Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: The Most Important Book You'll Ever Read
Signs of the Times
06/09/2006
In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone's lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he had won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world's leading foreign correspondents.
The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers.
After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers' doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and "lost", never to be replaced.
His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task for which all that had gone before was but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use - his years as a foreign correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture.
Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Douglas Reed's powers on what was to be his most important undertaking - that of researching and retelling the story of the last 2000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which for the masses remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of censorship.
The Book: Commencing in 1951, Douglas Reed spent more than three years - much of this time separated from his wife and young family - working in the New York Central Library, or tapping away at his typewriter in spartan lodgings in New York or Montreal. With workmanlike zeal, the book was rewritten, all 300,000 words of it, and the Epilogue only added in 1956.
The story of the book itself - the unusual circumstances in which it was written, and how the manuscript, after having remained hidden for more than 20 years, came to light and was at last made available for publication - is part of the history of our century, throwing some light on a struggle of which the multitudes know nothing: that conducted relentlessly and unceasingly on the battleground of the human mind.
It needed some unusual source of spiritual power and motivation to bring to completion so big a book involving so much laborious research and cross-checking, a book, moreover, which seemed to have little or no chance of being published in the author's lifetime.
Although there is correspondence to show that the title was briefly discussed with one publisher, the manuscript was never submitted but remained for 22 years stowed away in three zippered files on top of a wardrobe in Reed's home in Durban, South Africa.
Relaxed and at peace with himself in the knowledge that he had carried his great enterprise as far as was possible in the circumstances of the times, Douglas Reed patiently accepted his forced retirement as journalist and writer, put behind him all that belonged to the past and adjusted himself cheerfully to a different mode of existence, in which most of his new-found friends and acquaintances, charmed by his lively mind and rich sense of humour, remained for years wholly unaware that this was indeed the Douglas Reed of literary fame.
Of this he was sure, whether or not it would happen in his lifetime, there would come a time when circumstances would permit, and the means be found, to communicate to the world his message of history rewritten, and the central message of Christianity restated.Interpretation: For the rest, The Controversy of Zion, can be left to speak for itself; indeed, it is a work of revisionist history and religious exposition the central message of which is revealed in almost every page, understanding and compassionate of people but severely critical of the inordinate and dangerous ambitions of their leaders.
In the final chapter, under the heading the Climacteric, Douglas Reed remarks that if he could have planned it all when he began writing his book in 1949, he could not have chosen a better moment than the last months of 1956 to review the long history of Talmudic Zionism and re-examine it against the background of what was still happening on the stage of world politics.
For 1956 was the year of another American presidential election in which, once again, the Zionists demonstrated their decisive power to influence Western politics; it was the year in which the nations of the West stood by as helpless spectators as Soviet forces were used to crush a spontaneous revolt and re-install a Jewish-Communist regime in Hungary; and it was the year in which Britain and France, under Zionist pressure, were drawn into the disastrous fiasco of an attempt to capture the Suez Canal, an adventure from which, once again, Israel alone gained any advantage.
Everything that has happened since Reed wrote those last sentences in 1956 has continued to endorse the correctness of his interpretation of more than 2000 years of troubled history.
The Middle East has remained an area of intense political activity and of the maximum falsification of news and suppression of genuine debate, and it was only the few with some knowledge of the role of Talmudic Zionism and Communism who could have had any chance of solving the problem of successive events of major importance, like the so-called Six Day War in 1967 and the massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Those who have read The Controversy of Zion will not be surprised to learn that there were clear signs of collusion between the Soviet Union and Israel in precipitating the Israeli attack on Egypt, for it was only because Colonel Nasser had been warned by the Kremlin bosses that Israel was about to attack Egypt's ally Syria that he moved nearly all his armed forces to his country' s northern border, where they fell an easy prey to Israel's vastly superior army.
It seemed as if nothing had changed when in 1982 Israel launched a massive and most ruthless attack on Southern Lebanon, ostensibly for the purpose of rooting out the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but actually in furtherance of an expansionist policy about which Jewish leaders have always been remarkably frank.
By this time, however, the pro-Zionist mythology generated by Western politicians and media in which Israel was always represented as a tiny and virtuous nation in constant need of help and protection, was obviously beginning to lose much of its plausibility, so that few were surprised when the British Institute of Strategic Studies announced that Israel could now be regarded as fourth in the world as a military power, after the USA, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China - well ahead of nations like Britain and France.
More deeply significant was the reaction of the Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad, to an apparent triumph of Zionist arms in Lebanon. While Western politicians and media remained timorously restrained in their comment, even after news of the massacre of an estimated 1500 men, women and children in two Beirut refugee camps, 350,000 of the residents of Tel Aviv staged a public demonstration against their government and there were reports in the Jewish press that controversy over the Lebanese war had rocked the Israel army and affected all ranks.
Of this, too, Douglas Reed seems to have had some presentiment, for among the last words in his book are these: "I believe the Jews of the world are equally beginning to see the error of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, and, as this century ends, will at last decide to seek involvement in common mankind".
Download or read the book here.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Next Phase of the Middle East War
By Michel Chossudovsky
September 4, 2006
Israel's war on Lebanon is an integral part of a US sponsored "military roadmap".
The war on Lebanon, which has resulted in countless atrocities including the destruction of the nation's economy and civilian infrastructure, is "a stage" in a sequence of carefully planned military operations.
Lebanon constitutes a strategic corridor between Israel and North-western Syria. The underlying objective of this war was the militarization of Lebanon, including the stationing of foreign troops, as a precondition for carrying out the next phase of a broader military agenda.
Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.
Moreover, the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops, following the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has contributed to opening up a "new space". The withdrawal of Syrian troops served Israeli interests. The timely pullout was of strategic significance: it was a major factor in the timing and planning of the July 2006 IDF attacks on Lebanon.
In the aftermath of the Israeli bombings and the "ceasefire", UN Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by France and the US in close consultation with the Israeli government, has paved the way for the militarization of Lebanon, under a bogus UN mandate.
The Next Phase of the Middle East War
Confirmed by official statements and military documents, the US in close coordination with Britain (and in consultation with its NATO partners), is planning to launch a war directed against Iran and Syria. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has already initiated the draft of a UN Security Council resolution with a view to imposing sanctions on Tehran for its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. Whether this resolution is adopted is not the main issue. The US may decide to proceed in defiance of the Security Council, following a veto by Russia and/or China. The vote of France and Britain, among the permanent members has already been secured.
US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack, pursuant to a sanctions regime on Iran, with or without UN approval, would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq
(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
The aerial bombing plans have been fully operational ("in an advanced state of readiness") since June 2005. The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" [Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared "an advanced state of readiness".
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'
The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately The Pentagon will decide on the sequence; " if and when" to launch military operations against Iran and Syria. Israeli military actions and those of other coalition partners including Turkey, would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon.
Ground War
While the threat of punitive aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities have been announced repeatedly by the Bush administration, recent developments suggest that an all out ground war is also under preparation.
CONPLAN constitutes only one component of the Middle East military agenda. CONPLAN 8022 does not contemplate a ground war. It posits "no boots on the ground", which was the initial assumption envisaged in relation to the proposed aerial attacks on Iran.
US and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial "punitive bombings" will almost inevitably lead coalition forces into a ground war scenario in which they will have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the battlefield.
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.
The foreign troops stationed in Lebanon under UN mandate would respond to the diktats of the US led coalition and the prior commitments reached with Washington and Tel Aviv in the context of the various military alliances (NATO-Israel, Turkey-Israel, GUUAM, etc).
War Games
These military preparations have also been marked, quite recently, by the conduct of war games.
In late August, Iran was involved in the conduct of war games in major regions of the country, including border areas with Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran's Defense Minister General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has confirmed the deployment of enhanced military capabilities including weapons systems and troops on the Iranian border: "[Iranian] forces are supervising all movements by trans-regional troops and their agents around the Iranian borders" (FARS news, 2 September 2006)
Iran War Games August 2006.
Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO) were also launched in late August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, were conducted in response to US-Israeli military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. (See Michel Chossudovsky, August 2006). In turn, China an Kazakhstan held concurrent war games under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Azerbaijan and neighboring Georgia have close military ties to Washington. Both countries are part of GUUAM, a military alliance with the US and NATO.
Turkey is a close ally of Israel. Since 2005, Israel has deployed Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government: Pakistan is also a close ally of the US and Britain. Georgia also has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, the USS Enterprise, America's largest aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf.
Map; Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research 2003. Click to enlarge.
US Troop Build-up
US troops in Iraq have been increased to 140,000 as confirmed by recent Pentagon statements (Reuters, 2 September 2006) These plans have been coupled with a the compulsory recall of "inactive servicemen" as well as the expansion of mercenary forces. (Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Pentagon justifies the troop build-up as part of a "routine" process of replacement and rotation, required in its ongoing war against "terrorists" in Iraq. The speeding up of military recruitment is also occurring in the core countries of the Anglo-American coalition including Great Britain. Australia and Canada (see also Recruiting Canada). Canada and Australia are aligned with the US. Australian Prime Minister John Howard as well as Canada's Steven Harper have confirmed their commitment to the US-Israeli war and have promised an expansion of the armed forces in their respective countries.
Meanwhile British troops stationed in Iraq have been redeployed to the Iranian border in southern Iraq. This redeployment has been casually presented by Britain's Ambassador to Iraq as part of a "crack down on smuggling and the entrance of weapons into Iraq from Iran".
While British officials are maintaining no desire or preparations for a conflict with Iran, more British troops are being mobilized and deployed to Iraq at the same time. The Light Infantry of the 2nd Battalion, another unit with rapid deployment capabilities, is deploying to the southern Iraqi border with Iran. The 2nd Battalion is being sent to Iraq under the pretext of working in the Rear Operations Battle Group which will provide escorts for military convoys and security for British forces and bases in Basra. (See Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Role of Israel
In the wake of the war on Lebanon. Israel's military plans and pronouncements are increasingly explicit. Tel Aviv has announced plans to wage a pre-emptive "full-scale war" against Iran and Syria, implying the deployment of both air and ground force. These war plans are now said to at the top of the defense agenda:
"Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources."
(...)
"The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one," said an Israeli defense 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 Defense Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria."
(...)
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."
(...)
As a result of the change in the defense priorities, the budget for the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced." (Sunday Times, 3 September 2006)
Media Disinformation
The Western media is beating the drums of war.
The Sunday Times views Israel's war plans as legitimate acts of self defense, to prevent Tehran from launching an all out nuclear attack on Israel: "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 fact that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities as confirmed by the IAEA report does not seem to be an issue for debate.
Media disinformation has contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.
Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911.
The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.
The antiwar movement has also been weakened.
While China and Russia will oppose the US led war at the diplomatic level as well as at the UN Security Council, Washington has secured the support of France and Germany. While Russia and China have military cooperation agreements with Iran, they would most probably not would intervene militarily in favor of Iran.
NATO is broadly supportive of the US led military agenda. In February 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Nuclear Weapons against Iran
The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US and Israel against Iran, is contemplated, ironically in retaliation for Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb
The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).
CONPLAN 8022, referred to above, is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferation and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be coordinated with Israel, which possesses a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground").
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The World is at a Critical Crossroads
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.
Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation.
NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey.
Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with
China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above)
In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters.
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Pentagon's Second 911
The economic and political dislocations resulting from this military agenda are far-reaching.
If the attacks directed against Iran and Syria were to proceed, martial law and/or a state of emergency could be declared in the US and possibly Britain on the pretext that the homeland is under attack by Iran sponsored terrorists. The purpose of these measures would essentially be to curb the antiwar movement and provide legitimacy to an illegal war.
The Pentagon has intimated in this regard, in an official statement, that "another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]". In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
Reversing the Tide of War
The issues raised in this article do not necessarily imply that the war will take place. What the analysis of official statments and military documents onfirms is that:
a) the war is part of a political agenda;
b) military plans to launch an attack on Iran and Syria are "in an advanced stage of readiness".
The issue is not whether the war will inevitably take place but what are the instruments at our disposal which will enable us to shunt and ultimately disarm this global military agenda.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
The legitimacy of the war must be addressed. Antiwar sentiment alone does not disarm a military agenda. High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
There is a sense of urgency. In the weeks and months ahead, the antiwar movement must act, consistently, and address a number of key issues:
1. The role of media disinformation in sustaining the military agenda is crucial.
We will not succeed in our endeavours unless the propaganda apparatus is weakened and eventually dismantled. It is essential to inform our fellow citizens on the causes and consequences of the US-led war, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities which are routinely obfuscated by the media. This is no easy task. It requires an effective counter-propaganda program which refutes mainstream media assertions.
It is essential that the relevant information and analysis reaches the broader public. The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates. The media conglomerates which control network TV and the printed press must be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.
2. There is opposition within the political establishment in the US as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces.
While this opposition does not necessarily question to overall direction of US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the "war on terrorism" consensus. The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is, therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.
3. The structure of military alliances must be addressed. A timely shift in military alliances could potentially reverse the course of history.
Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well within the political system itself.
It is essential that the commitments made by European heads of government and heads of State to Washington be cancelled or nullified, through pressure exerted at the appropriate political levels. This applies, in particular, to the unbending support of the Bush adminstration, expressed by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing the tide. Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France and Germany.
4. The holding of large antiwar rallies is important and essential. But in will not in itself reverse the tide of war unless it is accompanied by the development of a cohesive antiwar network.
What is required is a grass roots antiwar network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, as well as their corporate sponsors, and which would ultimately be instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name. The construction of this type of network will take time to develop. Initially, it should focus on developing an antiwar stance within existing citizens' organizations (e.g. trade unions, community organizations, professional regroupings, student federations, municipal councils, etc.).
5. 9/11 plays a crucial and central role in the propaganda campaign.
The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards. Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. Several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the recent foiled "liquid bomb attack". There is evidence that the several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. (e.g Bali 2002).
The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. His most recent book is America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
Original
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: For a Productive New Approach in the Middle East
September 4, 2006
Rodrigue Tremblay
The New American Empire
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
James Bovard, 1994
"In a country well governed poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed wealth is something to be ashamed of."
Confucius (551-479 BC)
"Democracy [is] when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Can you have a miltarily 'occupied democracy'? To ask the question is to answer it. When a foreign army occupies a country by force, the population cannot be in control of its destiny, whatever the language spoken by the local puppet government. -This is an oxymoron. That is the reason there could never be democracy in occupied Iraq or in occupied Afghanistan. It is only, if ever, when foreign troops leave or are kicked out that the national government in these lands can regain its legitimacy and authority.
This is a basic truth that the American president, George W. Bush, seems to have trouble understanding. In order to mobilize American public opinion behind his failed policies, Bush II is forced to rely on incendiary vocabulary to present his 'war on terror', an empty phrase, as a war against terrorists in Iraq. For example, there may be so-called 'terrorists' in Iraq, but there were none before the Bush-Cheney administration decided to invade that country on March 20, 2003, and they are not the worldwide terrorists à la al Qaeda who want to do damage to the United States. The 'al Qaeda terrorists' who have a beef against the U.S. are not in Iraq; they are in Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. ...etc. -Most of the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists, but patriots who are fighting a foreign invader. That would be the case if the United States were invaded by a foreign enemy: Americans would fight the invaders. To fight an invader is not a terrorist act but a patriotic act. For Bush, "to stay the course" in Iraq is not a policy; it is stubborness and a lack of vision.
By gratuitously and illegally attacking, invading and occupying Iraq on March 20, 2003, for reasons that Bush himself says had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism, as he openly conceded during his August 21 (2006) news conference, while continuing to babble the word "democracy", the American president is not only giving the great institution of democracy a bad name, but he has turned hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims against the West and its humanistic values. And, to make matters worse, by pushing Israel to attack and destroy the country of Lebanon, while closing his eyes on the sufferings that Israel imposes daily on the Palestinians, George W. Bush has brought upon himself the contempt and anger of most of the world. As a result of his misguided policies and dumb pronouncements, Bush has only succeeded in presenting western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as 19th Century colonial and imperialistic adventures. In this sense, George W. Bush and his cohort of Neocon advisers are truly men of the 19th Century, not of the 21st Century. In this day and age, such a policy is a dead-end approach. It can only lead to disaster.
What would be called for, at this juncture, is an international conference, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations, on the future of Iraq and of the Middle East region and their inhabitants. This may be the only way to stop the Iraqi civil war that Bush denies but that the Pentagon confirms is going on in Iraq. -A first obvious objective would be to divert the current unproductive military expenditures toward a Marshall-like Plan to raise standards of living in that part of the world. A second imperative objective would be to adopt a plan with teeth to stop, once and for all, the lawlessness that prevails in Israel-Arab relations. I suspect that most Israelis and most Palestinians are war weary and would accept a liveable compromise wrought in good faith.
If no credible leadership pushes events in that rational direction, the laws of inertia and of unintended consequences will move things toward chaos and ever more escalading conflicts.
Since the U.S. is so deeply involved in the current international mess, a reappraisal of the situation would require fundamental changes in the Bush administration's approach to international problems. This could be difficult, but surely not impossible, for the American president to, -first, stop being under the dominating influence of his vice-president, and reassert his authority to formulate foreign policy, and -second, place the interests of the pro-Israel Lobby in a more balanced perspective within American foreign policy. This would require a change of personnel, but other presidents, Ronald Reagan for example, did it with success.
The new American foreign policy toward the Middle East should take a leaf from the 1975 Helsinki Accords and the new productive approach toward the Soviet Bloc. The world needs a policy of 'detente' in the Middle East. -Western leaders should start telling all moderate Muslims, and they are the vast majority, 1- that their country, their culture and their religion will henceforth be respected; and 2- that democratic countries will assist them in their development, but will not dictate to them what political systems and what institutions they must adopt.
The current American administration is scheduled to remain in office until January 2009. The U.S. and the world cannot afford two more long years of amateurism, improvisation and failure. -Let us hope that the world of today can generate leaders of vision of the type found in the past, with Marshall, Acheson, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Baker,...etc.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@ yahoo.com.
He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'.
Visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website:www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Comment on this Editorial
Israel - Pariah Statelet
Report: "86, including 16 children killed, 270 taken prisoners in August"
MEMC & Agencies
Tuesday, 05 September 2006
A monthly report of the International Solidarity Institute for Human Right revealed that Israeli soldiers killed 86 Palestinians, including 16 children. Twelve residents were killed in targeted killing attacks. A three-day old child, and eight women were also killed in August.
Sixteen Palestinian children were killed by Israeli shells and bullets, the youngest casualty was a three-day old child, Shahad Saleh Al Eid.
The report stated that the Israeli attacks are in direct violations to the international law while Israel continues to violate the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people by using excessive force against civilians and children.
65 residents were killed by the Israeli bullets and shells in the Gaza Strip, while in the West Bank, seven residents were killed in Jenin, six in Nablus, two in Bethlehem, two in Tulkarem, one in Qalqilia, one in Tammoun and one in Tubas.
Number of Palestinians killed in July and August arrived to 285 residents.
At least 270 residents, including 11 women, were arrested in August. The eleven women were identified as Myassar Abu Ezneid, 40, Rifqa Al Ja'bary, 43, Rania Abu Khdeir, 25, all from Hebron, Roweida Oweijan, 30, from Nablus, Haya Ghanim, 20, Montaha Boshnaq, 21, both from Tulkarem, Zakiyya Ghawanma, 35, Hiba Al Ammoury, 22, Falasteen Sabah, 22, all from Al Jalazoun refugee camp in Ramallah, and two unidentified women who were arrested in Al Ezariyya town, near Jerusalem.
Troops also arrested several legislators, ministers, members of city councils and one university lecturers.
The arrested ministers are Minister of Education and Vice Prime Minister, Nasser Ed Deen Al Shaer, Dr. Aziz Dweik, head of the Palestinian Legislative Council, member of the Legislative Council, Fadel Hamdan and Mahmoud Musleh, head of Beit Ummar Municipality Farhan Alqam, member of Al Biereh city council, Ziad Dayya, head of Shaqba municipality near Ramallah, Hussein Nakhla, member of Municipality council, Sameh Mahmoud Affana, Dr, Rafiq Abu Dheir, a lecturer at Al Najah University in Nablus.
Hebron district witnessed the largest arrest campaign, at least 75 residents were arrested. In Nablus at least 45 were arrested, 29 in Qalqilia, 24 in Bethlehem, 24 in Tulkarem, 22 in Jenin, 17 in Ramallah, 6 in Jericho, 3 in Jerusalem, two in Tubas, two in Salfit, one on Tammoun and twenty residents were arrested in the Gaza Strip.
Attacks against journalists continued and extended in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, army also attacked several journalist agencies and offices.
In August 1, soldiers broke into Mass Press center and confiscated several computers, files and 550 New Israeli Shekels.
August 3, soldiers detained Romel Al Sweity, a reported with Al Hayat Al Jadeeda newspaper, after stopping him at a military checkpoint near Huwwara town, south of Nablus.
August 18, Rami Abdo, a camera man working with the Associated Press was injured by a rubber coated bullet while reporting from Bilin village, near Ramallah, during a protest against the Wall.
August 24, soldiers shot and injured Dr. Farid Abu Dheir, a lecturer at the Journalism Department at Al Najah University in Nablus as he was crossing through a checkpoint near Hebron.
August 27, an Israeli helicopter fired a missile at an armored press vehicle carrying a clear sign for Reuters, the attack took place near Al Mintar Crossing, east of Gaza City. Cameraman Fadel Shana'a was moderately injured, and a local cameraman, Sabbah Hmeida, was seriously injured.
Targeting medical teams and medical facilities also continued in August causing damage and several injuries.
August 13, Israeli soldiers broke into Al Ahli Hospital in Hebron after surrounded the building. Soldiers also broke into Al Mizan Hospital and the Hebron Governmental Hospital in Hebron.
August 20, soldiers broke into a medical center that belongs to the Islamic Charitable Society, violently searched it causing excessive damage.
August 27, soldiers stationed at a checkpoint near Aseera Al Shimaliyya village, in the northern part of the West Bank, attacked Dr. Jihad Bani Odeh, a veterinarian, and Dr. Salah Bisharat, a dentist, and struck them with rifle-buts.
August 31, a medic identifed as Majid Al Nada, 40, was injured by Israeli military fire as he was trying to transfer a wounded resident to a hospital in Nablus. Al Nada works with the Red Crescent Society.
The Israeli violations also included a strict siege over the occupied territories, installing dozens of checkpoints and barring the residents from crossing.
Invasions, shelling of civilian areas and destruction of civilian properties continues as the soldiers shelled dozens of houses in the Gaza Strip and broke into hundreds of houses in the West Bank.
Comment on this Article
Israel Said to Fear War Crimes Charges
Associated Press
Monday, September 4, 2006
Three weeks after a cease-fire ended Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah guerrillas, Israel is increasingly concerned that government officials and army officers traveling abroad could face war crimes charges, a Foreign Ministry official said Monday.
A special legal team is preparing to provide protection for officers and officials involved in the 34-day conflict in Lebanon, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
More than 850 Lebanese were killed during the conflict, most of them civilians. The human rights group Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets.
Israel has said it acted legally and accused Hezbollah of hiding among civilians in Lebanon and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians in rocket attacks. The fighting left 159 Israelis dead, including 39 civilians hit by Hezbollah rockets in Israel's northern cities. The Amnesty report also criticized Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.
The Foreign Ministry official said the legal-defense team, which includes representatives from the Justice and Defense ministries, is maintained by the government to help officials facing the possibility of war crimes charges abroad. It was first assembled to deal with charges related to Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.
He would not comment on a report in the Haaretz daily that the ministry has urged top officials against making inflammatory statements that might be used against them in legal proceedings.
Israeli Tourism Minister Yitzhak Herzog said he isn't concerned about prosecution of Israeli leaders, but he criticized some officials for excessively belligerent statements during the war that could expose them to legal action abroad.
"Today we have to understand that wars, political situations and military situations include many components, and that one of the components that have to be weighed is international law," Herzog told Army Radio.
Israeli fears of prosecution abroad are based on experience. A retired general arriving in London last year who had commanded Israeli forces in Gaza was tipped off by an Israeli diplomat that he was about to be arrested by British authorities over a 2002 air strike that killed a Hamas leader and 14 others, nine of them children. Doron Almog remained on the plane and returned to Israel.
In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faced a lawsuit in Belgium over his alleged role in a 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. Several former Israeli army chiefs of staff also have been targeted. None of the cases have succeeded.
Daniel Machover, a British attorney involved in attempts to prosecute Israeli officers including Almog, said he knew of "at least two" teams compiling evidence in Lebanon for use in future legal cases. He said it was "too early" to disclose more details.
Comment: Now why would Israeli politicians and military men fear war crimes prosecutions if they didn't committ war crimes?
Comment on this Article
Shin Bet seeks geeks in first-ever public recruiting drive
Haaretz
06/09/2006
In its first-ever public recruiting drive, being launched on Tuesday, the Shin Bet security service is calling on high-tech geeks to join the anti-terror battle. "If you thought the only way to fight terror was with Arabic, think again," says the campaign's slogan.
Shin Bet sources admit the ad campaign is also intended to change the organization's image. For many, the first thing that springs to mind at the mention of Shin Bet is torture. The people in the service are tired of that. They want the Shin Bet to be associated with advanced technology and software development.
"We want the public to know other sides [of the service], not only the investigations and dark rooms," a Shin Bet source said on Monday. "The public doesn't know the service's technological side, which is an essential tool of preventive security. Part of the campaign's aim is to bring that to mind."
"We've located web sites used by high-tech people, and will put Shin Bet banners in them," he added.
The want ads will be published over a few weeks. The service will also approach potential candidates with a letter signed by Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin.
The Shin Bet will market the jobs as "technology with real vocation, not just another start-up waiting for a chance," says a source close to the campaign.
The service was looking for people "who have been out there and made it," and who are now looking for an opportunity to develop technology "that could save lives, catch the suicide bomber on his way to Tel Aviv," he says.
"People think Israel's warfare with terror organizations takes place mainly in operative field activity. But a lot of the secret people who belong to the Shin Bet are software engineers, programmers, and IT and communications people. The technological interface is an important part of our operative activity and many of the warnings and preventive activity we hear of in the media would not have succeeded without the Shin Bet's advanced information systems," he says.
Comment: Ahhh...isn't that nice! You see, Israeli intelligence is not ALL about torturing Palestinian men, women and children to death, some of it is also about helping to FIND the Palestinian men, women and children BEFORE Shin Bet tortures them. So come on Israeli young people! Get involved, kill a few Palestinians children...you'll feel much better, Shin Bet PROMISES you will.
Comment on this Article
Bethlehem to be hemmed in on four sides, the latest for the Wall & a settler road in the southwest
Palestine News Network
06/09/2006
The Israeli forces Commander for the Central Region of the occupied West Bank, Major General Yair Naveh, has decided to confiscate 152 dunams of southern Bethlehem. The stated aims of the confiscation are "military purposes" and "the security wall. " Director of the Committee to Defend against Land Confiscation in the southern West Bank, Khalid Al Azzeh, says that this portion of the Wall will run alongside a new settler road linking Israeli settlements surrounding Bethlehem.
The Wall will stretch from southern Bethlehem to the west side in the town of Al Khader and then further south to northern Hebron's Beit Umar Village. The Palestinian land of Hebron is currently used for grazing and agriculture.
This latest confiscation notice comes in addition to the Israeli move to tighten the blockade around Bethlehem. The northern side of town was confiscated and recently taken into the Israeli controlled Jerusalem Municipality. The "new north" is now closed by several segments of the Wall. The northeast is hemmed in by the encroaching settlement on Abu Ghaneim Mountain, Har Homa. The Efrat Settlement blocks Bethlehem from the south and leads into the military compound of Gush Etzion and the Betar Illit Settlement to the southwest. Today the Israeli government issued tenders to expand two settlements with 700 additional units, over 300 of them in Betar Illit. To the northwest is Gilo Settlement built on what was Beit Jala land, a small city up the hill in western Bethlehem.
Khalid Al Azzeh issued a statement to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. He requested, on behalf of the land defense committee, that the UN take responsible action by applying the numerous existing resolutions against such confiscation. Al Azzeh also wrote that if international law and legitimacy were honored, the economic blockade would end, as would land confiscation, agricultural destruction and population displacement.
The statement also demanded that the Palestinian Authority and the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization step up. It read that the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruling against the Israeli Wall inside the West Bank must be presented to the UN Security Council for adoption. The final word from the Committee to Defend against Land Confiscation is calling for international law to be applied in order to stop Israeli steps to Judaize Palestinian land.
Comment on this Article
Palestinian police, workers demonstrate
By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Palestinian security officers went on the rampage in Gaza City Tuesday to demand back pay from the cash-strapped Hamas-led government, while Israel pressed ahead with its offensive against Hamas militants, killing three.
Late Tuesday, three Hamas militants were killed in two Israeli airstrikes at cars in the Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza. The military said it was targeting Hamas militants in both attacks.
The Palestinian government has been in a financial crisis since Hamas took over in March after winning parliamentary elections. Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel, has refused international pressure to renounce violence and recognize the Jewish state. In response, Western donors cut off aid.
Fatah , which controls many of the unions and dominates the powerful security forces, has openly supported the strikes, drawing accusations from Hamas that the stoppage is politically motivated.
In the West Bank , the work stoppage, launched last weekend by teachers and civil servants, escalated into a full-scale general strike as shop owners closed their stores. In one town, gunmen from the opposition Fatah Party shot weapons in the air after some businesses tried to open.
"We aren't against the government, even if we disagree with it. But for seven months we've suffered without salaries," said Nidal Khader, a security officer who helped organize the protest.
Several men threw rocks at the Palestinian parliament building, smashing windows and doors. The men tried to enter the parliament at one stage, but were held back by policemen guarding the building.
Comment on this Article
Gaza strikes kill Hamas militants
Wednesday, 6 September 2006, 06:09 GMT 07:09 UK
Five Hamas militants have died in three Israeli strikes in southern Gaza, Palestinian officials said.
An Israeli raid early on Wednesday killed one militant and hurt three near the town of Khan Younis, they said.
Hours earlier, four Hamas militants were killed in Israeli air strikes on vehicles in Rafah town. At least 20 bystanders were hurt in those attacks.
Israeli forces have been carrying out raids and air strikes on Gaza after the capture of an Israeli soldier in June.
Hundreds of Palestinians have since been killed by Israeli action.
'Several explosions'
The latest attack, near the southern city of Khan Younis, targeted the house of a Hamas militant, killing him and two others.
Israel said the raid targeted armed men who were planning to approach the border fence.
Two Hamas militants were killed in the earlier strike on a car in Rafah.
Hours before that, an Israeli drone attacked a vehicle being used by two activists from Hamas' military wing. Both men were killed.
Dozens of bystanders were also hurt, Palestinian doctors said.
Many of the injured are said to have been hit by a second blast, having rushed to the vehicle to help its passengers after the initial explosion.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the missiles had targeted militants planning an attack on Israel.
"After the aerial attack, there were a number of explosions, proving that the vehicle was carrying explosives," the spokeswoman said.
Comment on this Article
EU monitors may be forced to leave Gaza crossing by Israel
Reuters
06/09/2006
European monitors could be withdrawn from the border between Gaza and Egypt later this year amid concerns about Israeli restrictions on performing their duties, European officials said on Tuesday. "We cannot continue like this," a European official said.
The Rafah border crossing has been closed for all but 7 days since an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants on a cross-border raid on June 25.
Israel responded to the raid by launching a major ground and air offensive that has killed more than 200 Palestinians in Gaza, about half of them civilians.
Western diplomats say Israel has prevented Rafah from opening by keeping European monitors from getting to the terminal, citing security concerns.
The European official said pulling the monitors out of Rafah was "one of the options" being looked at for when the current agreement for the crossing expires in November.
Other options include relocating the monitors, who have been based in southern Israel, to Egypt.
The European monitors oversee Rafah under an agreement which took effect on Nov. 24, 2005 and was aimed at opening up Gaza after Israel withdrew settlers and soldiers from the strip last year after 38 years of occupation.
The European official said the one-year agreement could be extended, changed or cancelled.
Palestinians technically control the crossing but its operations can be blocked by Israel.
A U.S. plan calls for deploying international monitors at Gaza's main Karni commercial crossing with Israel to ensure that gateway remains open. Israel has shut the crossing frequently this year because of what it says are threats from Palestinian militants.
The U.S. proposal, submitted to donors early this month, includes the deployment of 90 foreign monitors and expanding the Karni crossing at a cost of some $19 million.
Comment: With no European observers, the IDF would have more latitude to butcher Palestinians with impunity.
Comment on this Article
Israeli military court sends captured Hamas leaders for trial
By Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
09/01/06 "The Guardian"
An Israeli military court yesterday ordered 15 Hamas leaders, including two cabinet ministers and the speaker of Palestine's parliament, to go on trial charged with membership of an outlawed organisation. The group, 12 of them elected members of the parliament, appeared in court at Ofer Camp on the occupied West Bank. At trial on December 12 they face a maximum jail sentence of 10 years if convicted.
They are among more than 30 Hamas political leaders detained in recent weeks after the capture by militants near Gaza of an Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, who is still being held. The men, in brown prison shirts and trousers, each held a finger aloft as an act of defiance as they sat together in the dock, surrounded by armed troops. Abdul Aziz Duaik, speaker of parliament, one of the most recent detained, was in pyjamas and chains.
Jawad Boulous, a lawyer representing Mr Duaik and some others, challenged the Israeli court's jurisdiction. "The defence does not recognise the legality of this court because it is a political trial," he said outside the hearing. "We're talking about leaders abducted by Israel. We demand the release of all of them."
Hamas, Islamicists responsible in the past for suicide bombings in Israel, won a surprise victory in elections in January on the promise of an end to corruption and the hope of a stronger Palestinian authority. But since Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation in Israel and most western countries, western donors held back their usual $30m (£16m) monthly support and Israel stopped transferring its usual $60m in monthly customs receipts.
The result has been to put Hamas under financial pressure at a time when its leaders have been detained, including some like Mr Duaik who are regarded as more moderate. Since March the 160,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority have not been paid and in the past week strikes have begun amid a sharp economic decline.
In Gaza, where Hamas is strong, there has been a descent into lawlessness and militancy severe enough to prompt one well-known Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, to write in a Palestinian paper this week asking militants to stop firing rockets into Israel and to end the chaos. "We have lost our sense of direction," he wrote.
Comment on this Article
Israeli panel: Ex NY Mayor Giuliani is 'best' presidential candidate for Israel
Haaretz
05/09/2006
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the "best" candidate in the 2008 race for Israel, a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by Haaretz has determined.
Giuliani is followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Ranking bottom of the list is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
As part of a new project, The Israel Factor: Ranking the presidential candidates" the panel will rank the candidates every month, up until the 2008 election, awarding them marks out of 10 on a series of questions that will determine which candidates are "best" for Israel.
Comment: Let us just reiterate that there is NO special relationship between America and Israel. No high-ranking members of American political life in any way owe their allegiance to Israel. Just remember that, ok? And ignore what is in front of your face.
Comment on this Article
GOP secretly channeled millions to Lieberman
Issue Date: www.insightmag.com - Sept. 5-11, 2006, Posted On: 9/5/2006
The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.
A senior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove's strategy to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bush contributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman's campaign for re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a "Republican-leaning" senator.
"Joe [Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball," the source said. "That doesn't mean that this was a wasted investment."
Mr. Rove has been responsible for the White House's effort to ensure a GOP majority in Congress for the last two years of Bush's presidency. Internal party polls show the GOP could lose between 30 and 40 seats in the House as well as its majority in the Senate. A Democratic majority in the Senate would require the GOP to lose at least six seats.
The source said that under Mr. Rove's direction, the GOP has abandoned its Senate candidate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, who has dropped to about five percent in the polls. Mr. Schlesinger has failed to win the support of any national Republican and has virtually no contact with the White House.
In contrast, Mr. Lieberman, who has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was deemed a major component of the GOP strategy in November. Mr. Lieberman is expected to win the general election after losing the Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. However, the race with Mr. Lamont has been tightening considerably.
"The more he [Lieberman] spits, the more that he [Bush] kisses," Mr. Schlesinger said. "I don't understand that. I guess a kiss is not just a kiss."
In July, the Republican National Committee provided the Republican Party in Connecticut with $120,900, the eighth largest contribution that month. The RNC has raised $70 million, with a special fund designated to help keep its congressional majority.
"I'm staying out of Connecticut because, you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut," President Bush said on Aug. 21. "And, plus, there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources."
Mr. Lieberman has raised most of his money from outside Connecticut. The veteran senator has turned his re-election campaign into a test of patriotism and support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
The source said that under Mr. Rove's plan, Mr. Lieberman would vote with the GOP on national security issues and help provide the party with a 50-50 split on major legislation. The deciding vote would then be cast by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Republican Party leaders plan to make national security the leading issue on the agenda in Congress when members return from the August recess. GOP leaders intend to vote on issues that relate to counterterrorism, border and port security, and national security.
"Republican leaders will be more than happy if their Democratic colleagues erect procedural hurdles against these efforts to fight terrorist organizations," Mike Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in an analysis. "The best floor strategy would be to give all of these anti-terrorism initiatives a unique identity by bundling them together into one robust legislative package. Call it Patriot Act II. There's no better way to give the voters a single opportunity to assess the anti-terrorist agenda and judge their elected officials accordingly."
Comment on this Article
Prime Minister Olmert Welcomes AJC Solidarity Mission to Israel
September 5 2006 – Jerusalem
The prime minister was emphatic that Israel's deterrence capability remains strong. "When you attack one Israeli, you attack the entire country," is the key lesson for the region, said the prime minister.
"You have always demonstrated solidarity and friendship with Israel," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, welcoming the American Jewish Committee Solidarity Mission to Israel.
Olmert, who broke away from budget meetings in order to speak to the large AJC delegation at his office, reviewed the developments that led to Israel's military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and explained why he is convinced, notwithstanding the post-war debate in Israel, that Hezbollah indeed was weakened, and over the long-term Israel's security situation will improve as a result of the war.
"The situation in Lebanon is changed forever," said Olmert. "For the first time in 35 years the Lebanese army is down south, the Hezbollah is hiding."
The second main result of the war, he continued, is "the world today is more awakened to the dangers coming from Iran."
For more than ten years Hezbollah was allowed by the international community to acquire significant amounts of rockets, and other sophisticated advanced weaponry, from Syria and Iran, "preparing to strike at a time to be determined by Iran," said the prime minister, adding his hope that the international community will act to stop the Iranian threat.
Olmert said that after Hezbollah crossed the northern border, killed several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two, as well as fired rockets, "I felt it was time for Israel to face it, to change the equation so that we won't have to face it again."
The prime minister was emphatic that Israel's deterrence capability remains strong. "When you attack one Israeli, you attack the entire country," is the key lesson for the region, said the prime minister.
The meeting yesterday at the prime minister's office was the opening session of the AJC mission, which brought to Israel more than 120 AJC members across the U.S., as well as several U.S. Christian leaders, a former deputy prime minister of Sweden, and Jewish students from Europe and Latin America. This is the second AJC Solidarity Mission to Israel since the war broke out in mid-July.
Comment on this Article
America's 'War On Terror' - A Sadistic Joke
Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith
The Nation
Tue Sep 5, 2006
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority--perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all "anti-terrorism" package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
American prohibitions on abuse of prisoners go back to the Lieber Code promulgated by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The first international Geneva Convention dates from the following year.
After World War II, international law protecting prisoners of war and all noncombatants was codified in the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified by the US Senate and, under Article II of the Constitution, they thereby became the law of the land.
Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law.
The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 "torture memo." Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised
President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in
Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, "substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
Noting that the statute "prohibits the commission of a 'war crime' by or against a US person, including US officials," he warned that "it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges." The President's determination that the Geneva Conventions did not apply "would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."
Unfortunately for top Bush officials, that "solid defense" was demolished this summer when the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva Conventions were indeed the law of the land.
The Court singled out Geneva's Common Article 3, which provides a minimum standard for the treatment of all noncombatants under all circumstances. They must be "treated humanely" and must not be subjected to "cruel treatment," "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," or "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.
Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."
The Coming Debate
Bush officials have not acknowledged that one of their real motives for gutting the War Crimes Act is to protect themselves from being prosecuted for their own crimes. But so far they have apparently offered only one other reason for tampering with the law: The existing law, especially the Geneva language prohibiting "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," is too vague to enforce. (Perhaps the Bush Administration should declare the US Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" as too vague to enforce as well.)
Fidell noted in an August 9 Washington Post article that military law includes many terms like "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer" that may appear vague but that are nonetheless enforceable. The Army Field Manual bars cruel and degrading treatment. When Attorney General Gonzales recently testified at a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that "outrages upon personal dignity" was too ambiguous, Senator John McCain stated that top military lawyers see no problem in complying with Common Article 3.
The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act and rejecting the Bush amendments, in contrast, are multiple and overwhelming:
1. Commitment to the Geneva Conventions protects US service people from future retaliation.
As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has argued, abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put US soldiers at greater risk, would "reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions" and would "undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict [Afghanistan] and in general."
2. The War Crimes Act will prohibit "torture-lite" in the future.
According to Scott Horton, the proposed legislation is "designed to provide an OK to certain techniques which fall just short of torture that are being used by the
CIA," including "waterboarding, longtime standing and hypothermia," techniques that have been "linked to severe injuries and fatalities."
3. The War Crimes Act will prohibit future
Abu Ghraib-type outrages.
The Bush Administration's legislation would remove the prohibition on "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Repealing the War Crimes Act, the Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith reported, is decriminalizing the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear that shocked the world at Abu Ghraib prison.
Derek P. Jinks an assistant law professor at the University of Texas, author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions, said in an August 9 Washington Post article that the "entire family of techniques" used to degrade, humiliate and coerce prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo "is not addressed in any way, shape or form" in the Bush Administration's proposal. Retired Army Lieut. Col. Geoffrey Corn, until recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General, said in the same article, "This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting'" the Geneva Conventions.
This "rewriting" could have very concrete ramifications in practice. The international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia deemed acts like placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and threatening them with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" to be humiliations, degrading treatment and outrages. The proposed changes to the War Crimes Act would indicate that it is not a crime for Americans to conduct such acts.
4. Gutting the War Crimes Act will promote the perception of the United States as an outlaw country.
As a letter signed by sixteen members of Congress recently said, such legislation "would harm the reputation of the United States as a leader promoting and protecting human rights." What would be more deserving of scorn than a country that lets potential war-crime defendants repeal the very law under which they might be prosecuted?
5. The Bush legislation unfairly exempts high government officials from the very war crimes charges they are leveling against lowly "grunts."
Since the start of the Iraq War there have been more than thirty prosecutions under the military law that prohibits war crimes, with many more pending. But they have all prosecuted low-level military personnel. Gutting the War Crimes Act would leave the military "bad apples" at the bottom subject to prosecution but would let the civilian "bad apples" at the top evade all responsibility.
As Horton points out, the Uniform Code of Military Justice already incorporates the Geneva Convention rules, but it does not apply "to Donald Rumsfeld or Stephen Cambone or to people in the White House." The point of the War Crimes Act is that it "spreads the application of the Geneva Conventions the next level up to civilians, and particularly to civilian policymakers." From the beginning, the "prosecutorial focus" of the War Crimes Act "was intended to provide deterrence at that level." Repealing it undermines the fundamental principle of equal justice under law.
6. Preserving the War Crimes Act is part of reasserting the rule of law in America.
The War Crimes Act has been a central focus of the Bush Administration's scorn for all Constitutional limits on the power of the President and the executive branch. It was the idea that the President could by fiat declare US and international law null and void that animated the Gonzales torture memo. It was this denial of constitutional limits that the Supreme Court resoundingly rebuked in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A rebuff to the Bush Administration's attack on the War Crimes Act is a reassertion of those constitutional limits.
The War Crimes Act can be a bridge to a more just and peaceful world. The incorporation of the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on war crimes into national law affirms America's commitment to international law. It embodies an implementation of the global heritage of the Nuremberg trials, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. It embeds that tradition within our own national law.
In the wake of World War II, Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, observed that "the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Making statesmen responsible to law is what the War Crimes Act is all about.
Defending the Law
The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act are conclusive (except perhaps to those who might face criminal prosecution under them). Indeed, the Administration's decision to gut the War Crimes Act is a gift to those who want to see American statesmen held accountable to national and international law. It suggests that the Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of many of its actions. And it shows in the sharpest relief why the War Crimes Act is needed.
But, at least for the moment, Bush's Republican allies still control both houses of Congress; they are in a position to slip a repeal of the War Crimes Act into any piece of legislation they choose. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, senior member of the House Committee for Homeland Security, told The Nation, "The Bush Administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to quietly excuse and even codify cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody, at secret CIA prisons abroad and even the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition [the outsourcing of torture and other cruel treatment to other countries]."
While the Administration has been lining up its ducks, the campaign to save the War Crimes Act has just begun. The advocacy group Just Foreign Policy has started an online campaign to save the War Crimes Act. "This is not an obscure point in the law. What's at stake here is whether, for example, the abuses of prisoners by sexual humiliation that shocked us at Abu Ghraib are clearly illegal under US law," national coordinator Robert Naiman observes. "If we found these actions outrageous, we are obligated to tell our members of Congress to protect the law that bans them."
Markey adds, "Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."
Comment on this Article
Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate
Reuters
06/09/2006
In a speech laced with quotes from Osama bin Laden, President Bush said on Tuesday that five years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda wants to set up a violent, radical Islamic caliphate based in Iraq and vowed he would not let this happen on his watch.
In the speech and an updated national security strategy report on combating terrorism, Bush renewed a push to bolster support among Americans weary of the Iraq conflict by portraying it as part of a broader war on terrorism.
White House officials denied the president's report and speech were driven by election-year politics, in which Bush is accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, and said the report had been the product of months of work.
In remarks to the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said Islamic radicals would like to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in order to "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a mortal threat to the American people."
"If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
"I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either," he said.
Bush, in an unusual move, quoted extensively from bin Laden's videotaped messages and writings, and compared him to global menaces like Russia's Vladimir Lenin and Germany's Adolf Hitler.
He cited in particular a letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002. The White House released a text of this letter.
'CAN DESTROY THE FREE WORLD'
In the letter, bin Laden wrote that an objective of al Qaeda should be to launch a media campaign to try to drive a wedge between the American people and their government and tell them that "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed to serve the interests of big investors, "especially the Jews."
Bush said al Qaeda intends to create many bases worldwide "from which they can plan new attacks and advance their vision of a unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world."
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader war on terrorism spurred by the September 11 attacks.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry said in response that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror ... A new document may get the administration through the next news cycle, but it will not win the war on terror. We need to change course, not more of the same," Kerry said.
Bush also charged that Iran is the world's most active state sponsor of international terrorism and must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
He said the international community had made a "reasonable offer" to Iran and added: "We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, the world's free nation will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."
White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend told reporters she was concerned Americans were growing complacent about the threat of terrorism because there has been no large-scale attack in the United States since September 11.
All 435 House seats, 34 of 100 Senate seats and 36 governorships are at stake on November 7. Democrats need to pick up 15 House seats and six Senate seats to reclaim majorities.
Comment: Al-Qaeda wants to set up a violent regime in Iraq? Too late! Bush got there first!
Note also:
"White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend told reporters she was concerned Americans were growing complacent about the threat of terrorism because there has been no large-scale attack in the United States since September 11."
Hmmm....a Bushite is "concerned" that Americans are "complacent" about (do not believe in) the terrorism threat that their government says is real, because theere has been no "large-scale attack in the US" since 9/11.
You know what's coming next, don't you.
Comment on this Article
Troops acting 'like terrorists?'
John Ivison
National Post
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
OTTAWA - Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend.
The resolution is one of 104 proposals on international affairs from local riding associations that will be presented at the convention. Others suggest Canada withdraw from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, while one riding association proposes a freeze on trade with Israel until the "occupation of Palestinian lands" is ended.
The Afghan mission was the subject of a number of proposed resolutions, all calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops. "The Canadian occupation is propping up a regime composed of barbarous warlords who are little better than the Taliban," says one riding association.
The resolution comparing Canadian troops to terrorists, put forward by the Nanaimo-Cowichan riding association in British Columbia, says Canada's goals "cannot be achieved by violence when the 'enemy' cannot be distinguished from ordinary citizens" and calls for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from that country.
Its release comes as the bodies of five Canadian soldiers were returned home after being killed in the Kandahar region on the weekend.
A spokesman for Jack Layton said the NDP leader would not comment on the language used in the resolution or indicate whether he intended to vote for it.
"These resolutions have not been debated yet and have absolutely no status at this time," Karl Belanger said.
Jean Crowder, the NDP MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan, also refused to comment on the resolution before it has been debated at the convention.
Last week, Mr. Layton called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops, claiming Afghanistan is "not the right mission for Canada." At that time, he said New Democrats support the Canadian Forces and are proud of the work they do.
Mr. Layton's call to bring the 2,300 troops home has been criticized by both Conservatives and Liberals, particularly since he reiterated it following the death of four Canadians in Afghanistan. Yesterday, he issued a statement expressing his condolences to the bereaved families that made no mention of his desire to withdraw combat troops.
The resolution by Ms. Crowder's riding association singles out NDP MP Peter Stoffer, who supports the mission in Afghanistan.
"This is not an acceptable position when world peace hangs in the balance. A combat role in Afghanistan is a no-win situation both for Canada and for the Afghani people. Its only dubious value is to curry favour with the militarist government of George W. Bush," it says.
Mr. Stoffer said yesterday delegates are free to express their opinions.
"But I absolutely fundamentally disagree with the statement. The people who did it are not only very naive but very antagonistic in their point of view," he said. The NDP draft policy resolutions appeared briefly on the party Web site last week before being taken down. However, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor obtained a copy and posted them on his Web site yesterday.
The resolution about Israel calls for the end to "military aid and economic trade," claiming "there can be no lasting peace in Palestine/Israel or the surrounding region without social justice."
The Trinity-Spadina riding association in Toronto called for the NDP to support the right of return for all refugees, an end to Israeli settlements and "occupation" of Palestine lands, "a halt to armed aggression, the bulldozing of homes, destruction of olive groves and farms and the assassination of political leaders and activists by the Israeli state."
It said the NDP should campaign for an end to the "rule of apartheid laws that make Palestinians and Israeli Arabs second- and third-class citizens under occupation" and added it is opposed to the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets.
Despite the widespread criticism, Darrell Bricker of pollster Ipsos Reid said the anti-war stance may pay electoral dividends for the NDP -- and the Conservatives.
"If this issue drives the next vote, Layton could pull enough anti-war votes from the Liberals to help elect Tories," he said. He said the Liberals are in a difficult position on Afghanistan because they launched the mission, and at least two of the leadership candidates -- Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison -- are in favour of its extension to 2009.
Comment on this Article
Former soldiers begin anti-Bush demonstration in Washington
AFP
Tue Sep 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - Former soldiers and parents of Americans fighting in Iraq opened anti-war, anti-Bush "Camp Democracy" in the heart of Washington, a demonstration planned to last several weeks.
After spending early August near President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and the end of the month at his family retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, the protesters set up camp in the US capital between the Congress building and the White House.
Started by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, "Camp Democracy" will welcome pacifists, Democratic lawmakers, union leaders, environmentalists, feminists and those fighting for immigrants' rights.
Five tents will be open until at least September 21 for panels, protests and press conferences.
"We're told all the time we're out there fighting for democracy. No one knows more than we do that this war has nothing to do with democracy," Michael McPhearson, a member of Veterans for Peace, told reporters. McPhearson fought in Iraq in 1991 and has a son who has just returned from there.
"This administration does not want to have a discussion, especially with those of use who have lived the nightmare of what this war is really about," said Charlie Anderson, who fought in Iraq in 2003.
Comment on this Article
We've spent half a trillion dollars on this... How the "War on Terror" industry justifies its existence by turning innocent people into "terrorists"
Video
Brasscheck.com
The 9/11, the Spain train and the London underground bombing were real. That much we know.
What we don't know, is who was responsible for them. In all three instances, the suspects died and/or got away scott free. There have never been charges, arrests or trials for any of these crimes.
What we do know is that there hasn't been a single credible arrest in the US and the UK on "terror plot" charges since September 11. The news media feeds us screaming headlines when arrests are made, but when the smoke clears and the charges are proven to be preposterous and are dropped, no one reports the rest of the story.
The so called "War on Terror" has already cost the US over half a TRILLION dollars - and that doesn't include the war in Iraq or increases in the military budget.
WATCH THE VIDEO
Comment: This is a must watch... Only the facts expose Bush and the gang for the Hoaxters they really are. You'll get a few real laughs out of this one!
Comment on this Article
Britain forced to send more troops to Iraq
Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Steven Morris
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
Britain is to reinforce its military presence in Iraq in a move that reflects increasing concern about the threat to its troops and the inability of local forces to take over responsibility for the country's security.
The decision was announced by the Ministry of Defence as the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, on her first visit to Iraq, warned that it was making "very slow" progress on security. Separately, a leading international thinktank warned that the conflict in Iraq was producing highly trained and motivated jihadists ready to commit terrorist acts in Europe and elsewhere.
The 360 extra British troops will be deployed in southern Iraq to reinforce the 19 Light Brigade which takes over from the 20 Armoured Brigade, at present based in Basra, later this year, the MoD said. They will include soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, based in Cyprus, Royal Engineers, Royal Marines and Military Police.
The MoD said the engineers would help counter the threat from improvised explosive devices, which have killed 19 British soldiers patrolling in "snatch" Land Rovers over the last 16 months. A Royal Marine boat troop will be deployed to step up security on the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which borders Iran. The extra military police will train local Iraqi forces.
At a joint Baghdad press conference, Mrs Beckett distanced herself from comments by the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, who said all 7,200 British troops in Iraq could be gone by the end of 2007, by which time Iraqi security forces would have taken over their responsibilities.
She said the president was only offering a personal opinion and "not setting a deadline". Withdrawal would depend on the capability of Iraqi forces to take over from British forces.
She said: "Coalition forces can't go now because that would create a security vacuum." She added that Iraq was making "very slow" progress on security, describing it as "two steps forward, two steps sideways".
A Foreign Office official said one of the biggest concerns was the growing involvement of Iran, which was pouring billions of pounds into Iraq, extending its influence there. Tehran enjoys a close relationship with some of the leading parties in the Shia-led Iraqi government coalition.
British officials also say Iranian elements are backing Shia militia which have infiltrated Iraqi security forces in the south of the country and are supplying equipment for increasingly sophisticated improvised roadside bombs.
In London, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned of the threat posed by jihadists experienced in fighting foreign troops in Iraq.
"The fear is that some jihadists will survive US-led counter-insurgency efforts and relocate to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Europe, and possibly the United States, better trained and motivated to perpetrate and direct terrorist operations," it warned in its latest annual strategic survey.
It added: "Events in Iraq [have] also prompted jihadists to refine and propagate urban warfare techniques, and they may choose to apply them robustly to cities elsewhere." The institute concluded: "In taking stock of counter-terrorism five years on from September 11, a grim picture emerges."
One of two British soldiers killed near Basra on Monday when a roadside bomb hit his Land Rover was named yesterday as Gunner Stephen Wright, 20, of the Royal Artillery. His father, Stephen Leigh, from Leyland, Lancs, said: "I don't want to get into why the army are there or whether they should be ... but it's hard that he's a victim of this conflict".
Meanwhile, a British soldier killed on Monday by a suicide bomber in the Afghan capital, Kabul, was named as Private Craig O'Donnell, 24, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. His parents said he was looking forward to setting up home with his girlfriend Jessica and to the birth of their first child at Christmas.
Comment on this Article
Britain to hand over security responsibility to Iraqis
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-05 22:07:30
BAGHDAD, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Visiting British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said on Tuesday that Britain was determined to hand over security responsibility to Iraqis.
"It is absolutely key that responsibility be transferred to the elected government of Iraq," Beckett told reporters after a meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih.
"There has been responsibility that has been transferred already and we hope and believe that that is a process that will continue," she said.
For his part, Salih said that by the end of this year, security control of nearly nine of the 18 provinces will be handed over to Iraqis, and command of Iraqi armed forces will be handed over to Iraqis this week.
Beckett arrived here Monday night on an official visit to Iraq, the first since she took up the post in May.
In July, British forces handed over control of Iraq's southern Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces, while Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said last month that another southern province, Dhi Qar, would follow suit in September.
Comment on this Article
Bush vows not to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 03:56:41
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday not to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and he urged the Iranian leadership to "make a different choice."
"I am not going to allow this to happen. And no future American president can allow it, either," Bush said in a speech on the war against terrorism.
"Their choice is increasingly isolating the great Iranian nation from the international community. It is time for Iran's leader to make a different choice," Bush said.
The United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. Iran has said that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes only.
The United Sates is now seeking to impose sanctions on Iran for its refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution demanding Teheran stop uranium enrichment.
Comment on this Article
U.S., EU share position on Iran's nuke issue
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 11:07:02
VIENNA, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- The United States and the European Union share the same position on Iran's nuclear issue,
While both the United States and the EU hope to resolve the issue in a diplomatic way, they have also reached consensus that the next step against Iran must involve sanctions, said Ambassador Gregory Schulte.
The United States is "waiting for the new explanation from Iran," Schulte told the Austria News Agency. If Iran would not stop its "discomforting activities," the UN Security Council should discuss the sanctions against Iran, he said.
Schulte stressed the common stand with the EU ahead of Wednesday's talks between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. The talks are considered by many a final chance to compromise on enrichment, which Tehran has vowed not to give up.
Observers see the Solana-Larijani meeting as the prelude to Thursday's conference of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain -- plus Germany.
The flurry of diplomacy followed Tehran's rejection of UN resolution 1696 which had called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program by Aug. 31.
On their informal conference on Saturday, the EU foreign ministers decided to maintain the serious talks with Tehran in efforts to solve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy.
Comment on this Article
Russia possible to join sanctions on Iran
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 04:43:49
MOSCOW, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Russia still has a possibility to join sanctions on Iran, presidential aide Igor Shuvalov
"But we think so far that actions concerning Iran must be cautious," Shuvalov was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.
"While applying economic sanctions or military operations to Iran, one must be aware of the fact that they will consolidate the Iranian people around the government and strengthen their support to the uranium enrichment program," Shuvalov said.
"When 60 million Iranian citizens decide to support the non-peaceful uranium enrichment program, that would be very dangerous indeed," he said.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in late July, urging Tehran to suspend by Aug. 31 all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, or face prospect of sanctions, which was refused by Tehran.
Comment on this Article
The State Of The World - Think You're Safe?
Tropical Storm Florence in open Atlantic
By JENNIFER KAY
Associated Press
Tue Sep 5, 2006
MIAMI - Tropical Storm Florence formed Tuesday in the open Atlantic, becoming the sixth named storm of the 2006 hurricane season, and was likely to grow.
Florence had top sustained wind near 40 mph, 1 mph over the 39 mph threshold for a tropical storm, and it was expected to slowly intensify to hurricane strength, according to the
National Hurricane Center.
"Our forecast does have it becoming a hurricane by Friday morning - minimal hurricane, Category 1," said Mark Willis, a meteorologist at the hurricane center.
Hurricanes have sustained wind of at least 74 mph; Category 1 storms have top sustained wind of up to 95 mph.
It was still too early to tell if it would hit the United States, Willis said.
At 11 a.m. EDT, the storm was centered 935 miles east of the Lesser Antilles and was moving west at about 12 mph, forecasters said. Its tropical storm-force wind extended 115 miles from its center.
Florence developed at the peak of the hurricane season over warm Atlantic water, the source of energy for storm development, Willis said.
"It's nothing like we saw last year, but the waters are still warm enough to favor tropical storms and hurricanes and intensification," Willis said.
The storm follows on the heels of Tropical Storm Ernesto, which was briefly the season's first hurricane before hitting Florida and North Carolina last week as a tropical storm.
At least nine deaths have been attributed to Ernesto, and the aftereffects were still being felt Tuesday with about 60,000 people - some 15,000 homes and businesses - remaining without power in New York's Westchester County.
In Huntington, N.Y., a tree that was believed to be about 550 years old was weakened by the storm and fell Sunday. It was believed to be the oldest black oak in North America and once stood 90 feet high.
In North Carolina, the overflowing Northeast Cape Fear River began to recede Monday, although forecasters said it probably would not be back to its normal level until the end of the week. About 140 people were evacuated in Duplin and Pender counties.
Last year's Atlantic storm season set a record with 28 named storms and 15 hurricanes, including Katrina, which devastated the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts.
The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season has not been as rough as initially feared. The National Hurricane Center lowered its Atlantic storms forecast in August to between 12 and 15 named storms and seven to nine hurricanes. Forecaster William Gray downgraded his expectations for the season Friday to 13 named storms and five hurricanes, which would be a slightly below-average season.
Comment on this Article
Strange "Fire Balls" seen in ND skies
Sep 4 2006 11:18PM
KXMBTV
If you were looking up in the sky tonight, you couldn't miss them.
Three large balls of fire.
So what were they?
According to a Bismarck man, they were mostly likely three parts of the same meteor.
Here's what one of them looked like... a lot like a comet.
But William Pearce, who holds his PHD in Astronomy and teaches at Bismarck State College says this was probably just one peice of three from the same meteor.
It's not every day you see meteors falling from the sky.
But Pearce says most of the time, they break up as they're falling into the atmosphere.
No worries according to Pearce.
Once they are in the atmosphere, they fall very quickly.
The fireballs seen about 8:30 this evening are already on the ground.
Pearce says it's even possible the peices burnt up before ever reaching the ground.
Comment on this Article
Rajasthan scientists excited about rare meteor
Tuesday, September 5, 2006 (Jaipur)
At the Geological Survey Institute in Rajasthan, scientists are excited about a six kg meteor that landed near two shepherds in a small village in Chittorgarh district on August 29.
Each year, about 500 meteors reach the earth, but only five or six of these actually reach the hands of scientists for scientific studies.
Usually meteors that land on the surface of the earth are stony meteors. It's only in 8 per cent of the cases that scientists find a meteor made up of iron and nickel like this one.
"The meteor is exciting because of its rarity. If I go to sell it in the international market, I will get $1 billion. This is rarer than gold and diamonds," said Dinkar Srivastava, Director Petrology Department, Geological Survey of India.
Solar system
Scientists are especially interested in the study of meteors because they are made up of matter that originally went into the making of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago.
This particular meteor is believed to have broken away from the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars.
"From this, we can study the minerals that went into the making of our solar system. From where this meteor has come, man cannot even dream of reaching there," said Dr R S Goyal, Director, Geological Survey of India.
The Geological Survey of India is now contacting international institutes so that space scientists from all over the world can study the meteor, which perhaps carries with it many secrets of our solar system.
Comment on this Article
Serb move may trigger new war
Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
The prime minister of the Serbian half of Bosnia has called for a referendum enabling the Serbs of Bosnia to secede, an act that could trigger a new war and spell the end of the state of Bosnia.
The remarks by Milorad Dodik came during an increasingly dirty campaign characterised by ethnic and nationalist mudslinging ahead of general elections in three weeks. They also suggested Serbia may be plotting to annex large tracts of Bosnia if Belgrade loses the southern province of Kosovo in the next six months. Talks are under way between Serbia and Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leadership, and are likely to result in independence, bitterly opposed by Belgrade.
In an interview published in the Belgrade media, Mr Dodik, prime minister of what is known as the Serbian Republic, comprising 49% of Bosnia, said a referendum on independence for his mini-state was "inevitable" since Bosnia-Herzegovina had no long-term future.
As a result of the wars of the 1990s in Kosovo and Bosnia in which Serbia tried and failed to maximise its territorial gains, Kosovo is under UN administration and poised to obtain independence from Serbia, while Bosnia is also in the final year of international governorship and struggling to become a functioning country.
Comment on this Article
Pakistan agrees peace pact with pro-Taliban tribal fighters
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
The Pakistani army and pro-Taliban tribal militants signed a peace pact yesterday aimed at ending months of ambushes, assassinations and pitched battles along the volatile Afghan border.
The unusual agreement saw the government effectively recognising a force of tribal fighters whose leaders have links to the Taliban or al-Qaida.
Under the deal, the Pakistani army will end its military campaign against the self-declared "Pakistani Taliban" - a loose alliance of tribal militias with strong links to the Afghan Islamist guerrillas - in the North Waziristan tribal agency. In return, the rebels undertake to halt all attacks on the Pakistani army, which have resulted in 350 deaths over the past three years, and prevent cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.
Article continues
President Pervez Musharraf hopes the deal will restore order to the most turbulent corner of the tribal belt, where his forces effectively lost control last spring.
The militants also imposed strict social edicts reminiscent of the Afghan Taliban such as preventing men from shaving their beards, forbidding shops from selling movies and publicly executing accused criminals. But after failing to defeat the rebels by force, the military agreed to a ceasefire last May and turned to peace talks. By yesterday Pakistani army troops had started to return to base and 132 detainees were released from jail.
The deal was struck in advance of today's visit by Gen Musharraf to Afghanistan, with whom relations reached a new low this year amid mutual recrimination. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of allowing the Taliban to organise, arm and mount cross-border attacks from bases in areas such as North Waziristan.
Comment on this Article
Rights group fears 'racial profiling' in new study
PARIS, Sept 4, 2006 (AFP)
French rights groups protested Monday after the government authorised for the first time a study on ethnic integration based on so-called "racial profiling" - a statistical technique which opponents say is against the law.
The education ministry study, which is part of a Europe-wide initiative, will require investigators to identify 500 people with a parent born in Morocco or Turkey - even if the subjects themselves have French nationality.
The study is meant to cast light on possible links between immigrant communities and problems at school, but opponents says it is a breach of a 1978 law which makes it an offence "to compile or study personal information which directly or indirectly reveal racial or ethnic origins".
"Whatever precautions are taken, this type of initiative merely sustains prejudices that exist towards certain populations - and offers no guarantee of results in the treatment of academic failure," the Movement Against Racism (MRAP) said in a statement.
Unlike other countries in Europe, France has banned studies based on racial, religious or ethnic origin on the grounds that they undermine the principle of equal citizenship.
* 5 million immigrants living in France: census
As a result there are no figures for example on the numbers of people of immigrant origin in French prisons or on unemployment lists, though anecdotally both statistics are believed to be disproportionately high.
Recently the National Information and Freedoms Commission (CNIL) - which vets demographic studies - refused to allow the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) to carry out an investigation into the state of Jewish opinion in the country.
However there is growing pressure from the government - whose Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy is a champion of "positive discrimination" to favour ethnic minorities - to move away from the blanket ban on "profiling".
Some academics also favour loosening the rules, arguing that after last year's rioting in high-immigration suburbs an accurate picture of France's ethnic mix is increasingly urgent.
But Samuel Thomas of SOS-Racisme said: "Studies based on blood-lines may be interesting in order to analyse various types of discrimination ... but we have to be on guard against abuses of interpretation.
"There is a temptation to lay everything at the door of ethnic origin and ignore social factors, family and working environment."
Under the French study, demographers in Paris and Strasbourg will identify 250 people who have at least one parent born on Morocco, 250 with at least one parent born in Turkey and 250 with both parents born in France.
The subject families will then be questioned on a range of issues - including income level, professional status, linguistic and cultural habits, religion, housing and experience of discrimination.
Because of the lack of existing personal data, the subjects will be chosen at random from the telephone book - with demographers seeking out names that look Moroccan or Turkish.
Comment on this Article
Sudan: UN force not welcomed
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 04:27:26
NAIROBI, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Sudan on Tuesday reiterated its rejection of the United Nations resolution giving the world body authority over peacekeepers in the strife-torn region of Darfur, terming it unacceptable.
Sudan's State Minister for Foreign Affairs Elwasilla Alsamani said the UN Security Council resolution passed last Thursday which calls for the deployment of more than 20,000 UN peacekeepers to take over from the beleaguered 7,000-strong AU force would be resisted.
Alsamani also clarified that it was the African Union's choice to ask its peacekeepers to leave Darfur by the end of the month, stressing they are free to remain in Darfur if it withdraws the transfer of Darfur mission to the United Nations.
"It's the African Union choice to leave Darfur. The AU said they would not be able to continue to be in Darfur after the 30th of September without getting finance. It's their choice. It's not our choice but if they changed their mind they can carry on with their mandate," the minister told reporters on the sidelines of an Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) forum on Somalia in Nairobi.
The UN Security Council last Thursday voted by 12 votes to none to create a UN peacekeeping force of up to 22,500 in Darfur.
The UN resolution is intended to give more power and funding to a 7,000-strong force, now run by the AU, which has been unable to stop the crisis in the troubled region.
But the Khartoum government who has vehemently opposed the deployment of UN troops in its western region said the Security Council hastily passed the resolution without consulting the Sudanese.
Alsamani said Khartoum submitted plans to the UN for the deployment of its own troops to replace AU monitors in Darfur, but the idea was rejected by the United States and infuriated rebel movements.
Government troops have already started massing in some parts of Darfur and AU officials reported renewed fighting that threatened to plunge the region back into chaos, four months after a fragile peace agreement was signed.
There are thousands of UN peacekeepers already deployed in southern Sudan to monitor a January 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war.
But the minister said the UN peacekeepers in southern Sudan has different mandate, adding that the situation in the vast region cannot be compared with that in Darfur.
"The UN peacekeepers in the south have got nothing to do with the one in Darfur. The one in the south came after the invitation of the Sudanese government, has got a different mandate and the situation in the south cannot be compared because the south may go after few years as a separate country," Alsamani told reporters after attending the IGAD consultative forum.
Analysts say the UN cannot take any significant action on the resolution until Sudan reverses its opposition to the proposed UN force of more than 20,000 military and police.
The United States and Britain, the two original sponsors of the resolution, said they hoped that the vote would help put new pressure on Sudan's president to agree.
Tens of thousands of people have been killed and up to 2.5 million forced from their homes since Darfur rebels took up arms in early 2003 accusing Khartoum of marginalizing the region.
Despite a peace deal last May signed by one of the three rebel factions and the government, the violence has increased.
Comment on this Article
Lebanon blockade could end in 48 hours: UN
Last Updated Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:14:25 EDT
CBC News
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has put a plan in motion that could end Israel's crippling blockade of Lebanon within 48 hours and put European naval vessels off the Lebanese coast.
In an interview with the New York Times on Tuesday, Annan described a multi-stage process in which French, Italian and Greek vessels would patrol Lebanese waters until a promised German fleet arrived.
Israel imposed the blockade in July when its military and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah began a month-long conflict. Since a UN-brokered ceasefire ended the fighting on Aug. 14, Israel has refused to lift the blockade, saying it must prevent arms shipments to Hezbollah.
Annan, who talked to a Times reporter on a flight from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, said the first step to end Israel's blockade would be an announcement from French President Jacques Chirac about deploying French ships.
That announcement would trigger the dispatch of French, Italian and Greek vessels, who would hold the line until German replacements arrived about two weeks later, the Times said.
The deployments would be part of the ceasefire agreement, which commits the UN to boosting its forces in southern Lebanon to as many as 15,000 troops from about 2,000. The Lebanese government has pledged to deploy a force of a similar size to help ensure peace and stability in the region long dominated by Hezbollah.
Israel, Hezbollah agreed to talks: Annan
On Monday, Annan said that both Israel and Hezbollah have accepted his offer to mediate in a dispute over two captured Israeli soldiers.
Hezbollah's abduction of the soldiers in a cross-border raid touched off 34 days of Israeli military offensives in Lebanon and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
Speaking in Egypt during his 11-day Middle Eastern tour, Annan said the UN would attempt to broker a settlement on the issue of prisoners held by both sides.
"I will work with the parties and I will designate someone to work quietly and discreetly with them to find a solution ... and I will not even tell you the name of the person either today or tomorrow because I want him to be able to work discreetly," he said.
Annan said Israel has already named its representative to the talks and Hezbollah is in the process of selecting someone.
While Hezbollah has expressed interest in swapping prisoners, Israeli officials would not comment on Annan's statement. Their official position is to have no directions with Hezbollah because Israel - along with many other countries - considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist group. Yet the two sides have had dealings in the past. Two years ago, for example, Israel freed Lebanese men in return for the bodies of soldiers killed in battle.
No progress in dispute in Gaza
Annan also reported no progress in resolving a separate dispute between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas over a captured Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit.
He was snatched two months ago in a cross-border raid by Hamas militants based in Gaza.
The raid spurred Israel to launch repeated offensives in Gaza, leading to several hundred Palestinian deaths and Israel's detention of many Hamas members. A number of them are legislators who belong to the political wing of Hamas, which won the Palestinian Authority election in January.
A Cairo newspaper reported that Shalit is now being held in Egypt and could be freed soon as part of a larger prisoner exchange.
Comment on this Article
Intel slashes 10,500 from workforce worldwide
by Glenn Chapman
AFP
Tue Sep 5, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO - Intel announced it would cut more than a tenth of its workforce as part of a drive to become more efficient in the face of tough competition in the computer chip market.
The world's leading computer chip maker had a payroll of 99,000 people worldwide prior to the much-anticipated announcement that it would lay off approximately 10,500 workers.
"These actions, while difficult, are essential to Intel becoming a more agile and efficient company, not just for this year or the next, but for years to come," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and chief executive officer.
Intel said its workforce would decline to 95,000 by the end of this year as a result of staff reductions, attrition and previously announced layoffs.
By mid-2007, the Intel workforce would drop to about 92,000 employees, 10,500 fewer than the company's staffing level at the end of the second quarter of 2006.
The chip maker also planned to cut costs in merchandising, capital and materials, according to Intel spokesman Mark Pettinger, to generate savings of approximately two billion dollars in 2007. In 2008 the company expects savings from this restructuring to grow to approximately three billion dollars annually.
In July Intel announced a management shake-up on the heels of a lackluster earnings report and the laying off of 1,000 managers at its facilities worldwide.
The job cuts and re-shuffling of executives resulted from an internal efficiency study the company began in April, according to Otellini.
"It is streamlining the bureaucracy," Pettinger told AFP. "It wasn't just about cutting headcount; it was about making Intel a leaner, more efficient company in terms of everything."
While the deepest cuts are now finished, Intel would remain on watch for ways to reduce costs, Pettinger said.
"Intel will stay on top of this," Pettinger said. "There is going to be more monitoring. Intel will be diligent in looking for other ways to reduce costs."
Intel's drive to trim costs and improve efficiency came as it waged a price war with Silicon Valley rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).
AMD had begun eating away at Intel's market share before Intel unveiled its family of speedy, power-sipping dual-core Xeon processors in July.
Intel cut prices on earlier model processors to clear the way for millions of Xeon chips being pumped out of its facilities worldwide.
AMD responded in August by unveiling its latest entry in its race with Intel to build faster, energy-efficient multi-core computer chips.
AMD's dual-core Next-Generation Opteron processor was billed as setting the stage for an AMD quad-core chip to be released in the middle of 2007.
Intel has announced it will begin selling quad-core processors by the end of this year.
Santa Clara, California-based Intel reported a 57 percent dive in its second quarter earnings this year on weaker demand. It scored a 13 percent drop in revenue from the same quarter last year.
Total company revenue worldwide in 2005 was 38.8 billion dollars.
Comment on this Article
Materazzi breaks silence over Zidane head-butt
AFP
Tue Sep 5, 2006
ROME - Italy defender Marco Materazzi has broken his silence over the verbal exchange that led to his violent World Cup final clash with French star Zinedine Zidane.
Materazzi was sent crashing to the turf by a Zidane head-butt near the end of extra-time of the July 9 final in Berlin following a verbal altercation.
Mystery has surrounded the exact nature of the abuse directed at Zidane by Materazzi ever since the incident, which subsequently earned the Inter Milan centre-half a two-match ban from world governing body FIFA.
But in an interview with the Gazzetta dello Sport here Tuesday, Materazzi revealed it was a remark he made about Zidane's sister that provoked the French captain's moment of madness.
Materazzi said that when Zidane offered to give him his France jersey after the final whistle in response persistent shirt-tugging by the Italian, he had replied: "I would prefer your sister."
Materazzi insisted however that he should not blamed for sparking the incident. "I did not cause it," he told Gazzetta. "I answered verbally with a provocation to defend myself.
"Yes, I was tugging his shirt, but when he said to me scornfully 'If you want my shirt so much I'll give it to you afterwards,' is that not a provocation? I answered that I'd prefer his sister, it's true.
"It's not a particularly nice thing to say, I recognise that. But loads of players say worse things ... I didn't even know he had a sister before all this happened," added Materazzi, who is suspended for Italy's Euro 2008 qualifying rematch with France in Paris on Wednesday.
Zidane was given a three-match ban for his part in the spat, but as he had retired from football he was made to do three days of community service instead.
Materazzi said he would have been happy to do three years of community service if it meant he could play against France on Wednesday before criticising FIFA for what he felt was favouritism shown towards Zidane.
"I only know that I was the one head-butted and I got a two-match ban," said the Inter Milan defender.
"I would have done three months or even three years of community service to be on the pitch at Saint Denis. But I definitely count less than Zidane."
Zidane has never specified what Materazzi said to him and has pointedly refused to apologise to his opponent.
Asked on July 12 what exactly Materazzi had said, Zidane would only offer that it was "very personal and concerned his mother and his sister."
"You hear those things once and you try to walk away. That's what I wanted to do because I am retiring. You hear it a second time and then a third time ..."
Comment: "Yes, I was tugging his shirt, but when he said to me scornfully 'If you want my shirt so much I'll give it to you afterwards,' is that not a provocation? I answered that I'd prefer his sister, it's true.
"It's not a particularly nice thing to say, I recognise that. But loads of players say worse things... I didn't even know he had a sister before all this happened."
Comment on this Article
Conspiracy Theory? Conspiracy Fact
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
by JAYA NARAIN
Daily Mail
5 September 2006
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.
But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.
Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.
He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.
Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.
They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.
The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.
Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.
He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.
The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.
Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."
The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.
Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.
Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.
He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.
"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."
But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.
He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."
As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.
Comment on this Article
Who really blew up the twin towers?
Tuesday September 5, 2006
The Guardian
As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 nears, Christina Asquith finds academics querying the official version of events
Shards of glass and dust from the World Trade Centre towers sit on Professor Steven Jones's desk at Brigham Young University in Utah. Evidence, he says, of the biggest cover-up in history - one too evil for most to believe, but one he has staked his academic career on exposing.
The attacks of September 11, Jones asserts, were an "inside job", puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending and expand Israel.
"We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
While this sinister spin strikes most American academics as absurd, Jones, a physics professor, is not alone. He is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth, a recently formed group of around 75 US professors determined to prove 9/11 was a hoax. In essays and journals, they are using their association with prominent universities to give a scholarly stamp to conspiracy theories long believed in parts of Europe and the Arab world, and gaining ground among Americans due to frustration with the Iraq war and opposition to President Bush's heavily hyped "war on terror".
Their iconoclastic positions have drawn wrath from rightwing radio shows and caused upheaval on campuses, triggering letters to newspapers, phone calls from parents and TV cameras in lecture halls.
In the Midwest, 61 legislators signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, after he joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost defended Barrett, albeit reluctantly.
A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll taken during the summer indicates that Americans are increasingly suspicious of the government's explanation of the events of 9/11: 36% said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, or took no action to stop them, "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".
For most of the world, the story of 9/11 begins at 8.45am on September 11 2001, when American Airlines flight 11 smashed into the North tower of the World Trade Centre. But, tumble down the rabbit hole with Jones, and the plotline begins a year earlier, in September 2000. A neoconservative group called Project for a New American Century, which included the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, brought out a report arguing for a global expansion of American military and economic supremacy, and for the US to transform itself into a "one-world superpower". The report warned that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".
Excuse for aggression
The group, in concert with about 20 others, orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse for pre-emptive global aggression against Afghanistan, then Iraq and soon Iran, the academics say. And they insist that they have amassed a wealth of scientific data to prove it.
It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn't burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.
The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones's desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.
What's more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11.
"The planes were just a distraction," says Professor James Fetzer, 65, a recently retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota. "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."
But Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse.
Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.
The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."
Since the attacks, the US government has issued three reports into the events of the day, all of which involved hundreds of professors, scientists and government officials. The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group, issued a 500-page, moment-by-moment investigation into the hijackers' movements, concluding that they were connected to Osama bin Laden. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports examining the towers' collapse. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency weighed in, examining the response to the attacks.
"To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards," says Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoke College. "After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."
But Barrett says the experts have been fooled by an "act of psychological conversion" not unlike the tactics CIA interrogators use on their victims. "People will disregard evidence if it causes their faith to be shattered," he says. "I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."
Misleading the public
History has revealed that governments have a tradition of misleading the public into going to war, says Barrett, and the next generation of Americans will realise the truth. "Europe and Canada are way ahead of us on this."
The 9/11 scholars go to great lengths to portray themselves as rational thinkers, who have been slowly won over by a careful, academic analysis of the facts of the day.
However, a study of the full extent of their claims is a journey into the increasingly absurd: Flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania but landed safely in Cleveland; desperate phone calls received by relatives on the ground from passengers were actually computer-generated voices from a laboratory in California. The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77, but by a smaller, remote-controlled A-3 Sky Warrior, which shot a missile into the building before crashing into it.
Many of the 9/11 scholars have a history of defending conspiracy theories, including that the CIA plotted both the Lockerbie bombing and the plane crash of John F Kennedy Jr and his wife, and that "global secret societies" control the world.
Professor Robert Goldberg, of the University of Utah, wrote a book on conspiracy theories, Enemies Within: the Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. He recounts a history of religious and political leaders using conspiracy theories for personal and political gain. The common enemy is usually Jews, big government or corporations. The public laps it up, either because these theories are more exciting than the truth, or out of emotional need.
"What the conspiracy theorists do is present their case with facts and figures: they have dates, meeting places and always name names," he says. "The case is always presented in a prosecutorial way, or the way an adventure writer presents a novel. It's a breathless account. They are willing to say hearsay is a fact, and rumour is true, and accidents are never what they seem.
"One of the stories is that a missile hit the Pentagon, and all the data is there. But what is missing is: what actually happened to the plane and the people on it? Conspiracy theorists avoid discussion of those facts that don't fit."
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the public's willingness to believe conspiracy theories parallels their dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. In recent years, the American public has felt misled over false claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.
Many fear infringements on their civil liberties now the National Security Agency has gained access to phone billing records from telecommunications companies, the Bush administration has engaged in wiretapping without court warrants and there are thousands of cases of indefinite detentions of American and foreign citizens without trial. Those who criticise the Bush administration's "war on terror" are accused of being unpatriotic.
By taking their criticisms to such extremes, though, the scholars risk caricaturing the opposition. None the less, they are pushing on, and imploring Congress to reopen the investigation.
"We're academics and we're rational, and we really believe Congress or someone should investigate this," says David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor and 9/11 scholar. "But there are a lot of crazies out there who purport that UFOs were involved. We don't want to be lumped in with those folks."
Comment on this Article
The curse of the 9/11 widows
By ZOE BRENNAN
5 September 2006
This was the lottery that nobody wanted to win. The day New York's Twin Towers were destroyed by hijacked planes, hundreds of widows were left destitute. As the full extent of the horror of 9/11 became evident, public donations poured in.
During the feverish days following the attack, Congress established a billion- dollar compensation fund, and grieving wives became overnight millionaires.
No one could have known that for many of them, the money would destroy their lives once again, attracting jealousy, resentful relatives and making them even more depressed. Some would become squandering, spendaholic widows, their payouts fuelling addictions which could not replace the husbands they had lost. Others would become embroiled in legal battles with their families, their lives eaten up by bitterness.
Some, vilified by the public, would even receive a cash windfall which attracted others' husbands. And, most pitifully, some would get very little at all - their spouses deemed worthy of only a pittance under a system which favoured the rich.
Those who took the 'blood money' of up to $7 million each were banned from suing the government or airlines for further compensation, their rights stripped away.
Now the widows' stories are being told for the first time in a graphic television documentary to be shown tonight on Channel 4.
The partner of one victim of the terror attack says: 'The public must assume that these families have been taken care of and everything worked out great, not realising that in many cases things worked out horribly.'
Eileen Cirri's husband was one of the 2,823 people killed in the 9/11 attack. Her immediate thought when she heard that the first plane had crashed into the North Tower at 8.46am was for her husband, Robert, a policeman.
'I remember it like yesterday,' she says. 'I was on my way to work when I heard of the attack, it felt like the longest ride in the world. When I got to my desk, I called his station. No one answered.'
As she watched the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, hit the South Tower at 9.03am, Eileen became increasingly distraught.
Then the telephone rang. 'It was him calling me, and I was like: "Thank God!" she says. 'It was 9.24am. He said: "I love you very much." I said: "You just need to get out of there!" and he goes: "I have to do something!"'
A policeman with more than 17 years' experience and a paramedic in his spare time, Robert told his wife that he was going to try to save people trapped in the North Tower. It would be the last conversation between the couple.
'He sounded very, very confident,' his widow recalls. 'I said: "Just be quick. I love you. I'll see you at home tonight." And I thought I was going to see him.'
Half an hour later, Eileen watched the towers collapse live on television. She returned home and waited for Robert to call again. When the phone finally rang, it would change her life.
Her husband died inside the North Tower when it fell down, although his body would not be found for another five months. He was discovered in rubble on a stairwell, and had been trying to carry a woman in a wheelchair to safety.
When her husband's life was valued at $1.5 million by the Victim Compensation Fund in the months following his death, Eileen rejected the money.
'Covert and sneaky'
'Congress did a three-in-the-morning session when the country was still horrified, the Ground Zero fires still burning,' she says. 'I felt like it was covert and sneaky, and it was really targeted to bail out the airlines.'
The financial awards were based on the victim's age and potential earnings. Senior master of the fund, Kenneth Feinberg, explains: 'Over the course of 33 months I met about 1,500 families.
'In calculating awards, the law decreed that I take into account pain and suffering. That was the first requirement. The second requirement was that I must take into account the economic circumstances of each claimant.'
He adds: 'When I hear people say: "Mr Feinberg, you gave different amounts to every claimant, that's very un-American," I say: "It may not have been a good idea. Maybe everybody should have got the same amount. Congress didn't allow that. But it's very American!"'
The dependants of cleaners through to stockbrokers received between $250,000 and $7 million. The average award was $1.6 million - tax-free - but the widows of high-earners became instant multi-millionaires. In the event, 65 families litigated, while eight, perhaps overcome with grief, did not claim at all.
'I'm not placing a value on the intrinsic moral worth of any victim,' says Feinberg. 'I'm not saying that "Mr Jones" who died was worth more as a human being than "Mrs Smith".'
Yet that was precisely how the news that her husband was in line for a bottom-of-the-scale payment felt to Eileen. 'I'm angry because people should have been compensated equally,' she says. 'I'm a strong advocate of that.'
A feisty, dignified woman of 45, Eileen also objected to having her right to sue the authorities or airlines removed, and refused the award. Robert's children - by his first marriage - wanted to take the compensation, and launched their own action against Eileen. They argued that if she lost a legal case against the fund, they could end up with nothing.
'Knife in the back'
'When I got a lawsuit in the mail, it was just such a knife in my back,' she says. After three years of wrangling, Eileen's step-children won their case, and she was forced to enter the fund - eventually getting $3 million for the family.
Feinberg assumed that once families received their money, they could move on with their lives, but women such as Eileen were too griefstricken to do so.
'This man was a treasure to me. He was much loved,' she says. 'But it was as if I was being told to shut up and take the money.'
Those who willingly accepted the compensation also found that it brought little solace. Kathy Trant made national news headlines when her spending spree turned her into a celebrity. An attractive blonde, she has reportedly spent $5 million in the past five years, including £300,000 on designer shoes, £1,000 on Botox injections for friends and thousands of dollars on breast enlargement surgery.
James Langton, a writer who has followed the fate of the 9/11 widows, says: 'Kathy is one of the loneliest people I've ever met. She told me that in the middle of the night, when she wakes up surrounded by all of these possessions, she just has this emptiness because that's really not what she wants. What she wants is her husband back.'
Kathy, who was the focus of an entire Oprah Winfrey show and much criticism at the height of her spending spree, describes the awful void which she tries to fill.
'I'm dying inside,' she says. 'Every day when I read something that really bothers me I get so frustrated I go out and I shop because it's the only thing that makes me feel good.' She is battling depression and facing an uncertain future with her children Jessica, 23, Daniel, 17, and 14-yearold Alex.
Another woman's story captured the public imagination for different reasons. When Madeleine Bergin's husband, John, died in the 9/11 attack, she became a fireman's widow.
She received a million-dollar payout, and married her liaison officer and John's best friend in the fire service, Jerry Koenig, who left his wife, Mary, for her after ten years of marriage.
Mary believes that Madeleine's payout was part of the attraction for her philandering ex-husband. 'I don't know when it [the relationship] started, but three weeks after 9/11 the signs were there,' she says. 'So I'm going to assume it happened almost immediately.'
Mary, who lives alone on the farm that she and her husband were decorating as their dream home, adds: 'In a sense I would say she "bought" him. And if I had $5million, I think I could do a little better than him.'
The most bitter family disputes have involved the relatives of unmarried victims who had not prepared for their mortality as they were only in their prime. 'One of the problems we had was that only 20 per cent of the victims had wills,' says Feinberg.
Lisa Goldberg's partner, Martin McWilliams, would surely be appalled at the tangled legacy he left his tiny daughter, Sara, and the corrosive financial struggle which has faced her mother, a paramedic. The couple were not married, and McWilliams, a fireman, left no will.
Having seen the devastation near her husband's fire station on TV and waited all day for news, Goldberg answered the door to three of his colleagues the evening of the attack.
They told her that Martin had been crushed to death as he ran from the North Tower. 'I remember just dropping to my knees,' she says. 'It felt like someone had just cut me open and took my guts out.'
Goldberg soon realised that her husband's family were not being supportive. 'I think I knew I was in trouble the first week,' she says. 'The whispers, the things that were said. I couldn't work it out then - but I knew something was coming.
'One of the fire fighters said: "Take pictures of everything he's got, all his clothes, everything in his house." I asked: "Why?" As things evolved, I began to realise - I wasn't getting any phone calls, I wasn't getting that type of respect as a spouse.'
No automatic rights
McWilliams's estate was entitled to $2 million, but as a domestic partner, Goldberg didn't have the automatic rights of the widows of other firemen.
Her baby, Sara, would get everything as McWilliams's next of kin, but his family wanted to control the money.
When Lisa applied for money on Sara's behalf from the Victim Compensation Fund, McWilliams's mother filed an objection. Hurtfully, she claimed that her son had not been in a relationship with Goldberg - despite the scores of carefree photographs of the couple together around the Goldberg home.
The couple had been planning to move from a little apartment to a bigger house, and home videos show them playing with their baby. Bathing the child and cradling her in his strong arms, Martin glows with paternal pride and domestic bliss.
Five years after 9/11, Goldberg is clearly a shadow of the woman beside him in those images, despite battling to provide a happy childhood for her daughter - now a bubbly, pretty little girl, who loves dancing.
'Sara is the best thing that came my way since he's not here,' she says. 'She's part of him, he didn't leave me here alone. She has pictures of her dad, and I tell her stories. Sometimes she asks me to tell a story about Daddy. His shirts that he used to wear, I have them hanging up. He is very much a part of this house.'
Each month, Lisa must apply to court to access her daughter's funds for treats such as trips. She has to collect receipts to support her claims.
Her legal battle continues, however, as she is trying to get a bill through Congress to access Martin's pension, like other widows.
'I've lost five years to this injustice,' says Lisa. 'It's not about the money. My existence with this man has been deleted. That's the hardest thing that I have to live with, besides him really being gone.'
She adds: 'I know the last thing he did tell me, and that's what I hold onto the most. When he left that morning, he gave me a kiss and said: "I love you." Not everybody got that - so, that's what I hang onto.'
The common strand to these women's stories is that money is not the most precious commodity. No one knows that more clearly than Eileen Cirri. She no longer speaks to her step-children, and her new-found wealth has brought no joy.
A new sports car sits in her drive, attracting neighbourly resentment, but the gossips do not know that this is the car her husband dreamed of buying for their retirement, which she now uses mainly on her visits to tend his grave.
'Five years on, people's perceptions have changed,' she explains. 'You are in a fishbowl, with jealousy and vengeance coming at you. I was very surprised recently when pulling out of my driveway, my neighbours said something cruel, like: "There she goes again."'
Eileen has come to terms with her husband's death and the destruction of her family, and generally ignores the catty comments she attracts. Yet there is one thing for which she would exchange all the money in the world.
'That morning, it was early and I was still lying in bed so I just said: "See you later,"' she remembers. 'If I could only have five minutes to say a proper goodbye.'
Comment on this Article
Lung Problems for 9/11 Rescuers More Widespread: Study
09.05.06, 12:00 AM ET
TUESDAY, Sept. 5 (HealthDay News) -- Almost 70 percent of rescue personnel and workers who responded to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City suffered from lung problems during and after the recovery efforts.
Some of those problems persisted for at least two-and-a-half years after the attacks, according to a new report, the largest study to date on the health effects of the disaster.
"It wasn't surprising to me to see these effects from a toxic exposure that goes on for that length of time, even for several days or weeks, with deposition of metals in the lung and no way for the lungs to clear it," said Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.
World Trade Center dust, according to Horovitz, was now known to contain heavy metals such as nickel, titanium and cadmium. "These are some of the heavy metals found in cigarette smoke which we know is toxic to the lungs," Horovitz said. The dust also contained large and small particles, the smallest able to reach the deepest recesses of the lungs.
About 40,000 rescue and recovery workers -- including firefighters, police officers and construction and public-sector workers -- were exposed to caustic dust and toxic pollutants following the attacks, according to the study. The findings were based on medical examinations of 9,442 of these responders that were done between July 2002 and April 2004.
Sixty-nine percent of those examined reported new or worsened respiratory symptoms while working at the World Trade Center site. Symptoms were still present at the time of examination in 59 percent of participants.
Sixty-one percent of those who had not had any respiratory symptoms before 9/11 developed symptoms while working at the site.
Pulmonary-function tests revealed that World Trade Center responders had twice the rate of abnormalities as those experienced in the general population. These abnormalities persisted for months and sometimes years, the report found.
Severe respiratory conditions such as pneumonia were much more common in the six months following 9/11 than in the six months prior.
Those who arrived first at the smoldering site had the heaviest exposure and, consequently, more respiratory problems.
The report, released Tuesday by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, is scheduled to be published Thursday in Environmental Health Perspectives.
It seems likely that some problems will continue or worsen. "It's not clear whether we're going to see a rise in malignancies but one would suspect that that certainly is possible," Horovitz said.
The report underscores the need to keep monitoring and treating World Trade Center responders, the study authors stated.
Mount Sinai has been the center of 9/11-related research. Of responders treated at the hospital in the past year, 84 percent have had upper-respiratory illness; 47 percent have had lower-respiratory disorders such as asthma and "World Trade Center cough;" 37 percent have had psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder; and 31 percent have had musculoskeletal problems.
According to the Associated Press, the report was released as public concern over the fate of Ground Zero workers has increased. One class-action lawsuit against New York City and its contractors involves 8,000 workers and civilians who blame 9/11 for cancer, sinusitis and other problems.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to announce programs to support those who worked at the site after 9/11.
On Aug. 31, the New York City Health Department released updated clinical guidelines for New York City health-care providers on how to treat adults exposed to the disaster. The guidelines also include screening approaches to improve detection of health problems.
More information
The New York City Department of Health has more information on the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks.
Comment on this Article
IMAGINE: Yoko Ono on John Lennon and the FBI
By JONATHAN KARL
ABC News
John Lennon's perceived "threat" to the U.S. government is the highlight of a new film that documents his transformation from pop idol to political activist and offers a fresh look at this former Beatle's career.
"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" will be released later this month. Yoko Ono cooperated with the filmmakers, opening her archives of rarely seen footage of the couple's fight for peace.
"One thing that brought us together was the fact that both of us were rebels in so many ways," she said.
And that's something he didn't always share with his bandmates, who were reluctant to join Lennon as he spoke out against the Vietnam War, said Ono.
"He is the only one who really wanted to do something about it when he was a Beatle," Ono explained.
Star Watched by the FBI
Lennon's rebelliousness may have come at a price. In the 1970s, Lennon was convinced that government agents were watching him. As it turns out, he was right.
Almost 20 years after his death, the government released the FBI file on Lennon, which included nearly 300 pages of text. One document that went from the FBI to the CIA reports that Lennon planned to take part in a protest at the 1972 Republican National Convention.
South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond seized on that, suggesting to President Nixon's attorney general that Lennon's visa be terminated.
A few weeks later, Lennon was given 30 days to leave the country and was notified that his visa had been terminated because of an old drug arrest in England.
"I think that the world really loved the Beatles for being charming and sweet," Ono said. "But some people did resent the fact that they were no more the sweet, nice, charming boys."
Ono and Lennon did not want to leave the United States, and a legal battle ensued.
In 1976, after the end of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, Lennon won.
The judge in the case wrote that the British singer's battle to stay in the United States was a "testimony to his faith in the American dream."
Comment on this Article
Sequel to RCMP raid on reporter's home
Dateline: Monday, August 28, 2006
by Lawrence Martin
If this is a free society, why are we hounding Juliet O'Neill?
When police raided the home of Ottawa journalist Juliet O'Neill in January of 2004, an editor said it constituted one of the blackest days for freedom of the press in this country. It still does. It does until Ms. O'Neill is totally cleared. It does until a verdict is posted that drives a stake through those who believe that intimidation of this sort has any place in Canada.
To refresh the memory, Ms. O'Neill, a scrupulous reporter of long and good standing, was spied on and her home and office raided after she wrote an article in the Ottawa Citizen about Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen deported to Syria by US authorities in 2002 on the basis of alleged terrorist ties. The article said the RCMP had identified Mr. Arar as a possible member of an Ottawa-based al-Qaeda support group. The Mounties obtained search warrants under the post-9/11 Security of Information Act, maintaining that the journalist's story was based on secret government information.
The matter was before the courts last week, with the Ottawa Citizen seeking to have the search warrants declared unconstitutional. Under the Security of Information Act, Ms. O'Neill could face criminal charges and the possibility of up to 14 years in prison if found guilty.
Ms. O'Neill's article cited "a security source" and a leaked document offering details of what Mr. Arar allegedly said under torture in Syria. The use of leaked information is what journalism often thrives on, to enlighten the public on what is going on behind closed doors. In this great democracy of ours, that's a crime?
Ms. O'Neill's lawyers made the point in court this week that the Security of Information Act is so vague as to contain no definition of "secret" information. Conceivably, the police could pursue any journalist receiving government information if that information were not sanctioned for release. That's the type of thing that used to go on in police states such as the Soviet Union. That's why the case against Ms. O'Neill needs to disappear.
The Citizen was right to publish Ms. O'Neill's story. When the press starts withholding information for reasons of "national security" - which can be defined so as to include most anything - look out. The slippery slope? You're on it.
The New York Times got on that slope a while ago - and went all the way down it. The Times withheld a story for a year on the Bush administration's secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping. It did so at the urging of the White House: reasons of national security. The Times's decision had potentially huge consequences. Had the story, uncovered just before the 2004 election, been printed, the damage might have been enough to tip the vote to the Democrats. All the Democrats needed was a changeover of 60,000 votes in one state (Ohio) to win. But the Times was under the gun for previous transgressions. It lost its nerve. It failed the public interest.
A case similar to the one involving Ms. O'Neill occurred when the RCMP went after reporter Andrew McIntosh to find out his sources and to retrieve a document in connection with a story he wrote on the Shawinigate controversy. Ironically, on the very day that Ms. O'Neill's home and office were being raided, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in favour of Mr. McIntosh, saying a search warrant that would have forced him to reveal a confidential source should never have been granted. "Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our society," wrote Madam Justice Mary Lou Benotto. "Confidential sources are essential to the effective functioning of the media in a free and democratic society."
This week, the Crown filed an ominous-sounding factum in the O'Neill case. The Crown appeared to be arguing that the media's publication of any security-related information beyond what is authorized under the government's Access to Information Act can be grounds for criminal charges. Disclosure under the 1983 act can take months or years and, at that, large portions are often blacked out. But try to get around it, the Crown seems to be telling journalists, and you risk being charged with a criminal offence.
That's how serious this whole thing is getting. That's the type of intimidation that the post-9/11 environment has wrought. That's why the O'Neill case is so important. That's why the courts must respond with a clarion declaration that this is a free society.
Comment on this Article
UK and US - Fascist States
Thoughtcrime in Britain's Ascendant Police State
Tuesday September 05th 2006
Kurt Nimmo
It is interesting to read Rupert Murdoch's the Sun newspaper, ferreting out the cheesy "stunner" banner ads of half naked women to get at the glaring propaganda grist.
For instance, we are told the "Sun can reveal" there are upward to five "suspected al-Qaeda training camps in Britain" and "MI5 agents are watching locations where they believe young Muslims are being trained as terrorists," in other words British intelligence is busy setting up their groomed patsies, as we know MI5 has a long and sordid history of protecting and then sacrificing its own "homegrown" would-be "al-Qaeda" terrorists.
The latest bit of media hyperventilation surrounds the supposed discovery of an "Islamic school in the Sussex countryside, where it is alleged night-time training exercises were staged," according to Mike Sullivan, billed as the Sun's "crime editor." As usual, we are expected to switch off the higher reasoning centers of our brains and believe Islamic bad guys were "followed by undercover MI5 watchers as they went on camping trips at beauty spots around the South East of England." Of course, the word "watchers" should be replaced with "handlers."
So clueless are these putative terrorists, they "mingled with ordinary members of the public. They must have seemed like innocent nature-lovers enjoying the outdoor life and the best that England can offer. But in reality we believe they were planning mass murder," according to a security source. "During the surveillance, some watchers heard one leading suspect telling a group that as many people as possible should be killed." It is amazing this bit of stupidity-obvious Muslims discussing terrorism in public, loud enough to be overheard by "watchers," that is to say handlers-is allowed to pass without comment in the Sun.
Of course, all of this provides an all too convenient excuse to use "new legislation outlawing the training of terrorists" before they can put "their wicked plans into action," in other words the emergent police state in England is ironing out the wrinkles in its ministry of precrime, or rather thought crime, never mind such "wicked" thoughts are systematically implanted in hand-picked and stepfordized patsies, dupes, and half-wits. After arrest, these suspects are "quizzed on suspicion of soliciting murder, which carries a life term." As Amnesty International has revealed, suspects are "quizzed" under "harsh conditions of detention" that impact "the men's mental and physical well-being."
No doubt many Britons, sufficiently conditioned by the July 7, 2005, London "suicide bombings" by young men who did not fit the profile of suicide bombers, are onboard with the incrementally encroaching police state that declares its intent to "crack down on the process to recruit and brainwash terrorists-even before they plan an attack," that is to say short of the government pulling off a terror attack coinciding with astronomically improbable terror exercises.
Now we are told "Al-Qaeda recruiters could be deliberately targeting white and West Indian Muslim converts to be suicide bombers in an effort to evade detection by the security services," warns Life Style Extra. "Several non-Asian Muslim converts are known to have been involved in terrorism, including Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay, one of the July 7 tube bombers, shoe bomber Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who studied Islam at Brixton Mosque and is the only person to be convicted over the 9/11 hijack plot," all apparently stepfordized mental deficients.
Crispin Black, a former Cabinet Office intelligence analyst, told LSE "that young men who have gone off the rails or suffer identity crises and search for religion are vulnerable to being manipulated by terrorists who use a twisted version of Islam to justify their campaign of hate." Naturally, Mr. Black and the media fail to mention the repeated instances of documented connections between these supposedly manipulative terrorists and British intelligence, for instance the connections between Abu Qatada, Haroon Rashid Aswat, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza al-Masri, and MI5.
For many people, the passage of the Terrorism Act 2006, incorporating "measures to stop the encouragement of terrorism, preparation of terrorist acts and terrorist training" and in particular the "glorification" of terrorism, as noted by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, makes sense, considering the bogus aura of manufactured terrorism.
"This controversial measure is intended to allow the police to act against people who 'praise or celebrate' terrorism in a way that makes people think they should emulate such attacks.... Much of the act is not aimed at terrorists themselves, but instead at people who previously have existed on the fringes of extremist movements," that is to say people who have not committed any crime and in fact may be framed by the government for thoughtcrime or an allegation of thoughtcrime, for as George Orwell declared in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."
Orwell's Thought Police used psychology and surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. In Britain today, the ruling authority is not using thoughtcrime so much as a way to stamp out all deviant thought, but rather as a mechanism to create the specter of pervasive terrorism and thus erect, piece by piece, the scaffolding of a police state.
A similar process is at work in America, albeit not as advanced, for in America the bulwark of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stand in the way. However, our unitary decider, the frat boy hailing from a crime family with an affinity for Nazis and fascism, who has declared a dictatorship would make things a whole lot easier, is well on the way to emulating the Brits, who have no such guarantees to downgrade.
Comment on this Article
White House backs Rumsfeld, says he's no bogeyman
By Will Dunham
Reuters
Tue Sep 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - The White House said on Tuesday Democrats were trying to turn Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld into "a bogeyman" two months before U.S. congressional elections, and it dismissed their calls for his ouster.
Congressional Democrats, striving to grab control of the House and Senate from President George W. Bush's Republican Party in November's congressional elections, are pushing for a vote of no confidence in the 74-year-old Rumsfeld, one of the longest-serving U.S. defense secretaries.
"The president strongly supports the defense secretary. It's not going to happen," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters, referring to Democratic calls to dump Rumsfeld.
"Creating Donald Rumsfeld as a bogeyman may make for good politics but would make for a very lousy strategy at this time," Snow said.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hoped for a vote on Rumsfeld either Wednesday or Thursday as part of the debate over a defense appropriations bill. But Senate Republicans could use procedural measures to block a no-confidence resolution on Rumsfeld.
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee dismissed the resolution as "political gamesmanship."
"If they want to inject a purely partisan political resolution, I will address it. Until they do so, I'm not going to sit here and hypothesize how I will have to deal with it," Frist told reporters.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, said it was uncertain when or how Democrats would bring up the measure in the House, which has rules that give the Republican majority party more power to block votes.
Democrats stepped up their criticism of Rumsfeld after his speech last week assailing critics of U.S. war policies.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, "We're not going to get involved in politics here at the Defense Department," and repeated White House characterizations of Democrats' criticism as "baseless partisan attacks."
'HISTORY'S LESSONS'
In a speech to military veterans last week in Salt Lake City blasting critics of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld said "some seem not to have learned history's lessons."
He recounted that some politicians wanted to appease Hitler's Germany before World War Two, and asked, "Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"
Opinion polls show eroding U.S. public support for the 3-1/2-year-old Iraq war.
Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war has been strongly criticized by Democrats, many of whom have demanded his resignation, as well as by a few Republicans.
Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and 10 other senior congressional Democrats wrote a letter to Bush on Monday demanding a new direction in Iraq, including a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops starting before the end of 2006.
The letter faulted Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq and then failing to equip them adequately, failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq after President Saddam Hussein's ouster, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and the disbanding of Iraq's military in 2003.
Rumsfeld on Tuesday underwent elective surgery to repair a shoulder injury. The surgery lasted less than two hours to fix a torn rotator cuff, a relatively common sports injury, said Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff.
Comment on this Article
Jewish man removed from airplane for praying
CBC
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Some fellow passengers are questioning why an Orthodox Jewish man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight in Montreal last week for praying.
The man was a passenger on a Sept. 1 flight from Montreal to New York City when the incident happened.
The airplane was heading toward the runway at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport when eyewitnesses said the Orthodox man began to pray.
"He was clearly a Hasidic Jew," said Yves Faguy, a passenger seated nearby. "He had some sort of cover over his head. He was reading from a book.
"He wasn't exactly praying out loud but he was lurching back and forth," Faguy added.
The action didn't seem to bother anyone, Faguy said, but a flight attendant approached the man and told him his praying was making other passengers nervous.
"The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation but they had to ask him to leave," Faguy said.
The man, who spoke neither English nor French, was escorted off the airplane.
Air Canada Jazz termed the situation "delicate," but says it received more than one complaint about the man's behaviour.
The crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers, said Jazz spokeswoman Manon Stewart.
"The passenger did not speak English or French, so we really had no choice but to return to the gate to secure a translator," she said.
The airline is not saying if the man was told he was not allowed to pray, but a spokesperson said the man was back on board the next flight to New York.
Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm.
Hasidic Rabbi Ronny Fine said he often prays on airplanes, but typically only gets curious stares.
"If it's something that you're praying in your own seat and not taking over the whole plane, I don't think it should be a problem," said Fine.
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada has offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training.
Comment on this Article
Republicans to push for Bolton reappointment
By Vicki Allen
Reuters
Tue Sep 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday said they hoped the committee will vote later this week to keep John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, as Bolton picked up public support from one of two wavering Republicans.
"We expect a party line vote to take place on Thursday morning, with no change in schedule," said Andy Fisher, spokesman for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee chairman. Lugar later told reporters "it appears that way" that all committee Republicans would back Bolton.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the senator held "a direct and honest conversation" with Bolton on Tuesday and would support him. A spokesman for Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island earlier on Tuesday said the senator had not reached a decision.
Committee Republicans will aim to stick together against Democrats' opposition to Bolton, who has served as U.N. envoy for the last year after President George W. Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed him during a congressional recess.
The appointment expires in January when this Congress ends, and the White House wants him confirmed by the Senate to keep him for the rest of Bush's term, which ends in January 2009.
About 60 retired diplomats who served in Republican and Democratic administrations signed letters to Foreign Relations Committee members calling Bolton unfit to keep the job and urging his rejection.
The former diplomats, who also opposed Bolton's nomination last year, said in their letter that Bolton's conduct "has confirmed our misgivings about his probable ineffectiveness and his tendency to alienate others."
They said Bolton's "hard core, go-it-alone posture" has hurt the United States in the world body, and said "with so much at stake, our country cannot afford to permit John Bolton to continue his destructive course during the next two years."
But Republicans, citing the need for a strong hand at the United Nations during the Middle East crisis, have pushed for Bolton's quick confirmation.
Bush could reappoint him during an upcoming congressional recess, but Bolton could not receive a salary and he would be viewed as being in a weakened position.
Democrats said they would decide after the committee vote on whether to try to block a Senate vote on Bolton's nomination, as they did last year.
They contend Bolton bullied intelligence analysts to conform to his hawkish views in his last job as top U.S. arms control negotiator and his harsh criticisms of the United Nations made him unsuitable for the job.
But Bolton was getting help from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying organization that has publicly praised him as a "strong advocate for the U.S. on issues that matter to the pro-Israel community."
Comment on this Article
Speculation rampant over Blair's departure date
Last Updated Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:52 EDT
CBC News
Prime Minister Tony Blair will step down as head of the Labour Party at the end of next May, with a leadership race to follow, a British newspaper reported Wednesday.
The Sun reported that Blair will leave office on July 26 after his successor is chosen. The tabloid previously correctly called the dates of Britain's last national election, ahead of a formal announcement by Blair.
"We have no intention of commenting on any speculation of the timetable," a spokeswoman from 10 Downing said in response to the article.
Speculation over Blair's departure date has intensified in recent days.
Environment Minister David Milliband and Social Exclusion Minister Hilary Armstrong both publicly stated Tuesday that Blair would probably leave within a year.
Blair announced in late 2004 that he would not seek a fourth term. As his popularity has dropped in the polls this year, many within the party have grown impatient with his reluctance to set a specific timetable.
While the Sun was predicting when Blair might step down, the Guardian reported this week on a flurry of leaked Labour memos being exchanged, one which called on him to resign immediately, and a subsequent memo chastising those spearheading that particular campaign.
The Guardian was pointed in its editorial Wednesday.
"A cascade of developments yesterday subverted Mr. Blair's already weakened position still further," the editorial stated. "They are evidence that the tide has turned. Mr. Blair cannot long continue as prime minister without saying something much more explicit and much more politically realistic and modest about his plans than he has done so far."
For their part, the Daily Mirror obtained what it says was an internal communique where Blair's advisers declared: "He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore."
Blair told the Times in an interview last week that he wouldn't commit to a date in time for the party's annual conference later this month, but that he would give ample time for the next Labour leader to prepare for elections, predicted for 2009.
"I think I have said enough for anyone reasonable to know I will do my best for the country and the party to make sure that when I do depart it is done in a stable and sensible and orderly way, but in the meantime, to get on with the job of prime minister," Blair said.
He also expressed annoyance at the handicapping of when his tenure would end.
"I'm not the one who keeps raising this issue," he said. "I think if it is speculation that people are worried about, there is a simple answer: stop speculating."
If the Sun report proves correct, Blair would leave after three terms and nine years, two months as prime minister. In the last century, only Margaret Thatcher's tenure has been longer.
Comment on this Article
The State Of America
Bush reminds Americans U.S. is at war
By MERRILL HARTSON
Associated Press
September 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear.
Bush said that despite the absence of a successor on U.S. soil to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the terrorist danger remains potent.
"Bin laden and his terrorist's allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is 'Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'"
Quoting extensively from letters, Web site statements, audio recording and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids, Bush said that al Qaida, homegrown terrorists and other groups have adapted to changing U.S. defenses.
For example, Bush cited what he called "a grisly al Qaida manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages."
He also cited what he said was a captured al Qaida document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said the document described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department, and an execution unit.
"The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen," he said. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."
His speech came after the White House released a strategy paper proclaiming the nation has made progress in the war on terror but that al-Qaida has adjusted to U.S. defenses and "we are not yet safe."
The White House also rejected Democrats' calls for replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "It's not going to happen," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "Creating Don Rumsfeld as a bogeyman may make for good politics but would make for very lousy strategy at this time."
In its updated counterterrorism strategy, the White House said that "the enemy we face today in the war on terror is not the same enemy we faced on Sept. 11. Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business."
Two months before the midterm elections, the report was the White House's latest attempt to highlight national security, an issue that has helped Republicans in past campaigns. Democrats were releasing their own assessment.
Democrats released their own study, saying it shows the country is less secure today than before Bush took office. Citing research done by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the report said the number of al-Qaida members has jumped from 20,000 in 2001 to 50,000 today. It also charged that average weekly attacks in Iraq have jumped from almost 200 in spring 2004 to more than 600 this year, using numbers provided by the liberal-oriented Brookings Institution think tank.
"All the speeches in the world won't change what's going on in Iraq," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
"The truth is the president's policies have not worked and have not made us safer," said Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Del.
Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat who voted in favor of the war but now favors withdrawing troops, said the administration has so badly botched the war that a draft might be necessary.
The updated White House strategy came in the wake of the release of a new al-Qaida video over the weekend that raised concerns about the possibility of another attack as the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches. The tape featured an American - believed by the FBI to have attended al-Qaida training camps - calling for his countrymen to convert to Islam.
The Department of Homeland Security had raised the terror threat for aviation to red - its highest level - in mid-August at the time the British, working with the United States, broke up what was purported to be a plot against international flights bound from Britain to the United States.
Five years after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, about a third of the American people think the terrorists are winning, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll.
In its updated terror-fighting strategy, the administration took credit for some successes, but it also acknowledged, "While the United States government and its partners have thwarted many attacks, we have not been able to prevent them all. Terrorists have struck in many places throughout the world, from Bali to Beslan to Baghdad."
"There will continue to be challenges ahead, but along with our partners, we will attack terrorism and its ideology and bring hope and freedom to the people of the world," the policy said. "This is how we will win the war on terror."
Comment on this Article
Post-9/11 U.S. is safer but 'not yet safe': report
Last Updated Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:45:37 EDT
CBC News
The United States is safer, but "not yet safe," since launching its war on terror shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration said in a report released Tuesday.
The report was released by the White House in advance of a second speech Tuesday by U.S. President George W. Bush, who said history will not be kind on this time period if the U.S. abandons its global war on terror and retreats from Iraq.
The 23-page terrorism strategy update said much progress has been made following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The White House claims al-Qaeda has been "significantly degraded" and that the mission in Afghanistan has deprived the network of a "safe haven."
But the report acknowledges a number of challenges.
"Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America is safer, but we are not yet safe," the report concludes.
Al-Qaeda, it says, is "still dangerous," and has evolved and modified its strategy in the wake of counterterrorism efforts. The networks have become more dispersed and less centralized, the report says.
"They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure."
One particular problem, it noted, is an "increasingly sophisticated use of the internet and media" by terrorists and would-be terrorists. The report says these tactics have allowed enemies of the United States to "rally support, proselytize and spread their propaganda without risking personal contact."
The report notes improvements in air, land, sea and border security, but admits the U.S. is "not immune from attack."
Terrorism attacks are not simply a response to the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq, the report states, noting that the Sept. 11 attacks occurred before Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled.
As well, countries that did not participate in the Iraq invasion have also been attacked, the report adds.
Bush warns of dangers of militants
In his speech before the Military Officers Association of America, Bush warned of the consequences of militants undermining fragile democracies like Iraq.
"They will have an open field to pursue their dangerous goals, and each strain of violent Islamic radicalism would be emboldened in their efforts to topple moderate governments and establish terrorist safe havens," he said.
He said imagine if they were able to control governments and use oil resources to purchase weapons of mass destruction.
"If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act."
"I'm not going to allow this to happen, and no future American president can allow it either."
Bush said Osama Bin Laden and his allies have made their intentions "as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them.
"The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"
Comment on this Article
Truckers, bus drivers on lookout for suspicious activity on roads
8/30/2006
USA TODAY
CHICAGO - Truck driver Bill Adams scans the traffic on Harlem Avenue. "That Pepsi truck's no risk. Two empty flatbeds up there are no risk," he says. "Garbage truck is probably not a risk, but it might be if it were there at the wrong time - if it's 5 on a Sunday afternoon. You've got to think."
Adams, who drives for UPS Freight, isn't scouting Chicago's west side only for traffic hazards. He's on the lookout for terrorists.
Adams is part of a rapidly growing army of truckers and bus drivers who have been trained by Highway Watch to spot suspicious activity on the highways. The program is run by the American Trucking Association with funds from the Department of Homeland Security. Drivers take a class or watch a one-hour DVD to qualify.
Almost 400,000 people - mostly commercial truck drivers - have been trained since 2004. Membership is likely to top 1 million by March 2007. This summer, Georgia began requiring all 300,000 of its drivers with commercial licenses to be trained.
No terrorists have been nabbed, but tips helped find a missing truck carrying fertilizer, which can be used in bombs, and identified illegal immigrants at a truck-driving school.
Critics say Highway Watch is creating snoops and could lead to racial profiling. "This has the potential to be vigilante justice," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty project. "We are in danger of turning truck drivers into barely trained, inadequate police intelligence officials" who focus on "people of color."
Hundreds of calls each month
Jim Sutton, who runs Highway Watch's analysis center, says it avoids "uncorroborated information or its use against innocent people."
Proving the value of the program is "more difficult if nothing has occurred," says Lane Kidd of the Arkansas Trucking Association. "One has to assume it lessens the likelihood" of terrorism.
Ed Crowell, president of the Georgia Motor Trucking Association, says the training not only makes drivers aware of possible terrorist threats but also helps "protect their vehicle and protect themselves from thieves."
Members phone in an average of 272 reports each month to a private toll-free number. More than half are related to security. Highway Watch analysts assess reports and share them with local and federal law enforcement.
The Highway Watch training began as a safety program and shifted its focus to terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. The program has received $45.8 million in federal grants since fiscal 2003 and expects $4.8 million this year.
Some citizens' watch programs proposed after 9/11 were abandoned. One of them, Operation TIPS, would have recruited letter carriers, meter readers and cable TV installers to report suspicious activity to the Justice Department.
Whether Adams is on his weekly runs between Harrisburg, Pa., and Sacramento or on a short trip like this one to pick up a load of kitchen fixtures, he looks for people photographing tunnels or bridges, as well as abandoned vehicles that might be packed with explosives.
He once spotted a pickup in Arizona loaded with red cans of gas. He called the toll-free number to report the truck incident. He never did find out why the driver was hauling all that gas.
"Before 9/11, you didn't pay a lot of attention to what was going on around you," he says. "You saw something unusual, you never gave a second thought that it might be a risk to security."
Adams, 43, of Willow Hill, Pa., has been driving trucks for 24 years and took the training in 2002. He now teaches the program to other drivers and trainers.
Most truckers are eager to contribute to homeland security, he says. Their No. 1 question during training sessions: "Are they going to take us seriously?"
Tracking potential terrorists
Very seriously, says Sutton, a former FBI agent who runs the program's analysis center. Using reports from drivers across the USA, Sutton says, analysts with intelligence and law-enforcement backgrounds track potential terrorist activity. For example, if several truckers report seeing someone photographing a bridge over a period of time, the analysts spot the pattern and alert law enforcement.
Sutton and four analysts on Highway Watch's payroll work at the Transportation Security Administration's operations center outside Washington. Operators in Kentucky take truckers' calls, then send details to the operations center.
Adams is wary of people who ask what he's carrying in his truck and where he's going. When he pulls behind another vehicle in traffic or a parking lot, he leaves a gap so he has an escape route if someone approaches.
He's on alert even when driving across empty stretches of Iowa. "If something changes, it stands out like a sore thumb," he says.
From the seat high in his truck's cab, Adams can see inside most cars and small trucks. He doesn't necessarily check out the occupants, he says, "but you look for what's in them."
He spots a car filled with cleaning supplies and figures the passengers work for a cleaning service. He has seen people drinking and doing drugs in their vehicles and sometimes calls 911 to report them.
Since he joined the program, Adams has called the number four times. Before the training, he says he occasionally saw activities that he now wishes he had reported.
"I don't want to be a pain in anybody's behind," he says, "so you make sure it really is a risk before you call. You use your common sense. If you aren't sure, dial the 800 number."
Adams says it also makes sense to be more vigilant on the road. "You have to have a head's up that things have changed," he says. "We all need to be aware of our surroundings."
As he maneuvers his truck along Chicago's Pulaski Road, which is teeming with people and cars, he points down a residential street. If a fuel tanker truck emerged from there, he says, he would "pick up the phone, because what in the world is a fuel tanker doing here?"
Comment: What a perfect situation for one of these erstwhile "spy truckers" to be used to literally carry a bomb into a building. The truckers claim that they "use their common sense", but the very fact that they are engaging in what is obviously government propaganda and manipulation strongly suggests that they are severely lacking in the common sense department.
If you haven't seen it, watch the movie Arlington Road with Jeff Bridges, you'll get the picture.
Comment on this Article
4 dead in Maine killing spree, 3 at inn
By GLENN ADAMS
Associated Press
September 5, 2006
NEWRY, Maine - Four people were slaughtered during a four-day killing spree in southern Maine's mountain ski country, and a 31-year-old cook who had been living at an inn where three victims died was charged Tuesday with murder.
Detectives say Christian Nielsen told them he first killed a local man on Friday, then two days later attacked the owner of the Black Bear Bed & Breakfast where he had been renting a room, according affidavits filed Tuesday as Nielsen made his initial court appearance.
The owner's 30-year-old daughter and a friend were killed when they arrived at the inn unexpectedly on Monday, the state police affidavits said.
Nielsen was charged with four counts of murder and ordered held without bail. He smiled as he left Oxford County Superior Court.
State police were alerted Monday evening by family members who had arrived at the Black Bear to find a woman's body and blood outside the restored farmhouse near the Sunday River ski resort. Nielsen's father told troopers he thought his son was involved, according to court documents.
The bodies of inn owner Julie Bullard, 65, her daughter Selby, and Cindy Beatson, 43, were all found outside the home.
Nielsen later took a detective to a wooded are where the remains of the fourth victim, James Whitehurst, 50, were found north of Grafton Notch State Park, about 15 miles from the inn, the documents said.
Nielsen had been working at another bed and breakfast in nearby Bethel, the Sudbury Inn.
Nancy White, co-owner of the Sudbury Inn, was stunned to learn that the cook she and her husband had hired this summer had been arrested for murder. She described him as a reliable employee, a good cook and "soft-spoken, quiet individual."
"The whole thing is surreal. It's a shock to this small community," she said.
The phone rang unanswered Tuesday at the Black Bear, a white 1830s farmhouse with a red roof that was converted into a six-room bed-and-breakfast with a pool and tennis courts.
Police assured residents they had nothing to fear.
All victims were accounted for, "and there is no danger," said Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety.
"We're all just numb with shock," said Robin Zinchuk, executive director of the Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce. The area is near the New Hampshire line, about 75 miles northwest of Portland.
Maine is a state known for its low crime rate.
Its last quadruple murder was in 1992, when Virgil Smith set fire to a tenement at the foot of Portland's Munjoy Hill neighborhood, killing a woman, two men and a 10-month-old baby.
Nielsen had a history of driving offenses that included an arrest for drunken driving, but nothing more serious, Farmington police said. His license was revoked a year ago, said Farmington Lt. Jack Peck.
Comment on this Article
Newsman to Tony Snow: 'Don't Point Your Finger At Me!'
By E&P Staff
5 September 06
NEW YORK A not especially eventful press briefing at the White House today turned rancorous with NBC's David Gregory telling Press Secretary Tony Snow, "Don't point your finger at me," and Snow accusing the newsman of being "rude" and delivering Democratic talking points.
Earlier, speaking to reporters, Snow, continuing the administration's media focus on the war on terror, accused "some in the Democratic Party" of saying "we shouldn't fight the war" and "we shouldn't apprehend al-Qaeda" or even "question al-Qaeda."
Snow got into a tussle with Gregory after the NBC journalist told him, in a lengthy remark, that the public may wonder why the president's statement and report today on the war on terror did not admit more failings on the administration's part. Snow observed that he had nicely summarized "the Democratic point of view," and Gregory took exception to this.
This exchange followed.
*
Q Actually, Tony, I don't think that's fair, if you look at the facts. If you look at the facts.
MR. SNOW: Well, I do, because -- no, because, for instance --
Q No, no, no. No, I don't think you should be able to just wipe that, kind of dismiss the question --
MR. SNOW: Well, let me --
Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.
MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.
Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.
MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.
Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.
Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.
MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --
Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
*
Elsewhere, Snow denied that the president's statement and report today on the war on terrorism were political in any way. "I think it belittles it by trying to dismiss it as politics," he said. But later, when a reporter asked, "But you don't disagree that he's trying to frame the debate for what is an important political choice?", Snow replied: "Absolutely. Of course, of course."
He also said there would be no troop withdrawals in Iraq any time and reiterated the president's strong support for Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush "would love to see members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of cooperation we had after September 11th."
Here is an excerpt from Snow's remarks:
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.
"And we think it's a perfect opportunity for Democratic leaders to say, no, we are serious about winning the war. We have now reiterated some of the basic precepts of administration policy and also the policy put together by generals over the months of the engagement in Iraq. And we look forward to working with members of Congress to figure out how best to prevent terrorists from coming here, but, more importantly, how to defeat terrorism.
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"So this, again, is something that the President would love to see members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of cooperation we had after September 11th, where the real goal was not to try to hand out pink slips at the Pentagon, but instead to win the war on terror in a way that is going to make not only America safer, but also the rest of the world safer so that democracy can take firm root throughout the globe."
Comment on this Article
Change of guard at Newsweek
Last Updated Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:25:03 EDT
CBC Arts
Jon Meacham was named editor of Newsweek on Tuesday, replacing Mark Whitaker, the first black editor of a U.S. newsmagazine.
Meacham, 37, has risen quickly through the ranks at the newsweekly and was named managing editor, the No. 2 editorial position, in 1998.
He arrived at the magazine as a writer in January 1995, became national affairs editor the same year and published a well-received book in 2003, Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship, about the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill.
Whitaker, 48, will assume a new role overseeing the development of websites at the Washington Post Co., Newsweek's parent company.
As of Oct. 2, Whitaker will become vice-president and editor in chief of the digital division of the Washington Post, running the websites for Newsweek, the Washington Post, Budget Travel magazine and the online magazine, Slate.
Newsweek faced a barrage of bad publicity last year under Whitaker's editorship, when it had to retract a report that the Qur'an was desecrated by interrogators at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The magazine adopted new policies for the use of anonymous sources after the incident.
Whitaker led the publication to four National Magazine Awards - two for general excellence and others for its coverage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.
Newsweek's chair, Richard Smith, praised Whitaker's record and said he was being moved to give "firepower" to the digital division.
Daniel Klaidman will replace Meacham as managing editor, moving up from the post of assistant managing editor.
Klaidman was formerly Washington bureau chief for Newsweek.
Weekly newsmagazines have been in trouble financially recently as readers turn to the internet and other sources for their news.
Newsweek's rival, Time, is undergoing a revamp under newly named editor Richard Stengel and recently announced it would move its publication date to Friday from Monday.
Time hopes to attract more readers and advertisers over the weekend.
Newsweek has also considered moving its publication date, Smith said, but now thinks there might be an advantage to being on a different cycle to Time.
Comment on this Article
Celebrities Really Are More Narcissistic Than the General Public
PR Newswire
5 September 06
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Celebrities have more narcissistic personality traits than the general population, and people with narcissistic tendencies seem to be attracted to the entertainment industry rather than the industry creating narcissists, according to a groundbreaking study conducted by researchers Drew Pinsky of the Keck School of Medicine of USC and S. Mark Young of the USC Marshall School of Business and the USC Annenberg School for Communication.
The study, which will be published in the Journal of Research in Personality (Elsevier), is the first systematic, empirical scholarly study of celebrity personality and was based on a standardized test of narcissistic personality traits administered to 200 celebrities.
"The general public's understanding of celebrity personality is based largely on anecdotal information such as media interviews," said Young. "We conducted this study as part of a larger program of research to provide more scientific evidence on what the celebrity personality is really like."
The authors say they chose narcissism as the topic of the study because it is one of the most widely discussed characteristics of celebrities.
"Narcissists generally crave attention, are overconfident of their abilities, lack empathy, and can evince erratic behavior," said Pinsky, who is an assistant clinical professor of Psychiatry at USC. "However, they are also well-liked, especially on first meeting, are extroverted and perform well in public."
To conduct their research Pinsky and Young employed a well-validated personality research instrument, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), which has been used by researchers for more than two decades. The NPI test divides narcissism into seven components: superiority, exhibitionism, entitlement, vanity, authority, exploitiveness, and entitlement.
The authors found that the celebrities participating in the study had statistically significantly higher narcissism scores compared to aspiring business leaders (MBA students) and the general population. Reality TV personalities had the highest overall narcissism scores when compared with actors, musicians and comedians.
What's more, while men are more likely than women to evince narcissistic traits in the general population, the authors found that, among celebrities, females were more narcissistic than their male counterparts.
"Our research also shows that many celebrities exhibit narcissistic behavior prior to becoming famous, which could indicate a self-selection bias for the entertainment industry by certain personality types," said Young who holds the George Bozanic and Holman G. Hurt Chair in Sports and Entertainment Business at USC. "Knowing that many celebrities have narcissistic tendencies may allow entertainment industry decision makers such as studio executives, producers, directors, agents, publicists and casting agents to work with them more effectively. It may also provide greater insight into celebrity behavior for the general public."
The research data were collected anonymously and confidentially from celebrities selected at random during guest appearances on the nationally syndicated Westwood One radio show "Loveline," based at the KROQ-FM radio station in Los Angeles. The celebrities were administered the NPI test during breaks on the show, which Pinsky has hosted for the past 20 years.
About Dr. Drew Pinsky:
Known to millions as a radio host, TV personality and author, Dr. Drew Pinsky is a respected medical doctor, board-certified addictionologist and relationship expert whose experience spans over 20 years. He is currently the Medical Director for the Department of Chemical Dependency Services at Las Encinas Hospital, a world-renowned psychiatric facility in Pasadena. He is a staff member at Huntington Memorial Hospital, continues to run a private medicine practice and is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. His membership and activities in professional societies include the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the California Medical Association and the American Society of Internal Medicine.
About Dr. S. Mark Young:
S. Mark Young holds the George Bozanic and Holman G. Hurt Chair in Sports and Entertainment Business at the University of Southern California. Dr. Young is also a Professor of Accounting in the Leventhal School of Accounting and holds joint appointments as Professor of Management and Organization in the Marshall School of Business, and Professor of Communication in the Annenberg School of Communication. Professor Young has published over 35 articles and 5 books on business and entertainment related topics. Currently, he is working on a new book, Entertainment Management -- Understanding the Business of Motion Picture, Television, Music, and Games (Prentice Hall, 2007). Mark has also won several international research awards as well as numerous awards for teaching and is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Excellence in Teaching at USC.
SOURCE University of Southern California
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