal Society, says Lovelock's views are tightly argued, if perhaps too gloomy.

Then you dial up Paul Ehrlich, the eminent Stanford University biologist, at his cottage in the mountains of Colorado, where he's been meeting with other scientists. Three decades ago Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb," a best-selling jeremiad in which he warned that the Earth's population was expanding much too fast.

Disaster did not arrive precisely as Ehrlich foretold, and he was treated as a doomsayer debunked. Maybe Ehrlich just was too early to the party.

Today Ehrlich sees global warming and population growth, with its attendant pressures on natural resources and demand for oil and gas, as menaces dancing in tango step. "Technically speaking, most scientists I know are scared [expletive]," Ehrlich says. "Lovelock and I are doomsayers because I'm afraid we see doom."

"Like the Norns in Wagner's Der Ring des Niebelungen, we are at the end of our tether, and the rope, whose weave defines our fate, is about to break."

You read such lines in "The Revenge of Gaia" and ask this wiry Jeremiah: Why so gloomy? Lovelock grins, his face a web of smile lines, and demurs: No, no, no. You have him all wrong. He started a family in the darkness of the London Blitz -- he has nine grandchildren, whom he loves, and a country of which he's very proud.

"I'm an optimist," he says. "I think that after the warming sets in and the survivors have settled in near the Arctic, they will find a way to adjust. It will be a tough life enlivened by excitement and fear."

That still sounds a tad short of good cheer.

Lovelock and Sandy, whom he married after the death of his first wife, take afternoon walks in Devonshire, and he quotes Shakespeare on the joy of finding oxlip by a stream. Lovelock finds too much delight in the mysteries of the universe to call himself an atheist. But he remains at heart a biochemist, a rigorous empiricist who refuses to shrink from the reality of hard times.

Lovelock grew up in working-class London. He could not afford Oxford or Cambridge and so attended at night. During World War II Lovelock walked sentry duty with professors on the roof of the lab. They watched the twinkling lights of German V-1 missiles draw close.

"A missile would veer off and explode and the professors would feel an immediate need to impart their wisdom." Lovelock chuckles. "It was like a graduate course. Terrible to say, but war makes us more alive."

Lovelock was a prodigy, earning degrees in chemistry and medicine. In the 1950s he designed an electron capture machine, which provided environmentalist Rachel Carson with the data to prove that pesticides infected everything from penguins to mother's milk. Later he took a detector on a ship to Antarctica and proved that man-made chemicals -- CFCs -- were burning a hole in the ozone.

"Gaia, shmaia," says Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, who has been critical of Lovelock's latest theory. "If Lovelock hadn't discovered the erosion of the ozone, we'd all be living under the ocean in snorkels and fins to escape that poisonous sun."

In 1961 Lovelock worked with NASA. The space agency wanted to design a lander to search for life on Mars. That, Lovelock thought, was silly. What if a lander set down in the wrong spot? What if Martian life wasn't bacterial?

Lovelock took a conceptual leap. If Mars bore life, bacteria would be obliged to use oxygen to breathe and to deposit their wastes as methane. Lovelock found that Earth's atmosphere contained massive quantities of oxygen and methane, gases that are the very signature of life. Mars's atmosphere was thick with carbon dioxide, the calling card of a dead planet.

That discovery changed his life. He came to see Earth as a self-regulating biosphere. The sun has warmed by 25 percent since life appeared, so Earth produced more algae and forests to absorb carbon dioxide, ensuring roughly constant temperatures. In 1969, Lovelock lacked only a name for his theory. He took a walk with novelist William Golding.

A big concept needs a big name, Golding said. Call it Gaia.

Gaia proved controversial, and not just because the name made New Age priestesses go weak in the knees. ("Gaia's not 'alive' and I'm afraid I'm not a very good guru," Lovelock notes dryly.) Biologists nearly choked -- they argued that organisms cannot possibly act in concert, as that would imply foresight.

Lovelock recalls being denounced at a conference in Berlin.

The intolerance gave him a pain. Lovelock said that the world's biomass can act without being "conscious." "The neo-Darwinists are just like the very religious," Lovelock says. "They spend all their time defending silly doctrine."

Forty years later, talk of an interconnected planetary system is the lingua franca of Earth science. The queen has handed Lovelock a prize, Oxford has invited him to teach, and his small forest lab had more government contracts than he could handle. (In his lab, the octogenarian scientist follows few safety protocols save the dictates of self-preservation. "I can kill only myself; it's a splendid freedom," he says.)

But friends say he's restless.

"Maybe Jim thinks the world has gotten too comfortable with his theory," says Lee Kump, a prominent geologist at Penn State. "He sees Gaia treating us as a body does an infection -- it's trying to burn us out."

"The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show."

-- BBC, 2006

"Dr. Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top forest ecologists, says the research shows that 'the lock has broken' on the Amazon ecosystem. She adds: T he Amazon is 'headed in a terrible direction.' "

-- CNN, 2006

How will our splendid Spaceship Earth so quickly become the oven of our doom? As we sit at his table in Devon, Lovelock expands on his vision.

It begins with the melting of ice and snow. As the Arctic grows bare -- the Greenland ice cap is shrinking far faster than had been expected -- dark ground emerges and absorbs heat. That melts more snow and softens peat bogs, which release methane. As oceans warm, algae are dying and so absorbing less heat-causing carbon dioxide.

To the south, drought already is drying out the great tropical forests of the Amazon. "The forests will melt away just like the snow," Lovelock says.

Even the northern forests, those dark cool beauties of pines and firs, suffer. They absorb heat and shelter bears, lynxes and wolves through harsh winters. But recent studies show the boreal forests are drying and dying and inducing more warming.

Casting 30, 40 years into the future, Lovelock sees sub-Saharan lands becoming uninhabitable. India runs out of water, Bangladesh drowns, China eyes a Siberian land grab, and local warlords fight bloody wars over water and energy.

Lovelock sees the look on your face and pauses.

"Look, this is why it's a gloomy book," he says. "Would you care for some more tea?"

The mind reels off objections. Doesn't this amount to a great piling up of what-ifs and could-bes? "The Day After Tomorrow," "On the Beach," Helen Caldicott, Nostradamus, a thousand tipping-point predictions of doom fade into the mists of human history. We humans are clever. We'll send a space shade into outer space to deflect sunlight (as a couple of California professors have proposed)?

Lovelock nods, weary; he's heard this before.

"We like to think of Hurricane Katrina, or a killer heat wave in Europe, as a one-off," he says. "Or we like to think that we'll come up with a technological fix."

Lovelock reminds you that the Mayan seers, to name another maligned bunch of doomsayers, were spot on. Their great civilization died of an environmental apocalypse. He's not romanced by the primitive. Across the world, from the American Indians to the aborigines of Australia to European hunters, research is suggesting that native peoples played a key role in the burning of forests and the extinction of thousands of species. Today the environmentally conscious seek salvation in solar cells, recycling and ten thousand wind turbines. "It won't matter a damn," Lovelock says. "They make the mistake of thinking we have decades. We don't."

Lovelock favors genetically modified crops, which require less water, and nuclear energy. Only the atom can produce enough electrical power to persuade industrialized nations to abandon burning fossil fuels. France draws 70 percent of its power from nuclear plants.

But what of Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? Lovelock's shaking his head before you complete the litany. How many people died, he asks. A few hundred? The radiation exclusion zone around Chernobyl is the lushest and most diverse zone of flora and fauna in Eurasia.

Sir Brian Heap accepts this. But he worries that South Asia and Africa are about to suffer the terrible consequences of First World excesses. What of our responsibility to them? "The poor aren't our problem," Heap says. "We're their problem."

Lovelock acknowledges the moral conundrum. But he sees no we-are-the-world solutions. The heat waves that kill millions, the powerful typhoons, the droughts that suffocate cities, will force a retreat to nationalism.

After a couple of hours, you wonder about his own good cheer. His internal combustion engine shows few signs of flagging; he wakes up 5:30 a.m. and reads, writes and tramps through the countryside. The studiously polite Lovelock seems a touch annoyed only at the suggestion he's frivolous about what the future holds.

"People say, 'Well, you're 87, you won't live to see this,' " he says. "I have children, I have grandchildren, I wish none of this. But it's our fate; we need to recognize it's another wartime. We desperately need a Moses to take us to the Arctic and preserve civilization.

"It's too late to turn back."

ORIGINAL

Michael Coren, a sort of spin-off on the lunatic Michael "Savage" Weiner, the beatnik fascist hate radio host, demands the United States nuke Iran immediately.

"Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran," argues Coren in the Toronto Sun. Doing the unspeakable-or, that is to say, the unspeakable for normal, sane people not afflicted with murderous psychopathy-requires "a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism."

Obviously, Mr. Coren has a tenuous grasp on these subjects, for if he did have a grasp he would realize the nation of Iran is not a threat to "world peace." Rather, the neocons pose a threat to world peace, as they have at their command the Pentagon and its mighty and destruction potential, including thousands of ready-to-go nukes.

"Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal," continues a deluded Coren. "It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand."

Even more sad is the lamentable fact Mr. Coren knows not of what he is talking about. If the United States nuked Iran, no doubt they would use low-yield "mini-nukes," for instance the earth-penetrating nuclear bunker buster, as the alleged diabolical Iranian nuke labs are below the surface in hardened bunkers.

"Our findings unequivocally refute the contention by the Bush administration and the Pentagon that nuclear bunker busters could be used in Iraq or anywhere else with minimal so-called collateral damage," writes Victor W. Sidel, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. "The nature of that 'collateral damage' would be fatal doses of radiation to anyone within a kilometer of the explosion and acute radiation sickness for potentially thousands of people who would die excruciating deaths over several days to a week or more." In a densely populated urban area such as Tehran, this would result in hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million dead people.

"The tragedy is that innocent people will die," Coren continues. "But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war." As will, naturally, those not "dedicated to war," those of collateral status who are, the neocons tell us, less innocent than others-namely, Israelis and Americans-and thus of peripheral consideration.

"Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives."

Coren is so blinded by the neocon ideology, with its Manichean, dualistic core of cartoonish good versus evil, he is sincerely incapable of comprehending the indisputable and horrific fact that a "limited nuclear attack" would certainly not be limited, would not be contained. For as science reminds us, "unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere.... They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout," although this danger is somewhat reduced with bunker buster mini-nukes. "Atmospheric winds are able to distribute fallout over large areas" (Nuclear Weapon Radiation Effects, Federation of American Scientists).

"From a technical perspective, critics of mini-nukes argue that it would be impossible with existing technology to adequately limit the damage of the weapon," writes Benjamin Friedman for the Center for Defense Information. "Dr. Robert Nelson, of the Federation of American Scientists, has argued that a mini-nuke could not penetrate the earth deep enough to avoid creating a huge crater above the target and spreading harmful radiation for miles-the kind of damage you expect from a nuclear weapon," including the above noted atmospheric dispersal.

"The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable," Coren admits. "Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy."

But how is this possible, considering the United States has not communicated with Iran along diplomatic lines for nearly thirty years? Moreover, Coren refuses to put the conflict between Iran and the United States into its proper context.

A brief trip to the National Security Archive, readily and easily available online, reveals the history of the CIA's operation TPAJAX, engineered to overthrow the democratically elected leader Mossadeq in Iran, circa 1953. "Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from [the National Security Archive] documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq," explains Mark Gasiorowski.

In addition to deposing the elected leader of Iran for the crime of nationalizing the country's oil, thus denying British Petroleum exclusive rights, the CIA installed a tyrannical monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah-an-Shah, or King of Kings), and his brutal Gestapo, SAVAK, founded in 1957 with the assistance of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad.

"SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses," notes GlobalSecurity.

"Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks."

From Mr. Coren, we hear no mention of these brutalities and injustices, thus prompting the conclusion Coren and the neocons either approve of such behavior or cannot be bothered to care, as it stands in the way of their clash of civilizations ideology. For Coren and the neocons, it is irrelevant the current government of Iran, admittedly a militant version of Islam, is the direct result of the 1953 coup and the installation of the Shah and his CIA and Mossad tutored thugs.

Next, Coren expends a lot of verbiage complaining about Iran's Shahab 3ER and BM25 missiles, "which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe," as if the Iranians actually plan to do this, thus expecting us to believe the Iranian leadership is insane and suicidal.

Of course, for Coren and the neocons, the development of such missiles reveals a nefarious desire to kill all infidels, especially the Israelis, never mind Israel has more than 400 nuclear bombs and is stocked with the latest military technology from the United States.

For Coren, the mullahs are worse than the Nazis. "Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair-to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region." Except Israel, conveniently left unmentioned, is a nation that routinely calls for attacking Iran.

"Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries." Of course, Coren is making reference here to Hezbollah and Hamas, two self-defense organizations completely legitimate under the charter of the United Nations, as Israel has invaded Lebanon on numerous occasions and continues to occupy Palestine and subject the Palestinian people to unspeakable brutality and violence. As for provoking "bloody wars," the United States has done a heck of a job in neighboring Iraq.

"A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years."

A bit of translation is in order here: conventional shock and awe, as proposed by at least some of the neocons, is "insufficient" because it would not inflict the required degree of "pain" on the people of Iran, that is to say nuclear bombs would be more effective in destroying the country's infrastructure and thus ushering in the sort of massive and criminal chaos unleashed on the people of Iraq and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Afghanistan. Indeed, if the neocons use nukes against Iran, there will be "universal suffering," not only for Iranians but for millions of others exposed to radiation, delivered by way of the closed system of the planet's biosphere.

Michael Coren and the neocons are criminally insane. In a prefect world, they would be duly arrested, outfitted in orange jumpsuits, tried by a jury of their peers under the rule of law, and punished accordingly.

However, as it now stands, we live in a less than perfect world and these psychopaths are allowed to espouse their murderous nonsense in corporate newspapers, thus infecting those of lesser discerning capacity to the sway of their hateful and nihilistic pathology.

Original

Editor's note: I took the opportunity to email Michael Coren and the editor of the Toronto Sun in which this piece of hate speech appeared. I wrote simply:

Re: Article of 2nd September 2006: 'We should nuke Iran' by Michael Coren TORONTO SUN

A repugnant article from a repugnant and clearly brainwashed person who reads too much of his own US-government-inspired rhetoric and apparently revels in the idea of the murder of innocent people.

You disgust me and all right-thinking normal human beings.

mcoren@sympatico.ca, editor@tor.sunpub.com
Comment on this Editorial

"the commission was charged with explaining not only what happened, but also why it happened. In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: "You've looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?"

These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," he said. "They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, "was going to fly the final plane, land it and make 'a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,'" Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: "Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."

Given the Bush administration's current policies in the region, another 9/11-style attack is less a matter of if than when."

"The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. Although Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons al Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known."

"We did however, have some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation. For instance, Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in al Qaeda's actions. Similarly, several commissioners pointed out that we had to acknowledge that the American presence in Iraq had become the dominant issue in the way the world's Muslims viewed the United States.

--- This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to American policies - rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy. To Lee, though, it was not a question of altering support for Israel but merely stating a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the relations between the Islamic world and the United States - and to Bin Laden's ideology and the support he gained throughout the Islamic world for his jihad against America. ... We ended up agreeing on language that acknowledged the importance of the two issues without passing judgment:

America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.

* "The staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex."

* By 1992, Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called 'the head of the snake,' the United States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of holy Muslim land.

MR. SNELL: Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets, the World Trade Center, which represented the United States economy, the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military, and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel.
...
MR. HAMILTON: But what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States

* "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, 'How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?'" p 162

* "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Chapter 5

* Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

* Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001

"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

A series of polls taken over the last few weeks of August show that support for the war in Iraq among Americans is at an all-time low. Almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war, the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago. Many of the polls were conducted in advance of the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos poll that surveyed the country, and more specifically residents of Washington and New York, shows that many feel the cost in blood and money in Iraq may already be too high and that Osama bin Laden will never be found. The poll also showed that 60 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of a terrorist attack in the US.

"I think there's a fatigue about the price of doing these activities," said Robert Blendon, a specialist in public opinion at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "There's also a concern about the competency of how well we're doing them."

Some of the divisions are from political differences. For example, Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to think the cost of the terror fight may be too high and twice as likely to think Iraq is making terrorism worse. And this comes when the nation has gone five years without an attack ? possibly making the terror war seem less urgent to some.

Popular support for the war on terror helped neutralize opposition to the Iraq war for a long time, said political analyst Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. "Now the negative effect of Iraq is dragging down support for the war on terror," he said.

On the question of which political party can do a better job of protecting the US, both parties lost support since an April poll. But in another sign of trouble for the Bush administration, the AP/Ipsos poll also shows that more Americans believe the Democrats will do a better job than Republicans, 47-40 percent.

A new CNN poll shows that only about one-third of Americans now support the war in Iraq, with 61 percent opposed. Fifty-one percent of Americans see President Bush as a strong leader, although he doesn't do well in other areas of the survey.

Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence. Bush's stand on the issues is also problematic, with more than half (57 percent) of Americans saying they disagree with him on the issues they care about. That's an indication that issues, not personal characteristics, are keeping his approval rating well below 50 percent ...

Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference Monday.

"I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." He added, "I'm going to do what I think is right, and if, you know, if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is."

A Princeton Survey Research Associates International poll conducted Aug. 24-25 for Newsweek shows that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president has handled Iraq. A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted Aug. 17-21 shows 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president is dealing with Iraq. Among those who identified themselves as independents, 67 percent disapprove.

Finally, a survey by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 60 percent of Americans believe screening of people who look "Middle Eastern" at airports and train stations is OK.

Quinnipiac's director of polling, Maurice Carroll, said he was surprised by the apparent public support for racial profiling. "What's the motivation there -- is it bigotry, or is it fear or is it practicality?" he said.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Americans considered the 9/11 attacks of more significance than the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the findings varied considerably among age groups, with 9/11 being the most important event among those 35 and under, but with Pearl Harbor being more important those 65 and older.

"People have fresh memories of 9-11 and many don't have any memories at all of Pearl Harbor, and those who do don't have fresh memories of it," said Bruce Schulman, a Boston University professor of history and American studies. "We also feel pretty confident that we know how the results of Pearl Harbor turned out, and we certainly don't know what the consequences of 9-11 are going to turn out to be.

Comment on this Article

---

Merkel overtakes Rice as world's most powerful woman: Forbes

AFP
Thu Aug 31, 2006

NEW YORK - German Chancellor Angela Merkel has overtaken US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the world's most powerful woman, according to a Forbes Magazine list.

This time last year, Germany's first female chancellor was riding high in opinion polls as leader of the then-opposition conservative Christian Union but did not even feature in the ranks of Forbes's top 100 most powerful women.

And besides Chinese Vice President Wu Yi, who slid one place this year to number three, the rest of the top 10 are business executives, topped by the chief executive-designate of PepsiCo, Indian-born and educated Indra Nooyi.
The magazine's third annual list sees talkshow host
Oprah Winfrey dropping to 14th place and New York Senator
Hillary Clinton rising from 26 to 18 as her expected campaign for the US presidency in 2008 gathers pace.

The Italian-born head of India's Congress party, Sonia Gandhi, came in at number 13, while Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, jumped to 16 in a year in which the organisation doubled in size.

Merkel aside, the list includes three other women who emerged within the past year to become the first females to hold such high political office in their countries: Chilean President Michelle Bachelet (17), Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (51) and South Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-sook (68).

Among women working in the entertainment industry, Disney co-chairman Anne Sweeney came in at 15 ahead of MTV's chief executive Judy McGrath (52), Amy Pascal, the chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment (60), and CBS Paramount TV's president Nancy Tellem (75).

Katie Couric, a CBS television network anchor, is the highest placed journalist at 54, ahead of globe-trotting CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour (79).

Among other notables are US First Lady Laura Bush (43),
Queen Elizabeth II (46), Myanmar's opposition leader democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi (47), Playboy chairman Christie Hefner (80) and Jordan's Queen Rania (81).

Comment: Rumors have been flying about Condi's decreasing popularity in Washington. Where is Condi these days, anyway?

Comment on this Article

---

Pentagon gives gloomy Iraq report

By ROBERT BURNS
ABC News
Sat Sep 1, 2006

WASHINGTON - Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.

In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring Iran and Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.

Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.

"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.

"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.

Iraqi forces were dealing with more violence Friday as officials said a mortar attack on an open-air market in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, killed three people and wounded 12. Elsewhere, two policemen were also killed and authorities said they found the body of a
Saddam Hussein-era intelligence officer who had been kidnapped and shot.

The bloodshed capped a week in which hundreds of Iraqis were killed despite a security crackdown that targeted some of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods.

A growing number of members of Congress are calling for either a shift in the Bush administration's Iraq strategy or a timetable for beginning a substantial withdrawal of American forces. Although administration officials say progress is being made in Iraq, U.S. commanders have increased U.S. troop levels by about 13,000 over the past five weeks, to 140,000, mainly due to increased violence in the Baghdad area.

In response to the Pentagon's report Friday, the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, said it showed the Bush administration is "increasingly disconnected from the facts on the ground in Iraq."

"It is time for a new direction to end the war in Iraq, win the war on terror, and give the American people the real security they deserve," Reid said.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who recently returned from a visit to Iraq, said the report squared with what he saw there.

"Iraq is tipping toward civil war," Reed said.

Col. Thomas Vail, commander of a 101st Airborne brigade operating in the mostly Shiite areas of eastern Baghdad, told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday that an intensified effort to root out insurgents and quell sectarian violence in the capital is bearing fruit, leading to a decrease in sectarian murders in recent days.

"They understand a big stick," he said, referring to a bigger U.S. and Iraqi force confronting militias and others responsible for violence like the barrage of coordinated attacks across eastern Baghdad on Thursday. Iraqi police said they killed at least 64 people and wounded more than 286 within a half hour.

Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, in a separate session with reporters, said that despite progress this summer in reviving the Iraqi economy, raising electricity production and increasing the number of trained Iraqi troops, security conditions have deteriorated.

The report covered the period since the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki was seated May 20.

From that date through Aug. 11, the average number of attacks per week against Americans and Iraqis was 792, up 24 percent from the previous period of Feb. 11 to May 19. The 792 figure was the highest for any counting period since the war began. The previous high was 641 in the Feb. 11 to May 19 period.

"The last quarter, as you know has been rough," Rodman said. "The levels of violence are up and the sectarian quality of the violence is particularly acute and disturbing."

That assessment was tempered by a degree of optimism that the Iraqi government - with support from U.S. troops - will succeed in quelling the sectarian strife.

Optimism among ordinary Iraqis, however, has declined, the 63-page report said.

When asked if they believe "things will be better" in the future, the percentage of Iraqis responding positively has dropped over the past year - whether they were asked to look ahead six months, one year or five years - according to polling data cited in the report.

"The security situation is currently at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom," the report said, using the U.S. military's name for the war that was launched in March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.

One of the most celebrated events during the period on which Friday's report was based was the killing of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report said that although this was a major success, al-Qaida remained a threat because of its "resilient, semiautonomous cellular structure."



Comment on this Article

---

Republican ads show distance from Bush

By DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press
September 4, 2006

WASHINGTON - Republicans who were once cozy with President Bush are distancing themselves from both the president and their party in campaign ads.

Consider Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking House Republican struggling to hold onto her seat in an evenly split district in central Ohio, near Columbus.

In 2004, her campaign Web site featured a banner of her and Bush sitting together, smiling. But in her latest television ad, Pryce is described as "independent." The spot also highlights how she "stood up to her own party" and the president to support increased federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research.
As chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, Pryce rallies colleagues to the party message.

With the election in about two months and Bush's approval ratings still low - 33 percent in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll - Republicans involved in tight races are avoiding party labels and playing down their ties to the president. On issues from the Iraq war to Amtrak spending, GOP candidates are trying to argue that they don't follow in lockstep.

Among some of the ads:

- In Pennsylvania, Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach tells voters: "When I believe President Bush is right, I'm behind him. But when I think he's wrong, I let him know that, too," Gerlach is in a close contest with Democrat Lois Murphy, who nearly beat him in 2004.

- In Minnesota, where an open Senate seat is at stake, Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy has an ad titled, "Crossing Party Lines," in which he says: "I'm a Republican. On issues like taxes and spending, I vote like it. But on other issues, I cross party lines." In 2002, in his run for the House, a Kennedy ad showed him walking and shaking hands with Bush at the White House. Today, he lists the issues on which he has split from the president.

- In South Florida, heavily populated by retirees, Republican Rep. Clay Shaw criticizes the president's stalled plans to change Social Security and says in his ad, "I represent the state of Florida, not a political party."

Ed Patru, a spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee, shrugged off the latest ads.

"That's nothing new, that's just being a smart campaigner," said Patru, who argued that the candidates were reinforcing the moderate positions that have helped them win in swing districts.

Democrats naturally have a different view.

"What we're seeing is a number of candidates who embraced Bush in previous elections are now treating him like a leper," said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Senate Democratic campaign organization.

Shanto Iyengar, a campaign advertising expert at Stanford University, said the 1974 midterm elections, in the immediate aftermath of President Nixon's Watergate-driven resignation, were similar to today's advertising atmosphere.

"In most congressional races the conventional wisdom is it's all local," Iyengar said. "But every now and then, it is possible to nationalize these races, and I believe all the stars are in place for that in 2006."

New Mexico pollster Brian Sanderoff, who is closely watching the re-election campaign of Rep. Heather Wilson, a moderate Republican, said that as the president's approval ratings drop, "incumbents are becoming even more clear in expressing their independence or distance from the White House."

In Pennsylvania, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, No. 3 in the GOP Senate leadership, has stood with the president on scores of issues, from abortion to same-sex marriage to taxes. Trailing his Democratic challenger Bob Casey in the polls, Santorum brags about breaking with the administration on Amtrak money.

"And the White House probably called me a lot of things when I fought their efforts to cut Amtrak funding," Santorum says.

Another vulnerable Senate incumbent, Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, has welcomed the president for two events that raised $2 million. Yet his ads have touted his independence and ability to work with Democrats.

In Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record)'s first ad of 2006 said: "Most people don't care if you're red or blue, Republican or Democrat. ... They care about getting things done."

Talent's opponent, Democrat Claire McCaskill, argues that Talent is trying to "reinvent himself" from 2002, when an ad showed Bush praising Talent.



Comment on this Article

---

Rove's Word Is No Longer G.O.P. Gospel

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
September 2, 2006

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, is struggling to steer the Republican Party to victory this fall at a time when he appears to have the least political authority since he came to Washington, party officials said.

Mr. Rove remains a dominant adviser to President Bush, administration officials say. But outside the White House, as Mr. Bush's popularity has waned, and as questions have arisen among Republicans about the White House's political acumen, the party's candidates are going their own way in this difficult election season far more than they have in any other campaign Mr. Rove has overseen.

Some are disregarding Mr. Rove's advice, despite his reputation as the nation's premier strategist. They are criticizing Mr. Bush or his policies. They are avoiding public events with the president and Mr. Rove.

Influential conservative commentators have openly broken with the White House, calling into question the continued enthusiasm of evangelicals, economic conservatives and other groups that Mr. Rove has counted on to win elections. Some Republicans are ignoring Mr. Rove's efforts to hold the party together on issues like immigration and Iraq.
In a reflection of this difficult environment, the White House has decided to concentrate nearly all its resources on the critical fight to keep control of Congress, party officials said, largely stepping away from the governors' races, at least for now.

In Michigan last week, Dick DeVos, a Republican candidate for governor and a longtime contributor to Mr. Bush, startled national Republican Party leaders with a searing attack on the president for failing to meet with the leaders of the Big Three automakers. "We're being ignored here in Michigan by the White House, and it has got to stop," Mr. DeVos said.

His communications director, John Truscott, said the attack was timed to coincide with Mr. Rove's visit to Michigan for a fund-raiser, in an effort to goad Mr. Bush into a response. Asked if the DeVos campaign was worried about angering Mr. Rove, Mr. Truscott said, "That never even crossed our mind."

Representative Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, who was chairman of the Congressional Republican campaign committee in 2002, said Mr. Rove and the White House seemed measurably less involved this year.

"It's been more of a bunker mentality, don't you think?" Mr. Davis said. "They have been good in terms of raising the money. The problem is, you have a president with a 38 percent approval rating, and it just changes the dynamics of what they can do."

This midterm election presents Mr. Rove with a particularly difficult challenge. Beyond testing his reputation for always finding a way to win, the outcome could determine the extent of Mr. Bush's influence for the rest of his presidency and shape the way he is perceived by history. Mr. Rove has warned associates that a Democratic takeover in Congress would mean an end to Mr. Bush's legislative hopes and invite two years of potentially crippling investigations into the administration.

The White House said that Mr. Rove would consider an interview for this article if it were conducted off the record, with the provision that quotations could be put on the record with White House approval, a condition it said was set for other interviews with Mr. Rove. The New York Times declined.

The diminishment in Mr. Rove's influence reflects the fact that his power is to some extent a function of Mr. Bush's popularity. In some cases, Republican candidates have made a deliberate strategic decision that the way to win is to distance themselves from the White House.

But a central problem, Republicans said, is that Mr. Rove is seen as juggling two potentially conflicting agendas: protecting the president's legacy and taking steps to help Republican candidates win re-election.

Mr. Rove enters the campaign season after a year of personal tumult. Until mid-June he faced the threat of indictment in the investigation into the leak of a C.I.A. officer's identity, and in April, he was stripped of some of his duties in the White House. Mr. Rove was moved from a West Wing corner suite to a smaller windowless office across the hall, a shift one friend said he found demoralizing.

Mr. Rove's associates said that throughout the leak investigation, he was coiled and withdrawn. They said his demeanor brightened the moment he learned he would not be indicted. Associates described him as displaying relentless optimism about an election that is filling Republicans with a sense of doom.

Mr. Rove determines the bulk of the president's schedule and is a crucial figure in determining what Mr. Bush should say this fall. He is the White House's main conduit to conservatives whose willingness to turn out at the polls could help determine the party's success.

Mr. Rove has become a star fund-raiser for the Republican Party, raising $10,357,486 at 75 events in 29 states, according to the Republican National Committee. Mr. Rove runs regular White House meetings, typically at 6:30 a.m. in the White House mess, reviewing high-profile House and Senate races with the White House political director, Sara Taylor, and sometimes with Congressional leaders. He shares his view of the landscape with Mr. Bush in a daily 8:30 a.m. briefing.

Mr. Rove - with Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Ms. Taylor, both of whom have assumed a higher profile than in past years - has settled on a narrow strategy to try to minimize Congressional losses while tending to Mr. Bush's political strength. The White House will reprise the two T's of its successful campaign strategy since 2002: terrorism and turnout.

They have determined that control of Congress is likely to be settled in as few as six states and have decided to focus most of the party's resources there, said Republican officials who did not want to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Those states will likely include Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, though officials said the battle lines could shift in coming weeks.

The White House is largely turning away from the 36 governors' races, although Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush will continue to help Republican candidates for governor raise money, party officials said. The decision has broad significance because building a foundation of Republican governors had been a main part of Mr. Rove's goal of creating a long-lasting Republican majority.

The Republican National Committee expects to spend over $60 million, which would be a record, for the midterm elections. Officials say half of that would pay for get-out-the-vote operations in the targeted states.

In states where Mr. Bush's presence could be problematic, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut, the turnout operations give Mr. Rove a way to provide below-the-radar help.

Mr. Mehlman, whom Mr. Rove assigned to master get-out-the-vote techniques years ago, has handed custom compact discs with lists of voters, along with information on their voting and consumer habits, to every state Republican chairman.

One administration official said that Mr. Rove was also looking beyond Mr. Bush's term, to the creation of his library. And he is quietly making his influence felt in the 2008 presidential campaign. Most significantly, the White House has signaled to Bush supporters that they are free to work for Senator John McCain of Arizona, which could provide Mr. Rove a network of intelligence in 2008. Mr. Rove has made clear to associates that he is not supporting any candidate in that race.

Mr. Rove's associates said it was inevitable that his clout would diminish somewhat given the president's declining approval rating and the history of two-term presidents generally weakening by their sixth year in office.

"Anytime you're in the position of being the prime mover, and you've got five people saying we should do it this way and five others saying we should do it that way, you're going to aggravate five people inevitably when you come down with a decision," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "But Karl is willing to do that, and you're going to get your share of slings and arrows when you are."

Indeed, Democrats - aware of Mr. Rove's reputation for pulling out all the stops when necessary and his ability to call on a shadow political machine of interest groups and donors to attack opponents - said they remained worried about what kind of effort Mr. Rove might unleash in the closing weeks of the campaign.

But the limits of Mr. Rove's influence were made clear this year when he was unable to persuade the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Allan G. Bense, to run in the Republican primary for Senate against Representative Katherine Harris, whom the party judged to be a weak candidate. Mr. Rove invited Mr. Bense for a sit-down at his vacation home in Rosemary Beach, Fla., as part of a long but failed effort to get him to challenge Ms. Harris for the nomination, said Towson Fraser, a spokesman for Mr. Bense.

And Mr. Rove's associates say he appreciates the need of candidates to distance themselves from the White House to win. But he was described as angered by candidates who he thought were going too far in criticizing Mr. Bush out of concern that attacks could further damage an already weakened president, they said.

Mr. Rove meets in person only infrequently with the Republican heads of the Senate and House campaign committees, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, though Mrs. Dole said he was always ready to jump on a plane to a fund-raiser at her request.

Mr. Reynolds said the White House had been untiring in raising money and providing surrogates. But he made clear that when it came to the House races, he was running the show.

"I'm the one who put together what I think is our best effort to win a House majority in 2006," Mr. Reynolds said.

In the Ohio Senate race, Mr. Rove has found himself in a back-and-forth with Senator Mike DeWine. Mr. DeWine has at times resisted Mr. Rove's counsel that he employ an unrelenting focus on terrorism, exhibiting what other Republicans described as ambivalence about a television commercial depicting the World Trade Center burning.

Candidates and strategists across the country say that they hear from Mr. Rove infrequently.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said he encountered Mr. Rove at a dinner at Vice President Dick Cheney's home here in late July. "We chatted for a minute," Mr. Romney said. "He was interested in how the governors' races were looking. But it was interest as a fellow Republican."



Comment on this Article

---

Or Business As Usual?

---

Why I am a Terrorist

Charles Sullivan
09/03/06

According to the twisted logic recently espoused by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the failure to support illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars defines one as a terrorist. Let me be clear about where I stand: I know who the real terrorists are, and can name each one of them-Rumsfeld among the rest.

Everywhere you go in America you see the slogan, "Support our troops." You see it on bumper stickers, storefronts, flags and banners, yellow ribbons and even in the windows of private homes. But what does it mean to support our troops? Is it to send them into harm's way; to invade and occupy sovereign nations in illegal wars for empire? Is it to ask them to commit heinous crimes, to maim and to kill innocent civilians; to torture, insult, and to humiliate people who have done us no harm? Is it to steal the natural wealth that belongs to other nations and turn it over to American corporations?
If that is what it means, then I cannot support our troops. I cannot wish them well if their purpose is conquer other people, and plunder the wealth of other countries that have done us no harm. That would require me to endorse crimes against humanity conducted under the guise of national security and patriotism. I cannot do that-I will not. It is simply wrong.

Neither should we, as we so often do, confuse supporting our troops with supporting the president, or wrongful and immoral policies of corrupt government. The president and his ilk do not support our troops or he would not use them as pawns; he would take care of them when they come home broken and torn with psychic scars. He does not care about them-they are only a means to an end.

No, the best way to support our troops is to take a principled stand; to hold the moral high ground-to bring them home alive and whole. A government must not be allowed to require any of its citizens to engage in immoral or criminal behavior on its behalf. When a government behaves like a crime syndicate it does not mean that the people should follow its example-they must provide a better alternative, and refuse their allegiance to it.

So if the failure to support a government's wrongful policies makes me a terrorist-so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a terrorist-sign me up; move me to top of the NSA and FBI lists of suspects. Send forth the assassins with their rifles. If exposing the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist-I will proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi, Einstein, Zinn, and Christ.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free-lance writer residing in the hinterland of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan@phreego.com



Comment on this Article

---

Going to War with the Leaders you have

Mike Whitney
03/09/2006

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have. They're not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Name one part of the occupation of Iraq that has succeeded?

From the shortage of soldiers, to de-Ba'athification, to the disbanding the Iraqi military, to the lack of body-armor, to leaving the ammo-dumps unprotected, to Falluja, to Abu Ghraib, to Haditha, to the stage-managed, public relations Jessica Lynch incident (which was later exposed as a sham) every facet of Iraqi fiasco has been a complete and utter failure.

And whose name is on that failure? Whose name features most prominently on the greatest strategic disaster in American history?

Don Rumsfeld. Hands down, Don Rumsfeld is the biggest flop in American history. No one else even comes close.
Major General Paul Eaton summarized Rumsfeld's dismal performance this way:

"Rumsfeld has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq".

Keep in mind that Eaton is a conservative Republican and a firm believer in America's preemptive war in Iraq. His comments simply reflect his ability to objectively judge performance and to assign blame where blame belongs. In this case, the person who is most responsible for the bungled policy in Iraq is Don Rumsfeld.

Fellow Lt. General Gregory Newbold was equally critical of Rumsfeld and said, "The decision to invade Iraq was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions---or bury the results."

Newbold is right; they don't "bury the results" at the American Enterprise Institute, or at the Pentagon, or at the many smoke-filled, bastions where American plutocrats like Rumsfeld lark about, but in small-town America; Bakersfield, Winooski, Devils Lake, where parents and young widows choke back the tears for the men who lost their lives in Rumsfeld's folly. That's who pays the bill for Rumsfeld's arrogance.

Rumsfeld's failures are legion, but they do not compare to the disgrace he has heaped on the United States through his authorization of the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in American custody. There is a clear record of official memoranda which lead straight to the office of the Secretary of Defense connecting Rumsfeld to a regime of torture and abuse directed at men who have never been charged with a crime and who are the unwitting victims of a terrorist witch-hunt.

Rumsfeld's involvement in these crimes puts him well-outside our fundamental traditions and beliefs as Americans. His conduct is an assault of the basic principles which we hold most dear and which are written into our founding documents.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..."

It is impossible to grasp how someone can be raised in America, matriculate at American universities, participate in the American political system, and spend the bulk of his life breathing in the same American customs and mores as the rest of us, and yet, be so completely divorced from the most essential values of the culture.

Rumsfeld is like a man who has passed through his entire life impervious to his surroundings and to the nations' prevailing ethos. He is, quite simply, the most un-American character to ever serve in high-office.

So, it is surprising, then, that the amoral Rumsfeld, whose litany of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan follow him like the plumage on a peacock, would decide to take aim at his many critics in a speech delivered to the American Legion on Thursday. It just shows that there are really no limits to the obtuseness of the men who currently hold power in America.

"Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," Rumsfeld opined. "But some seem not to have learned history's lessons. Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or someway, vicious extremists could be appeased?"

Rumsfeld's words are aimed at the 61% of Americans who no longer believe that the war in Iraq is "worth it". He dismisses them as "appeasers". Of course, at one time many of these same people supported the war and didn't care about the moral or legal issues as long as America prevailed. So, in fact, many of these "appeasers" actually changed their minds due to Rumsfeld's staggering incompetence in managing the conflict. The Sec-Def must examine his own performance to truly understand why public support has eroded so dramatically.

Tom Friedman summarized Rumsfeld's strategy as the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" that is, deploying "just enough troops to lose." And, as we have already shown, Rumsfeld has failed in every phase of the occupation without exception.

It is pointless to dispute Rumsfeld's allegations that his critics are "appeasers" or "fascist" sympathizers. It's just a silly attempt to set up a straw man and then knock him down. Rumsfeld is a master at shifting attention from his own wretched performance and dumping the blame on someone else. In this case, he attacks not only those who have lost faith in the war but, also, takes a few swipes at his old nemesis "the media".

The media has played a central role in sustaining support for the war; keeping anti-war critics out of their studios and off the air. They've limited their Iraq coverage to scenes of Arab's killing Arabs rather that the daily digest of American bombing-raids, decimated Iraqi cities and an entire nation reduced to anarchy. Still, in Rumsfeld's mind, any information that leaches through the fissures in the media façade and doesn't promote the blinkered goal of American corporate-hegemony, is tantamount to treason.

"Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of (media) myths and distortions that are being told about our country and our troops," Rumsfeld moaned. "The struggle we are in is too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of "Blame America First."'


Rumsfeld's words were immediately followed by an announcement from the Pentagon that they would tender a "$20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of US and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage from Iraq." (Wa Post)

Again, we see how utterly disconnected from reality Rumsfeld truly is. Rather than try to grasp the real issues involved, he cynically applies his energy to "attacking the messenger" or "perception management" strategies. These are the signs of someone who is completely incapable of personal accountability and who seriously believes that everyone else is to blame for his own failures.

No one is "manipulating the media" to oppose the war, quite the contrary. The corporate media has been a vital cog in the Pentagon's information stratagem and is probably the most successful part of the war effort. They have maintained an astonishing level of public support for a war that has yet to provide any moral or legal justification or any recognizable "metric" for achieving victory. It simply goes on day by day grinding out more carnage while reducing the "cradle of civilization" into a pile of smoldering wreckage.

The Pentagon's own report provided the most scathing account of America's failed crusade. The report admitted that, "Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than anytime since the invasion in 2003...The illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services." (NY Times)

In other words, everything has gotten worse and there are no tangible signs of improvement.

Is the Pentagon part of the "Blame America First" crowd too? Is the High-Command trying to "manipulate the media and demoralize public opinion" as Rumsfeld claims? ( Note: Bush disputed the Pentagon's findings the very next day giving his cheery predictions precedent over the dismal facts from the Big Brass)

Opposition to the war is now emerging from all segments of society and continues to grow despite the optimistic accounts of progress in the media. America was defeated in Iraq when the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad in March 2003. It's been downhill ever since. After 4 years of the most pitiless warfare against a civilian population, the magnitude of that defeat has only increased.

Donald Rumsfeld is mistaken when he says that antiwar Americans suffer from "moral confusion." Moral confusion is a condition of men who deliberately inflict pain on other human beings in violation of the most fundamental standards of human decency. In fact, those activities far exceed mere confusion and indicate a state of total moral decay. Such people are not fit to make even the most elementary ethical judgemnts, let alone to decide on the important issues of war and peace.

Support for the war is on a steady downward trajectory. That decline in support will not be altered by the delusional accusations of a man who, more than any other, is responsible for the shame and degradation that conflict has brought on our country.

That man is Don Rumsfeld.



Comment on this Article

---

FBI Role in Terror Probe Questioned (FBI = al-Qaeda)

Washington Post
September 2, 2006

Lawyers Point to Fine Line Between Sting and Entrapment

Standing in an empty Miami warehouse on May 24 with a man he believed had ties to Osama bin Laden, a dejected Narseal Batiste talked of the setbacks to their terrorist plot and then uttered the words that helped put him in a federal prison cell.

"I want to fight some jihad," he allegedly said. "That's all I live for."

What Batiste did not know was that the bin Laden representative was really an FBI informant. The warehouse in which they were meeting had been rented and wired for sound and video by bureau agents, who were monitoring his every word.
Within a month, Batiste, 32, and six of his compatriots were arrested and charged with conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization and bomb a federal building. On June 23, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a news conference to announce the destruction of a terrorist cell inside the United States, hailing "our commitment to preventing terrorism through energetic law enforcement efforts aimed at detecting and thwarting terrorist acts."

But court records released since then suggest that what Gonzales described as a "deadly plot" was virtually the pipe dream of a few men with almost no ability to pull it off on their own. The suspects have raised questions in court about the FBI informants' role in keeping the plan alive.

The plot featured self-proclaimed militant religious leaders who referred to themselves as kings, talked of establishing their own nation inside the United States, called their headquarters an embassy and discussed plans to train their recruits to use bows and arrows. One of their quixotic notions was to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower.

Batiste's father, a Christian preacher and former contractor who lives in Louisiana, told the news media after the indictment that his son was "not in his right mind" and needed psychiatric treatment.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, separating serious terrorist plotters from delusional dreamers has proved one of the FBI's most challenging tasks. The effort is complicated by the bureau's frequent use of informants who sometimes play active roles in the plotting.

U.S. law enforcement officials say they do not have the luxury of waiting for a terrorist plot to mature before they break it up. A delay, they say, could mean that a member of the plot they had not discovered might be able to pull off an attack.

At the news conference, Gonzales acknowledged that Batiste was nowhere near carrying out a terrorist act.

"Our philosophy here is that we try to identify plots in the earliest stages possible, because we don't know what we don't know about a terrorist plot," he said. It is dangerous to evaluate in advance that "this is a really dangerous group; this is not a dangerous group," he added.

But lawyers for the defendants have raised questions about where a government sting ends and entrapment begins. Not only did government informants provide money and a meeting place for Batiste and his followers, but they also gave them video cameras for conducting surveillance, as well as cellphones, and suggested that their first target be a Miami FBI office, court records show.

At the hearing, Batiste's attorney, John Wylie, showed that the FBI's investigation found no evidence that his client had met with any real terrorist, received e-mails or wire transfers from the Middle East, possessed any al-Qaeda literature, or had even a picture of bin Laden.

Asked for a response, a Justice Department spokesman referred a reporter to Gonzales's remarks about the case.

Court documents and testimony at hearings describe how the plot unfolded. Last October, Batiste allegedly contacted a Middle Eastern-born Miami resident who was about to travel to Yemen. The man dealt in fresh produce; Batiste was unaware that he was also a paid informant for the FBI.

The man -- known only as CW1 in court documents -- told his FBI handlers that Batiste had spoken of forming an army to wage jihad and overthrow the federal government. He said Batiste was "willing to work with al Qaeda to accomplish the mission and wanted to travel with [the informant] overseas to make appropriate connections," according to court documents.

The FBI would eventually pay the informant, who had previous arrests for assault and marijuana possession, $10,500 for his services in the Batiste investigation and reimburse him $8,815 for his expenses.

Over the next few weeks, the informant stayed in touch with Batiste and spent a night at the "embassy" where the group was headquartered. He reported seeing guns, karate practice and fighting drills that involved machetes.

By mid-November, the FBI decided to take a more active role. Agents introduced a more experienced Middle Eastern-born informant, CW2, to play the role of a potential financier to prevent Batiste from seeking money elsewhere. CW2, according to court papers, had worked for the FBI for six years and provided information that led to the arrests of two individuals on "terrorist-related charges."

But CW2 soon also took a key role in the plotting, suggesting targets and supplying videotaping equipment, according to the court papers. His reward was $17,000 the FBI paid for his services, and approval of his petition for political asylum in the United States.

At their initial meeting, the second informant said he was there to "evaluate" Batiste's operation and asked what help he needed to carry out his "mission." Batiste drew up a list that included "uniforms, boots, automatic hand pistols, communications equipment like Nextel cell phones, an SUV truck, black in color," according to court documents. Two days later, he asked for more equipment, including a "mini .223 Bushmaster" rifle.

Three days before Christmas, Batiste and CW2 met again, and Batiste talked for the first time about destroying Chicago's Sears Tower, a landmark in a city where he once worked as a FedEx delivery driver and still had associates. Batiste said he would take advantage of the ensuing chaos to liberate Muslims from a nearby jail. They would form an army powerful enough to force the U.S. government to recognize the "Sovereign Moors" -- an offshoot of a religious group, the Moorish Science Temple, to which Batiste claimed allegiance -- as an independent nation.

A week later, when he met with CW2 again, Batiste asked for more firearms, radios, binoculars, bulletproof vests, SUVs and $50,000 in cash. He also invited the informant to join him on a trip to Chicago to meet his "two top generals" and look at the Sears Tower. But the trip never took place.

By the beginning of January, CW2 had offered Batiste a rent-free warehouse large enough for training. In reality, the FBI wanted a new meeting spot because it could not carry out surveillance at the "embassy," which was located in a high-crime area where agents would be easily spotted. At the same time, however, Batiste began to mistrust CW2 because of his numerous questions and ended direct contact with him for a while.

In mid-January, the first informant contacted Batiste's closest associate in the group to report that approval for the plan had come from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. When bin Laden issued a public statement saying that al-Qaeda would soon strike in the United States, the informant passed word to Batiste that it was a reference to the missions he was planning.

CW2 soon informed Batiste that an explosives expert in Europe -- actually a Scotland Yard agent -- was ready to come and help.

On Feb. 19, Batiste met with CW2 in a videotaped session at the informant's Miami apartment, where he "outlined his plan to wage jihad in the United States," according to court records. Batiste said he would conduct a "full ground war" and "kill all the devils we can," beginning with "taking down the Sears Tower in Chicago and attacking a prison to free Muslim Brothers who are incarcerated."

When Batiste grew impatient for money early in March, CW2 placated him by formally swearing him into al-Qaeda. In a ceremony recorded by the FBI, the informant read an English translation of the al-Qaeda loyalty oath, "welcomed Batiste to al Qaeda and declared that al Qaeda and the Moors were officially united," according to court papers. The informant and Batiste also selected a two-story warehouse as their new headquarters and training site.

On March 15, the FBI wired the warehouse for sound and video. The next night, before a secret camera, CW2 administered an English translation of the al-Qaeda oath to six members of Batiste's group, four of whom called themselves "prince" and two who were addressed as "brother."

The men also face charges of conspiring to aid a terrorist group.

Acting on instructions from the FBI, CW2 told the group that his al-Qaeda bosses were planning to attack FBI buildings in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Miami. He asked that Batiste and his group assist by providing video of the Miami FBI building, "which would be sent back to al Qaeda overseas," according to court papers. He also gave Batiste a video camera.

In late March, driving a van provided by the informant, Batiste and two associates videotaped and photographed the FBI building, as CW2 had requested. They also taped the federal courthouse and detention center, and the Miami police headquarters.

CW2 later expressed interest in meeting Batiste's Chicago associates and said al-Qaeda would pay to have them come to Miami. Batiste called Charles James Stewart, also known as Sultan Khan Bey, and his wife in Chicago, where Stewart leads his own branch of the Moorish Science Temple. With $3,500 in FBI money, Batiste paid for them to come to Miami.

Court papers show that Stewart is a convicted rapist with a long arrest record for other serious crimes. On April 11, with FBI cameras rolling, Stewart and Batiste sat in the Miami warehouse and discussed opening a shop to sell marijuana and drug pipes. They smoked marijuana as they talked, and Stewart revealed his plan to build a Moorish nation of 10,000 people.

Stewart wanted to make his wife, whom he called Queen Zakiyaah, an ambassador of the Moorish nation so she could not be detained by U.S. authorities. He said Moorish soldiers would wear green uniforms and become expert with bows and arrows. They would undergo night training that included jumping from a bridge into water 20 feet below.

But within days, Stewart and Batiste began to have differences over control of the organization and its mission. On April 17, the conflict broke into the open and Stewart tried Batiste under Moorish law on charges of treason and insubordination. He questioned "his relationship and association with the Arabian or Nigerian mafia," a reference to the second FBI informant.

Two days later, Stewart, now running what was left of Batiste's group, was arrested by Miami police after he fired a shot at one of Batiste's supporters.

On May 5, after a local hearing on the shooting, federal weapons charges were lodged against Stewart. Federal agents asked whether he knew of any plots against the United States, and Stewart began talking about Batiste's mission as one that was "starting to get serious," a phrase later cited in court by prosecutors. Stewart became a witness against Batiste and the others.

The defendants have signaled that they will contest the government's actions. At a July 5 detention hearing, Nathan Clark, an attorney for one member of the group, told U.S. Magistrate Judge Ted E. Bandstra that the ceremony at which the defendants took the al-Qaeda oath was "induced by the government themselves in an effort to set these people up."

"What we see is this entire organization, by the government's own admission, falling apart. . . . Nobody really believes that these people are capable of doing anything," he said.

In the end, Bandstra ruled that the seven would have to remain in jail because the allegations were "disturbing." But he added that "the plans appear to be beyond the present ability of these defendants" and said he expected their attorneys to argue the government's actions at trial.



Comment on this Article

---

Propaganda Alert!: Ohio critics decry U.S. coast guard plan for live firing on Lake Erie

AP
02/09/2006

Ohio anglers, boaters and environmentalists are up in arms about the U.S. coast guard's proposal to establish weapons training zones on the Great Lakes.

The coast guard wants to establish four areas on Lake Erie, as well as 30 other zones on the four other Great Lakes, where they can train using live ammunition. Officials said they need the shooting practice to prepare for maritime threats, including terrorism and drug-smuggling.

The plan drew so much criticism the coast guard has extended the period for public comment - which was initially to end Thursday - until November.
"It's pretty clear that we didn't do a good enough job educating the public," said Robert Lanier, a coast guard spokesman. The coast guard is also considering holding public hearings.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other environmental groups voiced concern over the plan and its possible impact on boaters and wildlife.

Commercial fishermen would have a hard time moving their nets for the drills and recreational anglers and boaters could accidentally wander into the range, the department's Steve Holland wrote in a letter to the coast guard.

The zones are all more than eight kilometres offshore and drills would only be conducted a few days every year, Lanier said. Exercises would use machine-guns mounted on cutters and small boats.

During live-fire operations a small boat would patrol as a safety lookout. Any wayward boats would be escorted from the zone and firing would stop until the area was cleared, Lanier said.

The state DNR also wanted assurances the areas would not be used between April 15 and Nov. 1 in order to protect aquatic species and boaters.

"We're talking hundreds and hundreds of boats," said David Kelch of Ohio State University's Sea Grant office in Lorain County.

"The one (proposed zone) off Cleveland, that is another prime area for fishing."

Lead and other metals from the ammunition could taint the water, said Kristy Meyer of the Ohio Environmental Council. The council is also worried noises from rounds firing will disrupt the reproduction of migratory birds.

Lanier acknowledged the munitions contain some lead but said it would not harm the ecosystem.

Despite the objections, some groups are confident an agreement can be ironed out.

With the right scheduling and good communication, zones can be safely implemented, said Ken Alvey, president of the Lake Erie Marine Trades Association.

"There's plenty of lake out there," Alvey said.



Comment on this Article

---

U.S rebuts 9/11 homegrown conspiracy theories

Reuters
02/09/2006

The United States government is attacking conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York as the fifth anniversary of September 11 approaches.

According to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll carried out in July, more than one-third of Americans suspect U.S. officials helped in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could later go to war.

The State Department responded this week with a rebuttal of World Trade Center demolition theories and doubts about other events of the day that abound on the Internet.

It listed some of the most prevalent September 11 myths, led by claims the twin towers were destroyed by secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets.

"This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences," said a department "special feature".

Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, while the collapses began at upper levels -- where the hijacked Boeing 767s hit, it said.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed on September 11. The Bush administration responded by leading an invasion of Afghanistan and, in 2003, of Iraq.
The State Department was providing "corrective information" in response to misinformation in the media and on the Internet, said Joanne Moore, a department spokeswoman.

The information in the rebuttal was not new, she added, but drawn from public sources.

In a similar vein, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology posted a "fact sheet" on its Web site on Wednesday in question-and-answer format responding to alternative theories about the fire and the collapse.

NIST, which carried out a three-year investigation, concluded the towers collapsed after being hit by separate, fuel-laden aircraft flown by hijackers.

The resulting fire, which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), led to an inward bowing of perimeter columns and subsequent collapses, NIST found in 43 volumes that comprise a final report issued last October.

In putting out its answers to 14 questions about the World Trade Center, NIST, an arm of the Commerce Department, said its findings did not support the "pancake theory" of collapse premised on a progressive failure of floor systems consistent with a controlled demolition.

"NIST is a group of government scientists whose leaders are Bush appointees, and therefore their report is not likely to veer from the political story," said Kevin Ryan, an editor of the online Journal of 9/11 studies.

Ryan says he was a former site manager of a division of Underwriters Laboratories, an independent, not-for-profit product-safety testing and certification organization.

"The more information we learn about this investigation, the more concerned we become," he said.

Comment: Also, the sky is not blue, regardless of what you own eyes tell you. Trust your government. They know best.

Comment on this Article

---

US transfers control of notorious Abu Ghraib prison

by Jay Deshmukh
AFP
Sat Sep 2, 2006

BAGHDAD - The US military has transferred control of Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib jail to Iraqi authorities and the "prison is now empty of any detainees or prisoners".

"The Abu Ghraib prison has been officially handed over yesterday by the coalition forces to the Iraqi forces and the prison is currently under the Iraqi administration," Ali al-Dabaqh told reporters.
A US military spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Keir-Kevin Curry, said Saturday: "Coalition forces transferred operations of Abu Ghraib on September 1 to the Iraqi ministry of justice, effectively ending detainee operations."

Dabaqh said detainees at the prison had suffered human rights violations "during the former regime and also under the US forces" and that Iraq will decide what to do with the facility in the future.

Abu Ghraib, on the western outskirts of Baghdad, was already dreaded under Saddam Hussein's regime as a centre for torture. It gained further notoriety when it was revealed that US forces had abused Iraqi detainees there in 2003.

Comment: What the author really means is "tortured Iraqi prisoners", not "abused Iraqi detainees".

Earlier this year, the US military had said it did not anticipate Iraqi authorities using the facility as a prison.

On Saturday, a separate statement from the US military said a team of US marines will remain at the prison for a short duration helping Iraqi soldiers take over the security of the facility.

Nearly 4,500 prisoners were held in Abu Ghraib at the start of this year, but more than 2,000 were released under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's national reconciliation plan, which he announced in June.

Curry said the rest of the detainees were "transferred to Camp Cropper in Baghdad last month, after completing an expansion and extensive renovations meant to provide increased security and improved detainee care and custody".

The military said around 13,000 security detainees remain in the custody of coalition forces across Iraq, most of them in Camp Bucca, in the south of the country, apart from Camp Cropper and Fort Suse in the north.

International human rights activists had expressed concern over Abu Ghraib, saying Iraq's dangerous security situation prevented them from visiting the facility to check on detainee conditions.

Curry said the detainees in Abu Ghraib or other such detention centres run by US authorities are people "who are detained because they pose a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or coalition forces."

Abu Ghraib became infamous in 2003 when pictures of abuse at the prison, including some showing bloodied and naked prisoners smeared with excrement or forced to perform sexual acts, stoked anti-US sentiment across the world.

A number of low-ranking US soldiers -- controversially described by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as only "a few bad apples" -- faced courts martial over the abuse.

Specialist Charles Graner and his girlfriend of the time, Private Lynndie England, became the public face of the abuse scandal.

Graner was said to have been the ringleader of the humiliating mistreatment and was jailed for 10 years.

England, who was pictured holding a naked prisoner at the end of a dog leash, was sentenced to three years in jail and given a dishonorable discharge.

The prison commander at the time, Janis Karpinski, was the most senior officer to be reprimanded. She was demoted from brigadier general to colonel but faced no charges.

Karpinski published a book in 2005 in which she said abuses were perpetrated by contract employees trained in
Afghanistan and at the Guantanamo detention camp in Cuba and that her demotion was political retribution by the
Pentagon.

Comment: So, the remaining prisoners were transferred from Abu Ghraib to Camp Cropper, which was renovated to provide "increased security and improved detainee care and custody". In other words, it will be harder for the world to find out that prisoners held without charge by the US military are still being tortured.

Comment on this Article

---

Death penalty recommended in Iraq raid

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL
Associated Press
September 2, 2006

An Army investigator has recommended that four soldiers accused of murder in a raid in Iraq should face the death penalty if convicted, according to a report obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. concluded that the slayings were premeditated and warranted the death sentence based on evidence he heard at an August hearing. The case will now be forwarded to Army officials, who will decide whether Daniel's recommendation should be followed.

The soldiers, all from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division's 187th Infantry Regiment, are accused of killing three Iraqi men taken from a house May 9 on a marshy island outside Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.
Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber have claimed they were ordered to "kill all military age males" during the raid on the island. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told the target was an al-Qaida training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men, who were being handcuffed, and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face, and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

Prosecutors argue the soldiers conspired to kill the men and then altered the scene to fit their story. They contend Girouard stabbed Hunsaker as part of the killing plot.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also are accused of threatening to kill another soldier who witnessed the slayings. Girouard, the most senior soldier charged, faces several additional charges, including sexual harassment and carrying a personal weapon on duty.

Paul Bergrin, Clagett's civilian attorney, said he was surprised that Daniel recommended the case be taken to trial at all.

"I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened," Bergrin said Saturday. "They are being used as pawns in the war on terror. They followed the rules of engagement. They were confronted with violence by a known al-Qaida training camp member."

Other lawyers in the case, several of whom are deployed to Iraq, did not immediately respond to e-mail requests for comment.

The soldiers are expected to be tried at Fort Campbell. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their arrests this year.

The U.S. military has not executed a soldier since the 1960 hanging of a soldier convicted rape and attempted murder.

Comment: Sacrificial lambs for the Bush administration...

Comment on this Article

---

U.S. Education Department shares data with FBI

Xinhua
2 September 06

The U.S. Education Department shared personal information on hundreds of student loan applicants with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) across a five-year period that began after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, newspapers reported Friday.
Under the program, called Project Strikeback, the Education Department, which collects information from 14 million applications for federal student aid each year, received names from the FBI and checked them against its student aid database, and then forwarded information to the FBI.

The agencies said the program had been closed, but neither of them would say whether any investigations had resulted, The New York Times reported.

The program was created 10 days after the September 11 attacks, according a USA Today report citing documents from the Education Department's Office of the Inspector General, which investigates cases of fraud, waste, and abuse in federal education programs, including student loans.

The issue was first reported on Thursday by a graduate student, Laura McGann, at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, as part of a reporting project which focused on national security and civil liberties.

Information collected on federal financial aid applications includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, incomes and, for some students, information on parents' incomes and educational backgrounds. Generally, only United States citizens and permanent residents are eligible to apply for federal student financial aid.

John Miller, assistant director of the FBI, said in a statement that "during the September 11 investigation and continually since, much of the intelligence has indicated that terrorists have exploited programs involving student visas and financial aid. In some student loan frauds, identity theft has been a factor."

He said the Education Department was asked to "run names of subjects already material to counterterrorism investigations" to look for evidence of student loan fraud or identity theft, and that was not a sweeping program, in that it had involved only a few hundred names.



Comment on this Article

---

King Tony's "Empire"

---

'Deluded': Extraordinary attack on Blair by Cabinet - 'Self-indulgent' PM urged to 'end the pantomime' as senior ministers meet to hasten his departure

By Francis Elliott
03 September 2006

Tony Blair will be served notice to quit Downing Street at a meeting of the Cabinet next week when senior ministers plan to confront him over his refusal to commit to a departure timetable.

One described Mr Blair this weekend as "deluded", while another said he was being "self-indulgent". They are among a growing number of cabinet ministers, some formerly loyal to Mr Blair, who have concluded he must leave office sooner rather than later if Labour is to have a chance of winning a fourth term.

"This pantomime has to end or we are going to lose the next election," said one last night.
Another was brutally dismissive of the Prime Minister's attempt to "spray around policy initiatives" ahead of the party's annual conference in Manchester. "Tony is deluding himself if he thinks that anyone is listening to all this stuff."

Senior ministers were speaking last night of "near-panic" among MPs in marginal seats as Labour's poll ratings plunge because of the in-fighting.

One said that Mr Blair was being "self-indulgent" in seeking to bind the hands of his successor to ever-more radical reforms of the public services .

A group of senior ministers is determined at a meeting of a so-called "political Cabinet" next week to tell the Prime Minister to his face that he must give a clear timetable at the conference.

It will be the first time Mr Blair has met all his most senior colleagues since his controversial handling of the Lebanon conflict that led to near-mutiny.

His diminishing stock of political authority was laid bare when ministers such as Jack Straw and Douglas Alexander made clear their opposition to his hard-line stance.

Now he faces a full-scale revolt after suggesting that the "largest part" of those MPs who want him to go also desire a return to the beliefs and practices of "Old Labour".

The remark, made in his interview with The Times on Thursday, was described as an "outrageous slur" by one of Gordon Brown's key lieutenants. "Blair is doing the Tories' dirty work for them."

Mr Blair's allies tried to cool tempers yesterday by suggesting that the Prime Minister would announce his departure ahead of the Scottish, Welsh and English local authority elections in May.

But senior Labour MPs say they need a public commitment to a timetable at the party's conference or they will begin collecting support for a public call on Mr Blair to quit.

The fallout from his instruction to MPs to stop "obsessing" about his departure showed little signs of abating yesterday. He was dogged during a visit to Edinburgh by reporters' shouted questions on his exit plans.

And the internal battles convulsing Labour were set to intensify last night with fresh interventions from Ed Balls, Mr Brown's most trusted adviser on one side, and Alan Milburn, an ultra-Blairite, on the other.

Mr Balls is set to repeat his warning to Mr Blair that he must not make the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying too long in power.



Comment on this Article

---

Goats and Hussars: A British Harbinger of American Defeat

By Chris Floyd, TO UK Correspondant
31 August 2006

[I]n Iraq last week,British forces abandoned their base at Abu Naji and disappeared into the desert wastes and marshes along the Iranian border. The move was largely ignored by the American media, but the implications are enormous. The UK contingent of the invading coalition has always been the proverbial canary in the mine shaft: if they can't make a go of things in what we've long been told is the "secure south," where friendly Shiites hold absolute sway, then the entire misbegotten Bush-Blair enterprise is well and truly FUBAR.

Don Rumsfeld is fond of historical analogies when pontificating about Iraq; he particularly favors comparisons to the Nazi era and the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II. Unfortunately, any historian will tell you that Rummy's parallels are invariably false, even ludicrous. So we thought we'd give the beleaguered Pentagon warlord a more accurate and telling analogy to chew on.
Try this one, Don. Imagine that British occupation troops in, say, Hanover, had been forced to abandon a major base, under fire, and retreat into guerrilla operations in the Black Forest - in 1948, three years after the fall of the Nazi regime. And that as soon as the Brits made their undignified bug-out, the base had been devoured by looters while the local, Allies-backed authorities simply melted away and an extremist, virulently anti-Western militia moved into the power vacuum.

What would they have called that, Don? "Measurable progress on the road to democracy?" "Another achieved metric of our highly successful post-war plan?" Or would they have said, back in those more plain-spoken, Harry Truman days, that it was "a major defeat, a humiliating strategic reversal, foreshadowing a far greater disaster?"

You'd have to wait a long time - perhaps to the end of the "Long War" - to get a straight answer from Rumsfeld on that one, but this precise scenario, transposed from Lower Saxony to Maysan province, unfolded in Iraq last week, when British forces abandoned their base at Abu Naji and disappeared into the desert wastes and marshes along the Iranian border. The move was largely ignored by the American media, but the implications are enormous. The UK contingent of the invading coalition has always been the proverbial canary in the mine shaft: if they can't make a go of things in what we've long been told is the "secure south," where friendly Shiites hold absolute sway, then the entire misbegotten Bush-Blair enterprise is well and truly FUBAR.

The Queen's Royal Hussars, 1,200-strong, abruptly decamped from the three-year-old base last Thursday after taking constant mortar and missile fire for months from those same friendly Shiites. The move was touted as part of a long-planned, eventual turnover of security in the region to the Coalition-backed Iraqi central government, but there was just one problem: the Brits forgot to tell the Iraqis they were checking out early - and in a hurry.

"British forces evacuated the military headquarters without coordination with the Iraqi forces," Dhaffar Jabbar, spokesman for the Maysan governor, told Reuters on Thursday, as looters began moving into the camp in the wake of the British withdrawal. A unit of Iraqi government troops mutinied when told to keep order at the base - and instead attacked a military post of their own army. By Friday, the locals had torn the place to pieces, carting away more than $500,000 worth of equipment and fixtures that the British had left behind. After that initial, ineffectual show of force, the Iraqi "authorities" stepped aside and watched helplessly as the looters taunted them and cheered the "great victory" over the Western invaders.

The largely notional - if not fictional - power of the Baghdad central government simply vanished while the forces of hardline cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which already controls the local government, stepped forward to proclaim its triumph and guide the victory celebrations in the nearby provincial capital, Amarah. "This is the first city that has kicked out the occupier!" blared Sadr-supplied loudspeakers to streets filled with revelers, as the Washington Post noted in a solid - but deeply buried - story on the retreat.

British officials were understandably a bit sniffy about the humiliation. First, they denied there was any problem with the handover at all: the Iraqis had been notified (a whole 24 hours in advance, apparently), the exchange of authority was brisk and efficient, and the Iraqis had "secured the base," military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge insisted to AP. But when reports of the looting at Abu Naji began pouring in, British officers simply washed their hands of the nasty business. The camp was now "the property of the Maysan authorities and Iraqi Forces [are] in attendance," said Burbridge; therefore, Her Majesty's military would have no more comment on the matter. In this casual - not to mention callous - dismissal of the chaos spawned in wake of the Hussars' departure, we can see in miniature the philosophy now being writ large across the country in the Bush administration's "Iraqization" policy: "We broke it; you fix it."

And where are Her Majesty's Hussars now? Six hundred of them have dispersed into guerrilla bands in the wilderness, where they will survive on helicopter drops of supplies while they patrol the Iranian border. The ostensible reason behind this extraordinary operation is two-fold, said the doughty Burbridge: first, to find out if the Bush administration is up to its usual mendacious hijinks in claiming that the evildoers in Iran are fuelling the insurgency among the happily liberated Iraqi people; and second, to do a little more of that Iraqization window dressing before finally getting the hell out of Dodge completely, beginning sometime next year, according to reports across the UK media spectrum.

Of course, the good major didn't put it quite like that. "The Americans believe there is an inflow of IEDs and weapons across the border with Iran," he told the Post. "Our first objective is to go and find out if that is the case. If that is true, we'll be able to disrupt the flow." The second aim is training Iraqi border guards, he added.

Yes, a few hundred men wandering through the wasteland, dependent on air-dropped rations, will certainly be able to seal off an almost 300-mile border riddled with centuries-old smuggling routes. And modern-day Desert Rats rolling up in bristling Land Rovers to isolated villages where Shiite clans span both borders will no doubt be gathering a lot of actionable intelligence from the locals. And of course it is much easier to "train Iraqi border guards" on the fly in the wild than at a long-established base with full amenities and, er, training facilities.

In other words, the British move makes no sense - if you accept the official spin at face value, i.e., that it's an act of careful deliberation aimed at furthering the Coalition's stated goals of a free, secure, democratic Iraq. But those in the reality-based community will see it for what it is: a panicky, patchwork reaction to events and forces far beyond the Coalition's intentions or control.

The other six hundred Hussars driven out of Abu Naji have retreated to the main British camp at Basra - another "safe" city that has now degenerated into a level of violence approaching the hellish chaos of Baghdad, the Independent reports. British troops who once walked the streets freely, lightly armed, wearing red berets instead of helmets, are now largely confined to the base, except for excursions to help Iraqi government forces in pitched battles against the Shiite militias that control the city. Harsh religious rule has long descended on the once freewheeling port city, again presaging the sectarian darkness now settling heavily across Baghdad.

Just a few months ago, the UK's Ministry of Defence was churning out "good news" PR stories about life at Abu Naji - such as the whimsical tale of the troop's pet goat, Ben, a lovable rogue always getting into scrapes with the regiment's crusty sergeant major, even though the soldiers "knew he had a soft spot for Ben." The goat, we were told, had enjoyed visits from such distinguished guests as the Iraqi prime minister and the Duke of Kent. Now this supposed oasis of British power has been destroyed, with the Coalition-trained Iraqi troops meant to secure it either fading into the shadows or actively joining in with the rampaging crowds and extremist militias. Meanwhile, the Hussars are reducing to roaming the countryside on vague, pointless, impossible missions, killing time, killing people - and being killed - until the inevitable collapse of the whole shebang.

The goat is gone. The canary is dying. The surrender and sack of Abu Naji is a preview of what's to come, on a much larger scale of death and chaos, as the bloodsoaked folly of Bush and Blair's war howls toward its miserable end.

--------

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. His work has appeared in print and online in venues all over the world, including The Nation, CounterPunch, Columbia Journalism Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Il Manifesto, the Moscow Times and many others. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium, and is co-founder and editor of the "Empire Burlesque" political blog. He can be reached at cfloyd72@gmail.com.



Comment on this Article

---

We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair

Friday September 1, 2006
The Guardian

- Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
- Package of proposals courts controversy

Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.

Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late.

"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional, and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves," he told BBC News. There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he added.

Mr Blair's uncompromising remarks in a BBC interview come after the Guardian revealed earlier this week full details of his wide-ranging plans for tackling social exclusion.

The package, worked out at a Chequers summit meeting with ministers and leading agencies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point, covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit - those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes.

The prime minister will set out his plans in a speech next Tuesday, but it his trenchant language in his first broadcast interview since returning from holiday which is certain to stir controversy.

He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point "pussy-footing".

Official figures released in February showed the conception rate for girls aged 13-15 was 7.5 per 1,000 in 2004. Ministers are looking at new strategies to curb teenage pregnancy and compulsory 12-week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.

The leader of the government's Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, is a strong advocate of parenting classes for people whose children behave antisocially.

The radical proposal is believed to have come out of that meeting at Chequers and a government policy paper on the issue is due to be published soon.

While help had to be offered, Mr Blair said, "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear. "You either steer clear and say that's not for government to get into, in which case you don't deal with the problem. Or, and this is really what I'm saying, I think we need to deal with these particular issues and we actually do intervene and we intervene at a very early stage.

"If you've got someone who is a teenage mum, not married, not in a stable relationship ... here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to problems in the future," he said.

The Conservatives have objected to this course, saying the government should not try to run people's lives.

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more state intervention. It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives for them."

One thinktank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born.

Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "Empty threats to pregnant mothers will do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years."

Comment: As Blair slips further into megalomania, his ideas become more and more maniacal.

Comment on this Article

---

'Why did Blair send my teenage son to fight an illegal and dishonest war?'

UK Independent
02 September 2006

The mother of a British soldier caught up in one of the bloodiest incidents in Iraq this year has accused Tony Blair of sending her son to fight an "illegal" war.

Dani Hamilton-Bing, whose son tried to quell rioters in Basra after the downing of a Lynx helicopter in May that killed five British soldiers, attacked Mr Blair for putting the lives of over-stretched troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk.

The early learning lecturer's comments are unusual because tradition dictates that military families of serving soldiers do not speak out.

But Mrs Hamilton-Bing said that anger at seeing her son sent to fight a dishonest war had driven her to take action, adding that many other military families shared her views.

She said: "My son joined to fight legal wars, not wars based on lies and deception.

"Does Tony Blair really value what these men are going through? Does he really understand the sacrifices these men and women are making?" she asked.
Mrs Hamilton-Bing was out shopping with her husband, Rob, when live images of the Lynx helicopter crash were broadcast across the world from Basra.

Frozen to the spot, they stared at the images of soldiers battling rioters, knowing that somewhere in that violent melee was their teenage son.

"We just got in the car. We couldn't get home fast enough and sat glued to the television. We just wanted to catch a glimpse of him, to know he was alive," said Mrs Hamilton-Bing, 43.

Unaware that her son was in fact inside the burning Warrior armoured vehicle on their screen, she tried to call his mobile throughout the day until they finally spoke:

"He said, 'That was me Mum, that was my wagon that was alight'. You have to remain calm but inside you are screaming and crying," she explained.

Mrs Hamilton-Bing insists that she is part of a majority vehemently against the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, who believe the forces have been over-stretched, and treated like "mercenaries" for hire by a dishonest Prime Minister.

She believes that she is only reflecting the views of the servicemen and women who say nothing because they acknowledge that they relinquished that right when they signed up and "took the Queen's shilling".

"People just see these big strapping lads going off to war and these strong people waiting behind. It is a façade," she said.

On Thursday Mrs Hamilton watched her son, Pte James Hamilton-Bing, 18, of the 1st Battalion, The Light Infantry, return to Basra after his leave, knowing full well that in his previous four months in Iraq he has endured nightly mortar attacks, riots, countless fire fights and watched a comrade die. Perhaps worse are the things he would not talk about. The first time she watched his father drive him off to the airport on his way to Iraq in April the normally relaxed lecturer - a military daughter and a military wife - disintegrated. "I couldn't walk. My legs would not carry me. I was like jelly. I just sat and cried. It was self-pity. I couldn't be bothered to get dressed, to eat. I was quite horrid and uncaring to [my 12-year-old daughter] Chloe. I didn't appreciate how she was dealing with it," she explained.

After her own mother declared that she had two choices - dissolve into a nervous wreck or channel her grief - she decided to set up a support network for families and was stunned by the response. She received calls from women just streets away and others half-way across the world. Today the Iraq families are being joined by those whose relatives have been deployed to Afghanistan.

"Nobody believes what the Government says. Nine out of 10 agree with me," she said, adding: "There is a general feeling of two steps forward, one step back all the time. There doesn't seem to be any end in sight."

Like them, she now has rituals for coping. The telephone never leaves her side. The family do not go out together in case a call comes in. Her son's bedroom is left exactly as it was the day he walked out. "When he went his bed was left as he had got out of it that morning. I would not clear it up in case he didn't come back."

The other day she found herself accosting a woman who was yelling at her young son in the supermarket. "I said, 'I don't want to be rude but can you not speak to your son like that? My son is 18 and he is in Basra. Just appreciate your son. My son could be dead any day and you are worrying over a bag of sweets'."

Over the months she has listened to the change in her teenage soldier. Initially enthusiastic, his phone calls home began to change. He stopped talking of peacekeeping and began describing deadly battles in the "hell hole". He sounded exhausted.

"They don't have enough resources. They are over-stretched. Everyone is doing two men's jobs. Every time I spoke to him he was dead on his feet. He could barely say 'yeah' on the phone."

The worst moment came when the Lebanon conflict was dominating the news, she explained: "He said, 'People have forgotten about us, Mum. We are doing this shitty job, doing our best and they have forgotten about us'. That cut me to the quick."

Mrs Hamilton-Bing admits she was fiercely proud when her son joined the Army at just 16. In their home county of Cornwall, it offered a far better career than joining the tourism or building trade. It was not until she was listening to the local news one day that she realised that the "Op Telic" training he was undergoing meant he was off to Iraq.

"I am not against war, just an illegal war. I can't understand why we are there. I want to know why we needed a UN mandate of nine out of 15 and we went in with just four. Maybe if Tony Blair tried to tell me I would understand better," she said.




Comment on this Article

---

British police arrest 14 in anti-terror raids

by Phil Hazlewood
AFP
September 2, 2006

LONDON - Fourteen men arrested in the latest high-profile anti-terrorism raid in Britain were being questioned over the alleged training and recruitment of extremists.

The 14 were arrested in police raids in London overnight Saturday on suspicion of planning acts of terrorism, prompting searches, including one at an Islamic school.

London's Metropolitan Police said the suspects were detained "on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism," following a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation" lasting months.
But they said the arrests were not linked to the July 7, 2005 suicide attacks that killed 56, including the four British Islamist extremist bombers.

Nor was it connected to the massive August 10 counter-terrorism operation against an alleged plot to blow up US-bound aircraft that led to more than two dozen arrests and unprecedented security measures at airports worldwide.

Those arrested, aged between 17 and 48, were being grilled at the high-security Paddington Green police station in central London. Home Secretary John Reid was being kept fully informed.

According to Britain's domestic Press Association (PA) news agency, the men were thought to be mainly young British Muslims of Pakistani origin.

Searches were taking place at unspecified locations in north, east and south London, but one at the Jameah Islamiyeh school in the village of Mark Cross in Sussex, south of London, was attracting particular attention.

It was reported last week that the site was once booked for a weekend by radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza and his followers.

Egyptian-born Hamza, the one-eyed, hook-handed former imam of the once-extremist Finsbury Park mosque in north London, was jailed for eight years earlier this year for soliciting to murder and race-hate crimes.

The 900-pound (1,300-euro, 1700-dollar) a year school is independently run and provides an Islamic education for Muslim boys aged 11 to 15.

Sussex Police said no arrests had been made there but the search could take "days, possibly weeks."

According to British school inspectors Ofsted, which assessed its running in December last year, there were only nine boys on its books. It also concluded that the school "does not provide a satisfactory education for its pupils."

Among its criticisms was the fact that the "curriculum is not broad and balanced... the quality of teaching remains unsatisfactory."

There was no answer from the school when contacted by AFP on Saturday.

Meanwhile, police in Manchester, northwest England, said the arrest of two men there at 6:00 am (0500 GMT) Saturday under the Terrorism Act 2000 was also not connected to events in the capital.

According to the BBC, 12 of the suspects were detained in the Borough area of inner south London at a halal Chinese restaurant, The Bridge to China Town, which is popular with the local Muslim community.

It is situated above a Persian restaurant, the Iran e Ma, which is also thought to have been searched.

Of the two others, one was arrested in east London while the location of the last was not specified.

The arrests came after it was revealed in an interview recorded in July and to be broadcast Sunday that the head of the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch said thousands of British Muslims were under surveillance for direct or indirect involvement in terrorism.

Peter Clarke also told the BBC documentary that the security services were particularly concerned by the links forged between British citizens of Pakistani descent and militants in the land of their parents or grandparents.

Many young British Muslims with Pakistani backgrounds travel to Pakistan to visit relatives or attend "religious" camps where they may be targeted by extremists.

Two of the July 7 bombers were allegedly trained in explosives during one such visit.

An unnamed security source quoted by PA said there was no evidence of any imminent attack and it was not yet clear if the men were part of one group or a number.

Police have not revealed what prompted them to act overnight.



Comment on this Article

---

Britain's blackest day in Afghanistan: 14 troops die in plane crash

AFP
September 2, 2006

LONDON - British troops in Afghanistan suffered their biggest loss of life in a single incident when an aeroplane flying on a NATO mission crashed, killing 14 people on board.

The Royal Air Force Nimrod MR2 reconnaissance plane came down in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan due to a technical problem, a NATO spokesman said in Kabul, stressing that it was not shot down.
Twelve RAF personnel, a Royal Marine and a British Army soldier were killed.

The crash brings the number of British armed forces personnel deaths in Afghanistan since the start of operations against the hardline Taliban regime in 2001 to 36, including 15 in combat.

Six soldiers were killed last month alone and the steadily rising death toll has left some questioning the mission and wondering how much longer Britain can tolerate such losses.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said the crash was a "tragedy" which would "distress the whole country".

"British forces are engaged in a vital mission in Afghanistan and this terrible event starkly reminds us of the risk that they face daily," he said.

Britain has nearly 4,000 troops in Helmand as part of a NATO-led force working to bring security to the restive southern province.

With a sizeable British presence also in Iraq, accusations -- denied by the government and military top brass -- have mounted in recent months that troops are overstretched and ill-equipped.

Brigadier Ed Butler, the commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said the recent spike in deaths had caused "profound personal devastation" among families, friends and colleagues.

"Notwithstanding today's accident, and other losses suffered so far, the resilience, morale, and bearing of our servicemen and women is quite remarkable," he said.

"I am humbled by their courage and commitment in getting on with the tough job in hand; delivering over and above, and making a difference to the ordinary people of Afghanistan."

Defence expert Major Charles Heyman said the crash would inevitably cause military and political problems for Blair's government.

"It's always going to have an effect on domestic public opinion: people are going to say, 'what are our troops doing there?'," the military analyst said.

"Overall, it begins to look like an unlucky operation.

"These soldiers are the finest infantry in the world, but they will look at each other and say 'who's next?.'"

He said Pakistani contacts told him "the hills are crawling with well-armed and well-trained Taliban".

"Given this fact, the government has two options: massive reinforcement or order them to withdraw."

The latest deaths come just a day after a Fijian British Army soldier died fighting militants loyal to the deposed Taliban regime in Helmand.

Britain's Defence Secretary Des Browne called the crash "dreadful and shocking news".

He said work was ongoing to secure the site of the crash.

"All the indications are that this was a terrible accident and not the result of hostile action," he added.

"This tragic incident should serve to remind us all of the risks the British military shoulder on all our behalf across the world every day."

French President Jacques Chirac expressed his "deep emotion" to Blair in a letter. He also voiced his "solidarity in adversity".

Lieutenant General David Richards, the British general in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said they had set themselves a six-month deadline to establish a clear advantage over Taliban insurgents, in an interview with the Financial Times newspaper published earlier Saturday.



Comment on this Article

---

Zionism in Action

---

US supports all terrorists, accuses noble people of Palestine of terrorism, president

IRNA
02/09/2006

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the US supports all the terrorist groups, but, accuses the noble people of Palestine who are struggling to liberate their territories from occupation of terrorism.

He said in his address to the people of Sardasht that the United States supplied Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with advanced weapons and helped the then Iraqi regime with propaganda machine against Iran.

Ahmadinejad said that Washington also has a record of supporting terrorist attacks against residents of Iranian cities in the province including in Sardasht.
Criticizing the American brand of democracy, President Ahmadinejad said that the so-called advocates of democracy backed an invasion of Lebanon which displaced about five million people and levelled their houses to ground based on a pre-meditated conspiracy.

Ahmadinejad lambasted the White House for refusing to accept his offer to hold a televised debate without any censorship with US President George W. Bush on international issues and said that they are afraid of the logic of the great nation of Iran.

"They say that Iranian nation should not acquire nuclear energy, because there may be deviation in future," he said criticizing the US lobbying with other members of the Security Council against Iranian nuclear program.

"Iranian nation has never ignored provisions of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but, they themselves have both deviated from NPT and used weapons of mass destruction.

"So, if there should be restrictions, they should be subject to it," he said.

Ahmadinejad said that Iran had presented a reply to the package of incentives of the Group 5+1 (five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) which provides an excellent chance for moving in line with justice.

"If they are men of law and justice, they should know that Iranian nation defend their own rights," he concluded.



Comment on this Article

---

Propaganda Alert!: Britons threaten Muslim beheadings in footage

The Australian
04sep06

FAR-RIGHT extremists (read MI5) have adopted the tactics of Islamic jihadis by posting videos on the internet in which they threaten to behead British Muslims.

The films show balaclava-clad white British men brandishing guns, knives and clubs, calling on all Muslims to leave Britain or be killed. One appears to be a soldier who has served in the Gulf.

In one film, a man tells Muslims to "go home" or risk being burned alive. He threatens, "I'll cut your head off", and claims to have "comrades" across Britain who have "had enough".
The videos were made after the arrests three weeks ago of suspects connected to the alleged plot to blow up trans-Atlantic jets. Their style mimics the "martyrdom videos" of Islamic radicals.

The release of the videos on YouTube, a US-based open-access website, coincides with reports of a rise in the number of attacks on mosques.

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said the videoed threats were extremely worrying.

"There is no question there has been an increase in attacks on mosques and Muslims," he said at the weekend.

The videos, posted between August 11 and 19, depict three men, each wearing a black terrorist-style mask.

Would-be viewers of the clips, lasting two to three minutes, are told in a YouTube warning the videos "may contain content that is inappropriate for some users".

In one video, a man with a London accent says: "I wish to know what we are going to do to fight the so-called religion of peace known as Islam."

He lists incidents including the racially motivated murder of Ross Parker, a white teenager, on September 21, 2001. The alleged airline bomb plot is also mentioned, with the masked man claiming it has resulted in "no retaliation" against Muslims.

He says: "It may be because you fear prison. Well, wake up. I am calling on England, Ulster, Scotland and Wales to stand and defend the island that we love."

Another video, dated August 19, shows a balaclava-clad man with a Welsh accent telling Muslims to "go home" or be burned.

Brandishing a 30cm-long hunting knife with a serrated blade, he says: "We are going to rip the life out of you. I am going to tear your guts out. I'll cut your head off."

In a reference that may indicate a military background, he says the slaughter would remind him of being "back in the Gulf".




Comment on this Article

---

Consultant to the Executive Office of the President Caught with Videos That Show Him Having Sex with Children

ABC News
Aug. 31, 2006

An Ivy League business school professor is in federal custody for allegedly having videos of himself engaging in sexual acts with children, ABC News has learned.

Lawrence Scott Ward, 63, Professor Emeritus of Marketing at University of Pennsylvania's renowned Wharton School of Business, was caught with child pornography in his luggage and on his laptop computer after arriving at Dulles International Airport on a flight from Brazil, according to court documents.

An affidavit in support of a criminal complaint filed today in federal court in Alexandria says Ward's luggage was flagged for a more thorough inspection for possible child pornography after a customs officer noticed Ward's "excessive" trips to Thailand. Federal agents recovered at least three DVDs, in which Ward appears to be "engaging in sexual contact" with children, the affidavit reads. A video of children as young as eight engaged in sexual activity was also allegedly found on Ward's laptop computer.
Ward's resume says he has been a visiting professor at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand. Federal officials believe Thailand to be a well-known destination for so-called "sex tourists" who travel there to exploit minors. Wharton's website also lists pro bono consulting work in Brazil as one of Ward's current projects.

According to published reports, in 1999 Ward was fined $2,500 and sentenced to five years probation on charges of attempting to promote prostitution and corrupt minors. In that case, he entered a plea which allowed him to acknowledge that there was sufficient evidence to convict him, without admitting guilt for those charges.

Ward's resume lists several government consulting assignments including work with the Executive Office of the President, the FCC, Department of Commerce and the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Many of his published works deal with the effects of television advertising and marketing on children and adolescents. According to his biography, Ward has been a marketing consultant to many top companies and lists IBM, Microsoft, General Motors, Home Depot, Exxon, Citibank and Johnson & Johnson among his clients. During the 1980s, he hosted a television program, "The Wharton Business Report" on the now defunct Financial News Network. Ward's biography also states that he was chairman of a foundation that served disadvantaged children with learning disabilities.

The University of Pennsylvania issued the following statement today, relating to Ward's arrest, "We have just learned of the arrest of Scott Ward in Virginia. At the present time, we have very few details. We are currently gathering information about the situation and will take appropriate action as soon as we know more."



Comment on this Article

---

Israeli diplomat (likely Mossad) arrested for Child Porn in Atlanta

Jpost
31/08/2006

An Israeli diplomat from the Consulate-General in Atlanta was arrested Thursday on suspicion of holding child pornography material on his computer and child exploitation.

Yosef Sagir Ofri, 37, was serving as the security officer at the Israeli diplomatic mission in Atlanta and was carrying an Israeli diplomatic passport.

A press release put out by the Columbia County sheriff's office, states that the Israeli diplomat was arrested Thursday and his home was searched.

According to the indictment handed down by a Columbia County grand jury, Sagir-Ofri is charged with seducing a child by email and internet contacts, "to commit illegal acts relating to sodomy, aggravated sodomy, child molestation and aggravated child molestation, utilizing verbal descriptions, narrative accounts and photographic depictions."

The investigation was conducted by the local Sheriff department in cooperation with state and federal agencies.




Comment on this Article

---

President Bush and Islamo-Mush

Think Progress
01/09/2006

The best case is that President Bush's speech in Utah was a cynical manipulation of the American public.

Perhaps this is why he portrays his unpopular war in Iraq as part of a heroic battle against the forces of evil. Sunni and Shia, Persian and Arab, Al Qaida and Hamas are all, he claims, "a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals."

This mushy merger of rival groups and nations with vastly different histories and motives, some in actual combat with each other, may help the president convince some that they should back his war in Iraq as a way of defeating Hezbollah and Hamas. It helps him explain why he abandoned pursuit of Osama bin Laden to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They are, in his view, all the same.

Another possibility is that the president actually believes this simplistic notion picked up from the fringe writings of the radical right. He may believe that these petty groups and their posturing leaders "are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century." By inflating his enemies, he raises his own perceived role in history. He becomes the Churchillian leader of "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

It is difficult to believe that the senior leadership in the National Security Council, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports this grandiose analysis. It is harder to believe that the senior analysts in the intelligence agencies have concurred with this distorted world view.

The worst case, however, is that the president will act on his vision. He expressly abandons decades of bipartisan efforts to manage world events and contain disruptive forces. "For a half-century, America's primary goal in the Middle East was stability," he says contemptuously, embracing the neoconservative notion that we use the U.S. military for serial regime change to force a new world order.

If so, this could be not just the political posturing of an election campaign but the unveiling of a new phase in the president's long war. A war, he says, in which the "fighting there can be as fierce as it was at Omaha Beach or Guadalcanal."

A grim prediction, a bizarre campaign platform, and a future we must reject.



Comment on this Article

---

Criticize Israel? You're an Anti-Semite! - How can we have a real discussion about Mideast peace if speaking honestly about Israel is out of bounds?

Rosa Brooks
LA Times
1 Sept o6


EVER WONDER what it's like to be a pariah?

Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.
This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth - whose father fled Nazi Germany - is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the Israeli offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by either side.

It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah rocket strikes on civilian areas within Israel, calling the strikes "serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So far, so good. You can't lose when you criticize a terrorist organization.

But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death toll spiraled - with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians - Human Rights Watch also criticized Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the Israeli military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants constitutes a war crime.

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive Israel-basher ... who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch - or with Roth - knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan - it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.

But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against Hezbollah were too heavy-handed, or that Israel hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite - and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.

How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism - a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma - has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in Israel, where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.

In a climate in which good-faith criticism of Israel is automatically denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. Israeli policies are a major source of discord in the Islamic world, and anger at Israel usually spills over into anger at the U.S., Israel's biggest backer.

With resentment of Israeli policies fueling terrorism and instability both in the Middle East and around the globe, it's past time for Americans to have a serious national debate about how to bring a just peace to the Middle East. But if criticism of Israel is out of bounds, that debate can't occur - and we'll all pay the price.

Back to Human Rights Watch's critics. Why waste time denouncing imaginary anti-Semitism when there's no shortage of the real thing? From politically motivated arrests of Jews in Iran to assaults on Jewish children in Ukraine, there's plenty of genuine anti-Semitism out there - and Human Rights Watch is usually taking the lead in condemning it. So if you're bothered by anti-Semitism - if you're bothered by ideologies that insist that some human lives have less value than others - you could do a whole lot worse than send a check to Human Rights Watch.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com



Comment on this Article

---

Mom gets photos of son missing for 24 years

CNN
01/09/2006

The mother of a boy abducted 24 years ago said she's bewildered by two photographs left at her front door, apparently showing her son and two other children bound and gagged.

The old photos appear to show 12-year-old Johnny Gosch with his mouth gagged and his hands and feet tied. The boy is wearing the same sweat pants Johnny was wearing when he disappeared while delivering newspapers on the morning of September 5, 1982, his mother said.

"It's like reliving it," Noreen Gosch told The Associated Press on Thursday night. "But the bigger picture is, 'Why are they doing this?'

"Whoever had these photos had them for 24 years. I don't understand why they would do this now. It must be some kind of message."
Gosch said investigators confirmed the photos were authentic and likely taken within "hours or days" of the abduction. She said they were checking for fingerprints that could lead them to the source and possibly a breakthrough in a case that has long baffled authorities. The other boys in the photo were unidentified.

The photos were given to the state Division of Criminal Investigation's computer crime task force, West Des Moines police Lt. Jeff Miller said. He said police have not positively identified the boy in the photos as Johnny Gosch.

Johnny's disappearance triggered nationwide fears of child abductions. He was one of the first faces of missing or abducted children to appear on milk cartons across the country.

Several theories have developed since he vanished before dawn while delivering Sunday newspapers. His newspaper wagon was discovered near his West Des Moines home, but few substantial clues have surfaced since then.

Gosch believes her son was taken by child pornographers. She told authorities he briefly contacted her in 1997 but feared for his life and declined to give details about where he was. She believes his abductors got him involved in crimes, which is why he is hiding his identity.

The National Center for Missing Children is examining the other boys in the photograph and trying to match it with its database of missing children.

"These kids have parents someplace," Gosch said. "I'm sure they feel the same way I did. ... Hopefully we can do some good and give these parents some peace."

Johnny was Gosch's youngest of three children, and she has devoted her life to finding him, from raising money for private detectives to following her own leads and prodding police to try harder. She also wrote a book called "Why Johnny Can't Come Home."

Comment: More evidence of Israeli manipulation and blackmailing of American politicians? Iran war not coming fast enough? Subtle messages need to be sent to certain parties with very unsavory skeletons in their closets?

Comment on this Article

---

Middle East Madness

---

Iran: Holocaust 'exaggerated,' conference to be held in fall

Associated Press
Ha'aretz
3 September 06

Iran said Sunday it would go ahead and sponsor a conference to examine the scientific evidence supporting the Holocaust, dismissing it as "exaggerated."

The move to proceed with the controversial conference, likely to deepen Tehran's international isolation, came as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan raised concerns with Iranian officials over an exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said that because the Holocaust is a scientific issue, both opponents and proponents of the existence of the Holocaust could participate.

"God willing, a conference on the Holocaust will be held in the autumn. The Holocaust is not a sacred issue that one can't touch," he told reporters. "I have visited the Nazi camps in Eastern Europe. I think it is exaggerated," Asefi said.

Asefi did not disclose where the Holocaust conference would be held, nor who would attend. Iran first raised the possibility of the conference in January.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already had called the Nazis' World War II slaughter of 6 million European Jews a myth and said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map or moved to Germany or the United States. Those remarks prompted a global outpouring of condemnation.

Annan brought up the exhibit, that opened in response to Muslim outrage over the Prophet Muhammad caricatures in talks Saturday with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said Annan's spokesman Ahmad Fawzi.

Annan told Mottaki "we should avoid anything that incites hatred" according to Fawzi.



Comment on this Article

---

Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, New York
The Times
3 September 06

THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel's existence, defence insiders say.
"The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one," said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the "Iranian front", a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran's pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

"In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities," said one insider, "but Iran's growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player."

A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. "It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hezbollah's," a military source said.

There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria, which the Iranian defence minister described as a "mutual front against Israeli threats". Israel has not had to fight against more than one army since 1973.

During the war in Lebanon, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, the Iranian founder of Hezbollah, warned: "If the Americans attack Iran, Iran will attack Tel Aviv with missiles."

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, both Iran and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel Aviv. An emergency budget has now been assigned to building modern shelters.

"The ineptness of the Israeli Defence Forces against Hezbollah has raised the Iranians' confidence," said a leading defence analyst.

In Washington, the military hawks believe that an airstrike against Iranian nuclear bunkers remains a more straightforward, if risky, operation than chasing Hezbollah fighters and their mobile rocket launchers in Lebanon.

"Fixed targets are hopelessly vulnerable to precision bombing, and with stealth bombers even a robust air defence system doesn't make much difference," said Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative.

The option of an eventual attack remains on the table after President George Bush warned on Friday that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

While the American State Department favours engaging with President Bashar Assad of Syria in the hope of detaching him from the Iranian alliance, hawks believe Israel missed a golden opportunity to strike at Syria during the Hezbollah conflict.

"If they had acted against Syria during this last kerfuffle, the war might have ended more quickly and better," Perle added. "Syrian military installations are sitting ducks and the Syrian air force could have been destroyed on the ground in a couple of days." Assad set off alarm bells in Israel when he said during the war in Lebanon: "If we do not obtain the occupied Golan Heights by peaceful means, the resistance option is there."

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the Syrian army briefly captured the Israeli strategic post on top of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights.

Some Israeli analysts believe Syria will try again to take this post, which overlooks the Syrian capital, Damascus.

As a result of the change in the defence priorities, the budget for the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced.

The Israelis are integrating three elite brigades that performed well during the Lebanon war under one headquarters, so they can work together on deep cross-border operations in Iran and Syria.

Advocates of political engagement believe a war with Syria could unleash Islamic fundamentalist terror in what has hitherto been a stable dictatorship. Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.

"If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they'll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem," said one insider.

Comment: Comment: The sincerity with which this type of nonsense is uttered by Israeli politician is staggering. The entire world KNOWS that Iran, like Iraq, is no threat to anyone, unless attacked. The entire world KNOWS that Israel is the aggressor in the Middile East and has been relentlessly crafting a "Palestinian threat" for 50+ years. When will this ridiculous hyperbole end? What will it take for the sane people of the world to finally stand together and tell Israel and America, in no uncertain terms, to take their lies and ridiculous claims elsewhere? Time is of the essence. Note the words of Richard 'angel of death' Perle in the above article where he says:

"If they had acted against Syria during this last kerfuffle, the war might have ended more quickly and better."

To war lovers like Perle, the murder of 1300 Lebanese civilians is a "kerfuffle". Perle must be frustrated indeed that he must wait a little longer before war and bloodshed on a massive scale are unleashed on the Middle East. If you REALLY want to know what is behind Israel's War Plans and its use of the U.S. Neocons, read THIS.

Comment on this Article

---

Israel dismisses Golan negotiations

By HERB HEINON AND YA'AKOV KATZ
Jerusalem Post

Israeli officials dismissed as "na ve" a call from some European diplomats to dangle the Golan Heights as a carrot in front of Syria to get Damascus to stop arming and abetting Hizbullah.

"To say that all the Syrians need is a good gesture from Israel, and then they will do everything we want regarding Hizbullah is detached from reality," one senior source in Jerusalem said.
Finnish Ambassador Kari Veijalainen told The Jerusalem Post Tuesday that Israel would do well to signal a willingness to pick up negations with the Syrians where they broke off in 1999 as a way to get Damascus on board to help implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

According to the source, Syria has historically taken an "all or nothing" approach to negotiations. He said that its position has always been against confidence-building measures and that there are no intermediate steps with Damascus.

Syria won,t do anything to clamp down on Hizbullah before there is a "complete peace treaty," he said.

Others have pointed out that the Finnish position of Israeli "carrots" for the Syrians is not universally accepted in Europe, and that France, for instance, is opposed because of French President Jacques Chirac's antipathy to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Other voices in Europe are arguing, officials in Jerusalem said, that Syria needed to prove it was in "a constructive mood," something many doubt Assad can do.

While there is division in Europe regarding what approach to take toward Syria, there is, according to Israeli officials, unanimity of opinion regarding the need to move forward with the Palestinians.

Israel is bracing for a new call from Europe on this issue this weekend, following an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Finland. Finland holds the rotating EU presidency.

There is a feeling in Europe, according to Israeli officials, that the Palestinian track is stagnating and "something needs to move." Following the war in Lebanon and end of vacations in Europe, Israel is preparing to face down new diplomatic initiatives aimed at replacing the road map. One such initiative, put forward by the Arab League, is expected to be presented in September and will reportedly call for a cease-fire and the establishment of a yet-undefined mechanism to hammer out an overall Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Diplomatic officials said that Israel need not be flustered by the renewal of attention on the Gaza Strip, and it must press the international community to remain firm on the three conditions it set for granting legitimacy to Hamas: renouncing terrorism, recognizing Israel and accepting previous agreements.

Despite the feeling that something needs to move, one source said, "we are saying the ball remains in the Palestinian court, and they need to decide whether to accept the three conditions. We are preaching patience."

In a related development, the US plans to recommend that Israel reexamine the Rafah crossing arrangement that will be up for review in November. According to the current terms of the arrangement, European Union monitors are stationed at the terminal - the sole crossing into the Gaza Strip from Egypt - and are responsible for preventing the entry of terror suspects per Israel's request. IDF officers watch the terminal on a closed-circuit camera system from Kerem Shalom.

"No one is happy with the current arrangement," a senior US government official told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday. "The Europeans are unhappy, the Palestinians are unhappy and the Israelis are certainly unhappy."

According to the defense establishment, the EU monitor force at the crossing is not effective and does not prevent the smuggling of arms and the passage of suspected terrorists in and out of Gaza.

The US official also held high hopes for the possibility that Fatah would join the Hamas and create a national-unity government. If that happens and the new government accepts the US-backed road map and the Quartet's conditions - set up following Hamas's victory in PA elections in January - the PA, the official said, could be viewed as a legitimate partner for peace talks with Israel.

"We hope there will be changes on the Palestinian side in the coming weeks and months," he said. "A national-unity government within the PA could be that change."

The Bush administration, the official said, has not given up on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's West Bank withdrawal plan but believed that before unilateral steps, Israel should first attempt to talk with the PA. "Convergence is supposed to come after an effort to negotiate and only after those talks fail," he official said.

Comment: A peace gesture? By Israel!? Are you joking? Anyone that thinks that the Zionist psychopaths are going to throw away the 50 years of careful war mongering and manipulation that got them to their current position where they can launch their final solution to their 'Middle East problem' is madder than they are.

Comment on this Article

---

Iranian PM Tells The Truth: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Juan Cole
27/08/2006

Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday:

Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."


Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.

The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.

Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei's pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no first strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, 'Khamenei threatens reprisals against US." In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news.

Although Iran's protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak. I don't think that work is very advanced. The Iranians maintain that it is for peaceful energy generation.

Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants.



Comment on this Article

---

US carries out subcritical nuclear test

ABC.net.au
01/09/2006

The United States says it has carried out a subcritical nuclear experiment successfully at an underground test site in Nevada - the 23rd such test since 1997.

The test came amid intensifying US-led international efforts to press North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear programs.

It was the 10th test under the administration of President George W Bush, despite persistent criticism by anti-nuclear groups.
The previous test was conducted on February 23.

Many activists and experts argue that the tests undermine the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons and that the Bush administration is carrying them out to use them to boost its efforts to develop new nuclear arms.

The US Government maintains the subcritical tests do not violate the treaty because they do not involve a nuclear chain reaction and are necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear stockpiles.

It also insists they are fully consistent with nuclear test moratorium it has maintained since 1992.

"The Los Alamos National Laboratory conducted the experiment to gather scientific data that provides crucial information to maintain the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests," the department's National Nuclear Security Administration said in a statement.

The administration said the subcritical tests do not involve nuclear explosion because they are designed to "examine the behaviour of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives".

"No critical mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur," it said.



Comment on this Article

---

Propaganda Alert!: Palestinian group vows to target all non-Muslims

Reuters
02/09/2006

The militant Palestinian group which kidnapped and freed two Fox News Channel journalists last month (read Israeli intelligence) vowed on Saturday to target all non-Muslims who enter the Palestinian territories.

In a statement posted on the Internet, the Holy Jihad Brigades said all non-Muslim foreigners it captures could face death unless they convert to Islam or Muslim prisoners be freed in exchange for their release.

"God ordered that we fight all infidels as they fight us all ... the blood of any infidel who comes to the land of Palestine has no sanctity," said the group, unknown before the journalists' kidnapping.
The authenticity of the statement posted on a Web site used by militant groups including Al Qaeda could not be verified.

The group freed Fox News Correspondent Steve Centanni, a 60-year-old American, and New Zealand-born cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, on Aug. 27 after forcing them at gunpoint to say in a videotape they had converted to Islam.

"Islam alone saved their blood and prevented their slaughter. We are not the type who can be fooled by their announcement ... but only God can judge intentions," it said.

The group had made a demand for the United States to free Muslim prisoners in exchange for the release of the men captured in the Gaza Strip on Aug. 14.



Comment on this Article

---

UN Warns of Gaza 'Time Bomb' (Again, but does nothing)

Palestine Chronicle
01/09/2006

The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) also warned on Friday that the Palestinian economy was collapsing.

STOCKHOLM - UN relief coordinator Jan Egeland on Friday, September 1, implored donor states to dig deep into their pockets to help the Palestinian people, warning that the situation in the Gaza Strip was a "ticking time bomb".
"We need your generous support, as we need your help to ensure that there is a cessation of hostilities and that there is more access into and out of the Palestinian territories," Egeland said at the opening of a conference of donor nations in Stockholm, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Officials from some 30 countries and some 20 international organizations were attending the conference, called to bolster the supply of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territories, in particular the Gaza Strip.

The conference is hosted by Sweden, Norway and Spain in collaboration with the UN.

The UN has had difficulty raising the 385 million dollars (300 million euros) deemed necessary to avoid a humanitarian crisis in the wake of the recent upsurge in violence in the region.

"It is many ways incomprehensible that we have only 43 percent of this appeal covered," Egeland said.

He criticised the isolation of the Palestinians, especially the closure of the road linking a supply facility in Karni to Gaza.

According latest UN estimates, there is now a one-month stock of food in densely populated Gaza which relies on external food shipments through border checkpoints which have been periodically closed by Israel.

The World Bank has warned that EU and US aid cuts, following Hamas's landslide parliamentary elections win in January, would adversely impact at least 30 percent of the Palestinian population which is dependent on government salaries.

Unemployment stands at around 45 percent and the World Bank has estimated that two-thirds of the Gaza Strip population (1.4 million) lives under the poverty line, earning less than two dollars a day.

Each square kilometer (0.4 square mile) in Gaza Strip shelters an average of 2,350 Palestinians, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Collapsing

The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) also warned on Friday that the Palestinian economy was collapsing.

"The Gazan economy is collapsing and there is no trust for the future, no investment and no hope," Arnold Vercken, WFP director for Gaza and the West Bank, told Reuters in an interview.

"A signal of hope must be given to the Gazans to re-start the economy. It is a situation of survival."

Infrastructure is also crippled while industries which have formed the backbone of the territory's economy, mainly farming and fishing, are in sharp decline, Vercken said.

"There is no more grain in the four major silos of the four major mills, and even if we are providing food to some of the needy in Gaza, that is 15-16 percent of the population, the trade has completely collapsed," he said.

"Since June no fishing is allowed at all and in fact you come to the fishing port and there is no more smell of fish. This puts out of work about 35,000 people who were living from the fishing industry."

Vercken said the WFP hoped the donor conference, coming on the heels of a Lebanon meeting in Stockholm on Thursday, August 31, which raised more than $940 million, would secure funding of its relief effort in Gaza.

The body is running a two-year operation in the territory, begun one year ago, which requires funding of $103 million, just under half of which has been secured.

"We have funding up to two months ahead," Vercken said.

The Israeli army has killed at least 200 Palestinians, about half of them civilians, in the Gaza strip since it launched a wide-scale offensive after Palestinian fighters took prisoner a soldier in late June. Palestinians, however, see the assault as a ruse to topple the Hamas-led government.



Comment on this Article

---

Big Blue Marble

---

Earthquake jolts Maluku, Indonesia

(Xinhua)
2006-09-03

A tectonic earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale jolted Indonesia's Elpaputih bay, Maluku province, at 10:33 p.m. on Saturday night, according to a local media on Sunday.

The epicenter of the quake was located in the depth of 20 km in the Maluku Sea, Antara news agency quoted Bram Mustamu, head of geophysical information section at the Meteorological and Geophysical Agency in Ambon, capital of Maluku province, as saying.


He said that the quake was located at 03.5 decrees southern latitude and 129.68 decrees eastern longitude.

"We have no immediate reports on casualties and material losses so far. But villagers have panicked and worried of the tremor," he added.

Indonesia with more than 17,000 islands, lies in a zone known as the Pacific "ring of fire", which is prone to earthquakes and volcanic activity.

Among the worst earthquakes hitting the country was the 7.9 magnitude temblor followed by subsequent tsunami in Aceh Province and Nias, North Sumatra in December 2004 which killed over 168,000 people, and the 5.9 magnitude quake hitting Yogyakarta last May, killing at least 5,700 people.



Comment on this Article

---

Tropical depression forms over Atlantic

AP
Mon Sep 4, 2006

MIAMI - A tropical depression is brewing over the open Atlantic, and meteorologists said Monday it was forecast to become the next tropical storm of the 2006 hurricane season.

The depression was located about 1,345 miles east of the Lesser Antilles, according to the National Hurricane Center.
At 5 a.m. EDT, the sixth depression of the season had top sustained winds near 35 mph and was moving toward the northwest near 12 mph, forecasters said.

The depression would be named Florence if it reaches tropical storm strength with winds of at least 39 mph. Forecasters said it could become a tropical storm by Monday or Tuesday.

It comes on the heels of Tropical Storm Ernesto, which was briefly the season's first Atlantic hurricane.



Comment on this Article

---

Crews battle 180,000-acre Montana wildfire

AP
September 4, 2006

COLUMBUS, Mont. - Fire crews battled to contain a wind-whipped wildfire in south-central Montana that has spread across 180,000 acres and burned 26 homes.

The fire made a late evening run on its west side, prompting evacuation orders for homes in the Susie Creek area south of Big Timber, said Gwen Shaffer, a fire information officer.
"We had crews in that area and they were close to buttoning things up there when the winds came up and the fire just took off," she said late Sunday. "We're sending additional crews and they'll be working through the night."

The fire is classified as the nation's No. 1 firefighting priority. Risk to people and property, and the potential for a fire's growth, are among the factors considered in establishing the rankings. They influence the allocation of crews and equipment.

There have been no reports of death caused by the fire, which has burned more than 281 square miles, nor reports of major injury to people.

"That's the one good thing in all of this," Shaffer said. "We haven't had a single life lost and we haven't even had any injuries to speak of."

The fire, about 15 miles south of Big Timber, began with lightning Aug. 22 and has led to evacuation alerts for dozens of homes. The National Guard on Sunday continued to staff roadblocks restricting access to the fire area.

Wind pushed the fire to higher elevations Saturday and in some cases it leaped up to 100 yards, creating smaller fires. Crews dug trenches and burned land around a working ranch to create a fire barrier.

Rich Winget, spokesman for the American Red Cross' Montana chapter, said a shelter has been established with 88 cots for those displaced. "It was very windy and the fire spread relatively quickly," he said.

Other Montana fires burning Sunday included three fires in the Gallatin Mountains west of Emigrant. Together they had burned almost 18,000 acres, or over 28 square miles.

In Nevada, wildfires that have scorched hundreds of square miles of prime habitat has prompted an emergency antelope hunt and relocation of unprecedented scope, state officials said.

Nevada Department of Wildlife officials authorized a special hunt of 200 antelope and the relocation of up to 350 others after determining the blackened rangeland is unable to support the herd of more than 1,000 animals northwest of Elko, about 290 miles east of Reno.

Nevada ranks second nationwide behind only Texas in the amount of land charred by wildfires this year - 1.13 million acres, or 1,777 square miles, according to the National Interagency Fire Council.



Comment on this Article

---

FDA Approves Viral Adulteration Of Our Food Supply

Byron J. Richards, CCN
August 24, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

On Friday, August 18, 2006, the FDA approved a viral cocktail to be sprayed on foods we eat. This is the first time viruses have been approved for use as food additives. The FDA wants you to believe it will be safe to consume these viruses every day for the rest of your life with no adverse health effects. This is a monumental announcement by the FDA, indicating they are throwing all caution to the wind regarding the safety of our food supply.

Are you willing to stand in line for a virus-laden sandwich? How do you like the idea of buying virus-infested food for your family? The first virally contaminated foods entering our food supply with the blessings of the FDA will be luncheon meat and poultry. Live viruses will be sprayed on foods such as cold cuts, sausages, hot dogs, sliced turkey, and chicken.

At issue is the very real problem of a poor quality FDA-approved food supply that is already full of diseased and sickly animals, many of them imported from other countries. The use of antibiotics during growth and radiation during food processing is required by the fast-food animal farms owned by multi-national companies to cover up the horrendous health of the animals they wish to feed to Americans. Animals in poor health are a friendly place for bacteria to grow and prosper, especially after such meat goes to market. Rather than address the source of the problem, the FDA wants to add another adulteration into our food supply.

The stated goal of the new FDA-approved viruses is to kill a rare bacterium known as Listeria monocytogenes. This bacterium is killed by cooking; however, it poses a problem in meats that are cooked during processing and not cooked again prior to consumption, so it can readily infect foods such as deli meats.

Yes, the FDA plans to use one infectious organism to fight another. The carnage of battle will end up in your digestive tract along with the victorious live viruses, which the FDA assures us will not attack human cells. However, they cannot possibly be certain the viruses will not attack the friendly bacteria that make up the lining of your digestive tract. The FDA approval was based on scant human testing, mostly from unrelated medical experiments. Such safety data is woefully inadequate to determine safe ingestion of a specific product by humans over the course of a lifetime.

Turning Loose the Bacteria-Killing Viruses

The company that produces these biotech viruses is Baltimore-based Intralytix, Inc. The viruses are known as bacteriophages, viruses that kill bacteria, or phages for short. Phages have been around a long time, living as parasites inside many bacteria.

Intralytix uses biotechnology to grow viral phages in a culture with Listeria, in theory teaching the viruses to recognize the bacteria. The FDA-approved cocktail contains six different viruses intended to attack one strain of bacteria.

This concoction is then sprayed on food. If Listeria is present in the food, the bacteria will ingest the viruses. This results in massive viral replication inside the bacteria, until such point as the bacteria simply bursts. This battle results in significant production of bacterial poisons called "endotoxins", as the bacteria tries to defend itself. When the bacteria burst, these endotoxins are released. These, along with the victorious live viruses, will now be on the food that will be eaten.

The FDA and Intralytix would like us to believe that these viruses will only attack the specified bacteria they are intended to kill and will be harmless to humans. I'm sorry to burst their bubble, but they can't possibly guarantee such safety. It is true that the viruses, at least at this time, cannot recognize human cells. However, the virus can potentially recognize normal bacterial cells in the human digestive tract and may be able to adapt to infect one or more of these friendly bacteria.

The FDA Certainly Knows There Are Risks

The FDA had some concerns about the amount of bacterial endotoxin in the Intralytix product before it is sprayed; however, FDA tests apparently showed that the product was adequately purified and so they declared it safe if used as approved. Will the FDA diligently monitor the quality of this product once it is on the market, or will it go the path of many FDA-approved drugs that the agency can't keep track of?

There is certainly a risk that humans will be exposed to excessive amounts of endotoxin. This could come from the manufacturing of the viral cocktail, the interaction of the viruses with bacteria after being sprayed on food, and/or the interaction of the viruses with bacteria in the digestive tract.

The human immune system is highly reactive and sensitive to bacterial endotoxins. They provoke allergy, asthma, autoimmune problems, and elevate cholesterol. They also interfere with the healthy function of cells lining the digestive tract. Researchers have demonstrated that the presence of bacterial endotoxins can start cancer in the colon.

Additionally, the human immune system reacts directly to viral phages. Thus, a person who eats a lot of processed deli meat is certain to evoke an immune reaction to the viruses. What will this reaction be? Allergy? Asthma? Autoimmunity? Cancer? How can the FDA approve a food additive that it knows can induce a variety of human immune responses? Phages are so good at disrupting normal immunity that they are being considered for use as part of organ transplant medicine.

The ingestion of significant amounts of viral phages into the human digestive tract is a wild card full of unknown outcomes. For example, it is certainly possible that these phages, which constantly mutate in order to survive, are likely to find a way to infect bacteria they were not intended to infect. Since phages are parasites, they could hijack the friendly bacteria of the digestive tract and turn them into viral machines, constantly generating viral particles that are likely to confuse the human immune system, if not directly infect the body. We know from history that these viral phages can turn innocuous bacteria into a killer, which is how cholera occurs.

Furthermore, the Listeria bacteria are not going to take the issue lying down. They will develop resistance to the viruses over time, as we have seen with the overuse of antibiotics. Going down this path we are likely to have hundreds of viral food additives in the food we eat, all designed to combat some possible infection coming from poor quality food. Sooner or later we will inadvertently create deadly new super-strains of bacteria and/or parasitically infect the human digestive tract with an untreatable infection.

There is also the very real possibility of unintended viral recombination. What happens when a person with viral stomach flu eats food containing a dose of this viral food additive? It is certainly possible for the genetic material of the flu virus to interact with the genetic material of the viral phages, provoking an undesirable new viral infection.

Let's not forget that the FDA won't tell us which foods in the food supply contain genetically modified organisms (GMO). Seventy percent of the packaged food on grocery shelves already contains GMO adulterated food. These foods have viral promoter genes woven into the DNA of every cell, a technique used to implant a pesticide toxin into every cell of this fake food (see Fight for Your Health, chapter 15). What happens when the viral phages interact with the viral promoter genes in GMO food? What new virus will be encouraged to form?

Keep in mind that the FDA wants to conduct this experiment on our food supply to protect a small minority, only about 2500 people, who are made seriously ill by this infection each year. The ill are mostly pregnant women, elderly with compromised immunity, and small children. It would be a lot more to the point if the FDA would simply warn such people that eating these foods, due to their poor quality of production, may be dangerous. What the FDA should really do is improve the quality of our food supply, the true source of the problem. Why expose millions of Americans to an unproven ingestion of live viruses for the benefit of so few?

The FDA has failed miserably for the past century to protect the public from the adulteration of our food supply by vested interests. This is just one more insult added to a long list of injuries.

The Tip of an Iceberg

Intralytix has an agenda for the American food supply, as well as for healthcare in general. This recent FDA ruling allows Intralytix and other similar biotech companies to get their foot in a door that should be slammed shut and bolted closed.

The company is also seeking FDA approval for viral sprays to treat foods that could be contaminated with E. coli and Salmonella, which means that similar "trained" viruses could end up in a majority of the protein foods in our food supply.

Intralytix sees financial opportunity. They have already licensed their now FDA-approved viral spray to an undisclosed multi-national company for use around the world. When the CEO of Intralytix, John Vazzara, was recently asked about this partner company, he refused to disclose their name. The grand profit-driven biotech experiment on the health and well being of all Americans is now in full swing.

John Vazzara also owns stock in, as well as provided seed money to start, SteelCloud Inc. (formerly Dunn Computer Corporation). SteelCloud is a defense contractor with lucrative deals with the Department of Defense, recently landing a 3.4 million dollar contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

Congress should investigate the financial ties and backroom dealings that would allow this bizarre food additive approval by the FDA.

Of course, we will need new wonder drugs to combat the new bio-tech produced infections. Americans will stay sick and the sickness-driven bio-tech industry will flourish. The bio-tech industry will make people sick on the front end and treat them on the back end. It's a win-win situation for profit on illness.

The FDA is Rapidly Becoming a Public Enemy

Experimenting with viruses being added to the food supply is incredibly dangerous and reckless. It is completely impossible for the FDA to guarantee safety in the near term or the long term. Thus, the FDA has made the bureaucratic decision that relative safety is acceptable to them. What right does the FDA have to tamper with the food supply in this manner?

It is quite clear that the Bush agenda has been to promote American biotech companies as the new future for American prosperity. Administrative opinions have trumped science in virtually every situation wherein safety conflicts with profit. The FDA acts to foster profits for biotech companies and the growth of the biotech industry. This is a betrayal of the public trust.

The leaders of the FDA are personally responsible and need to be held accountable. This means Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., temporary head of the FDA and his chief science officer, Scott Gottlieb, M.D. These men are not only obsessed with approving risky drugs for the benefits of Big Pharma, it is now clear that they are willing to allow obvious adulteration of the food supply. They seek to control what we eat, and they are tampering with survival of the human race.

The FDA does not truly know how safe viral phages are to consume on a regular basis. They have no idea of the cumulative effect over the course of a lifetime, especially as more of these viral cocktails are added to the food supply. They have no way to measure how this new type of adulteration in the food supply will interact with the poor digestive/immune health of half the American population, in combination with all the other serious adulterations already approved by the FDA. The FDA lacks due diligence in honoring its mandate to protect the American public.

Boycott Viral Tainted Foods, Support Your Sustainable Farmers

The only hope Americans have is to resurrect the quality of our food supply. Doing so is against the odds, as there are billions of dollars of profit-mongering taking our food supply in the wrong direction. One day Americans will realize that food security is as important to national security as any other topic. It is now crystal clear that we cannot count on the FDA to do the job that Harvey Wiley, M.D., envisioned one-hundred years ago.

Consumers standing in line to buy a luncheon meat sandwich will have no idea if they are ingesting live viruses as part of their meal. While the FDA will require the ingredient to be listed on packages as "bacteriophage preparation," most consumers will have no idea that means they are ingesting live viruses. Foods bought at deli counters or prepared in restaurants will not need to warn consumers.

How can any responsible parent feed virus-tainted food to their children? The FDA should be forced to revoke this approval. Every American has an obligation to support food security for our nation. Congress must correct the leadership at the FDA and the FDA itself. Americans must quit buying poor quality toxic food. Your greatest ability to change this problem is based entirely on what you purchase.



Comment on this Article

---

Going For Broke

---

Going For Broke - how ordinary families wind up bankrupt and why new legislation could be hurting those at risk

By Karen Springen
Newsweek
Aug. 31, 2006

Last year, the number of personal bankruptcies ballooned to two million as people rushed to beat last deadline for a new law that made it harder and more expensive for consumers to declare themselves broke. The increase was followed by a slump, with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reporting this week that personal bankruptcies for the year ending June 30 fell to 1.45 million-the lowest level in five years.
Does that mean Americans are in better financial shape?

Not quite, according to bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren, a professor of law at Harvard University and co-author (with her daughter) of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" (Basic Books; September 2003) and "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan" (Free Press; March 2005.) NEWSWEEK's Karen Springen spoke with Warren about why she thinks the current legislation helps lenders at the expense of ordinary Americans and how the nation can get out of a debilitating cycle of debt. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: In 2005, you testified in Congress against the new bankruptcy law. Why do you think it passed anyway?

Elizabeth Warren: This is one of those times when the imbalance in lobbying [power] could not have been more grotesque. I had people in Congress tell me that they had two and three and four [credit industry] lobbyists come by to see them every single day for months on end. There was no one to lobby for families in financial trouble ... It's just not fair.

Many indebted Americans get stuck in a bottomless pit of late fees and increased interest rates. What happens now that their bankruptcy options are reduced and it costs so much more [about $299, plus a $50 mandatory financial counseling fee as well as legal fees] to file?

Many will go bankrupt anyway. This bill was about driving up the costs of filing for bankruptcy and delaying that filing, so that people would make payments for another three to six months before they went to see a lawyer. Many of them will still apply for bankruptcy. The only people who will be denied access to bankruptcy will be the very poorest, who can't pay the increased filing fees or hire a lawyer. For the overwhelming majority of families who file for bankruptcy, there is no other option. They owe on average more than two years' income. They can't make interest payments on what they owe. The only options other than bankruptcy are going into the underground economy or knocking over [a] 7-Eleven [store].

How does the new bill change the filing process?

No one can file for bankruptcy without seeing a credit counselor, which delays the process. The paperwork has been increased, which drives up the attorneys' fees. Attorneys are required to make certain certifications, which increase the likelihood of litigation, and further push up the costs. More debt survives bankruptcy. And the list goes on. The bottom line is that the bankruptcy courthouse is still open, but the steps to the front door are steeper.

Some in the credit industry have blamed bankruptcies on overconsumption.

I wish they were right. If that were the problem, then the solution would be obvious: don't buy so many Game Boys and $200 sneakers. The problem is that's not what's wrong with families. Ninety percent of the families who file for bankruptcy do so following a job loss, a medical problem or a family torn apart by death or divorce.

So is the stereotype of debtors with too many big-screen TVs false?

It's right up there with the welfare mom who drives a Cadillac. A great story but not true.

It's commonly thought that people simply don't pay most medical debt, that they default and the hospital covers it.

The data show that more than half of the families who file for bankruptcy do so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem. And three quarters of those people have health insurance at the onset of the illness or accident that ultimately landed them in bankruptcy. Sometimes it's hospital bills, but more often, it's about co-pay, deductibles, uncovered treatments, drugs, rehab, supplies, all the things that aren't covered by insurance. So part of the answer is that the financial impact of a serious medical problem goes beyond hospital bills. Lost jobs, drugs, physicians, rehab, health supplies. It's expensive to get sick in America today-too expensive for the average family.

Health insurance companies say your figure-that medical bankruptcies contribute to more than half of all bankruptcies-is too high.

The insurance companies want us to believe that the private health insurance industry works and that everyone who is paying huge premiums monthly is safe. Our data shows that it's simply not true.

According to your research, three quarters of the people whose medical debt contributed to their bankruptcies had health insurance. What are the implications of that finding?

If our finding had been that every person in bankruptcy following a medical problem had no health insurance, then the industry would have had a very different response-we need to help more people get health insurance. Let's get the state to subsidize health insurance. Let's use this study to frighten families into paying even more for insurance. When the study showed that even those with health insurance were at terrible risk for financial collapse, the health insurance industry went crazy.

Medical bankruptcies are a modern phenomenon, right? Why didn't we see them at the turn of the century, let alone very often a generation ago?

At the turn of the century, people didn't live as long. And when they got sick, medicine couldn't do much for them. The bad news was that they died. The good financial news was that they didn't go broke. Today we've just reversed it. A person may recover physically from a serious illness, but her family may never recover financially. I have a friend whose child was hit on the head in a soccer game and lost consciousness for a few seconds. They took the little boy to the emergency room, where he spent the day and released him at the end of the day with the diagnosis that he had a bump on his head. The bill was $20,000 ... What would they have done if they hadn't had health insurance? It's not simply people with leukemia and heart transplants who run up large medical bills. It's appendectomies and blown-out knees that can leave a family financially devastated.

What's the solution to the medical bankruptcy problem?

The problem of medical bankruptcies is a symptom of a much larger problem in how we pay for healthcare in America. The solution is to reform healthcare financing. We must reform our healthcare payment system. If we don't, millions more families, hardworking, play-by-the-rules people, will end up in complete financial collapse.

Bankruptcy is meant to give people a fresh start. Is that possible for people such as the elderly with huge, ongoing medical debts and little opportunity to get a good job?

No. Bankruptcy only deals with the past. So it works particularly well for people who have bright job prospects in the future and whose problems are far behind them. For the elderly, who face ongoing difficulties paying for medical treatment, bankruptcy is some help to deal with past debts, but it won't give any future services. And they'll be limited in how often they can file. Many are living in such an economically fragile state that it takes very little to tip the financial boat over. One of the women in our study explained that she had to quit her job in a fast-food restaurant because her high blood pressure was making her feet swell, and her doctor said she couldn't stand up for the two-hour stretches required at the register. Once she quit her job, she couldn't afford her blood pressure medicine. She was caught in the classic Catch 22.

Today most college students take out loans. What will be the long-term effects of so much student debt?

Today's young people are graduating from college with debts that they will work for 10 to 20 years to pay off. Dead-flat broke looks like a real step up that they may never accomplish because they already owe so much. They have forfeited any financial security before they have even begun their financial lives.

What about mortgage debt?

Tapping into your home equity or taking risky variable-rate mortgages is borrowing more money and telling your lender they can come and get your house. When these creative lending [deals] come due, more than a million Americans will lose their homes, and millions more will be stretched to the breaking point. Never before in America have we had so many homes built so near the financial cliff. The home used to be a financial steadying point. When all else [failed], at least you had the security that your mortgage payment didn't go up and you built up financial equity in your house.

What can Americans do to stay out of debt?

It's about learning about the new rules of money. Debt is something that happens when the rest of your spending is not in balance. Any debt other than mortgage debt is a symptom that something's wrong with a family's budget. People don't realize how heavy debt is, how much it weighs. It is 50 pounds on your back.

Do you have any credit cards?

I'm what the credit industry refers to as a "deadbeat." I use my credit card and pay it off each month. They hate folks like me. I smile every time I use that credit card.



Comment on this Article

---

Recession will be nasty and deep, economist says

MarketWatch
23/08/2006

Housing is in free fall, pulling the economy down with it, Roubini argues

The United States is headed for a recession that will be "much nastier, deeper and more protracted" than the 2001 recession, says Nouriel Roubini, president of Roubini Global Economics.

Writing on his blog Wednesday, Roubini repeated his call that the U.S. would be in recession in 2007, arguing that the collapse of housing would bring down the rest of the economy. Read more.

Roubini wrote after the National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday that sales of existing homes fell 4.1% in July, while inventories soared to a 13-year high and prices flattened out on a year-over-year basis.
"This is the biggest housing slump in the last four or five decades: every housing indicator is in free fall, including now housing prices," Roubini said. The decline in investment in the housing sector will exceed the drop in investment when the Nasdaq collapsed in 2000 and 2001, he said.

And the impact of the bursting of the bubble will affect every household in America, not just the few people who owned significant shares in technology companies during the dot-com boom, he said. Prices are falling even in the Midwest, which never experienced a bubble, "a scary signal" of how much pain the drop in household wealth could cause.
Roubini is a professor of economics at New York University and was a senior economist in the White House and the Treasury Department in the late 1990s. His firm focuses largely on global macroeconomics.

While many economists share Roubini's concerns about imbalances in the global economy and in the U.S. housing sector, he stands nearly alone in predicting a recession next year.

Fed watcher Tim Duy called Roubini the "the current archetypical Eeyore," responding to a comment Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher made last week in referring to economic pessimists as "Eeyores," after Winnie the Pooh's grumpy friend.

"By itself this slump is enough to trigger a U.S. recession: its effects on real residential investment, wealth and consumption, and employment will be more severe than the tech bust that triggered the 2001 recession," Roubini said.
Housing has accounted, directly and indirectly, for about 30% of employment growth during this expansion, including employment in retail and in manufacturing producing consumer goods, he said.

In the past year, consumers spent about $200 billion of the money they pulled out of their home equity, he estimated. Already, sales of consumer durables such as cars and furniture have weakened.

"As the housing sector slumps, the job and income and wage losses in housing will percolate throughout the economy," Roubini said.

Consumers also face high energy prices, higher interest rates, stagnant wages, negative savings and high debt levels, he noted.

"This is the tipping point for the U.S. consumer and the effects will be ugly," he said. "Expect the great recession of 2007 to be much nastier, deeper and more protracted than the 2001 recession."

He also sees many of the same warning signs in other economies, including some in Europe



Comment on this Article

---

Mission Accomplished: 'Afghan crops total 92 percent of world's supply, exceed global consumption'

MSNBC
02/09/2006

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan's world-leading opium cultivation rose a "staggering" 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.

The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin - outstripping the demand of the world's heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures.

Officials warned that the illicit trade is undermining the Afghan government, which is under attack by Islamic militants that a U.S.-led offensive helped drive from power in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida bases.

"The news is very bad. On the opium front today in some of the provinces of Afghanistan, we face a state of emergency," Antonio Maria Costa, chief of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, said at a news conference. "In the southern provinces, the situation is out of control."
He talked with reporters after presenting results of the U.N. survey to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who voiced "disappointment" over the figures. "Our efforts to fight narcotics have proved inadequate," Karzai said in a statement.

With the economy struggling, there are not enough jobs and many Afghans say they have to grow opium poppies to feed their families. The trade already accounts for at least 35 percent of Afghanistan's economy, financing warlords and insurgents.

Threat to democracy?
The top U.S. narcotics official here said the opium trade is a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.

"This country could be taken down by this whole drugs problem," Doug Wankel told reporters. "We have seen what can come from Afghanistan, if you go back to 9/11. Obviously the U.S. does not want to see that again."

The bulk of the opium increase was in lawless Helmand province, where cultivation rose 162 percent and accounted for 42 percent of the Afghan crop. The province has been wracked by the surge in attacks by Taliban-led militants that has produced the worst fighting in five years.

Opium-growing increased despite the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to fight the drug over the past two years. Costa criticized the international effort and said foreign aid was "plagued by huge overhead costs" in its administration.

Comment: Bad news for some, good news for the CIA and other assorted Western intelligence agencies who fund their black budgets via their global drug trade.

Comment on this Article

---

Here We Go Again

---

Livermore Scientists Reignite JFK Assassination Debate

KTVU TV and Associated Press
21 August 06

LIVERMORE -- It's been the subject of numerous arguments, books and a major Hollywood movie and now scientists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory have turned up the heat again on just who assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

The researchers say metallurgical chemical "fingerprints" on the bullets that killed the president and wounded then Texas Governor John Connally may have been misinterpreted and that the government's crucial "single gunman theory" has been thrown into doubt.
"It basically shatters what some people call the best physical evidence around," chemist Pat Grant, director of the lab's highly respected Forensic Science Center told the San Jose Mercury News.

Grant and Lab metallurgist Erik Randich found that the chemical "fingerprints" used to identify which bullets the fragments came from were not quite the "smoking gun" as thought pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman.

The FBI used five bullet fragments recovered from the limousine, Connally's body, the president's brain and from a stretcher for its initial tests using what is known as "neutron activation" analysis.

Those tests proved inconclusive, but later tests by chemist Vincent Guinn -- a renowned specialist in neutron activation -- on the bullet lead pointed directly at Oswald. Guinn said the fragments came from just two bullets -- both of which came from Oswald's Russian-manufactured rifle.

Randich said the Lawrence Livermore tests came to a different result.

"We don't know if there were two bullets," said Randich. "There could have been two bullets, but the lead composition data shows there could be anywhere from one to five bullets."

Copyright 2006 by KTVU.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Comment on this Article

---

Suspicious Liquid On Plane Identified As Water

September 1, 2006
WSOCTV

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Air passengers from Charlotte to Little Rock, Arkansas, had to hurry off their plane Friday after someone found a suspicious liquid on board.

The flight landed at Little Rock as scheduled Friday afternoon. But about seven miles before it landed, a crew member reported two passengers with two bottles of liquid. Police, firefighters and the bomb squad were called in, but the liquid turned out to be water.


Comment: Do you still need evidence that these terror alerts have nothing to do with any real terrorism?

Comment on this Article

---

Dad, sons die in apparent murder-suicide

AP
September 3, 2006

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. - A father and his two sons died Saturday in an apparent murder-suicide at a university, authorities said.

Douglas W. Pennington, 49, shot sons Logan, 26, and Benjamin, 24, before shooting himself with a .38 caliber revolver on the Shepherd University campus, state police said. Both sons were identified as Shepherd students.

Police said the elder Pennington traveled to the campus to visit his sons, but offered no reason for the shootings.
The gunfire occurred about 2 p.m. in a parking lot, near residence halls on the campus' west side. The Penningtons were pronounced dead at local medical facilities.

"We are stunned to hear about this terrible tragedy," University President David Dunlop said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims."

University spokeswoman Valerie Owens described the campus as quieter than usual this weekend because many students have left for the Labor Day holiday. About one quarter of Shepherd's 4,000 students live in campus residence halls and apartments.

University counselors have been talking to students all afternoon and a formal counseling session on campus Saturday evening. Owens had no information on whether any students or faculty witnessed the shootings.

Shepherdstown is about 80 miles northwest of Washington, D.C., in eastern West Virginia.



Comment on this Article

---

Today's SOTT Awards

---

Chavez Says He Uncovered Coup Plot

September 2, 2006
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed Friday he had uncovered a plot to topple his government, blaming his political opponents and calling them "lackeys" of the United States.

His mention of a coup plot prompted whistles and shouts from thousands of supporters who filled the streets to welcome him home Friday after a foreign tour in which China, Malaysia and Syria offered to support Venezuela's bid for a seat on the 15-member U.N. Security Council.

He called opposition presidential candidates "lackeys of U.S. imperialism.''

"I have reports that the counter-revolutionary opposition has a plan to overthrow me in a coup,'' Chavez said. He gave no other details and did not identify any of the alleged conspirators. But he accused his enemies of planning to repeat a 2002 coup led by dissident generals that briefly drove him from power.
Chavez has warned of numerous alleged plots, though in recent months he has not mentioned any specific report of a conspiracy.

If he wins another six-year term in the December election, Chavez said he plans to call a referendum halfway through the term on whether he should stay on and whether a constitutional prohibition on running for subsequent terms should be eliminated.

The Venezuelan leader's four-nation tour was the latest in a series of international stops coinciding with his country's push for a rotating Security Council seat despite U.S. opposition.

"Support for Venezuela's candidacy to the U.N. Security Council has only grown. Everyday we have more of the world's support to defeat U.S. imperialism in the United Nations,'' Chavez told the cheering crowd. "For the first time in history, Venezuela truly holds a privileged, respected place in the world because we - for the first time - have a foreign policy that doesn't depend on any world power center.''

Washington is lobbying against Venezuela's bid and is backing Guatemala. The race will be decided by the General Assembly in a secret ballot in October.

The Security Council has five permanent members with veto power - the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France - and 10 rotating non-permanent members which serve two-year terms.

Chavez, first elected in 1998, has maintained loyal support partly through oil-funded social programs popular among the poor.



Comment on this Article

---

Mexico leftists silence Fox in election protest

Reuters
04/09/2006

Mexican President Vicente Fox was forced to abandon his last state of the nation address to Congress on Friday after leftist lawmakers alleging election fraud seized the podium and refused to let him speak.

Shortly before Fox was due to give his speech, dozens of legislators who support leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador marched up to the podium, some with banners calling the president a traitor to democracy.

Fox, who leaves office in December, avoided a more serious showdown with those who contend Lopez Obrador was robbed of the election by simply giving a copy of his speech to Congress officials and quickly returning to his residence.
It was the first time in Mexican history that opposition legislators have blocked the president's annual address and marked an escalation of a crisis that has rocked the country since a bitterly contested July 2 presidential election.

"Faced with the attitude of a group of legislators that makes it impossible to read the speech I have prepared for this occasion, I am leaving the building," Fox said in the lobby of Congress before walking out.

In a televised address to the nation later on Friday, Fox said the protest that silenced him was "not an affront to me personally but to the office of the president and the Mexican people."

In the streets outside Congress, small groups of left-wing protesters threw rocks and bottles at lines of riot police but there were no serious clashes.

Lopez Obrador has led supporters in huge street protests in the last two months and his Party of the Democratic Revolution had vowed to deny Fox a platform in Congress on Friday.

They accuse the president of complicity in a massive fraud to give victory to conservative ruling party candidate Felipe Calderon, his former energy minister. But foreign observers and Mexico's top electoral court do not agree the election was rigged.

Fox was hailed as a democracy hero when he was elected in 2000, ending 71 years of one-party rule, and still enjoys high popularity ratings as he nears the end of his term.



Comment on this Article

---

---

Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org