- Signs of the Times for Tue, 12 Dec 2006 -



Sections on today's Signs Page:



Signs Editorials


Editorial: The Problem with Israel

Jeff Halper
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
23 Nov 06

Let's be honest (for once): The problem in the Middle East is not the Palestinian people, not Hamas, not the Arabs, not Hezbollah or the Iranians or the entire Muslim world. It's us, the Israelis. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the single greatest cause of instability, extremism and violence in our region, is perhaps the simplest conflict in the world to resolve. For almost 20 years, since the PLO's recognition of Israel within the 1949 Armistice Lines (the "Green Line" separating Israel from the West Bank and Gaza), every Palestinian leader, backed by large majorities of the Palestinian population, has presented Israel with a most generous offer: A Jewish state on 78% of Israel/Palestine in return for a Palestinian state on just 22% - the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. In fact, this is a proposition supported by a large majority of both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. As reported in Ha'aretz (January 18, 2005):

Some 63 percent of the Palestinians support the proposal that after the establishment of the state of Palestine and a solution to all the outstanding issues - including the refugees and Jerusalem - a declaration will be issued recognizing the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and the Palestinian state as the state of the Palestinian people...On the Israeli side, 70 percent supported the proposal for mutual recognition.

And if Taba and the Geneva Initiative are indicators, the Palestinians are even willing to "swap" some of the richest and most strategic land around Jerusalem and up through Modi'in for barren tracts of the Negev.

And what about the refugees, supposedly the hardest issue of all to tackle? It's true that the Palestinians want their right of return acknowledged. After all, it is their right under international law. They also want Israel to acknowledge its role in driving the refugees from the country in order that a healing process may begin (I don't have to remind anyone how important it is for us Jews that our suffering be acknowledged). But they have said repeatedly that when it comes to addressing the actual issue, a package of resettlement in Israel and the Palestinian state, plus compensation for those wishing to remain in the Arab countries, plus the possibility of resettlement in Canada, Australia and other countries would create solutions acceptable to all parties. Khalil Shkaki, a Palestinian sociologist who conducted an extensive survey among the refugees, estimates that only about 10%, mainly the aged, would choose to settle in Israel, a number (about 400,000) Israel could easily digest.

With an end to the Occupation and a win-win political arrangement that would satisfy the fundamental needs of both peoples, the Palestinians could make what would be perhaps the most significant contribution of all to peace and stability in the Middle East. Weak as they are, the Palestinians possess one source of tremendous power, one critical trump card: They are the gatekeepers to the Middle East. For the Palestinian conflict is emblematic in the Muslim world. It encapsulates the "clash of civilizations" from the Muslim point of view. Once the Palestinians signal the wider Arab and Muslim worlds that a political accommodation has been achieved that is acceptable to them, and that now is the time to normalize relations with Israel, it will significantly undercut the forces of fundamentalism, militarism and reaction, giving breathing space to those progressive voices that cannot be heard today - including those in Israel. Israel, of course, would also have to resolve the issue of the Golan Heights, which Syria has been asking it to do for years. Despite the neocon rhetoric to the contrary, anyone familiar with the Middle East knows that such a dynamic is not only possible but would progress at a surprisingly rapid pace.

The problem is Israel in both its pre- and post-state forms, which for the past 100 years has steadfastly refused to recognize the national existence and rights of self-determination of the Palestinian people. Time and again it has said "no" to any possibility of genuine peace making, and in the clearest of terms. The latest example is the Convergence Plan (or Realignment) of Ehud Olmert, which seeks to end the conflict forever by imposing Israeli control over a "sovereign" Palestinian pseudo-state. "Israel will maintain control over the security zones, the Jewish settlement blocs, and those places which have supreme national importance to the Jewish people, first and foremost a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty," Olmert declared at the January 2006 Herzliya Conference. "We will not allow the entry of Palestinian refugees into the State of Israel." Olmert's plan, which he had promised to implement just as soon as Hamas and Hezbollah were dispensed with, would have perpetuated Israeli control over the Occupied Territories. It could not possibly have given rise to a viable Palestinian state. While the "Separation Barrier," Israel's demographic border to the east, takes only 10-15% of the West Bank, it incorporates into Israel the major settlement blocs, carves the West Bank into small, disconnected, impoverished "cantons" (Sharon's word), removes from the Palestinians their richest agricultural land and one of the major sources of water. It also creates a "greater" Israeli Jerusalem over the entire central portion of the West Bank, thereby cutting the economic, cultural, religious and historic heart out of any Palestinian state. It then sandwiches the Palestinians between the Wall/border and yet another "security" border, the Jordan Valley, giving Israel two eastern borders. Israel would retain control of all the resources necessary for a viable Palestinian state, and for good measure Israel would appropriate the Palestinians' airspace, their communications sphere and even the right of a Palestinian state to conduct its own foreign policy.

This plan is obviously unacceptable to the Palestinians - a fact Olmert knows full well - so it must be imposed unilaterally, with American assistance. But who cares? We refused to talk genuinely with Arafat, refused to speak at all with Abu Mazen and currently boycott entirely the elected Hamas government, arresting or assassinating those associated with it. And if "Convergence" doesn't fly this time around, well, maintaining the status quo while building settlements has been an effective policy for the past four decades and can be extended indefinitely. True, Israel has descended into blind, pointless violence - the Lebanon War of 2006 and, as this is being written, an increasingly violent assault on Gaza. But the Israeli public has accepted Barak's line that there is no "partner for peace." So if there is any discontent among the voters, they are more likely to throw out the "bleeding heart" liberal left and bring in the right with its failed doctrine of military-based security.

Why? If Israelis truly crave peace and security - "the right to be normal," as Olmert put it recently - then why haven't they grabbed, or at least explored, each and every opportunity for resolving the conflict? Why do they continually elect governments that aggressively pursue settlement expansion and military confrontation with the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors even though they want to get the albatross of occupation off their necks? Why, if most Israelis truly yearn to "separate" from the Palestinians, do they offer the Palestinians so little that separation is simply not an option, even if the Palestinians are willing to make major concessions? "The files of the Israeli Foreign Ministry," writes the Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim in The Iron Wall (2001:49), "burst at the seams with evidence of Arab peace feelers and Arab readiness to negotiate with Israel from September 1948 on." To take just a few examples of opportunities deliberately rejected:

- In the spring and summer of 1949, Israel and the Arab states met under the auspices of the UN's Palestine Conciliation Committee (PCC) in Lausanne, Switzerland. Israel did not want to make any territorial concessions or take back 100,000 of the 700,000 refugees demanded by the Arabs. As much as anything else, however, was Ben Gurion's observation in a cabinet meeting that the Israeli public was "drunk with victory" and in no mood for concessions, "maximal or minimal," according to Israeli negotiator Elias Sasson.

- In 1949 Syria's leader Husni Zaim openly declared his readiness to be the first Arab leader to conclude a peace treaty with Israel - as well as to resettle half the Palestinian refugees in Syria. He repeatedly offered to meet with Ben Gurion, who steadfastly refused. In the end only an armistice agreement was signed.

- King Abdullah of Jordan engaged in two years of negotiations with Israel but was never able to make a meaningful breakthrough on any major matter before his assassination. His offer to meet with Ben Gurion was also refused. Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett commented tellingly: "Transjordan said - we are ready for peace immediately. We said - of course, we too want peace, but we cannot run, we have to walk." Three weeks before his assassination, King Abdullah said: "I could justify a peace by pointing to concessions made by the Jews. But without any concessions from them, I am defeated before I even start."

- In 1952-53 extensive negotiations were held with the Syrian government of Adib Shishakli, a pro-American leader who was eager for accommodation with Israel. Those talks failed because Israel insisted on exclusive control of the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh and the Jordan River.

- Nasser's repeated offers to talk peace with Ben Gurion, beginning soon after the 1952 Revolution, finally ended with the refusal of Ben Gurion's successor, Moshe Sharett, to continue the process and a devastating Israeli attack (led by Ariel Sharon) on an Egyptian military base in Gaza.

- In general, Israel's post-war inflexibility was due to its success in negotiating the armistice agreements, which left it in a politically, territorially and militarily superior position. "The renewed threat of war had been pushed back," writes Israeli historian Benny Morris in his book Righteous Victims. "So why strain to make a peace involving major territorial concessions?" In a cable to Sharett, Ben Gurion stated flatly what would become Israel's long-term policy, essentially valid until today: "Israel will not discuss a peace involving the concession of any piece of territory. The neighboring states do not deserve an inch of Israel's land...We are ready for peace in exchange for peace." ln July, 1949, he told a visiting American journalist, "I am not in a hurry and I can wait ten years. We are under no pressure whatsoever." Nonetheless, this period saw the emergence of the image of the Arab leaders as intractable enemies, curried so carefully by Israel and representing such a powerful part of the Israeli framing. Morris (1999: 268) summarizes it succinctly and bluntly:

For decades Ben-Gurion, and successive administrations after his, lied to the Israeli public about the post-1948 peace overtures and about Arab interest in a deal. The Arab leaders (with the possible exception of Abdullah) were presented, one and all, as a recalcitrant collection of warmongers, hell-bent on Israel's destruction. The recent opening of the Israeli archive offers a far more complex picture.

- In late 1965 Abdel Hakim Amer, the vice-president and deputy commander of the Egyptian army invited the head of the Mossad, Meir Amit, to come to Cairo. The visit was vetoed after stiff opposition from Isser Harel, Eshkol's intelligence advisor. Could the 1967 war have been avoided? We'll never know.

- Immediately after the 1967 war, Israel sent out feelers for an accommodation with both the Palestinians of the West Bank and with Jordan. The Palestinians were willing to enter into discussion over peace, but only if that meant an independent Palestinian state, an option Israel never even entertained. The Jordanians were also ready, but only if they received full control over the West Bank and, in particular, East Jerusalem and its holy places. King Hussein even held meetings with Israeli officials but Israel's refusal to contemplate a full return of the territories scuttled the process. The annexation of a "greater" Jerusalem area and immediate program of settlement construction foreclosed any chance for a full peace.

- In 1971 Sadat sent a letter to the UN Jarring Commission expressing Egypt's willingness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel. Israeli acceptance could have prevented the 1973 war. After the war Golda Meir summarily dismissed Sadat's renewed overtures of peace talks.

- Israel ignored numerous feelers put out by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders in the early 1970s expressing a readiness to discuss peace with Israel.

- Sadat's attempts in 1978 to resolve the Palestine issue as a part of the Israel-Egypt peace process that were rebuffed by Begin who refused to consider anything beyond Palestinian "autonomy."

- In 1988 in Algiers, as part of its declaration of Palestinian independence, the PLO recognized Israel within the Green Line and expressed a willingness to enter into discussions.

- In 1993, at the start of the Oslo process, Arafat and the PLO reiterated in writing their recognition of Israel within the 1967 borders (again, on 78% of historic Palestine). Although they recognized Israel as a "legitimate" state in the Middle East, Israel did not reciprocate. The Rabin government did not recognize the Palestinians' national right of self-determination, but was only willing to recognize the Palestinians as a negotiating partner. Not in Oslo nor subsequently has Israel ever agreed to relinquish the territory it conquered in 1967 in favor of a Palestinian state despite this being the position of the UN (Resolution 242), the international community (including, until Bush, the Americans), and since 1988, the Palestinians.

- Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of all was the undermining by successive Labor and Likud governments of any viable Palestinian state by doubling Israel's settler population during the seven years of the Oslo "peace process" (1993-2000), thus effectively eliminating the two-state solution.

- In late 1995, Yossi Beilin, a key member of the Oslo negotiating team, presented Rabin with the "Stockholm document" (negotiated with Abu Mazen's team) for resolving the conflict. So promising was this agreements that Abu Mazen had tears in his eyes when he signed off on it. Rabin was assassinated a few days later and his successor, Shimon Peres, turned it down flat.

- Israel's dismissal of Syrian readiness to negotiate peace, repeated frequently until this day, if Israel will make concessions on the occupied Golan Heights.

- Sharon's complete disregard for the Arab League's 2002 offer of recognition, peace and regional integration in return for relinquishing the Occupation.

- Sharon's disqualification of Arafat, by far the most congenial and cooperative partner Israel ever had, and the last Palestinian leader who could "deliver," and his subsequent boycott of Abu Mazen.

- Olmert declared "irrelevant" the Prisoners' Document in which all Palestinian factions, including Hamas, agreed on a political program seeking a two-state solution - followed by attempts to destroy the democratically-elected government of Hamas by force; and on until this day when

- In September and October 2006 Bashar Assad made repeated overtures for peace with Israel, declaring in public: "I am ready for an immediate peace with Israel, with which we want to live in peace." On the day of Assad's first statement to that regard, Prime Minister Olmert declared, "We will never leave the Golan Heights," accused Syria of "harboring terrorists" and, together with his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, announced that "conditions are not ripe for peace with Syria."

To all this we can add the unnecessary wars, more limited conflicts and the bloody attacks that served mainly to bolster Israel's position, directly or indirectly, in its attempt to extend its control over the entire land west of the Jordan: The systematic killing between 1948-1956 of 3000-5000 "infiltrators," Palestinian refugees, mainly unarmed, who sought mainly to return to their homes, to till their fields or to recover lost property; the 1956 war with Egypt, fought partly in order to prevent the reemergence onto the international agenda of the "Palestine Problem," as well as to strengthen Israel militarily, territorially and diplomatically; military operations against Palestinian civilians beginning with the infamous killings in Sharafat, Beit Jala and most notoriously Qibia, led by Sharon's Unit 101. These operations continue in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon until this day, mainly for purposes of collective punishment and "pacification." Others include the campaign, decades old, of systematically liquidating any effective Palestinian leader; the three wars in Lebanon (Operation Litani in 1978, Operation Peace for the Galilee in 1982 and the war of 2006); and more.

Lurking behind all these military actions, be they major wars or "targeted assassinations," is the consistent and steadfast Israeli refusal (in fact extending back to the pre-Zionist days of the 1880s) to deal directly and seriously with the Palestinians. Israel's strategy until today is to bypass and encircle them, making deals with governments that isolate and, unsuccessfully so far, neutralize the Palestinians as players. This was most tellingly shown in the Madrid peace talks, when Israel only allowed Palestinian participation as part of the Jordanian delegation. But it includes the Oslo "peace process" as well. While Israel insisted on a letter from Arafat explicitly recognizing Israel as a "legitimate construct" in the Middle East, and later demanded a specific statement recognizing Israel as a Jewish state (both of which it got), no Israeli government ever recognized the collective rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Rabin was forthright as to the reason: If Israel recognizes the Palestinians' right to self-determination, it means that a Palestinian state must by definition emerge - and Israel did not want to promise that (Savir 1998:47). So except for vague pronouncements about not wanting to rule over another people and "our hand outstretched in peace," Israel has never allowed the framework for genuine negotiations. The Palestinians must be taken into account, they may be asked to react to one or another of our proposals, but they are certainly not equal partners with claims to the country rivaling ours. Israel's fierce response to the eruption of the second Intifada, when it shot more than a million rounds, including missiles, into civilian centers in the West Bank and Gaza despite the complete lack of shooting from the Palestinian side during the Intifada's first five days, can only be explained as punishing them for rejecting what Barak tried to impose on them at Camp David, disabusing them of the notion that are equals in deciding the future of "our" country. We will beat them, Sharon used to say frequently, "until they get 'the message'." And what is the "message"? That this is our country and only we Israeli Jews have the prerogative of deciding whether and how we wish to divide it.


Non-Constraining Conflict Management

The irrelevance of the Palestinians to Israeli policy-makers is merely a localized expression of an overall assumption that has determined Israeli policy towards the Arabs since the founding of the state. Israel, Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion to Olmert have asserted, is simply too strong for the Arabs to ignore. We therefore cannot make peace too soon. Once we get everything we want, the Arabs will still be willing to sue for peace with us. The answer, then, to the apparent contradiction of why Israel claims it desires peace and security and yet pursues policies of conflict and expansion has four parts.

(1) Territory and hegemony trump peace. As Ben Gurion disclosed years ago, Israel's geo-political goals take precedence over peace with any Arab country. Since a state of non-conflict is even better than peace (Israel has such a relationship with Syria, with whom it hasn't fought for 34 years, and is thereby able to avoid the compromises associated with peace that might threaten its occupation of the Golan Heights), Israel makes "peace" only with countries that acquiescence to its expansionist agenda. Jordan gave up all claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has even ceased to actively advocate for Palestinian rights. Peace with Egypt, it is true, cost Israel the Sinai Peninsula, but it left its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank intact. Differentiating between those parts of the Arab world with which it wants an actual peace agreement, those with which it needs merely a state of non-conflict and those which it believes it can control, isolate and defeat creates a situation of great flexibility, allows Israel to employ the carrot or the stick according to its particular agenda at any particular time.

Israel can pursue this strategy today only because of the umbrella, political, military and financial, provided by the United States. This is rooted in many different sources including the influence of the organized Jewish community and the Christian fundamentalists on domestic politics and the Congress most obviously. Bipartisan and unassailable support for Israel, however, arises from Israel's place in the American arms industry and the US' defense diplomacy. Since the mid-1990s Israel has specialized in developing hi-tech components for weapons systems, and in this way it has also gained a central place in the world's arms and security industries. One could look at Israel's suppression of the Intifadas, its attempted pacification of the Occupied Territories and occasional combat with the likes of Hezbollah as valuable opportunities in almost laboratory-like conditions to develop useful weaponry and tactics. This has made it extremely valuable to the West. In fact, Israel is among the five largest exporters of arms in the world, and is poised to overtake Russia as #2 in just a few years (based on Jane's assessment, May 2, 2006). The fact that it has discrete military ties with many Muslim countries, including Iran, adds another layer of rationality to its guiding assumption that a separate peace with Arab states is achievable without major concessions to the Palestinians. If any state significantly challenges Israeli positions, Israel can pull rank as the gatekeeper to American military programs, including to some degree the US defense industry, and thus to major sources of hi-tech research and development, a formidable position indeed.

(2) A militarily defined security doctrine. Israel's concept of "security" has always been so exaggerated that it leaves no breathing space whatsoever for the Palestinians, thus eliminating any viable resolution of the conflict. This reflects, of course, its traditional reliance on overwhelming military superiority (the "qualitative edge") over the Arabs. So overwhelming is it perceived - despite its near-disaster in the 1973 war, its failure to pacify the Occupied Territories and, most recently, its failure against Hezbollah in Lebanon - that it precludes any need for accommodation or genuine negotiations, let alone meaningful concessions to the Palestinians. Several Israel scholars, including ex-military officials, have written on the preponderance of the military in formulating government policy. Ben Gurion's linking the concept of nation building with that of a nation-in-arms, writes Yigal Levy (reviewing Yoram Peri's recent book Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy), made the army an instrument for maintaining a social order that rested on keeping war a permanent fixture.

The centrality of the army depends on the centrality of war...But the moment the political leadership opted to create a 'mobilized,' disciplined and inequitable society by turning the army into the 'nation builder' and making war a constant, the politicians became dependent on the army. It was not just dependence on the army as an organization, but on military thinking. The military view of political reality has become the main anchor of Israeli statesmanship, from the victory of Ben Gurion and his allies over Moshe Sharett's more conciliatory policies in the 1950s, through the occupation as a fact of life from the 1960s, to the current preference for another war in Lebanon over the political option (Ha'aretz August 25, 2006).


Ze'ev Maoz, in an article entitled "Israel's Nonstrategy of Peace," argues that

Israel has a well-developed security doctrine [but] does not have a peace policy...Israel's history of peacemaking has been largely reactive, demonstrating a pattern of hesitancy, risk-avoidance, and gradualism that stands in stark contrast to its proactive, audacious, and trigger-happy strategic doctrine...The military is essentially the only government organization that offers policy options - typically military plans - at times of crisis. Israel's foreign ministry and diplomatic community are reduced to public relations functions, explaining why Israel is using force instead of diplomacy to deal with crisis situations (Tikkun 21(5), September 2006: 49-50).

Again, this approach to dealing with the Arabs is not recent: It is found throughout the entire history of Zionism and has been dominant in the Yishuv/Israeli leadership from the time of the Arab "riots" and the recommendations for partition from the Peel commission in 1937 until this day, with a few very brief interruptions: Sharett (1954-55), Levi Eshkol (1963-69) and, perhaps, Rabin in his Oslo phase (1992-95). Sharett labeled it the camp of the military "activists," and in 1957 described it as follows:

The activists believe that the Arabs understand only the language of force...The State of Israel must, from time to time, prove clearly that is it strong, and able and willing to use force, in a devastating and highly effective way. If it does not prove this, it will be swallowed up, and perhaps wiped off the face of the earth. As to peace - this approach states - it is in any case doubtful; in any case very remote. If peace comes, it will come only if [the Arabs] are convinced that this country cannot be beaten....If [retaliatory] operations...rekindle the fires of hatred, that is no cause for fear for the fires will be fueled in any event (Morris, 1999: 280).

Feeling that its security is guaranteed by its military power and that a separate peace (or state of non-conflict) with each Arab state is sufficient, Israel allows itself an expanded concept of "security" that eliminates a negotiated settlement. Thus Israel defines the conflict with the Palestinians just as the US defines its War on Terror: As an us-or-them equation where "they" are fundamentally, irretrievably and permanently our enemies. It is no longer a political conflict, and thus it has no solution. Israel's security, in this view, can be guaranteed only in military terms, or until each and every one of "them" [the Palestinians] is either dead, in prison, driven out of the country or confined to a sealed enclave. This is why rational attempts to resolve the conflict based on mutual interests, identifying the sources of the conflict and negotiating solutions has proven futile all these years. Israel's guiding agenda and principles have nothing whatsoever to do with either the Palestinians or actual peace. They are rooted instead in an uncompromising project of creating a purely Jewish space in the entire Land of Israel, with closed islands of Palestinians. Even Israel's most ardent supporters - organized American Jewry, for instance - do not grasp this (Christian fundamentalists and neocons do, and its just fine with them). The claim made by these "pro-Israel" supporters and, indeed, by Israel itself, that Israel has always sought peace and has been rebuffed by Arab intransigence, is actually the opposite of the case. Again, Israel is seeking a proprietorship and regional hegemony that can only be achieved unilaterally, rendering negotiations superfluous and irrelevant. Like the Zionist ideology itself, Israel's security doctrine is self-contained, a closed circuit. That's why peace-making efforts over the years, Israeli as well as foreign, have failed miserably. If the assumption - encouraged by Israel - is that the conflict can be resolved through diplomatic means, then Israel can justly be accused of acting in bad faith. Israel and its interlocutors are essentially talking past each other.

The prominence (one is tempted to say "monopoly") of the military in political policy-making explains the mystery of why Labor in the post-Ben Gurion era chose territorial expansion over peace. Uri Savir, the head of Israel's Foreign Ministry under Rabin and Peres and a chief negotiator in the Oslo process, provides a glimpse into this dynamic in his book The Process (1998:81, 99, 207-208). After the Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestinians was signed on the White House lawn in September 1993

Rabin chose a new team of negotiators. Led by Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Amnon Shahak, it was composed mostly of military officers. When the military grumbled bitterly at having been shut out of the Oslo talks, Rabin...did not reject the criticism...That Israel's approach should be dictated by the army invariably made immediate security considerations the dominant one, so that the fundamentally political process had been subordinated to short-term military needs.

In Grenada, Peres had painstakingly explained to Arafat Israel's stand on security, especially external security and the border passages. "Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give you the straight truth, without embellishment," he said...We will not compromise on the operational side of controlling the border passages [to Jordan and Egypt]. We're concerned about the smuggling of weapons. Ten pistols can make for many victims," he stressed. "This is absolutely vital to our security."

Arafat, who translated this straight talk into a vision of Palestinians caged in on all sides, replied: "I cannot go for a Bantustan...."

In the end, Israel's security doctrine generally prevailed. Would compliance with Arafat's demand for more power and responsibility have improved Israel's security? The truth is, we will never know....

Now the bureaucrats and the officers who ruled the Palestinians had been asked to pass on their powers to their "wards"...Some of these administrators found it almost unbearable to sit down in Eilat with representatives of their "subjects." We had been engaged in dehumanization for so long that we really thought ourselves "more equal" - and at the same time the threatened side, therefore justifiably hesitant. The group negotiating the transfer of civil powers did not rebel against their mandate, but whenever we offered a concession or a compromise, our people tended to begin by saying" "We have decided to allow you..."

"Security" became ever more constrictive as right-wing soldiers and security advisors began moving into the highest echelons of the military and political establishments during the years of Likud rule. Fourteen of the first fifteen Chiefs of Staff were associated with the Labor Party; the last three - Shaul Mofaz, Moshe Ya'alon and Dan Halutz - are associated with the right wing of the Likud, a mix of ideology and militarism that reinforces a concept of security that, even if sincerely held, cannot create the space needed for a viable Palestinian state.

(3) Israel as a self-defined bastion of the West in the Middle East. Israel's European orientation, including a view of the Arab world as a mere hinterland offering Israel little of value, explains why Israel does not place more importance pursuing peace with its neighbors. Israel does not consider itself a part of the Middle East and has no desire whatsoever to integrate into it. If anything, it sees itself as a Middle Eastern variation of Singapore. Like Singapore, it seeks a correct relationship with its hinterland, but views itself as a service center for the West, to which its economy and political affiliations are tied. (Israel, we might note, has built the Singaporean army into what it is today, the strongest military force in Southeast Asia.) That means it lacks the fundamental motivation to achieve any form of regional integration, as evidenced by its off-hand dismissal of the Saudi Initiative of 2002 that, with the backing of the Arab League, offered Israel recognition, peace and regional integration in return for relinquishing the Occupation. And finally,

(4) The immaterial Palestinians. Israel believes that it can achieve a separate peace with countries of the Arab and Muslim worlds (and maintain its overall strong international position) without reference to the Palestinians. Not with the peoples, it is true; that would require a degree of concession to the Palestinians "on the ground" beyond which Israel is willing to go. Knowing this yet having little interest in either the Palestinian people or the Muslim masses, Israel is willing to limit its state of peace/non-conflict with governments - Egypt, Jordan, an emerging Iraq (although Israel is arming the Kurds), the Gulf states, the countries of North Africa (Libya included), Pakistan, Indonesia and some Muslim African countries. In the view of Israeli leaders surveying with satisfaction the political landscape, the notion that Israel is too strong to ignore seems to hold true.

Though it has sustained some serious hits in Lebanon, at the moment Israel is flying high with its central place in the American neocon agenda of consolidating American Empire, its key role in what the Pentagon calls "The Long War" to ensure American hegemony, remains, despite growing doubts over Israel's ability to "deliver." Whether or not US policy has been "Israelized" or the "strategic alliance" between the two countries merely rests on perceived common interests and services Israel can offer the US, the Bush Administration has provided Israel with a window of opportunity it is exploiting to the hilt. Despite the Lebanese setback, Israeli leaders still believe they can "win," they can beat the Palestinians, engineer Israel's permanent control over the Occupied Territories and achieve enough peace with enough of the Arab and Muslim worlds. That is what Olmert's "Convergence Plan" (now temporarily shelved) is all about, and why he has resolved to implement it while Bush is still in office. Israel's security, then, rests in that broad sphere defined by military might, services provided to the US military, the uncritical support of the American Congress, its military diplomacy including arms sales, Israel's central role in the neocon agenda, its ability to parley European guilt over the Holocaust into political support, its ability to manipulate Arab and Muslim governments and its ability to suppress Palestinian resistance.

So what's wrong with this picture? Nothing, unless one truly wants peace, security and "the right to be normal" - and unless considerations such as justice and human rights enter into the equation. From a purely utilitarian perspective, Israel is a tremendous success. Perhaps the most hopeful sign of Israel's "normalization" is its acceptance by most of the Arab and Muslim world, best illustrated by the very Saudi Initiative Israel so summarily ignored. But this also pinpoints the problem. The Saudi/Arab League offer was contingent upon Israel's relinquishing the Occupation, something it is not prepared to do. True to form, Israel responded to the offer "on the ground" rather than through diplomatic channels. Sharon carried out his plan of "disengagement" from Gaza explicitly to ensure Israel's permanent and unassailable rule over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while his successor Olmert vigorously pushed a plan under which the Occupation would be transformed into a permanent state of Israeli control. All this conforms to Israeli policy going back to Ben Gurion which asserts that if Israel limits its aim to achieving a modus vivendi with the Arab and Muslim worlds rather than full-fledged peace, it can ensure its security while retaining control over the land west of the Jordan River. To be sure, occasional spats will erupt such as those in Gaza or with the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel might even be called upon to do America's dirty work in Iran, as it played its role (limited as it was) in Iraq. But those (or at least this was the thinking before the Lebanese debacle) are easily contained, American co-opting of Egypt and Jordan providing the necessary cushion.

This Israeli realpolitik rests on an extremely pragmatic approach to the conflict akin to what the British termed "muddling through." If Israel's goal was to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians and seek genuine peace and regional integration, it could easily have adopted policies that would have achieved that, probably long ago. The goal, however, is conflict management, maintaining the "status quo" in perpetuity, and not conflict resolution. Muddling through well suits Israel's attempt to balance the unbalance-able: expanding territorially at the expense of the Palestinians while still maintaining an acceptable level of security and "quiet." It enables Israel to meet each challenge as it arises rather than to lock itself into a strategy or set of policies that fail to take into account unexpected developments. Yesterday we tried Oslo; today we'll hit Gaza and Lebanon, tomorrow "convergence."

It may not look rational or neat, but conflict management means going with the flow; staying on top of things, knowing where you are going and having contingency plans always at the ready to take advantage of any opening, and dealing with events as they happen. Not long-term strategies but a vision implemented in many often imperceptible stages over time, under the radar so as to attract as little attention or opposition as possible, realized through short-term initiatives like the Convergence Plan which progressively nail down gains "on the ground."

If this analysis is correct, Israel is willing to settle for peace-and-quiet rather than genuine peace, for management of the conflict rather than closure, for territorial gains that may perpetuate tensions and occasional conflicts in the region, but do not jeopardize Israel's essential security. Declaring "the right to be normal" becomes a PR move designed to blame the other side and cast Israel as the victim; it is not something that Israeli leaders sincerely expect. Indeed, their very policies are based on the assumption that functional normality - an acceptable level of "quiet," the economy doing well, a fairly normal existence for an insulated Israeli public most of the time - is a preferred status to the concessions required for a genuine, and attainable, peace.

What About the Battered And Exhausted Israeli Public?

The Jewish Israeli public only partially buys into all this. It would prefer actual peace and normalization to territorial gains in the Occupied Territories, though it definitely prefers separation from the Arab world to regional integration. If Israelis prefer peace to continued conflict with the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors, why, then, do they vote for governments that pursue the exact opposite, that prefer conflict management and territory to peace? Mystification of the conflict on the part of Israeli leaders plays a large role, just as it does in the "clash of civilizations" discourse in other Western countries. Since Israel's strategy of enduring a certain level of conflict as an acceptable price for territorial expansion would not be tolerated if it was stated in those terms, successive Israel governments from Ben Gurion to Olmert instead convinced the public that there is simply no political solution. The Arabs are our intransigent and permanent enemies; we Israeli Jews, the victims, have sought only peace and a normal existence, but in vain. And that's just the way it is. As Yitzhak Shamir put it so colorfully: "The Arabs are the same Arabs, the Jews are the same Jews and the sea [into which the former seek to throw the latter] is the same sea." Israel effectively adopted the clash of civilizations notion years before Samuel Huntington.
This manipulative framing of the conflict also fashions discourse in a way that prevents the public from "getting it." Israel's official national narrative supplies a coherent, compelling justification for doing whatever we like without being held accountable - indeed, it renders all criticism of us as "anti-Semitism." The self-evident framing which determines the parameters of all political, media and public discussion goes something like this:

The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people; Arabs (the term "Palestinian" is seldom used) reside there by sufferance and not by right. Since the problem is implacable Arab hatred and terrorism and the Palestinians are our permanent enemies, the conflict has no political solution. Israel's policies are based on concerns for security. The Arabs have rejected all our many peace offers; we are the victim fighting for our existence. Israel therefore is exempt from accountability for its actions under international law and covenants of human rights.

Any solution, then, must leave Israel in control of the entire country. Any Palestinian state will have to be truncated, non-viable and semi-sovereign. The conflict is a win-lose proposition: either we "win" or "they" do. The answer to Israel's security concerns is a militarily strong Israel aligned with the United States.

One of this framing's most glaring omissions is the very term "occupation." Without that, debate is reduced solely to what "they" are doing to us, in other words, to seemingly self-evident issues of terrorism and security. There are no "Occupied Territories" (in fact, Israel officially denies it even has an occupation), only Judea and Samaria, the heart of our historic homeland, or strangely disembodied but certainly hostile "territories." Quite deliberately, then, Israelis are studiously ignorant of what is going on in the Occupied Territories, whether in terms of settlement expansion and other "facts" on the ground or in terms of government policies. One can listen to the endless political talk shows and commentaries in the Israeli media without ever hearing a reference to the Occupation. Pieces of it yes: Settlements, perhaps; the Separation Barrier (called a "fence" in Israel) occasionally; almost never house demolitions or references to the massive system of Israel-only highways that have incorporated the West Bank irreversibly into Israel proper, never the Big Picture. Although Olmert's Convergence Plan, which is of fundamental importance to the future of Israelis, is based upon the annexation of Israel's major settlement blocs, the public has never been shown a map of those blocs and therefore has no clear idea of what is actually being proposed or its significance for any eventual peace. But that is considered irrelevant anyway. When, very occasionally, Israelis are confronted by the massive "facts of the ground," they invoke the mechanism of minimization: OK, they say, we know all that, but nothing is irreversible, the fence and the settlements can be dismantled, all options continue to be open. In this way they do not have to deal with the enormity of what they have created, one system for two peoples, which, if the status quo cannot be maintained forever, can only lead to a single bi-national state or to apartheid, confining the Palestinians to a truncated Bantustan. While the official narrative deflects public attention from the sources of the conflict, minimization relieves Israelis of responsibility for either perpetuating or resolving it.

Framing, then, becomes much more than a PR exercise. It becomes an essential element of defense in insulating the core of the conflict - the Occupation itself, the pro-active policies of settlement that belie the claims of "security," and Israel's responsibility as the occupying power - from both public scrutiny and public discussion. Defending that framing is therefore tantamount to defending Israel's very claim to the country, the very "moral basis" of Zionism we Israelis constantly invoke. No wonder it is impossible to engage even liberal "pro-Israeli" individuals and organizations in a substantive and genuine discussion of the issues at hand.

One result of such discursive processes is the disempowerment of the Israeli public. If, in fact, there is no solution, then all that's left is to hunker down and carve out as much normality as possible. For Israelis the entire conflict with the Arabs has been reduced to one technical issue: How do we ensure our personal security? Since conflict management assumes a certain level of violence, the public has entered into a kind of deal with the government: You reduce terrorism to "acceptable" levels, and we won't ask how you do it. In a sense the public extends to the government a line of credit. We don't care how you guarantee our personal security. Establish a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories if you think that will work; load the Arabs on trucks and transfer them out of the country; build a wall so high that, as someone said, even birds can't fly over it. We, the Israeli Jewish public, don't care how you do it. Just do it if you want to be re-elected.

This is what accounts for the apparent contradiction between the public will and the policies of the governments it elects. That explains how in 1999 Barak was elected with a clear mandate to end the conflict, and when he failed and the Intifada broke out, that same public, in early 2001, elected his mirror opposite, Ariel Sharon, the architect of Israel's settlement policies who eschewed any negotiations at all. Israelis are willing to sacrifice peace for security - and do not see the contradiction - because true "peace" is considered unattainable. In fact, "peace" carries a negative political connotation amongst most Israelis. It denotes concessions, weakness, increased vulnerability. Israel's unique electoral system, in which voters cast their ballots for parties rather than candidates and end up either with unwieldy coalition governments incapable of formulating and pursuing a coherent policy, only adds to the public's disempowerment and its unwillingness to entrust any government with a mandate to arrive at a final settlement with the Arabs.

Because the "situation," as we call it, has been reduced to a technical problem of personal security without political solution, Israelis have become passive, bordering on irresponsible. They have been removed from the political equation altogether. Any attempt to actually resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict (and its corollaries) will have to come from the outside; the Israeli public will simply not make a proactive move in that direction. While the government will obviously oppose such intervention, the Israeli public may actually welcome it - if it is announced by a friend (the US), pronounced authoritatively with little space for haggling (as Reagan did over the sale of AWACs surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s), and couched as originating out of concern for Israel's security. Israeli Jews may be likened to the whites of South Africa during the last phase of apartheid. The latter had grown accustomed to apartheid and would not themselves have risen up to abolish it. But when international and domestic pressures became unbearable and de Klerk finally said, "It's over," there was no uprising, even among the Afrikaners who constructed the regime. I sincerely believe that if cowboy Bush would get up one morning and say to Israel: "We love you, we will guarantee your security, but the Occupation has to end. Period," that you would hear the sigh of relief from Israelis all the way in Washington.

As it stands, the Israeli leadership thinks we are winning, the people are not so sure but are too disinformed and cowed by security threats (bogus and real) to act, and the peace movement has been reduced to a pariah few crying out in the wilderness. Given the support Israel receives from the US in return for services rendered to the Empire, Europe's quiescent complicity and Palestinian isolation, the question remains whether Israel's strategy of conflict management has not in fact succeeded - again, considerations of justice, genuine peace and human rights aside. Say what you will, the realists can point to almost sixty years during which Israel has emerged as a regional, if not global superpower in firm control of the greater Land of Israel. If Olmert succeeds in implementing his Convergence Plan, the conflict with the Palestinians is over from Israel's point of view - and we've won.

Yet so overwhelming is our military might, so massive and permanent have we made our controlling presence in the Occupied Territories, that we have fatally overplayed our hand. Ben Gurion's formula worked. We now have everything we want - the entire Land of Israel west of the Jordan River - and the Arab governments have sued for peace. But four elements of the equation that Ben Gurion (or Meir or Peres, or Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Olmert and all the rest) did not take into account have arisen to fundamentally challenge the paradigm of power:

(1) Demographics. Israel does not have enough Jews to sustain its control over the greater Land of Israel. (Indeed, whether Israel proper can remain "Jewish" is a question, with the Jewish majority down just under 75%, factoring in the Arab population, the non-Jewish Russians and emigration.) Zionism created a strong state, but it did not succeed in convincing Jews to settle it. The Jewish population of Israel represents less than a third of world Jewry; only 1% of American Jews made aliyah. In fact, whenever Jews had a choice - in North Africa, the former Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, South Africa and Argentina, not to mention all the countries of Europe and North America - they chose not to come to Israel. And it is demographics that is driving Olmert's Convergence Plan. "It's only a matter of time before the Palestinians demand 'one man, one vote' - and then, what will we do?", he asked plaintively at the 2004 Herzilya conference. Olmert's scheme retains control of Israel and the Occupied Territories (in his terms Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem) while doing the only thing possible with the Palestinians who make up half the population - locking them into a truncated Bantustan on a sterile 15-20% of the country.

(2) Palestinians. Israel's historical policy of ignoring and bypassing the Palestinians can no longer work. Palestinians comprise about half the population of the land west of the Jordan River, all of which Israel seeks to control, and will be a clear majority if significant numbers of refugees are repatriated to the Palestinian Bantustan. Keeping that population under control means that Israel must adopt ever more repressive policies, whether prohibiting Israeli Arab citizens from bringing their spouses and children from the Occupied Territories to live with them in Israel, as recent legislation has decreed, or imprisoning an entire people behind 26-foot concrete walls. Despite Olmert's assertion that Israelis have a right to live a normal life, normalcy cannot be achieved unilaterally. Neither an Occupation nor a Bantustan nor any other form of oppression can be normalized or routinized; it will always be resisted by the oppressed. Strong as Israel is militarily, it has not succeeded in pacifying the Palestinians over the last 40 years of occupation, 60 years since the Naqba or century since the Zionist movement claimed exclusive patrimony over Palestine and begin to systematically dispossess the indigenous population. The Palestinians today possess one weapon that Israel cannot defeat, that it must one day deal with, and that is their position as gatekeepers. Until the Palestinians signal the wider Arab, Muslim and international communities that they have reached a satisfactory political accommodation with Israel, the conflict will continue and Israel will fail to achieve either closure or normalcy.

(3) The Arab/Muslim peoples. The role of Palestinians as gatekeepers reflects the rise in importance of civil society as a player in political affairs. Israel's lack of concern over the Arab and Muslim "streets," its reliance solely on peace-making with governments, indicates a major failure in Israel's strategic approach to the conflict: Its underestimation of the power of the people. Sentiments such as "We don't care about making peace with the Arab peoples; correct relations with their governments are enough," ignore the fragile state of Arab governments created by the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, which in turn has been fueled in large part (though not exclusively, of course) by the Occupation. If Hezbollah has the power to create the instability is has, imagine what will happen if the Muslim Brotherhood seizes power in Egypt. The disproportionate bias towards Israel in American and European policies only fuels and sharpens the "clash of civilizations," while Israel's Occupation effectively prevents progressive elements from emerging in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The strategic role played by Palestinians as gatekeepers has a significant effect upon the stability of the entire global system. The Israel-Palestine conflict is no longer a localized one.

(4) International civil society. As we have seen, Israeli leaders, surveying the international political landscape as elected officials do, take great comfort. They believe that, with uncritical and unlimited American support, their country is "winning" its conflict over the Palestinians (and Israel's other enemies, real and imagined). Like political leaders everywhere, they don't seriously take "the people" into account. Yet, The People - what is known as international civil society - have some achievements under their belt when it comes to defeating injustice. They forced the American government to enforce the civil rights of black people in the US and to abandon the war in Vietnam. They played major roles in the collapse of South African apartheid, of the Soviet Union and of the Shah's regime, among many others. Since governments will almost never do the right thing on their own, it was civil society, through the newly established UN, that forced them to accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and a whole corpus of human rights and international law. With the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court at our disposal, as well as other instruments, and as civil society organizes into Social Forums and other forms of action coalitions, major cases of injustice, such as Israel's Occupation, are becoming less and less sustainable. As the Occupation assumes the proportions of an injustice on the scale of apartheid - a conflict with global implications - Olmert may convince Bush and Blair to support his plan, but the conflict will not be over until two gatekeepers say it is, the Palestinians and the people worldwide.

The Only Way Out: Forcing Israel To Take Responsibility

Israel has only one way out: It must take responsibility for its actions. No more blaming Arafat and Hamas and the Arabs in general. No more playing the victim. No more denying Occupation or the human rights of a people just as lodged into this land as the Jews, if not more so. No more using the military to ensure "our" security. No more unilateralism. Instead, Israel must work with the Palestinians to create a genuine two-state solution. No Geneva Initiative whereby the Palestinians get a non-viable 22% of the country; nor convergence nor realignment nor apartheid. Simply an end of Occupation and a return to the 1967 borders (in which Israel still retains 78% of the country) - or, if a just and viable two-state solution is in fact buried forever under massive Israeli settlement blocs and highways, then another solution. And a just solution to the refugee issue. Over time, the Palestinians - who are greater friends of Israel than any Israeli realizes - might even use their good offices to eventually enter into a regional confederation with the neighboring states (see my article in Tikkun 20[1)]17-21: "Israel in a Middle East Union: A 'Two-stage' Approach to the Conflict.").

This is a tall order, and it will not happen soon. The military's mobilization of Jewish Israelis has created a remarkably high consensus (85% support the construction of the Wall; 93% supported the recent war in Lebanon), making it impossible for truly divergent views to penetrate. Some of this has to do with overpowering feelings of self-righteousness, combined with the perception of Israel as the victim (and hence having no responsibility for what happens, a party that cannot be held accountable). Disdain towards Arabs also allows Israel to harm Palestinian (and again Lebanese) civilian populations with impunity and no sense of guilt or wrongdoing.

Although Israel has a small but vital peace movement and dissident voices are heard among intellectuals and in the press, the combination of mystification ("there is no partner for peace"), disdain, vilification and dehumanization of the Palestinians, a self-perception of Israelis-as-victims, the supremacy of all-encompassing "security" concerns, and a compelling but closed meta-narrative means that little if any space exists for a public debate that could actually change policy. Because the Israel public has effectively removed itself as a player - except in granting passive support to its political leaders who pursue a program of territorial expansion and conflict management - a genuine, just and sustainable peace will not come to the region without massive international pressure. This is starting to happen as the Occupation assumes global proportions and churches, together with other civil society groups, weigh campaigns of divestment and economic sanctions against Israel - forms of the very nonviolent resistance that the world has been demanding. The Israeli Jewish public, unfortunately, has abrogated its responsibility. Zionism, which began as a movement of Jews to take charge of their lives, to determine their own fate, has ironically become a skein of pretexts serving only to prevent Israelis from taking their fate in their own hands. The "deal" with the political parties has turned Israeli government policies into mere pretexts for oppression, for "winning" over another people, for colluding with American Empire.

The problem with Israel is that, for all the reasons given in this paper, it has made itself impervious to normal political processes. Negotiations do not work because Israeli policy is based on "bad faith." If Israel's actual agenda is territorial expansion, retaining control of the entire country west of the Jordan and foreclosing any viable Palestinian state, then any negotiations that might threaten that agenda are put off, delayed or avoided. All Israeli officials and their surrogates - local religious figures, representatives of organized Jewish communities abroad, liberal Zionist peace organizations, intellectuals and journalists defining themselves as "Zionist," "pro-Israel" public figures in any given country and others - become gatekeepers. In effect - deliberately or not - their essential role is not to engage but to deflect engagement, to "build a fence" around the core Israeli agenda so as to appear to be forthcoming but to actually avert any negotiations or pressures that might threaten Israel's unilateral agenda.

It's a win-lose equation. If Ben Gurion's principle that the Arabs will sue for peace even after we get everything we want, then why compromise? True, Israel could have had peace, security and normalization years ago, but not a "unified" Jerusalem, Judea or Samaria. If the price is continued hostility of the Arab and Muslim masses and no integration into the region, well, that's certainly something we can live with. In the meantime, we can rely on our military to handle any challenges to either our Occupation or our hegemony that might arise.

This logic carried us through almost to the end, to Olmert's Convergence Plan that was intended to "end" the Occupation and establish a permanent regime of Israeli dominance. And then Israel hit the wall, a dead-end: The rise of Hamas to power in the Palestinian Authority and the traumatic "non-victory" over Hezbollah. Both those events exposed the fatal flaw of the non-conflict peace policy. The Palestinians are indeed the gatekeepers, and the Arab governments in whom Israel placed all its hopes are in danger of being swept away by a wave of fundamentalism fueled, in large part, by the Occupation and Israel's open alignment with American Empire. Peace, even a minimally stable non-peace, cannot be achieved without dealing, once and for all, with the Palestinians. The war in Lebanon has left Israel staring into the abyss. The Oslo peace process died six years ago, the Road Map initiative was stillborn and, in the wake of the war, Olmert has announced that his convergence plan, the only political plan the government had, was being shelved for the time being. Ha'aretz commentator Aluf Benn spoke for many Israelis when he reflected:

Cancellation of the convergence plan raises two main questions: What is happening in the territories and what is the point of continuing Olmert's government? Olmert has no answers. The response to calls to dismiss him is the threat of Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm. But what, exactly, is the difference? Both now propose preservation of the status quo in the territories, rehabilitation of the North and grappling with Iran. At this point, what advantage does the head of state have over the head of the opposition? (Ha'aretz, August 25, 2006)

Without the ability to end or even manage its regional conflicts unilaterally, faced with the limitations of military power, increasingly isolated in a world for whom human rights does matter, yet saddled with a political system that prevents governments from taking political initiative and a public that can only hunker down, Israel finds itself not in a status quo but in a downward spiral of violence leading absolutely nowhere. Even worse, it finds itself strapped to a superpower that itself is discovering the futility of unilateralism in its own Middle East adventures even while encouraging Israel to join in. Still, knowing that governments will not do the right thing without being prodded by the people, the Israeli peace camp welcomes the active intervention of the progressive international civil society. In the end we can only hope that the Israeli mainstream will join us.

The door to peace is still wide open. The Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian and Syrian governments have said that war raises new possibilities for peace. Even Peretz said as much, but was forced to backtrack when Tzipi Livni, the Foreign Minister, declared the "time was not ripe" for talks with Syria. Instead the Olmert government appointed the chief of the air force to be its "campaign coordinator" in any possible war with Iran, and then named Avigdor Lieberman, the extremist right-winger who is on record as favoring a attacks on Iran as well as a nuclear strike on Egypt's Aswan Dam, as Deputy Prime Minister and "Minister of Strategy."

Israel will simply not walk through that door, period. There is no indication that one of the lessons learned from the Lebanese disaster will be the futility of imposing a military solution on the region. On the contrary, the chorus of protest in Israel in the wake of the war is: Why didn't the government let the army win? Demands for the heads of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz come from their military failure, not from a failure of their military policy. But instead of demanding a government inquiry as to why Israel lost the war, the sensible Ha'aretz columnist Danny Rubinstein suggests a government inquiry on why Israel has not achieved peace with its neighbors over the past sixty years.

The question then is, will the international community, the only force capable of putting an end to the superfluous destabilization of the global system caused by Israel's Occupation, step in and finally impose a settlement agreeable to all the parties? So far, the answer appears to be "no," constrained in large part b
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: The Occult Technology of Power

Anonymous
Copyright 1974 by Alpine Enterprises
PO Box 766, Dearborn, Michigan 48121

To My Son:

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." --- Benjamin Disraeli (Earl of Beaconsfield)


In this thin volume you will find the transcripts of your initiation into the secrets of my empire Read them again not for the arcane knowledge which is now second nature you, hut in order to re-experience the shock and awe you felt twenty years ago when at age thirty the fabulous scope of my power was revealed to you by my trusted, and now mostly departed advisors. Remember the surprise, to the point of disbelief, with which you beheld the invisibly delicate, but invincible chains of deceit, confusion, or coercion with which we finance capitalists enslave this chaotic world. Remember the feats of will and strategy that have been required to retain our position. Then, inspect your retinue carefully. Your heir must be equal to and eager for the task much as you were. Choose him carefully. As I lie here waiting for the end I can afford to relish the thought our empire lasting forever as I never dared while in charge. Rational power calculations, so easily disrupted by the thrill of power, are now entirely in your hands.

"Know, Will, Dare, and be Silent!" --- Aleister Crowley
1. MY INTRODUCTION TO YOUR INITIATION ~

"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman a rope over an abyss."

"I teach you the Superman. Man is something to be surpassed." --- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Self reverence, self-knowledge, self-control these three alone lead to sovereign power." --- Alfred Lord Tennyson

"And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one's self is." --- Walt Whitman

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." --- Aleister Crowley: The Book of the Law


My Son, the time has arrived to make formal what you have confidently awaited for some years. Of all your brothers, sisters, and cousins, as well as the offspring of my close allies, I have chosen you to be heir to my empire. All the trust funds, foundations, and accounts through which my empire is controlled shall pass into your hands upon my retirement. All my alliances, understandings, and enmities with my handful of peers around the globe shall gradually become yours. Over the next twenty years we shall collaborate closer and closer, you and I, until, we finally act as one.

For ten years you have toured my empire in a succession of managerial assignments and are now familiar with the outward operations of my crucial banking, foundation, governmental, and think tank organizations. Until now, my advisors and I have deflected your questions as to how and if my diverse operations and holdings, which seem autonomous and even contradictory, are integrated into an organic whole to serve the dynasty's interests. The fact that you asked these questions, rejecting my carefully nurtured public image as an idle, coupon clipping philanthropist, was a major factor in the high esteem in which I hold you. Most of your competitors found puppet leadership in any one of my organizations so awesome and gratifying that they immediately eliminated themselves from the contest for the top position which you have won. Such men of limited vision are necessary for my success. They bend unconsciously to the subtle pressures to which I expose them. They can be led in any direction I choose by simple-minded rationalizations aimed at their vanity without being privy to my motives which would be short lived secrets in their undisciplined and envious minds.

Most important in your selection as my successor, however was your psychological nature which has been faithfully reported to me over the years by my associates many of whom have advanced psychological training. A man in my position must have total mastery over his emotions. All actions affecting the power of the dynasty must be taken on the basis of coldly reasoned power calculations if the dynasty is to survive and prosper at the expense of its subjects and rivals. All power is impossible to those whose pursuit is ruled by sentimentality, love, envy power-lust revenge, prejudice, hatred, justice, alcohol, drugs, or sexual desire. Sustained power is impossible to those who repress all their irrational longings into their subconscious only to have them return in compulsive, out of control behavior that inevitably leads to their ruin. Although often clothed in the rationalizations of power calculation, compulsive behavior is at root, the emotionalism of a frightened child, desperately projecting his inner agony into a reality he is afraid to under stand, much less master.

Although you now must begin to pursue it consciously you have already displayed the alienation from your emotional nature that is so essential to achieving real worldly power. You must recognize your emotional nature as a primitive survival mechanism that was appropriate for the jungle and perhaps useful to common men, but useless for the tasks that confront us finance capitalists. Attachment to what you do, just because you do it, is the primary psychological characteristic of ordinary mortals. Such cognitive dissonance spells disaster for us. Our emotional mechanism makes our lives worth living, but is no guide to the occult arts of intrigue. So, continue to gratify your senses and emotions fully at your leisure. As long as the empire prospers you will have the resources to indulge in systematic gratification which will leave your irrational urges sated and, therefore, powerless. You will never be in the unenviable position of the middle class strivers who must, from lack of resources, repress their emotional natures if they are to attain any power whatever during their lives. Typically, they end up taking their pleasure from the victories and cruelties of their struggle. Thus, their end ceases to be power and they eventually defeat themselves with reckless behavior in pursuit of dominant thrills.

I have brought you into seclusion with my most trusted advisors in order to inaugurate a new phase of your instruction. Your formal training in the "official" political-economic world is now complete. This weekend will mark the beginning of your training in the occult technology of power that lurks behind outer appearances. As your tutors will explain, "occult" or secret knowledge is the basis of all power in human society, so I use the word "occult" advisedly, in its pristine usage. As I am sure you are aware by now, productivity in itself does not secure power and therefore does not secure the gratifications of life. After all, slaves can be productive. None of my organizations in which you served so well are concerned with advancing the techniques of satisfying human needs and desires. Rather, all are dedicated to the surreptitious centralization of productive, but especially coercive, efforts in my hands or in creating the intellectual climate in which such veiled control would be tolerated in the future. I destroy or paralyze productive efforts that cannot be ensnarled in my web

After a break Professor A. will take the floor in order to put finance capitalism into full biological perspective. His short talk will be followed by similar abbreviated summaries by his six associates, all of whom you know well. The rest of the weekend will be devoted to forthright fielding of your questions.

2. PROFESSOR A. ON THE ROLE OF FRAUD IN NATURE ~

"Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?" --- Anton S. LaVey

"Nature, to be commanded must be obeyed " --- Francis Bacon


Organisms typically base their success primarily on deception and rely on actual force or mutually advantageous trade (symbiosis) as little as possible. This should be nearly self-evident, but is generally overlooked due to the moral codes we elitists foist on our subjects. Let me give a few examples in case the moral culture has to some extent impaired your powers of objective observation. Camouflage is universal among predators and victims alike. Blossoms imitate fragrances and colors which are sexually attractive to certain insects in order to effect pollination. Dogs bark ferociously and feign attack on enemies of whom they are, in fact, terrified. The Venus Fly Trap plant lures flies to their deaths. Men proclaim their altruism to others and even themselves while they selfishly scramble for personal advantage. If you doubt that fraud is normal in nature you should read section 3 of the first chapter of Robert Ardrey's "The Social Contract" for a wealth of fascinating examples. (Of course Ardrey fails to grasp the full application to contemporary human society of his brilliant insights into man's animal nature.)

Human mental prowess and communicative powers have merely provided superb elaboration on nature's old theme of fraud and added its own distinctive feature: self delusion. Primitive animal hierarchies are based on bluff and bluster, and each member is well aware of and accepts, at least temporarily, its position in the hierarchy. The same wild enthusiasm and fascination for dominance and submission rages in human hearts. However, fraud is taken one step further. Not only is fraudulent bluff and bluster used to achieve dominance but fraudulent altruism and collective institutions are used to conceal dominance once achieved. Human hierarchies, in contrast to the animal variety, are best sustained when the members are deluded regarding the oppressive nature, or better, even the very existence of the hierarchy!

Visible rulers are highly vulnerable. Thus we see visible rulers claiming to be representatives of God, the common good, the material forces of history, the general will (either through vote or intuition), tradition, or other intellectual "spooks" that serve to lessen the envy of the ruled for the rulers. Encouraging such self-delusions among the masses of the ruled is universal for visible governments. However, such spooks are little protection for the leaders of such systems against their sophisticated elite rivals and no protection against men like your father. The Roman Empire was unquestioned by the mass of its subjects for centuries, but the Emperors lived in constant fear of coup and assassination.

By embracing deception wholeheartedly at every level, finance capitalism, or rule through money, has fashioned the ultimate system yet devised for the secure exercise of power. Men like your father, the hidden masters of finance capitalism, govern those who govern, produce, and think through invisible financial tentacles, the operations of which will be elucidated later by my colleagues. Dominance in all aspects of society is surreptitiously accomplished while the great majority of the ruled, and even most of the visible leaders, believe themselves to be fairly autonomous, if harried, members of a pluralistic society. Nearly everyone believes major decisions to be the vector sum of autonomous pressures exerted by business, labor, government, consumers, social classes, and other special interests. In fact, the vectors of societal power are carefully balanced by us so that any net movement is in a direction chosen by us. The only fly in the ointment is the occasional, but extremely messy, interferences by competing financial dynasties. This disconcerting problem will not be a major topic for this weekend.

I now yield to Professor Q. who will elucidate the central secrets of your father's immense money power.

3. PROFESSOR Q. ON OCCULT KNOWLEDGE AS THE KEY TO POWER ~

"The theory of aggregate production which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition..." --- John Maynard Keynes ~ Forward to the German Edition of the General Theory (September 7, 1936)


Throughout history, secure ruling elites arise through secret, or occult knowledge which they carefully guard and withhold from outsiders The power of such elites or cults diminishes as their occult knowledge is transformed into "scientific" knowledge and vanishes as soon as it becomes "common sense." Before analyzing the secrets of the finance capitalist money cult let us glance for historical perspective at occult astronomy, the oldest source of stable rule known to man of which astrology is hut the pathetic remnant.

As soon as men abandoned the life of wandering, tribal hunters to till the soil they needed to predict the seasons. Such knowledge was required in order to know when to plant, when to expect floods in fertile valleys, when to expect rainy seasons, and so on. Months of backbreaking work were wasted by the unavailability of the calendar, a convenience we take for granted. The men who first studied and grasped the regularities of sun, moon, and stars that presage the seasons had a valuable commodity to sell and they milked it to the fullest at the expense of their credulous fellowmen. The occult priesthoods of early astronomers and mathematicians such as the designers of Stonehenge, convinced their subjects that they alone had contact with the gods, and thus, they alone could assure the return of planting seasons and weather favorable to bountiful harvests. The staging (predicting) of solar and lunar eclipses was particularly effective in awing the community. The general success resulting from following the priesthood's tilling, planting, nurturing, and harvesting timetables insured the priesthood's power. Today's Christmas holiday season continues the tradition set by ancient priesthoods, who conducted rituals on the winter solstice to reverse the retreat of the sun from the sky. Their invariable success was followed by wild celebrations. Popular knowledge of seasonal regularities was discouraged by every manner of mysticism and outlandish ritual imaginable. Failures in prediction were blamed on sins of the people and used to justify intensified oppression. For centuries people who had literally no idea of the number of days between seasons and couldn't count anyway, cheerfully gave up a portion of their harvests, as well as their most beautiful daughters, to their "faithful servants" in the priesthoods.

The power of our finance capitalist money cult rests on a similar secret knowledge, primarily in the field of economics. Our power is weakened by real advances in economic science (Fortunately, the public at large and most revolutionaries remain totally ignorant of economics). However, we established money lords have been able to prolong and even reverse our decline by systematically corrupting economic science with fallacious and spurious doctrines. Through our power in the universities, publishing, and mass media we have been able to reward the sincere, professorial cranks whose spurious doctrines happen to rationalize in terms of "common good" the government supported institutions, laws, and economic measures upon which our money powers depend. Keynesianism is the highest form of phony economics yet developed to our benefit. The highly centralized, mixed economy resulting from the policies advocated by Lord Keynes for promoting "prosperity" has all the characteristics required to make our rule invulnerable to our twin nemeses: real private competition in the economic arena and real democratic process in the political arena. Laissez-faire or free market, classical economics was our original attempt to corrupt economic science. Its beautiful internal consistency blinded economists for many years to the fact that it had virtually nothing to do with current reality. However, we are so powerful today that it is no longer possible to conceal our imposing institutions with the appearances of free competition Keynesianism rationalizes this omnipotent state which we require, while retaining the privileges of private property on which our power ultimately rests. Although the interim reforms advocated by Marx in his Communist Manifesto such as central banking, income tax, and other centralizing measures can be corrupted to coincide exactly with our requirements, we no longer allow Marxist movements major power in developed countries. Our coercive institutions are already in place. Any real steps toward communism would mean our downfall. Of course, phony Marxism is an excellent ideological veil in which to cloak our puppet dictators in underdeveloped areas.

Secondarily, the power of the lords of money rests on an occult knowledge in the area of politics and history. We have quite successfully corrupted these sciences. Although many people are familiar with our secrets through such books as 1984 by the disillusioned George Orwell, few take them seriously and usually dismiss such ideas as paranoia. Since real politics is motivated by individual self-interest, history is viewed most accurately as a struggle for power and wealth We do our best to obscure this self-evident truth by popularizing the theory that history is made by the impersonal struggles between ideas, political systems, ideologies, races, and classes. Through systematic infiltration of all major intellectual, political, and ideological organizations, using the lure of financial support and instant publicity, we have been able to set the limits of public debate within the ideological requirements of our money power.

The so-called Left-Right political spectrum is our creation. In fact, it accurately reflects our careful, artificial polarization of the population on phony issues that prevents the issue of our power from arising in their minds. The Left supports civil liberties and opposes economic or entrepreneurial liberty. The Right supports economic liberty and opposes civil liberty. Of course neither can exist fully (which is our goal) without the other. We control the Right-Left conflict such that both forms of liberty are suppressed to the degree we require Our own liberty rests not on legal or moral "rights," but on our control of the government bureaucracy and courts which apply the complex, subjective regulations we dupe the public into supporting for our benefit.

Innumerable meaningless conflicts to divert the attention of the public from our operations find fertile ground in the bitter hatreds of the Right/Left imbroglio. Right and Left are irreconcilable on racial policy, treatment of criminals, law enforcement, pornography, foreign policy, women's lib, and censorship to name just a few issues. Although censorship in the name of "fairness" has been useful in broadcasting and may yet be required in journalism, we generally do not take sides in these issues. Instead we attempt to prolong the conflicts by supporting both sides as required. War, of course, is the ultimate diversionary conflict and the health of our system. War provides the perfect cover of emergency and crisis behind which we consolidate our power. Since nuclear war presents dangers even to us, more and more we have resorted to economic crisis, energy shortages, ecological hysteria, and managed political drama to fill the gap. Meaningless, brushfire wars, though, remain useful.

We promote phony free enterprise on the Right and phony democratic socialism on the Left. Thus, we obtain a "free enterprise" whose "competition" is carefully regulated by the bureaucracy we control and whose nationalized enterprises are controlled directly through our government. In this way we maintain a society in which the basis of our power, legal titles to property and money, remain secure, but in which the peril of free, unregulated competition is avoided and popular sovereignty is nullified. The democratic process is a sitting duck for our money power. Invariably we determine the candidates of the major parties and then proceed to pick the winners. Any attempts at campaign reforms simply put the rules of the game more firmly under our government's control.

Totalitarianism of the fascist of communist varieties is no danger to us as long as bastions of private property remain to serve as our bases of operation. Totalitarian governments of both Right and Left, because of the vulnerability of their highly visible leaders to party rivals, can be manipulated easily from abroad. Primarily, totalitarian dictatorships efficiently prevent new money lords that could challenge our power from arising in whole continents, civilizations, and races.

Perhaps a few words on ideology proper are in order before I conclude. The only valid ideology, of course is rational egoism, that is, the maximization of the individual's gratification by whatever means prove practical. This requires power over nature, especially, when possible, power over other humans who are the most versatile and valuable tools of all. Fortunately, we do not have a society of egoists. Money lords would be impossible in such a society as the mental spooks and rationalizations by which we characteristically manipulate and deceive would be a laughing stock Under such circumstances a policy of live and let live or true "laissez-faire" anarchy might be the only alternative. Certainly a hierarchical order would be difficult to maintain by force alone. However, in the current era, while minds are yet in the thrall of altruistic collectivistic, and divine moralistic spooks, the egoist's rational course is to utilize such spooks to control others.

The next speaker, Professor M., will detail the key institution of our power: Central Banking.

4. PROFESSOR M. ON THE ECONOMICS OF CENTRAL BANKING ~

"It (a bank) can take the depositors' goods, the goods that it holds for safekeeping, and lend them out to people on the market. It can earn interest on these loans, and as long as only a small percentage of depositors ask to redeem their certificates at any one time, no one is the wiser. Or, alternatively, it can issue pseudo warehouse receipts for goods that are not there and lend these on the market. This is the more subtle practice. The pseudo receipts will be exchanged on the same basis as the true receipts, since there is no indication on their face whether they are legitimate or not. It should be clear that this practice is outright fraud." --- Murray Rothbard: Man, Economy, and State

"The bold effort the present bank has made to control the Government, the distress it has wantonly produced,. . ., are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American People should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution (The Bank of the United States), or the establishment of another like it." --- Andrew Jackson (December 2, 1834)


As you have a doctorate degree in economics from a great university I will touch as lightly as my verbosity allows on facts accepted by economic "science" and proceed to occult aspects of Central Banking.

Since the division of labor is the key to all human achievement and satisfaction, a system of exchange is crucial. Barter is hopelessly complicated. A command economy, in which each does and receives what be is told, is also hopelessly cumbersome and fails to take advantage of individual initiative, ability, and concrete knowledge. A medium of exchange, money, is the obvious solution. (Even our highly centralized economies on the socialist model now enthusiastically embrace money as an indispensable simplifying tool in their economic planning.)

When left to themselves people of a given geographical area settled upon a durable luxury commodity, usually gold or silver, to use as money. Because money is a store of value as well as a medium of exchange, people saved part of their gold income rather than spending it all. This gold was often stored in the vaults of a local goldsmith, the precursor of the modern banker, for safekeeping. The depositor received a receipt that entitled him to an equal quantity and quality of gold on demand from the goldsmith. At some point the goldsmith realized that there was no reason he could not loan out some of the gold for interest as long as he kept gold on hand sufficient to meet the fairly predictable withdrawal rate. After all, be simply promised to pay on demand, not bold the gold as such. Better yet, be could simply issue more receipts for gold than be bad gold and the receipts, renamed notes, could circulate freely among the populace as money.

However, he soon found that there was a definite limit set on this process by reality. Not all the extra notes issued circulated forever among the public. The rate of note redemption began to increase rapidly as the receipts passed into the hands of people unfamiliar with his reputation and especially when competitive goldsmiths, always eager for more gold reserves, came into possession of his notes. To prevent a disastrous run on his gold reserves, note issuance had to be kept within bounds. But the spending power of over-issuance was a grave temptation. Especially relished was the power over governments, industry, and merchants that the miraculous loan power of the goldsmith could obtain. Many succumbed to temptation, overextended themselves and brought ruin to their depositors while others slowly became wealthy bankers by pursuing conservative loan policies.

At this point, according to economic "science," Central Banks are instituted to protect the public from periodic financial catastrophe at the hands of unscrupulous fractional reserve bankers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Central Banks are established to remove the limitation on over-issuance that reality places on competitive banking systems. As early as ancient Babylon and India, Central Banking, the art of monopolizing the issuance of money, had been developed into a perfect method for looting the general public. Even today many bankers copy the traditions of the earlier exploitive priesthoods and design their banks to resemble temples! Defenses of Central Banking are simply part of the deception that lies at the heart of all power elites.

Let us look at the way a new Central Bank is created where none has existed previously. We bankers approach the Prince or ruling assembly (both of whom always want more money to fight wars or to curry favor with the people and, typically, are ignorant of economics) with a compelling proposal: "Grant our bank a national Charter to regulate private banking and to issue legal tender notes, that is, force our notes to be accepted as payment for all debts, pubic and private. In exchange we will provide the government all the notes it prudently requires at interest rates easily payable with existing taxes. The increased government purchasing power thus created will simultaneously assure the power an prestige of the currently precarious nation and stimulate the sluggish, credit starved economy to new heights of prosperity. Most important the violent banking panics and credit collapses caused by unscrupulous private bankers will be replaced by our even handed, beneficent and scientific management of money and banking. Our public-spirited expertise will be at the disposal of the state while we remain independent enough of momentary political pressures to assure sound management."

For a while this system seems to work remarkably well with full employment for everyone. The government an public does not notice that we issuers of the new notes are using the notes we create out of thin air to surreptitiously build economic empires at the expense of established interests. Because of the legal tender laws, few of the new notes issued by the Central Bank are returned for redemption in gold. In fact, private banks and even a few foreign banks may begin to use the Central Bank's notes as reserves for further issuance of credit. Soon enough, though, prices begin to rise as the added notes increase demand relative to the quantity of goods and services. As the value of their savings decline more and more foreigners in particular begin to question the value of the Central Bank's notes and start to demand redemption in gold. We, of course do not take responsibility for the rampant inflation when it comes. We blame inflation on evil speculators who drive up prices for personal gain, as well as the greed of organized labor and business who are promptly made subject to wage and price controls. Even the consumer can be made to feel guilty for agreeing to pay the high prices! Mistaking symptoms for causes the government accepts the banker's analysis of the problem and continues to give the Bank free reign in monetary policy.

By slowing the rate of note issuance periodically, the ultimate crisis stage is postponed until many decades after the original Central Bank Charter was granted. Before the rapidly dwindling gold reserves on which faith in our Bank depends is exhausted we abruptly contract our loan volume to private industry and government as well. With the contraction of the money supply a great deflationary crash begins in earnest with all its attendant unemployment, bankruptcies, and civil strife. We do not take responsibility for the depression. We blame it on evil hoarders who are refusing to spend their money and the prophets of doom who are spoiling business confidence. The government accepts this analysis and leaves monetary policy in our hands. If things go well we bankers channel the fury and unrest into puppet movements and pressure groups that carry our agents into full control of the government. Once in charge we devalue our outstanding bank notes in terms of gold and make them inconvertible for all but possibly foreign Central Banks and begin plans to restore a "prosperity" that will be totally ours.

When lucky, we are able to confiscate the gold of private citizens as punishment for hoarding during the climax of the depression.

Once the old order is subdued during the chaos of the crash and desperation of the depression, the field is open for our full finance capitalist system to be realized. If the money lords behind the Central Bank can avoid lapsing into political and economic competition among themselves a new and lasting order can be established. A war timed for this period of consolidation provides the perfect excuse for the regimentation required to crush all opposition.

Professor B., a former Chairman of a Central Bank, will explain the functioning of the Central Plank in the typical, fully developed finance capitalist system.

5. PROFESSOR B. ON THE FUNCTION OF THE CENTRAL BANK IN THE MATURE FINANCE CAPITALIST SYSTEM ~

"We are undone, my dear sir, if legislation is still permitted which makes our money, much or little, real or imaginary, as the moneyed interests shall choose to make it." --- Thomas Jefferson

"From now on depressions will be scientifically created." --- Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr.-1923


In its pristine form a Central Bank is a private monopoly of a nation's money and credit issuance supported by the coercive power of the state. That the Central Bank be directly in our hands is vital until our new order is firmly established throughout the governmental, business, intellectual and political spheres of society. After our order is consolidated, formal nationalization of the Central Bank with great fanfare is usually advisable in order to dispel any lingering suspicion that it is operated for private gain. Of course only loyal agents of the dynasty are allowed to obtain high offices in the Bank and our power remains intact. Obvious private monopolies are always the targets of sharp reformist agitators. Only the most paranoid, however, can see through the public facade to the private monopoly of the nationalized or quasi-nationalized Central Bank.

The Central Bank is the primary monopoly on which all our monopoly power depends. The occult power of the Central Bank to create money out of nothing is the fountainhead that fuels our far-flung financial and political empire. I will make a quick survey of a few of the ways this secret money power is brought to bear.

Basically, the power of our Central Bank flows from its control over the points of entry into the economy of new, inflationary money which it creates out of thin air. Ordinarily, bills of exchange, acceptances, private bonds, government bonds and other credit instruments are purchased by the Central Bank through specially privileged dealers in order to put the new money, often only checking accounting entries, into circulation. The dealers are allowed a large profit since they are fronts operated by our agents. Our purchase of government securities pleases the government, as our purchase of private debt pleases private debtors. As a quid pro quo to assure "good management" our agents are given directorships, managerial posts, and offices in the corporations and government's so benefited. As the addiction to the narcotic of inflationary easy credit grows and grows we demand more and more control of our dependent entourage of governments and corporations. When we finally end the easy credit to "combat inflation" the enterprises and governments either fall directly into our hands, bankrupt, or are rescued at the price of total control.

Also, we ruling bankers control the flow of money in the economy through the wide authority of the Central Bank to license, audit, and regulate private banks. Banks that loan to interests outside the loyal entourage are "audited" by the Central Bank and found to be dangerously overextended. Just a hint of insolvency from the respected Central Bank authorities is enough to cause a run on the disobedient bank or at least dry up its vital lines of credit. Soon the banking establishment learns to follow the hints and nods of your father's agents at the Central Bank automatically.

Further, the periodic cycles of easy money and tight money that we initiate through our control of the Central Bank cause corresponding fluctuations in all markets. Our inner circle knows in advance the timing of these cycles and, therefore reaps windfall profits by speculating in commodity, stock, currency, gold, and bond markets. Monopolistic stock and commodity Exchanges are a vital adjunct to our power made possible by our Central Bank power. We do not allow a fair auction market to exist, but make a great show of "tough" government regulation to create a false sense of confidence among small investors. With the aid of our regulatory charade and financial power we are able to maintain Exchanges tailored to our entourage's need to manipulate stock prices at the expense of independent investors. Our privileged specialists on the floors of our Exchanges, aided by the propaganda of our financial press and brokerage houses, continually play on naivete and greed to drain the savings of the unwary into our coffers. The stock, commodities, and securities held in trading accounts by the Exchange and brokerage houses provides us with a clout far beyond our own actual holdings with which we can manipulate prices and win proxy fights for corporate takeovers.

Little danger to our lucrative racket exists from public-spirited regulation. Our manipulations are so complex that only the most brilliant experts could comprehend them. To most economists our Exchange operations appear to be helpful efforts to "stabilize" the market. We ruling bankers, if able to keep peace among ourselves, become richer and richer as time passes without the annoyance of exerting productive effort of benefit to others.

The next speaker, Professor G. will discuss the secrets of social legislation and policy that do so much to cement our power.

6. PROFESSOR G. ON SOCIAL AND BUSINESSLEGISLATION AND POLICY ~

"There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money--and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact." --- Oswald Spengler: "Decline of the West"

"Also at the (SDS) convention, men from Business International Roundtables... tried to buy up some radicals. These are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives
are going to go... We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left." --- James Kunen: "The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary"


The danger to our system clearly is not that the "people" will spontaneously rise up and dispossess us. The "people" never initiate anything. All successful movements are led from the top, usually without the knowledge of the movement, by men like your father with vast resources and brilliant plans. The real danger arises in the upper-middle classes. Occasionally, these people make vast fortunes through some brilliant technological innovation in their business or through the favor of local politicians that escape our influence. Because of their ignorance of the reality of our power, however, the new rich usually fall easily into our hands. For instance, they seldom realize until too late that the dozens of loans they may owe to apparently independent banks can be called simultaneously with a mere nod from your father. Graver danger is presented by those whose enterprises are so successful as to be self-financing. Since the advent of the corporate income tax truly self-financing corporations are extremely rare. Most disquieting is when these upstarts acquire the covert or open support and advice of your father's major international antagonists. This is particularly dangerous in countries with long democratic traditions where it is difficult to make our arbitrary rulings stick.

The best solution is to enact comprehensive taxes and business regulations in the name of the common good. Such measures reduce the incidence of significant upstart competition to manageable levels. This policy, of course, strangles innovation and productivity. Reduction of the GNPs in countries under your father's control would be acceptable in the interests of secure power under the pretext of conservation, ecology, or no-growth stability except that if carried too far your father's clout vis-a-vis his international rivals would be impaired. The most difficult problem for the money lord is determining the level of social and economic freedom he dares allow for the sake of his international power. Only method is to maintain a home base of carefully monitored, relative freedom on which to base the economic and military strength required to maintain an empire of totalitarian dictatorships abroad. The following measures, however, are found necessary by nearly all money lords:

1. Steeply Graduated Income Tax ~ Income tax does not affect us because our money was accumulated before the tax was imposed and most of it is now safely protected in our network of tax exempt foundations. Foundation income and capital can legally be used to finance the bulk of our social, economic, literary, and even political propaganda. In a pinch it is easily diverted to illegal uses. Expensive "studies" required by our profitable economic operations can be legitimately financed through foundations.

To the middle classes, however, income tax makes life into an endless treadmill. Even the most productive find themselves unable to accumulate significant capital. They are forced into the clutches of our Central Bank entourage for injections of the inflationary credit which we are privileged to create out of nothing. The self-financing wealth of the legendary 19th Century robber barons and early Twentieth Century tycoons is no longer possible. Although your grandfather owed his start to just those wide-open conditions, he was among the first of the super-rich to advocate the erection of the tax wall that is now in place. Please note that in democratic countries eternal vigilance is required to prevent our tax shield from being riddled with loop holes by conniving legislators, who are usually of the tax oppressed, upper-middle class origins themselves.

2. Business Regulation ~ When upstarts slip through our financial tentacles and tax shields, perhaps with the aid of outsiders, a second line of defense becomes vital licensing in the crucial area of broadcasting has proven particularly necessary. This makes serious upstart-led mass political challenge impossible. Harassment by bureaucrats armed with arbitrary and voluminous industrial safety regulations is a new and increasingly effective technique. Security registration requirements, "to protect the small investor," can cause fatal delays in an upstart's ability to raise capital on the stock market. Ecological considerations are easily perverted to stymie the plans of those who would upset the stability of our carefully planned system.

Anti-trust law, however, is our ultimate weapon. The handy doctrine of "pure and perfect" competition which we have fostered in our universities is ideally suited to convict any successful competitor, at our discretion. If the competitor charges a lower price than ours he is accused of "unfair competition" aimed at driving us from the field to impair future competition. If he asks the same price as we, he is open to the charge of collusion. If he charges more than us, he is obviously exploiting his "monopoly power" at the expense of the consumer. Fortunately, the rulings of our bureaucrats are so complicated that even when successfully appealed in court many years elapse before the ruling is rendered. By then our goals are often achieved through harassment.

Product quality, safety, and testing regulations are excellent methods by which we insulate our established industries from potential competition. Beside raising the costs of entry into the auto business, for instance, the cost of "safety" can be passed to the consumer along with a healthy profit mark-up.

3. Subsidies, Tariffs, and Foreign Aid ~ Although direct subsidies can occasionally be procured for our entourage of corporations by appealing to the masses' desire to preserve jobs, this exploitive technique is usually too obvious. Tariffs are easily passed, but lead to retaliation against our foreign holdings. Foreign aid and soft (sure to be defaulted) government guaranteed loans, however, fill the bill perfectly under modern conditions. Foreign aid maintains our empire of foreign dictators abroad while providing guaranteed, highly profitable sales to our corporations at home base. Foreign aid should always be contingent on the purchase of goods, usually military hardware, that only our entourage of firms can provide. Few have the courage to oppose such altruistic aid to the "starving masses" of the "third world."

4. Centralization of Power ~ Real division of power between national, state, and local government is dangerous to our system. When local politicians have real autonomy, even in limited spheres, they can do much to enable upstarts to challenge our power. Our program is to bring all levels of government under our sway through such innovations as federal aid, revenue sharing, high federal taxation, and regional government.

5. Alliance with the Lower Classes ~ In order to keep our valuable regulatory machinery in place and under our control we must have the mass support of the numerous lower classes against our vigorous, but scarce middle-class rivals. The best method is to provide the lower classes with subsidies at the expense of the middle class. This creates a mutual hatred that prevents the middle class from appealing effectively to the lower classes for support. Social security, free health care, unemployment benefits, and direct welfare payments, while doing nothing for us directly, create a dependent class whose support for our critical measures can easily be made part of a package deal. Please note also that the major labor unions began with our financing and are led to this day by leaders of our choosing. No one can rise to or remain at the top of a rough and tumble union without our financial backing. In spite of their rebellious rhetoric, bought union leaders are the source of our power over the management of firms with widely held stock. Unions are the ultimate weapon for destroying otherwise invulnerable, self-financing rivals. Further, downward flexibility of wages and prices which obtains without widespread unionization would increase the ability of the economy to survive without our aid during the economic crises we create.

Bread and circuses are as useful today as in Roman times for mobilizing the mob against our staid adversaries. Next, Professor D. will describe our education policies.

7. PROFESSOR D. ON THE ROLE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ~

"In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk . . . The task we set before ourselves is a beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just as they are. So we will organize our children into a little community and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way in the home, in shop, and on the farm." --- The objective of Rockefeller "philanthropies" stated by him and Gates in Occasional Letter No. 1 of Rockefeller's General Education Board.

"A general state education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government --- whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation --- in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body." --- John Stuart Mill


In order to maintain our system of power, the institution of universal public education is indispensable. The anarchy of private education in which any manner of dangerous ideas could be spread cannot be tolerated. Thus we make private education financially impossible to all but the few mostly the elite offspring of our financial entourage, by means of burdensome taxation and regulation. The primary purpose of public education is to inculcate the idea that our crucial institutions of coercion and monopoly were created for the public good by popular national heroes to blunt the past power of the malefactors of great wealth. Crucial is to create the impression that, although the people have been exploited in the past, today the wealthy are at the mercy of an all-powerful government which is firmly in the hands of the people or do-gooding liberals.

For those of more sophistication who reject this Pollyanna view of reality, we promote the "liberal reformer mentality" which holds that a new era of reform is on the verge of crushing forever the last vestiges of money lordism. Of course, the reforms, after taking shape as a bewildering myriad of regulatory agencies and taxes, are found to be ineffective in subordinating our power to the popular will, whereupon we stir up another era of progressive reform.

Our contrived Left-Right spectrum which our compulsory education helps to make universal is valuable in assuring that this charade does not get out of hand. The Pollyannas in the middle are neither dangerous nor useful in this endeavor. What is needed is a feeble, but persistent right-conservatism to moderate and emasculate the liberal reforms. Conservatives tend to resist all the advances in centralized, government power that we lead the liberals to see as necessary in order to totally end the "undemocratic" power of money in society. Conservatism would rather promote a "pluralism" of competing interests in which money is the medium of competition than risk the excesses of "big government," When "liberal" reforms show signs of exceeding our intentions and actually threaten to place our key institutions in the hands of the people, we can always count on the conservatives to defend our power under the illusion that they are defending the legitimate rights of "free-enterprise capitalists." On the rare occasions when conservatives call for subjecting our enterprises to laissez-faire competition, we can count on the dominant liberal reformers to insist on more government interference, unaware of our desire for such, in effect, self-administered regulation.

The Right has such a fear of the Left's dream of democratic collectivism and the Left such a hatred for what it sees as the Right's elitist, rugged individualism that there is little danger that they will ever join forces to overturn our government-backed monopolies even though we violate the ideals of both left and right.

Centralization of control at the state, or preferably national level, assists in building the climate of opinion we require in public education. Failing to obliterate local control, other methods nearly as effective are available. Our overwhelming financial clout in the publishing industry can induce relatively uniform textbook selection. Further leverage can be created by promoting teacher colleges and teaching machines. National teacher's associations and unions are also an excellent power base from which to foster our programs of indoctrination.

With our great influence in publishing and publicity we are able to, selectively popularize educational theorists whose views are incidentally beneficial, compatible, or at least not in conflict with our own goals. This way we obtain sincere, energetic activists to propagate our desires without having to reveal our motives or even existence. We do not want an educational system that produces hard-driving individuals bent on amassing great wealth and power. Therefore, we discourage education that would develop the potential powers of students to their fullest. "Liberal" education that stresses knowledge for its own sake or even sophistry and sterile mental gymnastics is of no danger to us. "Relevant," vocational, or career-oriented education also poses no danger to our power. Education that prepares students to accept a cog-like existence in our military-industrial-social-welfare-regulation complex is ideal. Progressive education with its stress on "social adjustment" also produces the conformity we require of our subjects. Emphasis on competitive sports may produce a certain amount of disruptive competitiveness among the participants, but primarily has the effect of creating life-long voyeuristic spectators who will enthusiastically sublimate their competitiveness into endless hours of following college and professional sports on the boob tube. Space spectaculars and dramatic political infighting are also marvelous diversions with which to occupy the masses.

Anyone seeking social change will gravitate to the field of education. Our strategy is simple: Let only those succeed whose influence would be compatible with our power. Encourage all who would develop the passive or receptive mode of existence. Discourage all who promote the aggressive or active capacities. Build a great cult of salvation through endless education, touting it as the "democratic" path to success Deride the frontal approach to success of the "outmoded' rugged individualist.

Before yielding the floor to Professor X., who will discuss the role of secret societies and prestigious clubs, I would like to comment on the demise of religious education as a vehicle for social control. Religion, in its time, was a remarkable weapon for inculcating subservience, altruism, and self-abnegation among our subjects. We did not give up this weapon voluntarily. Your grandfather, for one, supported the Baptist faith well after most finance capitalists had turned wholly to secular ideologies. However, a trend toward rationality in human affairs plods along inexorably quite outside the reach of our power. Only in our totalitarian dictatorships can this trend be quashed entirely. In the semi-open societies in which our money power is based, the forces of reason can only be impeded and diverted. Some have theorized that, eventually, widespread rational egoism will overturn our order. I am confident that secular faiths and just plain confusion will suffice to sustain our power for many centuries to come.

8. PROFESSOR X. ON PRESTIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS AND SECRET SOCIETIES ~

"Every compulsion is put upon writers to become safe, polite, obedient, and sterile. In protest, I declined election to the National Institute of Arts and Letters some years ago, and now I must decline the
Pulitzer Prize." --- Upton Sinclair

"It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe--the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries--is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads." --- Benjamin Disraeli (Earl of Beaconsfield), July 14, 1856


In preserving and protecting our grasp on nations we must exert veiled control of all major opinion molding associations and especially prestigious clubs which attract the leaders in various fields and do so much to influence the dispensing of commanding positions in government and business. Associations of the leading scholars, businessmen, writers, religionists, artists, bureaucrats, newsmen, ideologists, publishers, broadcasters, and professional men as well as special interest groups representing laborers, farmers, consumers, racial minorities, and so on must be subtly kept under the broad limits of our sway. Since membership dues and fees are never sufficient to support their ambitious activities, voluntary, non-profit organizations are easy prey for the nearly unlimited financial resources of our entourage. However, our real motive, to further our political and economic power, must not be revealed in the process. Our policies must be laboriously rationalized in terms compatible with prevalent ideologies and moralities or the material advantage of the groups involved. Leaders of such groups are remarkably quick to accept our rationalizations when financial support is extended. We engage in outright bribery only as a last resort, and then, only in extreme cases. Our long-range interests are better served by temporarily postponing a policy victory than by risking exposure of our power by attempting outright bribery. In fact, clumsy bribery and intimidation attempts are characteristic of our foolish nouveau-riche opponents.

As an example, if we decide that federal rather than state chartering or licensing of corporations would further our control over the economy, we would not simply order politicians and opinion leaders to support our desires. Corporations not relishing central control would be suspicious that something was afoot and might expose our plot. Our strategy would be as follows:

1. Sacrifice one of our less competent management teams in a well-publicized corporate scandal in order to focus attention on the "widespread problem of corporate corruption under current, lax regulations."

2. Through well-funded agents, thrust into the publicity spotlight intellectuals or groups who already support federal licensing as a piecemeal step toward socialism. (One can find pre-existing supporters for nearly any measure with sufficient effort.)

3. After the issue is before the public, offer to support through foundations the "objective" study of the federal licensing proposals being discussed with an eye toward proposing legislation. Often, simultaneous support for studies by disreputable, irrational groups who will oppose the proposal is useful as well. Provide no platform for
well-reasoned opposition.

4. When a ground swell of support appears to be building provide the interested lobbying organizations with plenty of funds to grease the palms of politicians. The enactment of the federal licensing law thus appears as the will of society. Last-ditch opposition automatically appears mean spirited, obstructionist, reactionary, and paranoid, serving only to discredit our opposition.

In our fully developed system of finance capitalist thought control and promotion control, our hierarchy of prestigious associations is capped by a single prestige society: The Council of World Affairs. This organization is a front for the secret society of which your father is head. This secret society is made up of the people who have spoken, plus six others not present. You are replacing Professor Q. who is to retire shortly. Eventually you will replace your father. We thirteen are your father's advisors and only confidants. All other agents are misled as to the bulk of our objectives and motives. Their knowledge is restricted to the details required by their assignments. The penalty for disloyalty is death.

The Council is invaluable for propagating our policy decisions to our entourage without revealing our motives and strategy. In many instances, policy can he successfully sold to our entourage and thus transmitted to the multitudes by merely airing it along with appropriate rationalizations in a single awe-inspiring session of the Council. The informal power of the Council is such that our policy manipulations are usually attainable without the clumsy exercises in brute power that invariably snag the independent power seekers. The Council is at the heart of what is called the Establishment and we are at the heart of the Council.

At the Council's inception, we worked hard to attract the successful of all fields with all the prestige that our money power could buy. We had to work hard convincing the independent, self-made Council members to move in harmony with our policy objectives. We had many failures. Now everything is changed. Membership is no longer a reward for success as much as it is a prerequisite for major success. Without Council membership only the most outstanding can achieve national prominence. With membership, glaring mediocrities, with the "right" attitudes, achieve prominence. In fact, mediocrities are much more adapted to propagating our policy rationalizations and less likely to detect and oppose our ulterior motives. A power lusting mediocrity is not likely to judge his benefactors too harshly or inquire diligently into the nature of the power structure that brought him what he fears was undeserved success. The vanity of even idealistic, committed humanitarians militates against such a course.

The Council is now a giant employment agency of loyalists ready to parrot our public line from the commanding posts of government, foundations, broadcasting, industry, banking, and publishing. Although Council members are encouraged to take sides and bicker over the diversionary issues we create to entertain and enfeeble the populace, their solidarity in defending our power structure, root and branch, when pressed is a sight to behold! And to think that most see themselves as righteous defenders of the public good while they dismiss whispered rumors of our power structure as "kooky paranoia."

Classical secret societies with elaborate circles within circles no longer play a major role in finance capitalist power structures. Most wide membership secret societies have degenerated into middle class excuses for escaping the wife and kids once a month for the company of men. But secret societies were a major weapon of our bourgeoisie forebearers in their struggle with the old feudal order of kings and princes. Under authoritarian despotism of the old style, the secret society was the only place a free-thinking man could express himself. Through threats of exposure, loyalty oaths, patronage, deception, and rewards we bound such malcontents into a fierce force for our revolution. The multitude of degrees, occult mumbo-jumbo, and vague humanitarianism concealed the real goals of our secret societies from the bulk of the membership. The roles of the "Illuminated" Masonic Lodges in European revolutions were decisive in our final victory over the old order.

I now yield the floor to Professor Y. who will discourse on the real "secret societies" the Modern Finance Capitalist State: the National Security Institutions and Intelligence Agencies.

9. PROFESSOR Y. ON COVERT OPERATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE ~

In our fully developed state-capitalist systems we have found absolute control of governmental intelligence gathering and covert operations to be vital.

Besides providing a valuable tool in our struggle with rival dynasties, such control is now an integral and necessary part of our day-to-day operations. Large intelligence communities are inevitable, given the system of all encompassing governments which we have imposed upon the world during our ascent to power. Our power would be short-lived indeed if the pervasive influence and power of these iron-disciplined intelligence agencies fell into the hands of mere politicians, especially those beyond our control.

We do not allow intelligence agencies to pursue the "national interest," the way the public conceives "spies" to operate. Politicians cannot be permitted to divert the power and influence of our intelligence community from the esoteric requirements of our Money Power to petty political struggles.

Neither nationalistic aspirations of races and peoples nor ideological visions of intellectuals for humanity can be allowed to pervert intelligence and covert operations. Our rationalizations, both within the intelligence community and to the public at large, must be diverse and flexible, but the intelligence community must further without exception the inexorable goals we have set for humanity.

No crisis is more serious for our Money Power than an attempt by a head of government to assume personal control of intelligence and operations or to by-pass existing agencies by setting up parallel ones. Such intrusions must be met decisively. Although a contrived scandal to remove the offending politician from office is the first line of defense, we dare not shrink from assassination when necessary.

Perhaps the most accurate overview of our intelligence community can be achieved by visualizing it as a "nationalized secret society." Our predecessors, in their struggle against the old order of kings and princes, had to finance secret societies such as the Illuminati, Masons, German Union, etc. out of their own pockets.

At great expense and risk such secret societies were able to infiltrate the major governmental and private institutions of the nations that our noble predecessors targeted for take over by the Money Power. Such bureaucratic takeovers are expensive and time consuming. They can be considered complete only when promotions, raises, and advancements are no longer based on objective service to the stated organizational objectives, but are in the hands of the infiltrating group and its secret goals.

How much easier it is for us, the inheritors of a fully developed state-capitalist system! By appealing to "national security" we are able to finance and erect secret societies of a colossal scope, far beyond the wildest dreams of our path breaking predecessors. Besides the benefits of public financing reaped by these "nationalized secret societies," we obtain a decisive advantage from the fact that these our "spook" operations are sanctioned by law!

Maintaining discipline, loyalty, and secrecy is no longer solely a matter of propaganda, blackmail, patronage, and intimidation. Although these remain important tools, especially in emergency cases, ordinary discipline among initiates (now called agents) can be encouraged by appealing to patriotism and can be enforced in courts of law by prosecuting "national security violations."

As massive as our intelligence community has become in itself, we still operate strictly on the finance capitalist principle of leverage. Just as a rational finance capitalist never owns more stock in a corporation than the bare minimum required for control, intelligence operatives are placed only in as many key positions as are required to control the target organizations. Our goal, after all, is agent control of all significant organizations, not intelligence community member ship for the entire population.

The organizational pattern of baffling "circles within circles," characteristic of classical secret societies, is retained and refined by our intelligence community. That "one hand not know what the other is doing" is essential to the success of our operations. In most cases, we do not allow the operatives themselves to know the ultimate, and when possible, even the short-range objectives of their assignments.

They operate under "covers" that disguise our goals not only from the public and target groups, but from the agents themselves. For instance, many agents operating under "left cover" are led to believe that the agency, or at least their department, is secretly, but sincerely motivated by socialistic ideology. Thus, they assume that the intelligence agency's ultimate goal is to guide left-wing groups in "productive" directions, even though they cannot always see how their own assignment fits into those assumed goals.

Other "left-cover" agents, those with right-wing predilections, are encouraged to believe the agency is simply "monitoring" violence prone, subversive groups in order to protect the public. When such agents are asked to participate in or even lead radical activity they assume that the ultimate objective is to fully infiltrate and destroy the organization for the good of the country. This is very seldom the case. We waste little or no money protecting the "public" or defending the "nation."

Agents operating under "right-cover" are handled in symmetrical fashion. Agents with right-wing prejudices are encouraged to believe the agency is right-wing. Left-prejudiced agents are asked to operate under "right-cover" in order to "monitor" dangerous rightist organizations. Most intelligence agents remain blithely ignorant of the big picture which is so clear to us from our spectacular vantage point. Very few have enough information or intelligence to reason out how their specific and sometimes baffling assignments promote the legislative, judicial, operational and propaganda needs of our Money Power. Most would never try. They are paid too much to think about such things.

Agents with a "gangster-cover" are of two types. First, there is the sincere gangster that draws his salary from an intelligence agency. He is led to believe that the gangland "Godfathers" control the government agency for their own purposes. Actually, the situation is the opposite. The agency controls the gangster for other purposes. Second, is the sincere crime fighter who is led to believe that the agency is at tempting to infiltrate and monitor the gangsters as a preliminary step to destroying organized crime. Such "upstanding" agents commit many crimes in their zeal to rid the country of organized crime!

To envision how we operate in this lucrative field, let's briefly look at the mechanics of dope smuggling. Police and customs officials are told to leave certain gangsters alone, even when transporting suspicious cargoes. This is made to seem perfectly proper since it is well known that secret police infiltrators of organized crime must participate in crimes in order to gain the confidence of gangsters.

What customs agent would want to upset a carefully laid plan to "set-up" the underworld kingpins of dope pushing! But the agent, as well as the police who cooperate, are mistaken in believing that the purpose of the assignment to help smuggle dope is ultimately to smash organized crime. If he could see the big picture, as we can, the agent would see that practically all our dope is smuggled by federal intelligence agents and secret police! How ever could such a volume be transported safely? Real harassment and prosecution is reserved for those who enter the field without our approval.

Here is our organized crime strategy: On the one hand we pass laws to ensure that mankind's favorite pastimes (vices) are illegal. On the other hand, we cater to these "vices" at a huge monopoly profit with complete immunity from prosecution.

A new and growing methodology of our intelligence community is psychologically and drug-controlled agents. Properly, these are referred to as "behavior modified" agents, or, in the vernacular, "zombies." With the use of hypnotic drugs, brain washing, sensory deprivation, small group "sensitivity" training, and other behavior modification techniques, the scope of which was hinted in the movie "Clockwork Orange," complete personalities can be manufactured from scratch, to the specifications of value structure profiles we design by computer to suit our purposes. Such personalities are quite neurotic and unstable due to defects in our still developing technology, but still useful for many purposes.

The primary virtue of "zombies," of course, is loyalty. Agents that are subconsciously programmed for the assignment at hand cannot be conscious traitors. All a "zombie" can do is reveal how compulsive and psychotic he is with regard to his "cause." Even to trained psychologists he simply appears to be the proverbial "lone nut." Although the "zombie" may have memories of psychotherapy at a government agency when questioned under hypnosis, this is unlikely to raise suspicion in the mind of court-appointed psychologists. After all, "lone nuts" should be kept in insane asylums and subjected to psychotherapy! At most, the government hospital will be reprimanded for letting a loony loose before he was cured.

Until our techniques can be perfected the use of "zombies" must be restricted to "national dramas" designed to justify the growing power of our centralized governments over the lives of our people. Most suicidal radicals and "crazies" who so mysteriously avoid arrest for years at a time are "zombies" conditioned to terrorize the public in the name of some irrational ideology. After repeated doses of such terror, the public is conditioned to accept the necessity of our intrusive police state with very little objection.

The way is clear for an accelerated program of behavior modification research to be conducted mostly at public expense in the name of mental health and rehabilitation. Such research can be conducted with little complaint in prisons, refugee camps, drug rehabilitation centers, government hospitals, veterans hospitals, and even public schools and day care centers. Mental institutions, methadone maintenance centers, and prisons are fertile fields for recruiting the deranged or drug-addicted persons most suitable for "zombie" conversions. Of course, only a few of our most trusted agents actually participate in the creation of "zombies." The brilliant researchers and experimenters who make most of the breakthroughs earnestly believe that their techniques are destined strictly for the betterment of mankind.

Inevitably, a fraction of the population objects to behavior modification as an infringement of man's "sacred" free will even if they are convinced that our intentions are benign. We carefully leak a few scandals to satisfy such persons that our experiments are being kept within bounds and that excesses are being stopped. Our artificial scandals exposing the "excesses" of coercive psychology are carefully designed to make the researchers seem incompetent and clumsy to the point of maiming and killing their "patients." This effectively conceals the fantastic strides we have made toward total behavioral control. Great things are going to be possible in the future.

I now return the floor to your father for his concluding remarks.

10. MY CLOSING REMARKS ~

My son, you surely have many questions about my strategy in the seemingly momentous economic and political crises that are shaking national and international affairs. You and I will begin handling them in detail shortly. For tonight, let me be brief. Most of the current national upheavals are stage-managed to consolidate our monopoly position in government and business against the continual nuisance of economically competent, but politically naive competitors. Likewise, most international crises are managed to exert pressure on our obstreperous, reluctant puppet dictators in underdeveloped areas. These events are fairly easy to manage. I expect to place such management in your hands as soon as possible.

The real challenge lies in dealing with my international peers. These are the real crises since they are crises of my power structure, not just of my subject populations and puppets. In the vast chess game with my peers there are no rules and no proven tactics. Mutual vulnerability, alone, limits the conflict. My peers and I have labored for decades to erect a world government and banking system under which we could all share finance capitalism's millennium without the nightmare of internecine warfare. With the advent of nuclear war a new world order seemed particularly desirable. I say ostensibly we have labored for world government because none of us are sure the others will ever voluntarily surrender sovereignty to the group. The schedule set after the last World War has not been met. So far, the world government idea has served mainly to enthuse collectivist intellectuals, and secondarily to veil each finance capitalist's maneuvers for supremacy from the rest.

The future course of finance capitalism is difficult to predict. Our empires are too fragile to risk all-out battles for supremacy among ourselves. Our power would dissipate to second echelon wealthy during the struggle. Yet we continue to chip away at rival empires on the premise that offense is the best defense. On the other hand, purely political leaders are helpless before our money power. When Caesars arise, they are of our making.

Perhaps our system will simply remain much as it is, secure on the national level and disturbingly pluralistic at the international level, until reason and egoism have developed among our populations to such an extent that our occult technology of money power becomes obvious to all who think and must yield to either anarchy or a more advanced form of deception.

11. AFTERWORD BY THE TRANSCRIBER ~

"The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan." --- Dr. Carroll Quigley: "Tragedy and Hope"

Any resemblance of these characters to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Any resemblance of their methodology to that of real ruling elites is purely intentional. The extent to which I represent or exaggerate the self-conscious, intentional power technology of real politico-economic rulers and their unity is for the reader to decide after studying available empirical evidence.

I am providing a bibliography of relevant historical works to aid the curious reader. I have included no works written from spurious pluralistic suppositions no one seems to consider pluralism as a proposition requiring evidence since they are flooding the market. Unfortunately, many works listed affirm that ideas rather than individual struggles for wealth and power propel history; that is, they view the elites they observe ruling the world as ideologically motivated. Thus we have the spectacle of the Right claiming that major finance capitalists such as the Rockefellers or Rothschilds are "communist" conspirators or "socialists." On the other hand, we see the Left claiming that the same people are bent on imposing laissez -faire capitalism, or in a slightly more realistic vein, are fanatical proponents of fascism. Virulent white racism is another ideology foolishly ascribed to the ruling class by the Left. This opinion is nicely balanced by the charge from the Right that the elite wants to "mongrelize" and thus submerge the white race. As usual the elite, completely free of prejudice, supports both sides of this battle for its own ends.

As should be clear by now, I believe that finance capitalists (Ferdinand Lundberg has dubbed them finpols, or financial politicians) are understandably attempting to make their power as extensive as possible without incurring the severe risks which plague pubpols (public politicians). (It seems that only the most daring finpols are willing to take on the additional risks of pubpoldom, perhaps only because they are denied the reins to the family's fortune by more privileged relatives.) Pubpols lose their privacy and thus their right to sexual impropriety in addition to incurring vulnerability to electioneering and worse in "democratic" countries. In most areas of the world the lot of the pubpols is even worse. Purge, assassination, and armed coup are regular events. While totalitarianism of Right or Left at home eliminates the shield of secure private property desired by finpols, laissez--faire is likewise rejected out-of-hand as hell-on-earth by enlightened power-seekers.

Egoism, mitigated only by the reality of circumstance, is the motive to realistically attribute to healthy elites. An elite under the spell of mental spooks could not hold sway for long. Although finpol statism is increasingly a crisis for its victims, there is as yet no evidence that the elite itself is in serious crisis. Even inflation, the current crisis for the powerless, is simply another crisis to be managed toward the end of consolidating, extending, and refreshing elite power. No doubt the depression which must inevitably follow will be managed to even better effect at the expense of the masses.

I have classified the bibliography into the categories Right and Left. In each list I begin with the most objective works and proceed to the works most infected with mental spooks and emotional hysteria. These books should be read for empirical data, not theoretical insight. A list of less ideologically biased works is provided as well. I quote and recommend authors, not to imply support for my scenario where there is none, but to credit a few of those who have provided grist for my thoughts.

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY ~

"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." --- Francis Bacon

Indispensable Thoughts on History, Economics, Politics, Philosophy, and Human Nature:

Murray N. Rothbard: Economic Determinism and the Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited; Audio-Forum.

Nash: America's Great Depression;1972.

Carroll Quigley: Tragedy and Hope; Macmillan, 1966

Gabriel Kolko: The Triumph of Conservatism; Quadrangle

Carroll Quigley: The Evolution of Civilizations.

Anton S. LaVey: The Satanic Bible; Avon Books, 1969.

Arkon Daraul: Secret Societies; Citadel Press, 1962.

Count Egon Caesar Corti: The Rise of the House of Rothschild; ibid., The Reign of the House of Rothschild; Cosmopolitan Book Corp., 1928.

Max Stirner: The Ego and His Own; Libertarian Book Club, 1963.

Robert Ardrey: The Social Contract; Dell Publishing; 1970.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future; Random House, 1966.

George Orwell: Animal Farm; New American Library

Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince.

Ludwig von Mises: Theory and History; Arlington House, 1969.

Henry Regnery: Human Action; 1966.

James J. Martin: Revisionist Viewpoints; Ralph Myles Publisher, 1971.

Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate: Disclosure of Corporate Ownership; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution; ibid., Wall Street and FDR; Arlington House, 1975.

The Left on the Ruling Class:

Gabriel Kolko: The Triumph of Conservatism; Quadrangle Books, 1967.

Richard Ney: The Wall Street Gang; Praeger Publishers, 1974.

Ferdinand Lundberg: The Rich and the Super-Rich; Lyle Stuart, 1968.

Ferdinand Lundberg: America's 60 Families; Vanguard, 1938.

William G. Domhoff: Who Rules America?; Prentice Hall, 1967.

W.G. Domhoff: The Higher Circles; Random House, 1970.

Matthew Josephson: Money Lords; New American Library, 1973.

M. Josephson: The Robber Barons; Harcourt Brace & Co., 1934.

George H. Shibley: The Money Question; Stable Money Publishing Co., 1896.

Jules Archer: The Plot to Seize the White House; Hawthorn Books, 1973.

William Hoffman: David: Report on a Rockefeller; Dell Publishing, 1972.

Joel Andreas: The Incredible Rocky; North American Congress on Latin America, 1973.

Gustavus Myers: The History of the Great American Fortunes; 1907

The Right on the Conspiracy Theory of History:

Antony C. Sutton: National Suicide; Arlington House, 1973.

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.: The Economic Pinch; Dorrance & Company, Inc., 1923, Reprinted by Omni Publications.

Louis T. McFadden: Collective Speeches of Congressman McFadden; Omni Publications, 1970.

H.S. Kenan: The Federal Reserve Bank; The Noontide Press, 1968.

Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy; Concord Press, 1973.

G. Allen: Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask; Western Islands, 1971.

G. Allen: The Rockefeller File; '76 Press, 1976.

Dan Smoot: The Invisible Government; The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., 1962.

W. Cleon Skousen: The Naked Capitalist; The Author, 1970.

Taylor Caldwell: Captains and Kings; Fawcett Publications, 1973.

John Robison: Proofs of Conspiracy; 1798, Reprinted by Western Islands.

Nesta Webster: Secret Societies and Subversive Movements; Christian Book Club, 1967.

A. N. Field: The Truth About the Slump; 1931, Reprinted by Omni Publications, 1962.

William Robert Plumme: The Untold History; The Committee for the Restoration of the Republic, 1964.

June Grem: Karl Marx: Capitalist; Enterprise Publications, 1972.

Emanuel Josephson: Rockefeller Internationalist: Man Who Misrules the World; Chedney Press, 1962.
Comment on this Editorial


Big Brother is Doing More than Watching


Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening -- And Why They Will Continue

Jay S. Cohen, M.D.

From almost the day that they were introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides have been reported in patients taking serotonin-enhancing antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft. I'm not surprised this problem hasn't disappeared, nor will it unless we look deeper.
I never hesitate to say that these drugs -- selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -- help millions of people. But any drug that can cause positive changes in people's brains can also cause negative ones unless care is taken to avoid it. We do not take such care. So it was no surprise to me when, in August 2003, more headlines appeared. These were based on reports by British authorities and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about unpublished studies showing an increased risk of suicide in children and teenagers taking Paxil (1-3).

Prior reports of suicidal and homicidal acts in adults taking SSRIs have been explained away by drug industry defenders and mainstream doctors, who claim that suicide is common in depression anyway. And that no type of antidepressant helps everyone. Some depressed patients don't get better and choose suicide. That's true sometimes, unfortunately. But these reports describe more impulsive, violent acts than expected. As I said fifteen years ago at the time of the first reports and again in Over Dose in 2001 (4), SSRIs could create a unique combination of side effects that might severely impair judgment and impulse control. This has been described by others as well (5-16).

Psychosis After Three Days of Treatment


One of my first cases with Prozac involved a 35 year-old woman with a job and family, who had a mild depression with no suicidal tendencies. This changed after just three days on Prozac, when she became acutely psychotic. Any psychiatrist will tell you that excessive doses of antidepressants can cause brain dysfunctions including disorientation, confusion, and cognitive disturbances. This was commonly seen with old-time antidepressants like Elavil and Tofranil (17). But more than the older drugs, SSRIs can also cause a severe degree of agitation or restlessness that may become intolerable and reduce impulse control (5-6A). Impulsive behavior, especially if coupled with impaired cognitive functioning, can be dangerous.

Antidepressants can also trigger similar, manic-like symptoms in people whose depression is part of a manic-depressive syndrome, which often gets overlooked when people are given SSRIs. "Some of these individuals may have serious adverse reactions to antidepressants including irritability, aggression, and mania," wrote Dr. Ronald Pies, professor of psychiatry at Tufts University (18).

The Devil Is in the Dosage

My book Over Dose opens with a man whose anxiety and depressive symptoms got much worse rather than better with the standard 20-mg starting dose of Prozac (4). A letter to the editor in the August 11, 2003, issue of the New York Times described a similar reaction to Celexa:

"During the first month, I experienced extreme, almost manic tendencies. My mind raced, I was restless, I couldn't sleep. Eventually that restlessness subsided (18)."


Sometimes the symptoms don't subside. Sometimes the symptoms get out of hand. The writer of the letter made an another important point: "They need new dosing and treatment strategies to counteract the manic effect." Exactly.

These reactions are occurring because the standard starting doses of many antidepressants are excessively strong for many people. One clue is that most of these reactions occur shortly after people have been started on SSRIs or after the dosage has been bumped up. These are called "first-dose" reactions by mainstream medicine, and they almost always indicate a mismatch between the patient and the dosage. With the Paxil study, the New York Times reported:

"Some experts suspect that in the first few weeks of therapy, drugs like Paxil can shove a small number of patients toward a mental precipice, perhaps because they can cause a severe form of restlessness known as akathisia. Patients who make it through the first weeks of drug therapy uneventfully do fine on the medication on the long term, these experts say (3)."


But it doesn't have to be a sink or swim situation. Merely reduce the dose awhile, allow patients to adapt to the medicine, and then increase it again gradually. Sometimes it doesn't need to be increased, because lower doses work for many patients.

When my patient became psychotic in 1988, I researched the problem and found an article that shocked me. This large study, published before Prozac was marketed, showed that 54% of the patients with severe depression improved with just 5 mg -- one-quarter of the standard 20 mg starting dose (19). But Prozac wasn't marketed with a 5 mg recommended dose. 20 mg was the recommended initial dose for everyone -- 400% more than many people needed -- a huge difference pharmacologically. No wonder these reactions were occurring.

I wasn't the only expert to recognize the problem. A 1993 study concluded "that starting fluoxetine [Prozac] at doses lower than 20 mg is a useful strategy because of the substantial fraction of patients who cannot tolerate a 20-mg dose but appear to benefit from lower doses (20)." Similar dosing problems have been seen with and other SSRIs.

Informed Consent Means Having Enough Information to Make an Intelligent Choice

Unfortunately, most doctors don't understand that many problems with SSRIs are caused by standard doses that are excessive for substantial numbers of patients. And although Prozac, Zoloft, and other SSRIs now come in lower doses, many doctors still start patients on the stronger, standard doses.

As I've said when invited to speak at the FDA and at other major conferences, drug companies must define the lowest, safest, effective doses of drugs. They must include this information in package inserts and the Physicians' Desk Reference, and they must market pills that make lower dosing possible. And they must do it from the start.

Unfortunately, marketing trends in recent decades have gone in the other direction. Many drugs are marketed one-size-fits-all. Many drugs are dosed exactly the same for big and small, young and old, healthy and frail. The same strong doses are prescribed to people taking no other medications and people taking a dozen. Such methods defy medical sense and common sense.

Shortly after the reports from the British authorities and U.S. FDA about higher incidences of suicide in youngsters taking Paxil, Dr. Richard Friedman, director of the psychopharmacology clinic at Weill Medical College of Cornell University, wrote:

"For too long, drug companies have been allowed to tell us only the good news about their products. Now we're ready for the whole story (21)."


The whole story begins with patients and their doctors knowing about the lowest, safest, effective doses of drugs. Most people don't like taking medications. If they must, they prefer taking as little as possible. But this isn't possible if we aren't given adequate information. Informed consent is denied when information is withheld. We need to know the full range of effective doses, and we need enough pill sizes to make individualized dosing possible. Prevention begins with complete information.

In the meantime, you have to be your own researcher, using books and the Internet, learning enough to choose selectively from the information you see. Since 1996, I have published 15 medical journal articles and Over Dose to help inform you and your doctor about lower, safer, proven-effective drug doses because such information was unavailable to most people. Using all of the resources available today, you can learn a lot, and when you do, tell your doctor -- doctors respect good, scientifically-based information -- so that your doctor can inform others following you.


References

1. Waechter, F. Paroxetine must not be given to patients under 18. BMJ, June 14, 2003;326:1282.
2. FDA statement regarding the antidepressant Paxil for pediatric population. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, June 19, 2003:www.fda.gov -- accessed 9/18/O3.
3. Harris, G. Debate Resumes on the Safety of Depression's Wonder Drugs. New York Times, Aug. 7, 2003:nytimes.com.
4. Cohen, JS. Over Dose: The Case Against The Drug Companies. Prescription Drugs, Side Effects, and Your Health. Tarcher/Putnam, New York: October 2001.
5. Medawar, C, Herxheimer, A, Bell, A, et al. Paroxetine, Panorama, and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 2002;15:161-169.
6. Donovan, S, Clayton, A, Beeharry, M, et al. Deliberate self-harm and antidepressant drugs. Investigation of a possible link. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2000;177:551-6.
6A. Rogers, L, Waterhouse, R. Prozac Makers Told to Warn of Side-Effects. The Sunday Times [Britain], July 8, 2001:www.sunday-times.co.uk/news.
7. Glenmullen, J. Prozac Backlash: Overcoming the Dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Other Antidepressants with Safe, Effective Alternatives. Simon and Schuster, March 2000.
8. Healy, D. The Antidepressant Era. Harvard University Press, Sept. 1997.
9. Hickling, L. Questions Persist concerning Prozac's Role in Suicide Risk. Www.drkoop.com Health News, May 11, 2000: www.drkoop.com/dyncon/article.asp?at=N&id=11009.
10. Teicher, MH, Glod, C, Cole, JO. Emergence of intense suicidal preoccupation during fluoxetine treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1990;147(2):207.
11. Fichter, CG, Jobe, TH, Braun, BG. Does fluoxetine have a therapeutic window? Lancet 1991;338.
12. Anderson GM; Segman RH; King RA. Serotonin and suicidality: the impact of fluoxetine administration. II: Acute neurobiological effects. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 1995, 32(1):44-50.
13. Lancon, C, Bernard, D, Bougerol, T. [Fluoxetine, akathisia and suicide]. Encephale, 1997 May-Jun, 23(3):218-23. Abstract.
14. Liu, CY, Yang, YY, et al. Fluoxetine-related suicidality and muscle aches in a patient with poststroke depression [letter]. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1996 Dec, 16(6):466-7.
15. Jackson, A. Drug Turned Loving Man into a Killer, Says Judge. Sidney Morning Herald, Fri., May 25, 2001:www.smh.com.au/
16. Donovan, S, Clayton, A, et al. Deliberate self-harm and antidepressant drugs. Investigation of a possible link. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2000;177:551-6.
17. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. American Hospital Formulary Service, Drug Information 1999. Gerald K. McEvoy, Editor. Bethesda: 1999.
18. The Debate Over Antidepressants (5 Letters). Letters to the Editor. New York Times, 8/11/O3:nytimes.com.
19. Wernicke, JF, Dunlop, SR, Dornseif, BE, et al. Low-dose fluoxetine therapy for depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1988;24(1):183-188.
20. Louie, AK, Lewis, TB, Lannon, MD. Use of low-dose fluoxetine in major depression and panic disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1993;54(1):435-438.
21. Richard A. Friedman. What You Do Know Can't Hurt You. New York Times, 8/12/O3:nytimes.com.




Comment on this Article


Conservatives' Vision of an America Without Cities

By Jeremy Adam Smith
Public Eye
December 12, 2006

Rural Americans tend to see city culture as a haven for loose morals. Lucky for them, the Electoral College, Senate and federal budget have tilted power toward the heartland.
One Nation, Two Futures?

The formula that emerged from the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections was provocative: The less dense the population, the more likely it was to vote Republican. Republicans appeared to have lost the cities and inner suburbs, positioning themselves as the party of country roads, small towns and traditional values. Though Bush was often mocked for the time he spent on his ranch, sleeves rolled up, gun in hand, the image was widely promoted and became a cornerstone of his identity among Republican voters.

Conversely, it looked like Democrats had lost the country -- that is, until November 2006 when Democrats won decisive victories in the Midwest and Great Plains, often by leveraging their candidates' rural identities against a national Democratic Party that local voters saw as being overly urban, secular and affluent. By November 8, the electoral map looked a whole lot bluer. Yet Democrats could not have won without appealing to libertarian, anti-urban sensibilities.

"Millions of rural people have come to reject the larger framework of urban life," writes public radio reporter Brian Mann in his compelling new book Welcome to the Homeland: A Journey to the Heart of America's Conservative Rural Rebellion. "They despise the liberal modernism that shaped metro culture in the twentieth century and see it as an ideology that is every bit as foreign and threatening as communism."


Voting is just the tip of the iceberg. Antagonism toward cities is an under-recognized, under-analyzed factor in right-wing organizing, but now more and more writers are struggling to understand the rural/urban divide, how it has shaped national politics, and what it means for progressive organizing.

Mann coins the term "homelander" to describe largely white, anti-urban conservatives and says the homeland is a state of mind. You hear the homeland ethos not only in George W. Bush's acquired Texas twang, but in the voices documented in recent books from Mann, Steve Macek, and Juan Enriquez.

"Urban America breeds things that will probably never be here [in Perryton, Texas], but it scares people," Jim Hudson, publisher of Perryton Herald, tells Mann. What kinds of things? asks Mann. "Gay culture," he replies. "HIV sure wasn't bred in rural America."


The City and the Tower

Homelander ideologues of all stripes, from religious to libertarian to neoconservative, agree that cities, like governments, should be small enough to drown in the bathtub. Their hostility has deep cultural roots.

The homelander vision of the city starts with a story in Genesis 11:1-9. When God saw the first city of humankind and the tower its residents had built, He destroyed the tower and confused their language, "so that one will not understand the language of his companion" and "scattered them from there upon the face of the entire earth, and they ceased building the city."

Later in Genesis, God destroys the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for gross immorality, which many Christians have interpreted as homosexuality. (Classical Jewish texts specify economic greed, not sexuality, as the cause of God's wrath.) Thus begins the Christian history of urban life.

Now let's skip ahead several thousand years, to the birth of the American Republic. "Enthusiasm for the American city has not been typical or predominant in our intellectual history," writes Morton and Lucia White in their 1962 study, Intellectuals Against the City. "Fear has been the more common reaction." Thomas Jefferson described "great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man"; Henry David Thoreau preferred his cabin in the woods to "the desperate city"; in 1907, the Rev. Josiah Strong called the modern city "a Menace to State and Nation."

This is not to say rural politics was (or is) always conservative, or even anti-urban. From the Sierra and Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians, rural progressives built a great, creative tradition of civil disobedience, multiracial organizing, and cultural dissent. Yet in recent political history, that heritage was obscured by conservative organizing that promoted a race-based depiction of the city as "chaotic, ruined, and repellent, the exact inverse of the orderly domestic idyll of the suburbs," as Steve Macek writes in his recent book Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right, and Moral Panic Over the City. In such a view, urban poverty is a natural byproduct of unnatural urban life; it is slack morals, not racism or capitalism, which create the urban underclass and its affluent liberal enablers.

Thus the solution to urban poverty and lawlessness is not welfare and economic development, which will "prolong the problems and perhaps make them worse," but instead law enforcement, religious evangelism, and market-driven ethnic cleansing.

Tilting Against Towers: The New Right's Common Ground

As America urbanized and conservatives resurrected the ancient image of the city as dirty and dangerous, they simultaneously affirmed the ideal of the small town and countryside. Religious and secular conservatives alike found common ground in promoting the idea of an urban/rural divide and, in the process, helped make it real.

When the New Right emerged as a political force in the early 1980s, journalist Frances Fitzgerald paid a visit to Lynchburg, Virginia, where Jerry Falwell founded one of the first suburban megachurches and launched the Moral Majority, the first major organizational expression of the modern religious Right. There, in 1981, Fitzgerald found a homelander utopia with over one hundred churches.

"Lynchburg calls itself a city," she writes in Cities on a Hill, "but it is really a collection of suburbs. In the fifties, its old downtown was supplanted by a series of shopping plazas, leaving it with no real center ....The automobile has cut too many swaths across it, leaving gasoline stations and fast-food places to spring up in parking-lot wastelands. But it is a clean city, full of quiet streets and shade trees." She also found Falwell's congregation to be astonishingly uniform in race, culture, and dress, despite a substantial minority of African-Americans in the suburbs around them.

In his church sermons Falwell talked with his congregation about his trips to New York "and the narrow escapes he has had among the denizens of Sin City," hitting racial code words like "welfare chiselers," "urban rioters," and "crime in the streets" -- all phenomena with which his congregation had little or no personal contact. These helped mobilize the homeland against the forces of modernism that converged in the city.

The Right's Attack on Cities

Though the Religious Right bases its public policy agenda on the authority of the Bible and the libertarian Right bases its on the sovereignty of the individual, they converge in the same suburban parking lot. As the Right gained power on a national level, their policies and preconceptions have had a direct impact on cities. "During the Reagan and Bush eras alone," Steve Macek writes, "federal aid to local governments was slashed by 60 percent. Federal spending on new public housing dropped from $28 billion in 1977 to just $7 billion eleven years later. Meanwhile, shrinking welfare benefits have made it harder for the disproportionately urban recipients of public assistance to make ends meet."

Conservative policies and the retreat of liberal commitment to ending poverty combined to make cities increasingly unequal. But as Juan Enriquez makes clear in the The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing and our Future, welfare didn't disappear -- the money just shifted from cities to the homeland in the form of farm and corporate subsidies, price supports, military spending, and pork-barrel projects. Reviewing a chart of tax benefits to states, Enriquez notes that it is curious "that the most productive, high-tech states tend to vote Democratic. The most dole-dependent tend to be hard-line, antigovernment, antispending Republicans. Seventy-five percent of Mr. Bush's votes came from taker states."

Conservative policy initiatives like California's Proposition 13 (which in 1978 slashed property taxes by more than two-thirds) devastated urban school systems, to the benefit of suburban and exurban homeowners. More recently we've seen public transportation funding slashed, AIDS funding shift from Blue to Red States, and homeland security funding distributed as a form of pork. "Low-population states such as Wyoming and North Dakota received forty dollars per person to arm themselves against the impending al-Qaeda menace," Brian Mann notes. "Meanwhile, the big I-have-a-bulls-eye-on-my-forehead states like California and New York managed to pocket about five dollars per capita."

Mann points to the 9,000 residents of Ochiltree County, Texas, "the most Republican place in America," who were graced by nearly $53 million in federal money in 2003 alone -- which is, by any standard, a generous reward for their unstinting support of President Bush. The state of Kansas went from losing $2 million a year in what it paid in taxes, to making "a sweet profit of $1,200 per person" by 2004. When Mann raises this fact to his conservative brother Allen, he is enraged. "I don't believe it," Allen says. "No way. I know so many people in my town who refuse to take government money. They'd rather go hungry." Allen urges his brother to drop the issue. "You'll make rural people so mad that they won't listen to anything else you have to say."

The Popular Culture Divide

How have so many rural folks and their political allies gotten so hostile to cities and cosmopolitan values? Part of the answer, as I have suggested, lies in the particular cultural histories of Christianity and America. Race is also a factor, as it has been from the moment Europeans set foot on the continent.

But why has this front of the culture war suddenly gotten so rhetorically violent, the rift so wide? Mann argues that, over the past two decades, homelanders have succeeded in building their own alternative mass culture -- separate and unshaped by urban sensibilities. "When I was a kid," Mann writes, "you drank from the spigot of urban culture or you went without." "Back when the three media networks controlled everything and AP and UPI were the only sources of news, that was our window on the world," says Jim Hudson, the publisher of Perryton Herald. "Now I start my day with Fox and Friends. Then I do a computer check, reading NewsMax.com, a very conservative site."

"These days, rural Americans can get their news, books, art, movies, and music from sources that more closely reflect their values," writes Mann. "The break isn't clean or absolute; small-town folks still watch Everybody Loves Raymond and buy Stephen King novels .... But now they can also get their news from Fox, Sinclair, or NewsMax.com. They can buy top-notch thrillers and romance novels written by evangelical Christians." In effect, homelanders are bicultural; they can understand the language of urban popular culture, but mainstream urbanites are often clueless about the homeland lingo. "This media balkanization extends beyond politics and journalism," Mann writes. "These days, for every Dr. Spock, there is a Dr. Dobson. For every Stephen King, there's a Tim LaHaye."

Beyond the Myth: The Truth About Cities

"Modern liberalism was born in the big cities and died there," neocon Fred Siegel writes in his 1977 book The Future Once Happened Here, painting American cities as economic and moral dead zones. But as the most recent elections reveal, nothing could be further from the truth. For all the mistakes committed in the name of liberal and progressive urban policy, an urban liberalism is flourishing; in places like San Francisco and Portland, it has achieved a confident hegemony. Though the San Francisco Bay Area has plenty of problems, including profound wealth inequality and troubled public schools, it remains a seat of technological and cultural innovation, with its low fertility rates offset by immigration and emigration that keep the city culturally diverse

Even families who flee from city centers take their urban values with them into the increasingly diverse inner suburbs, where Democrats won 58 percent of the presidential vote in 2004. Both left and Right are turning out to be wrong about the politics of sprawl, which is emerging as the bleeding edge, rather than the death, of urbanization. Today "edge" cities like Las Vegas and Miami have turned deep blue, as their populations grow denser and more diverse. Even the urban outposts of places like Montana and Oklahoma run politically to the left.

According to the homelander urban narrative, such places should now be pestilential, blighted dens of inequity. Yet, despite all the conservative prophecies of urban apocalypse, the level and pace of urbanization continues to accelerate, with complex economic and social results.

Every year two million people move to American cities and inner suburbs, adding islands to the archipelago, while America's homeland population falls fast toward 56 million, "roughly the level of the mid-1970s," notes Mann. Far from declining demographically, the United Nations predicts that the percentage of the North American population living in urban areas will rise to 84 percent of the population by 2030.

Cornell researchers Barclay G. Jones and Solomane Koné found that from 1970 to 1990, per capita income increased directly with population size in metropolitan areas. Similar trends have been found for social capital: A 2003 study by the General Social Survey found that city dwellers were more likely to help each other out than their rural counterparts. Such statistics -- there are many -- stand in contrast to the Stygian alienation depicted in conservative "yuppie horror films" like Judgment Night (1993) and Ransom (1996), which show urbanites as antisocial and uncaring.

An Urban Backlash Is No Solution

Dumbfounded by the homeland ascendancy, many urbanites have embraced a misguided strategy of rebranding progressivism as specifically urban. In their influential 2004 manifesto "The Urban Archipelago," the editors of the Seattle weekly, The Stranger, argue that it's time for urbanites to aggressively pursue their own self-interest on a national stage. "We need a new identity politics," they write, "an urban identity politics, one that argues for the cities, uses a rhetoric of urban values, and creates a tribal identity for liberals that's as powerful and attractive as the tribal identity Republicans have created for their constituents...To red-state voters, to the rural voters, residents of small, dying towns, and soulless sprawling exburbs, we say this: Fuck off. Your issues are no longer our issues."

Yet cutting the Red States off the federal dole, ignoring the downward-pressure on income created by Wal-Marting the homelander economy, or leaving Red States out of environmental policymaking -- all steps recommended by The Stranger's editors -- ignores our mutual interdependency and breeds self-destructive partitions.

"People are hurting in the countryside," Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute of Southern Studies, told me. "You go into western North Carolina, and you see hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are being shattered by economic dislocations. If progressives turn their backs on those people, they're losing a huge opportunity and they're failing to address this country's deepest problems."


And as Brian Mann points out, even if The Stranger's strategy was desirable, it would be extremely difficult to pursue on a national level. The Senate, for example, gives each state two seats regardless of population. "As a consequence, those lucky homelanders in Wyoming and Alaska receive 72 times more clout per capita than do California's metros," Mann writes. "It's a startling fact that half of the American people live in just nine highly urbanized states -- most of them staunchly Democratic -- but they hold only 18 percent of the Senate's power." Similarly, the structure of the Electoral College has tilted power towards the rural states, while gerrymandering has given Republicans an edge in the House of Representatives.

"Put bluntly, our political system is no longer a neutral playing field," Mann writes. "In ways our founding fathers could never have imagined, the Electoral College and the Senate now favor one way of life, one set of cultural and political values, over another. Because those values are no longer shared by most Americans, the result is a growing disconnect between our political elites and the people they govern."

At this writing it's too early to tell, but November 2006 may stand as a turning point, when rural liberals and progressives fought their way back onto the electoral map. We still have a long, long way to go, and we need more research, writing, and debates like the ones found in Welcome to the Homeland and The Untied States of America. There is more at work in the homeland ascendancy than pure ideology and moral politics; we also have to respond to the self-interest of people whose lives are being turned upside down by war and economic change.

Too many liberals and progressives are isolated in their metropolitan towers, looking down not only at the people The Stranger deem "rubes, fools, and hatemongers," but also at the disenfranchised and dispossessed of their own unequal cities. Even if the homelander challenge fades to a historical footnote, metropolitans will still need to face cities rived by class and race. Maybe it is time for those of us who live in cities to come down from our towers, before it's too late.

A longer version of this essay appeared originally in Public Eye magazine, which presents reports by scholars and journalists on trends within the U.S. Right.

For six years, Jeremy Adam Smith was a student and community activist in North Central Florida. Today he lives in San Francisco and works as the managing editor of Greater Good magazine. He blogs about the politics of parenting at Daddy Dialectic.




Comment on this Article


Government Spying Goes Global

By Maureen Webb
AlterNet
December 12, 2006

The government is tracking your transactions to help find terror suspects -- a move that makes about as much sense as assigning guilt based on Google keyword searches.
The story which broke last week about a traveler risk scoring system called the Automated Targeting System, or "ATS," evokes an image of an Orwellian world in which the State compiles a secret dossier on every individual and sorts the population according to secret criteria, assigning each person a "risk score." The individual has no recourse to challenge his risk rating, and he has no way of correcting any false or incomplete information about him. In fact, he will never know what information is being used against him, or even the criteria on which he has been judged a risk to the State. It is a disturbing image, and the fact that the government has been conducting the ATS program in secret for four years has shocked many people. However, the ATS is hardly a surprise to those who have been keeping track of similar programs.

First, there was Total Information Awareness, or "TIA," a program that was to data mine "the transaction space" in order to single out people who might be terrorists. Then there was the Multi-state Anti-terrorism Information Exchange, or "MATRIX," which linked together state and commercial information and was probably a data-mining program. In a test run of their technology for government officials, its developers boasted that they had found 120,000 likely terrorists living in the United States. In the area of travel, the second-generation Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or "CAPPS II," was to data mine airline and commercial information in order to score travelers as red, green or amber risks. Its successor program, "Secure Flight," tried to do a similar thing. Then, in the area of telecommunications, there was the NSA program, secretly authorized by the President to data mine the telephone calls and emails of the American people.

All of these programs, except for the NSA's, were ostensibly scrapped by the government or Congress. Americans thought TIA was just too creepy, states opted out of MATRIX in droves because it was so intrusive, the GAO said that CAPPS II was ineffective in identifying possible terrorists, and Secure Flight was killed after it was caught risk scoring, which Congress had expressly forbidden it to do. Each program never really went away. Instead, they were simply repackaged -- or carried on in secret, like the ATS program.

Data mining is the use of computer algorithms to search masses of information for specified criteria. Risk scoring is a statistical rating on how closely an individual matches the criteria. The government is using these two techniques to sort through the masses of information it has been gathering and buying from private data aggregating companies since 9-11, in order to watch every transaction made by the American population, and populations outside the United States, all of the time. This is mass surveillance, and it's global in scope. Domestic systems feed into global ones and global systems -- like biometric passports, the sharing of airline reservation system information, the interception of international banking records, and the interception of global communications, to name a few -- feed into the domestic.

The purpose of data mining is not to check individuals' personal information against information about known terrorists, or those suspected of terrorism on "reasonable grounds" as they cross borders, send emails or access public services. The purpose of it is to predict who might be a terrorist -- a little like the film "Minority Report," in which officials stop criminal acts before they happen by reading people's minds. However, the technology that is being used today falls far short of the technology of Hollywood fantasy.

First, the information on which data mining or risk scoring depend is often inaccurate, lacking context, dated, or incomplete. And like the ATS program, data mining and risk scoring programs never contain a mechanism by which individuals can correct, contextualize or object to the information that is being used against them, or even know what it is. Operating on a "preemption" principle, these systems are uninterested in this kind of precision. They would be bogged down if they were held to the ordinary standards of access, accuracy, and accountability. Secondly, the criteria used to sort masses of data will always be over-inclusive and mechanical. Data mining is like assessing guilt by "Google" key-word searches. And since these systems use broad markers for predicting terrorism, ethnic and religious profiling are endemic to them.

Welcome to the national insecurity state, where our virtual identities are continually assessed for the risk we pose to the state and the normal relationship between the individual and the state in democratic societies is turned on its head. Now, the individual answers to the state and woe betide the person who is branded with a high "risk score."

Maureen Webb is a human rights lawyer and activist. She has spoken extensively on post-September 11 security and human rights issues, most recently testifying before the House and Senate Committees reviewing the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act. In 2001, Webb was a Fellow at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia University in New York. A litigator for some of the first constitutional cases heard under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the landmark freedom of association case, "Lavigne, "and a case challenging the powers of Canada's newly instituted spy agency, CSIS, she sits as co-chair of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. She is also the Coordinator for Security and Human Rights issues for Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada. Her first book Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World will be published by City Lights in February 2007.



Comment on this Article


Democracy -- Shamocracy

By Sean Gonsalves
AlterNet
December 11, 2006

What happened to the ideas of democracy and freedom that were among the rationales for the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Democracy is supposed to be about ordinary people, common folk, having a say-so in the decisions that shape their lives; the idea that there's an "inalienable right" to certain freedoms; that the only legitimate government is one that answers to "the people." In democracies, people are not subjects, but citizens.

Democracy?

Raed Jarrar, the Iraq project director for Global Exchange, a human rights organization, who has spent a lot of time talking to members of Iraq's parliament, points out how the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to extend the occupation force in Iraq. The security council voted with the quickness after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requested the extension.

U.S. and British "diplomats" rushed the vote through last month, even though it wasn't on the council's agenda for November.

"The Iraqi parliament was not informed about this (request) by al-Maliki. I talked to four Iraqi MPs: a Sunni, a Shia, and two seculars, and all of them were totally shocked that al-Maliki bypassed the Iraqi parliament."

Dr. Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni secular MP and the former speaker of parliament, told Jarrar: "We were supposed to have a meeting with al-Maliki and other top officials in the parliament during the next couple of weeks to decide what to do with the mandate."

"According to most of the MPs I talked to," Jarrar continues, "it is unconstitutional to have the prime minister renewing the mandate without consulting the Iraqi parliament."

Democracy?

A recent poll conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudesfound that three of four Americans believe that in order to stabilize Iraq, U.S. policymakers should engage Iran and Syria in talks and eight in 10 support an international conference on Iraq.

A majority of Americans oppose keeping U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely and instead support a timetable for withdrawal within two years or less, which is in line with several key proposals of the Iraq Study Group.

That's probably because most Americans understand the we-don't-negotiate-with-terrorists line is nonsense, especially since Reagan negotiated with Iranian "terrorists" for the release of U.S. hostages and, as James Baker noted, "we talked to the Soviets for 40 years when they were trying to blow us up." Baker emphasized that it's not a sign of weakness to talk to your adversaries. After all, peace is made with enemies; not friends. Interestingly, U.S. public opinion is similar to Iraqi public opinion. Sure, there are those true believers who cling to neocon myths about Iraq and avoid serious thinking by writing all this off as "liberal" propaganda.

OK, well check out what the very conservative Cato Institute has to say.

"A new, extensive survey of Iraqi public opinion conducted by Gallup and other groups discredits numerous cherished beliefs that hawks have held about Iraq."

"For months, the Bush administration and its supporters have argued that there is a silent majority of Iraqis who regard coalition forces as liberators, want those forces to stay for a prolonged period, oppose insurgent attacks on coalition troops, and are enthusiastic about creating a Western-style democracy for their country. The poll results contradict every one of those assumptions."

The poll found that 57 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops out "immediately." Though only 3 percent of Kurds want the forces to depart immediately, 61 percent of Shiites and 65 percent of Sunnis -- the ones who have the most to lose by U.S. withdrawal -- want to see a quick U.S. exit strategy.

In Baghdad, where U.S. troop presence is more visible and concentrated, 75 percent of the city's residents want the U.S. out ASAP. Where the violence is at its worst, three-quarters of the population don't feel protected or liberated by U.S. forces.

Democracy and freedom? Yeah, right.

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.



Comment on this Article


US income figures show staggering rise in social inequality

By Jerry White
12 December 2006

60 million Americans living on less than $7 a day

A recent analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax data sheds further light on the enormous gap that has grown between America's wealthy elite and the masses of working people over the last quarter of a century. The examination of IRS figures was conducted by the New York Times and reported in its November 27 article, "'04 Income in U.S. Was Below 2000 Level" by David Cay Johnston.
The article begins by noting that total US income in 2004-the latest year for which tax information is available-was $7.044 trillion, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000. The decline was attributed to two factors: the stagnation of median household income-which fell by 3 percent, or about $1,600, between 2000 and 2004-and the fact that the earnings of the richest Americans have not yet caught up with the peak reached before the Internet bubble on Wall Street burst in 2000.

Incomes in 2004 rose by an average 6.8 percent but the vast bulk of the increase went to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans-living in some 130,500 households with an average income of $4.9 million-who saw their incomes rise by 27.5 percent over the course of one year. During the same period the income of the poorest one-fifth of the population-some 60 million people-rose by only 1.8 percent.

The sharp rise in income for the wealthiest Americans-due in large measure to the Bush administration's cuts in capital gains taxes, corporate profit rates not seen in nearly 40 years and the recovery of the stock market-has led to a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the super-rich. According to a separate study by University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans took in 9.5 percent of all pretax income, or about $679 billion in 2004, excluding unreported income.

Referring to this elite group, the New York Times article notes, "those very top households, which include about 300,000 Americans, reported significantly more pretax income combined than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004, the data show. This is a sharp change from 1979, the oldest year examined by the I.R.S, when the thin slice at the top received about one-third of the total income of the big group at the bottom."

This staggering fact reveals a great deal about the economic and political processes that have unfolded over the last quarter century. While the portion of national income controlled by America's corporate and financial elite declined in the aftermath of the Great Depression and stabilized during the postwar period, over the last 25 years a massive social transformation has occurred and the share of the national income now controlled by America's social oligarchy is at the highest levels since 1929.

The Times article goes on to note, "Over all, average incomes rose 27 percent in real terms over the quarter-century from 1979 through 2004. But the gains were narrowly concentrated at the top and offset by losses for the bottom 60 percent of Americans, those making less than $38,761 in 2004." It continues, "The bottom 60 percent of Americans, on average, made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979, the analysis of IRS data showed. The next best-off group, the fifth of Americans on the 60th to 80th rungs of the income ladder, averaged 2 cents more income in 2004 for each dollar they earned in 1979.

"Only those in the top 5 percent had significant gains," the newspaper notes. The average income of those on the 95th to 99th rungs of the income ladder rose by 53 percent, almost twice the average rate. The largest gains, however, went to those at the very heights of American society. "A third of the entire national increase in reported income went to the top 1 percent-and more than half of that went to the top tenth of 1 percent, whose average incomes soared so much that for each dollar, adjusted for inflation, that they had in 1979 they had $3.48 in 2004," the Times article says.

The last 25 years has seen an enormous transfer of wealth from working people into the hands of America's economic elite. With the full backing of both the Democrats and Republicans, corporate America responded to the decline of its competitive position in the 1970s by launching an unrelenting attack on the jobs and living standards of the working class that continues to this day. The enrichment of those at the top has come at the direct expense of the vast majority of the working population in America, whose share of national wealth has plummeted.

At the other pole of society is an increasingly impoverished working class, including some 25 percent of all workers who labor for poverty wages. The Times article notes that the bottom fifth of all taxpayers earned below $11,166 and their average reported income was only $5,743 each. Because the IRS includes a single individual or a married couple in its definition of a "taxpayer" the poorest 26 million taxpayers account for the equivalent nearly 48 million adults and about 12 million dependent children. According to the Times analysis, this means the poorest 60 million Americans have reported incomes of less than $7 a day!

The official poverty line in 2004 was $27 a day for a single adult below retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child-although the real cost of attaining basic necessities is far higher. The Times article notes that the IRS income data does not include the value of government benefits like food stamps, earned-income tax credits and subsidized medical care. But the social programs for the poor-including federal welfare assistance-have largely been wiped out or curtailed and what programs do remain are not sufficient to lift families out of poverty.

It is often noted that 3 billion of the world's poorest people live on less than $2 a day. In the US, where the cost of living is far higher, $7 a day is only enough to guarantee a life of destitution. The fact that 60 million people live in such dire poverty-and tens of millions more could face the same fate if they lost their jobs or confronted some other financial catastrophe-is a damning indictment of American capitalism and the free market model it touts around the world.

The levels of social stratification and inequality in the US are incompatible with genuine democracy. Political life in America is completely subordinated to the needs of a financial aristocracy whose pursuit of ever greater levels of personal wealth constantly collides with the social needs and democratic rights of the broad masses of people in the US and internationally. The needs of this elite-for further wars of conquest, tax cuts, the elimination of social programs and a drastic reduction of living standards-cannot be imposed, in the final analysis, without recourse to authoritarian means.

The social transformation that has occurred over the last 25 years has coincided with a shift to the right by both big business parties and in particular the abandonment of any program of social reforms by the Democratic Party, whose leading personal, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leading presidential contender Senator Hillary Clinton, are themselves multimillionaires. Insulated from the majority of the people and unwilling and unable to respond to their needs and concerns, the leading members of the incoming Democratic majority in Congress have already made it clear that they will not roll back the Bush-era tax cuts that have helped bring unimaginable wealth to their real constituents.



Comment on this Article


Routine and systematic torture is at the heart of America's war on terror

George Monbiot
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

After thousands of years of practice, you might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But you should never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators, we now discover, have found a new way of destroying a human being.

Last week, defence lawyers acting for José Padilla, a US citizen detained as an "enemy combatant", released a video showing a mission fraught with deadly risk - taking him to the prison dentist. A group of masked guards in riot gear shackled his legs and hands, blindfolded him with black-out goggles and shut off his hearing with headphones, then marched him down the prison corridor.
Is Padilla really that dangerous? Far from it: his warders describe him as so docile and inactive that he could be mistaken for "a piece of furniture". The purpose of these measures appeared to be to sustain the regime under which he had lived for more than three years: total sensory deprivation. He had been kept in a blacked-out cell, unable to see or hear anything beyond it. Most importantly, he had had no human contact, except for being bounced off the walls from time to time by his interrogators. As a result, he appears to have lost his mind. I don't mean this metaphorically. I mean that his mind is no longer there.

The forensic psychiatrist who examined him says that he "does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, ie, post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation". José Padilla appears to have been lobotomised: not medically, but socially.

If this was an attempt to extract information, it was ineffective: the authorities held him without charge for three and half years. Then, threatened by a supreme court ruling, they suddenly dropped their claims that he was trying to detonate a dirty bomb. They have now charged him with some vague and lesser offences to do with support for terrorism. He is unlikely to be the only person subjected to this regime. Another "enemy combatant", Ali al-Marri, claims to have been subject to the same total isolation and sensory deprivation, in the same naval prison in South Carolina. God knows what is being done to people who have disappeared into the CIA's foreign oubliettes.

That the US tortures, routinely and systematically, while prosecuting its "war on terror" can no longer be seriously disputed. The Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (DAA), a coalition of academics and human-rights groups, has documented the abuse or killing of 460 inmates of US military prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay. This, it says, is necessarily a conservative figure: many cases will remain unrecorded. The prisoners were beaten, raped, forced to abuse themselves, forced to maintain "stress positions", and subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation and mock executions.

The New York Times reports that prisoners held by the US military at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan were made to stand for up to 13 days with their hands chained to the ceiling, naked, hooded and unable to sleep. The Washington Post alleges that prisoners at the same airbase were "commonly blindfolded and thrown into walls, bound in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep" while kept, like Padilla and the arrivals at Guantánamo, "in black hoods or spray-painted goggles".

Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that the photographs released from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq reflect standard CIA torture techniques: "stress positions, sensory deprivation, and sexual humiliation". The famous picture of the hooded man standing on a box, with wires attached to his fingers, shows two of these techniques being used at once. Unable to see, he has no idea how much time has passed or what might be coming next. He stands in a classic stress position - maintained for several hours, it causes excruciating pain. He appears to have been told that if he drops his arms he will be electrocuted. What went wrong at Abu Ghraib is that someone took photos. Everything else was done by the book.

Neither the military nor the civilian authorities have broken much sweat in investigating these crimes. A few very small fish have been imprisoned; a few others have been fined or reduced in rank; in most cases the authorities have either failed to investigate or failed to prosecute. The DAA points out that no officer has yet been held to account for torture practised by his subordinates. US torturers appear to enjoy impunity, until they are stupid enough to take pictures of each other.

But Padilla's treatment also reflects another glorious American tradition: solitary confinement. Some 25,000 US prisoners are currently held in isolation - a punishment only rarely used in other democracies. In some places, like the federal prison in Florence, Colorado, they are kept in sound-proofed cells and might scarcely see another human being for years on end. They may touch or be touched by no one. Some people have been kept in solitary confinement in the US for more than 20 years.

At Pelican Bay in California, where 1,200 people are held in the isolation wing, inmates are confined to tiny cells for 22 and a half hours a day, then released into an "exercise yard" for "recreation". The yard consists of a concrete well about 3.5 metres in length with walls 6 metres high and a metal grille across the sky. The recreation consists of pacing back and forth, alone.

The results are much as you would expect. As National Public Radio reveals, more than 10% of the isolation prisoners at Pelican Bay are now in the psychiatric ward, and there's a waiting list. Prisoners in solitary confinement, according to Dr Henry Weinstein, a psychiatrist who studies them, suffer from "memory loss to severe anxiety to hallucinations to delusions ... under the severest cases of sensory deprivation, people go crazy." People who went in bad and dangerous come out mad as well. The only two studies conducted so far - in Texas and Washington state - both show that the recidivism rates for prisoners held in solitary confinement are worse than for those who were allowed to mix with other prisoners. If we were to judge the US by its penal policies, we would perceive a strange beast: a Christian society that believes in neither forgiveness nor redemption.

From this delightful experiment, US interrogators appear to have extracted a useful lesson: if you want to erase a man's mind, deprive him of contact with the rest of the world. This has nothing to do with obtaining information: torture of all kinds - physical or mental - produces the result that people will say anything to make it end. It is about power, and the thrilling discovery that in the right conditions one man's power over another is unlimited. It is an indulgence which turns its perpetrators into everything they claim to be confronting.

President Bush maintains that he is fighting a war against threats to the "values of civilised nations": terror, cruelty, barbarism and extremism. He asked his nation's interrogators to discover where these evils are hidden. They should congratulate themselves. They appear to have succeeded.

www.monbiot.com



Comment on this Article


Gary Webb's Death: American Tragedy

by ROBERT PARRY
11 Dec 06

When Americans ask me what happened to the vaunted U.S. press corps over the past three decades - in the decline from its heyday of the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers to its failure to challenge the Iraq WMD lies or to hold George W. Bush accountable - I often recall for them the story of Gary Webb.

Two years ago, on the night of Dec. 9, 2004, investigative reporter Webb - his career shattered and his life in ruins - typed out four suicide notes for his family, laid out a certificate for his cremation, put a note on the door suggesting a call to 911, and removed his father's handgun from a box.
The 49-year-old Webb, a divorced father of three who was living alone in a rental house in Sacramento County, California, then raised the gun and shot himself in the head. The first shot was not lethal, so he fired once more.

His body was found the next day after movers who were scheduled to clear out Webb's rental house, arrived and followed the instructions from the note on the door.

Though a personal tragedy, the story of Gary Webb's suicide has a larger meaning for the American people who find themselves increasingly sheltered from the truth by government specialists at cover-ups and by a U.S. news media that has lost its way.

Webb's death had its roots in his fateful decision eight years earlier to write a three-part series for the San Jose Mercury News that challenged a potent conventional wisdom shared by the elite U.S. news organizations - that one of the most shocking scandals of the 1980s just couldn't have been true.

Webb's "Dark Alliance" series, published in August 1996, revived the story of how the Reagan administration in the 1980s had tolerated and protected cocaine smuggling by its client army of Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras.

Though substantial evidence of these crimes had surfaced in the mid-1980s (initially in an article that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985 and later at hearings conducted by Sen. John Kerry), the major news outlets had bent to pressure from the Reagan administration and refused to take the disclosures seriously.

Reflecting the dominant attitude toward Kerry and his work on the contra-cocaine scandal, Newsweek even dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

Thus, the ugly reality of the contra-cocaine scandal was left in that netherworld of uncertainty, largely proven with documents and testimony but never accepted by Official Washington, including its premier news organizations, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

But Webb's series thrust the scandal back into prominence by connecting the contra-cocaine trafficking to the crack epidemic that had ravaged Los Angeles and other American cities in the 1980s. For that reason, African-American communities were up in arms as were their elected representatives.

So, the "Dark Alliance" series offered a unique opportunity for the major news outlets to finally give the contra-cocaine scandal the attention it deserved.

Media Resistance

But that would have required some painful self-criticism among Washington journalists whose careers had advanced in part because they had avoided retaliation from aggressive Reagan supporters who had made an art of punishing out-of-step reporters for pursuing controversies like the contra-cocaine scandal.

Also, by the mid-1990s, a powerful right-wing news media had taken shape and was in no mood to accept the notion that President Ronald Reagan's beloved contras were little more than common criminals. That recognition would have cast a shadow over the Reagan Legacy, which the Right was busy elevating into mythic status.

There was the turf issue, too. Since Webb's stories coincided with the emergence of the Internet as an alternate source for news and the San Jose Mercury News was at the center of Silicon Valley, the big newspapers saw a threat to their historic dominance as the nation's gatekeepers for what information should be taken seriously.

Plus, the major media's focus in the mid-1990s was on scandals swirling around Bill Clinton, such as some firings at the White House Travel Office and convoluted questions about his old Whitewater real-estate deal.

In other words, there was little appetite to revisit scandals from the Reagan years and there was strong motive to disparage what Webb had written.

It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack. The Washington Times turned to some ex-CIA officials, who had participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself over the next decade - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the right-wing press. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack."

A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on against Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to weaken on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Nevertheless, Webb was becoming the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants.

"Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership.

"Few of the so-called leaders of the movement ... really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Kurtz and other big-name journalists may have been ignorant of key facts about the contra war, but that didn't stop them from pillorying Gary Webb. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat. On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship," Ceppos wrote.

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.
The CIA Probe
Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan administration had conducted the contra war.

The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Inspector General Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge.

Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras, the so-called "Frogman Case." On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses.

Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department.

The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan and were implicated in heroin trafficking.

The next breach in the defensive wall was a report by the Justice Department's inspector general Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by Bromwich, the Reagan administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the crimes.

Bromwich's report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series.

Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras. For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds.

Pena, who was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into contra-cocaine shipments moving through the international airport in El Salvador.

Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries.

Cocaine Crimes & Monica

By fall 1998, Official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two.

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations throughout the 1980s.

According to Volume Two, the CIA knew the criminal nature of its contra clients from the start of the war against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.

The earliest contra force, called ADREN or the 15th of September Legion, had chosen "to stoop to criminal activities in order to feed and clothe their cadre," according to a June 1981 draft CIA field report.

ADREN also employed terrorist methods, including the bombing of Nicaraguan civilian planes and hijackings, to disrupt the Sandinista government, the CIA knew. Cocaine smuggling was also in the picture.

According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez and other early contras who would later direct the major contra army, the CIA-organized FDN. Throughout the war, Bermudez remained the top contra military commander.

The CIA later corroborated the allegations about ADREN's cocaine trafficking, but insisted that Bermudez had opposed the drug shipments to the United States which went ahead nonetheless.

The truth about Bermudez's supposed objections to drug trafficking, however, was less clear. According to Volume One, Bermudez enlisted Norwin Meneses, a large-scale Nicaraguan cocaine smuggler, to raise money and buy supplies for the contras.

Volume One had quoted a Meneses associate, another Nicaraguan trafficker named Danilo Blandon, who told Hitz's investigators that he and Meneses flew to Honduras to meet with Bermudez in 1982.

At the time, Meneses's criminal activities were well known in the Nicaraguan exile community. But the FDN commander told the cocaine smugglers that "the ends justify the means" in raising money for the contras.

After the Bermudez meeting, contra soldiers helped Meneses and Blandon get past Honduran police who briefly arrested them on drug-trafficking suspicions. After their release, Blandon and Meneses traveled on to Bolivia to complete a cocaine transaction.

There were other indications of Bermudez's drug-smuggling tolerance. In February 1988, another Nicaraguan exile linked to the drug trade accused Bermudez of narcotics trafficking, according to Hitz's report.

After the contra war ended, Bermudez returned to Managua, where he was shot to death on Feb. 16, 1991. The murder has never been solved.

CIA Drug Asset


Along the Southern Front, in Costa Rica, the drug evidence centered on the forces of Eden Pastora, another leading contra commander. But Hitz discovered that the U.S. government may have contributed to the problem.

Hitz revealed that the CIA put an admitted drug operative - known by his CIA pseudonym "Ivan Gomez" - in a supervisory position over Pastora. Hitz reported that the CIA discovered Gomez's drug history in 1987 when Gomez failed a security review on drug-trafficking questions.

In internal CIA interviews, Gomez admitted that in March or April 1982, he helped family members who were engaged in drug trafficking and money laundering. In one case, Gomez said he assisted his brother and brother-in-law in transporting cash from New York City to Miami. He admitted that he "knew this act was illegal."

Later, Gomez expanded on his admission, describing how his family members had fallen $2 million into debt and had gone to Miami to run a money-laundering center for drug traffickers. Gomez said "his brother had many visitors whom [Gomez] assumed to be in the drug trafficking business."

Gomez's brother was arrested on drug charges in June 1982. Three months later, in September 1982, Gomez started his CIA assignment in Costa Rica. Years later, convicted drug trafficker Carlos Cabezas charged that in the early 1980s, Ivan Gomez was the CIA agent in Costa Rica who was overseeing drug-money donations to the contras.

Gomez "was to make sure the money was given to the right people [the contras] and nobody was taking ... profit they weren't supposed to," Cabezas stated publicly.

But the CIA sought to discredit Cabezas at the time because he had trouble identifying Gomez's picture and put Gomez at one meeting in early 1982 before Gomez started his CIA assignment.

While the CIA was able to fend off Cabezas's allegations by pointing to these discrepancies, Hitz's report revealed that the CIA was nevertheless aware of Gomez's direct role in drug-money laundering, a fact the agency hid from Sen. Kerry's investigation in 1987.

The Bolivian Connection

There also was more about Gomez. In November 1985, the FBI learned from an informant that Gomez's two brothers had been large-scale cocaine importers, with one brother arranging shipments from Bolivia's infamous drug kingpin Roberto Suarez.

Suarez already was known as a financier of right-wing causes. In 1980, with the support of Argentine's hard-line anti-communist military regime, Suarez bankrolled a coup in Bolivia that ousted the elected left-of-center government.

The violent putsch became known as the Cocaine Coup because it made Bolivia the region's first narco-state. Bolivia's government-protected cocaine shipments helped transform the Medellin cartel from a struggling local operation into a giant corporate-style business for delivering cocaine to the U.S. market.

Some of those profits allegedly found their way into contra coffers.

Flush with cash in the early 1980s, Suarez invested more than $30 million in various right-wing paramilitary operations, including the contra forces in Central America, according to U.S. Senate testimony by an Argentine intelligence officer, Leonardo Sanchez-Reisse.

In 1987, Sanchez-Reisse said the Suarez drug money was laundered through front companies in Miami before going to Central America. There, other Argentine intelligence officers - veterans of the Bolivian coup - trained the contras.

CIA Inspector General Hitz added another piece to the mystery of the Bolivian-contra connection. One contra fund-raiser, Jose Orlando Bolanos, boasted that the Argentine government was supporting his anti-Sandinista activities, according to a May 1982 cable to CIA headquarters.

Bolanos made the statement during a meeting with undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Florida. He even offered to introduce them to his Bolivian cocaine supplier.

Despite all this suspicious drug activity around Ivan Gomez and the contras, the CIA insisted that it did not unmask Gomez until 1987, when he failed a security check and confessed his role in his family's drug business.

The CIA official who interviewed Gomez concluded that "Gomez directly participated in illegal drug transactions, concealed participation in illegal drug transactions, and concealed information about involvement in illegal drug activity," Hitz wrote.

But senior CIA officials still protected Gomez. They refused to refer the Gomez case to the Justice Department, citing the 1982 DOJ-CIA agreement that spared the CIA from a legal obligation to report narcotics crimes by non-employees.

Instead, the CIA eased Gomez, an independent contractor, out of the agency in February 1988, without alerting law enforcement or the congressional oversight committees.

When questioned about the case nearly a decade later, one senior CIA official who had supported the gentle treatment of Gomez had second thoughts. "It is a striking commentary on me and everyone that this guy's involvement in narcotics didn't weigh more heavily on me or the system," the official acknowledged.

The White House Trail

A Medellin drug connection arose in another section of Hitz's report, when he revealed evidence suggesting that some contra trafficking may have been sanctioned by Reagan's National Security Council.

The protagonist for this part of the contra-cocaine mystery was Moises Nunez, a Cuban-American who worked for North's NSC operation and for two drug-connected seafood importers, Ocean Hunter in Miami and Frigorificos de Puntarenas in Costa Rica.

Frigorificos de Puntarenas was created in the early 1980s as a cover for drug-money laundering, according to sworn testimony by two of the firm's principals - Carlos Soto and Medellin cartel accountant Ramon Milian Rodriguez.

Drug allegations were swirling around Moises Nunez by the mid-1980s. At the AP, his operation was one of the targets of our investigation.

Finally reacting to these suspicions, the CIA questioned Nunez on March 25, 1987, about his alleged cocaine trafficking. He responded by pointing the finger at his NSC superiors.

"Nunez revealed that since 1985, he had engaged in a clandestine relationship with the National Security Council," Hitz reported.

"Nunez refused to elaborate on the nature of these actions, but indicated it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC. Nunez refused to identify the NSC officials with whom he had been involved."

After this first round of questioning, CIA headquarters authorized an additional session, but then senior CIA officials reversed the decision. There would be no further efforts at "debriefing Nunez."

Hitz noted that "the cable [from headquarters] offered no explanation for the decision" to stop the Nunez interrogation.

But the CIA's Central American task force chief Alan Fiers said the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued "because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [the contra money handled by North]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter."

Joseph Fernandez, who had been the CIA's station chief in Costa Rica, later confirmed to congressional Iran-Contra investigators that Nunez "was involved in a very sensitive operation" for North's "Enterprise." The exact nature of that NSC-authorized activity has never been divulged.

At the time of the Nunez-NSC drug admissions and his truncated interrogation, the CIA's acting director was Robert M. Gates, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 6, 2006, to be President George W. Bush's new Secretary of Defense.

Miami Vice

The CIA also worked directly with other drug-connected Cuban-Americans on the contra project, Hitz found.

One of Nunez's Cuban-American associates, Felipe Vidal, had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics coordinator for the contras, Hitz reported.

The CIA also learned that Vidal's drug connections were not only in the past.

A December 1984 cable to CIA headquarters revealed Vidal's ties to Rene Corvo, another Cuban-American suspected of drug trafficking. Corvo was working with anti-communist Cuban, Frank Castro, who was viewed as a Medellin cartel representative within the contra movement.

There were other narcotics links to Vidal. In January 1986, the DEA in Miami seized 414 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment of yucca that was going from a contra operative in Costa Rica to Ocean Hunter, the company where Vidal worked.

Despite the evidence, Vidal remained a CIA employee as he collaborated with Frank Castro's assistant, Rene Corvo, in raising money for the contras, according to a CIA memo in June 1986.

By fall 1986, Sen. Kerry had heard enough rumors about Vidal to demand information about him as part of a congressional inquiry into contra drugs. But the CIA withheld the derogatory information. On Oct. 15, 1986, Kerry received a briefing from Alan Fiers, who didn't mention Vidal's drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s.

But Vidal was not yet in the clear. In 1987, the U.S. attorney in Miami began investigating Vidal, Ocean Hunter and other contra-connected entities. This prosecutorial attention worried the CIA. The CIA's Latin American division felt it was time for a security review of Vidal. But on Aug. 5, 1987, the CIA's security office blocked the review for fear that the Vidal drug information "could be exposed during any future litigation."

As expected, the U.S. Attorney did request documents about "contra-related activities" by Vidal, Ocean Hunter and 16 other entities. The CIA advised the prosecutor that "no information had been found regarding Ocean Hunter," a statement that was clearly false. The CIA continued Vidal's employment as an adviser to the contra movement until 1990, virtually the end of the contra war.

Honduras Trafficking

Hitz revealed that drugs also tainted the highest levels of the Honduran-based FDN, the largest contra army.

Hitz found that Juan Rivas, a contra commander who rose to be chief of staff, admitted that he had been a cocaine trafficker in Colombia before the war. The CIA asked Rivas, known as El Quiche, about his background after the DEA began suspecting that Rivas might be an escaped convict from a Colombian prison.

In interviews with CIA officers, Rivas acknowledged that he had been arrested and convicted of packaging and transporting cocaine for the drug trade in Barranquilla, Colombia. After several months in prison, Rivas said, he escaped and moved to Central America where he joined the contras. Defending Rivas, CIA officials insisted that there was no evidence that Rivas engaged in trafficking while with the contras. But one CIA cable noted that he lived an expensive lifestyle, even keeping a $100,000 thoroughbred horse at the contra camp.

Contra military commander Bermudez later attributed Rivas's wealth to his ex-girlfriend's rich family. But a CIA cable in March 1989 added that "some in the FDN may have suspected at the time that the father-in-law was engaged in drug trafficking."

Still, the CIA moved quickly to protect Rivas from exposure and possible extradition to Colombia. In February 1989, CIA headquarters asked that DEA take no action "in view of the serious political damage to the U.S. Government that could occur should the information about Rivas become public."

Rivas was eased out of the contra leadership with an explanation of poor health. With U.S. government help, he was allowed to resettle in Miami. Colombia was not informed about his fugitive status.

Drug Flights

Another senior FDN official implicated in the drug trade was its chief spokesman in Honduras, Arnoldo Jose "Frank" Arana.

The drug allegations against Arana dated back to 1983 when a federal narcotics task force put him under criminal investigation because of plans "to smuggle 100 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from South America."

On Jan. 23, 1986, the FBI reported that Arana and his brothers were involved in a drug-smuggling enterprise, although Arana was not charged. Arana sought to clear up another set of drug suspicions in 1989 by visiting the DEA in Honduras with a business associate, Jose Perez. Arana's association with Perez, however, only raised new alarms.

If "Arana is mixed up with the Perez brothers, he is probably dirty," the DEA responded.

Through their ownership of an air services company called SETCO, the Perez brothers were associated with Juan Matta Ballesteros, a major cocaine kingpin connected to the murder of a DEA agent, according to reports by the DEA and U.S. Customs.

Hitz reported that someone at the CIA scribbled a note on the DEA cable about Arana stating: "Arnold Arana ... still active and working, we [CIA] may have a problem."

Despite its drug ties to Matta Ballesteros, SETCO emerged as the principal company for ferrying supplies to the contras in Honduras.

During congressional Iran-Contra hearings, FDN political leader Adolfo Calero testified that SETCO was paid from bank accounts controlled by Oliver North. SETCO also received $185,924 from the State Department for ferrying supplies to the contras in 1986.

Hitz found other air transport companies used by the contras implicated in the cocaine trade. Even FDN leaders suspected that they were shipping supplies to Central America aboard planes that might be returning with drugs.

Mario Calero, Adolfo Calero's brother and the chief of contra logistics, grew so uneasy about one air-freight company that he notified U.S. law enforcement that the FDN only chartered the planes for the flights south, not the return flights north.

Hitz found that some drug pilots simply rotated from one sector of the contra operation to another. Donaldo Frixone, who had a drug record in the Dominican Republic, was hired by the CIA to fly contra missions from 1983-85.

In September 1986, however, Frixone was implicated in smuggling 19,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States. In late 1986 or early 1987, he went to work for Vortex, another U.S.-paid contra supply company linked to the drug trade.

Fig Leaf

By the time that Hitz's Volume Two was published in fall 1998, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking.

But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program."

One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contras hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analysts.

Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Nevertheless, although Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers. [For more details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On Oct. 10, 1998, two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times published a brief article that continued to deride Webb but acknowledged the contra-drug problem may have been worse than earlier understood.

Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-cocaine story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, some of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

Unable to find decent-paying work in a profession where his past awards included a Pulitzer Prize, Webb grew despondent. His marriage broke up. By December 2004, he found himself forced to move out of his rented house near Sacramento.

Instead, Webb decided to end his life.

One Last Chance

Webb's suicide offered the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times one more opportunity to set matters right, to revisit the CIA's admissions in 1998 and to exact some accountability on the Reagan-era officials implicated in protecting the contra crimes.

But all that followed Gary Webb's death was more trashing of Gary Webb. The Los Angeles Times ran a graceless obituary that made no mention of the admissions in the CIA's Volume Two and treated Webb like a low-life criminal, rather than a journalist who took on a tough story and paid a high price.

The Times obituary was republished in other newspapers, including the Washington Post. No one reading this obit would understand the profound debt that American history owed to Gary Webb, who deserved the lion's share of the credit for forcing the CIA to make its extraordinary admissions.

Yet, the big media's consistent mishandling of the contra-cocaine scandal in the 1980s and 1990s carried another warning that the nation missed: that the U.S. press corps was no longer capable of reporting complex crimes of state.

That unaddressed danger returned with disastrous results in late 2002 and early 2003 when George W. Bush sold false stories about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction while the major newspapers acted as cheerleaders and accomplices.

At the time of Webb's death on Dec. 9, 2004, the full scope of the Iraq disaster was still not evident, nor was the major press corps ready to acknowledge that its cowardice in the 1980s and its fecklessness in the 1990s were the direct antecedents to its complicity in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Gary Webb had been a kind of canary in the mine shaft. His career destruction in the 1990s and his desperate act of suicide in 2004 were warnings about grave dangers that, if left ignored, would wreak even worse havoc on the United States and the world.

But - on this second anniversary of Webb's death - it should be remembered that his great gift to American history was that he, along with angry African-American citizens, forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any White House: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

It is way past time for that reality - and that gift - to be acknowledged.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at ecrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

Comment: The problem with this story is, I believe, that Webb was supposed to have shot himself TWICE in the head. Now that is some determination to commit suicide.

Comment on this Article


Sheehan Among 4 Convicted of Trespassing

By SAMUEL MAULL
AP
11 Dec 06

NEW YORK - Peace activist Cindy Sheehan and three other women were convicted of trespassing Monday for trying to delivery an anti-Iraq war petition to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and refusing to leave.

A Manhattan Criminal Court judge sentenced them immediately to conditional discharge, which means they could face some form of penalty if they are arrested in the next six months, and ordered them to pay $95 in court surcharges.
Sheehan and about 100 other members of a group called Global Exchange were rebuffed last March when they attempted to take a petition with some 72,000 signatures to the U.S. Mission's headquarters across a street from the United Nations.

Prosecutors said they were arrested after ignoring police orders to disperse.

The four were acquitted of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and obstructing government administration. They had faced up to a year in jail if convicted of all counts.

Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., lost her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq on April 4, 2004. She has since emerged as one of the most vocal and high-profile opponents of the war, drawing international attention when she camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war.

The women, calling their campaign "Women Say No To War," had hoped to give the petition to Peggy Kerry, the mission's liaison for non-governmental organizations and sister of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as they had in 2005.

Kerry refused to meet with the women in the presence of Cindy Sheehan and the news media. She testified during the trial that the presentation seemed like a publicity stunt.

The women ignored police orders to leave and were reading it aloud on the sidewalk when police moved in. The women sat on the sidewalk and were carried to patrol wagons.

Sheehan's co-defendants were Melissa Beattie, 57, of New York; Susan "Medea" Benjamin, 54, of San Francisco; and Patricia Ackerman, 48, of Nyack, N.Y.



Comment on this Article


After CIA rebuff, state department turns to Google

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian


Some people may Google to locate lost loves, or check out potential new ones. The state department resorts to the internet search engine when it is trying to penetrate the clandestine world of international nuclear weapons proliferators.

A junior foreign service officer, employed at the state department for only a few months, who was given the task of investigating Iranians with possible links to the country's nuclear programme typed "Iran and nuclear" into his browser, the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The officer's initial search turned up more than 100 names, including Iranian diplomats who had defended the country's nuclear enrichment programme or attended meetings at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

The list was eventually narrowed down to 12 Iranians, who could now be subject to travel bans or curbs on their business dealings under a draft resolution before the United Nations. The resolution would freeze the assets of 11 institutions and a dozen individuals suspected of aiding Iran's banned enrichment programme, including the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and the director of Iran's main nuclear energy facility.

The newspaper said the state department adopted the research method after the CIA refused to reveal any names of Iranians involved in the country's weapons programme.

The agency claimed that agents on the Iran desk were already overworked, and that such a disclosure could compromise its intelligence sources on Iran.

But it is also believed that the CIA was reluctant to tip its hand on Iran following its failure before the 2003 invasion of Iraq to establish that Saddam Hussein had failed to realise his nuclear ambitions, and that the country did not have a dangerous arsenal.

After bureaucratic wrangling, the CIA eventually confirmed the suspicions about some of the people on the state department list.

However, the agency said that that none of those identified by the state department were directly connected to Iran's efforts to produce a nuclear warhead.



Comment on this Article


Pastor resigns over homosexuality - Another Right Wing Hypocrite Exposed

By Eric Gorski
Denver Post
11 Dec 06

In a tearful videotaped message Sunday to his congregation, the senior pastor of a thriving evangelical megachurch in south metro Denver confessed to sexual relations with other men and announced he had voluntarily resigned his pulpit.

A month ago, the Rev. Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel in Doug las County preached to his 2,100-member congregation about integrity and grace in the aftermath of the Ted Haggard drugs-and-gay-sex scandal.

Now, the 54-year-old Barnes joins Haggard as a fallen evangelical minister who preached that homosexuality was a sin but grappled with a hidden life.
I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy," Barnes said in the 32- minute video, which church leaders permitted The Denver Post to view. "... I can't tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away."

His wife, Char, cradled his hand. Barnes declined an interview request through the church.

Unlike Haggard, who had the ear of the White House, Barnes is not a household name. He is a self-described introvert who avoids politics, preferring to talk about a Gen-X service at the nondenominational church he started 28 years ago in his basement, church officials said.

Barnes and Grace Chapel stayed out of the debate over Amendment 43, a measure approved by Colorado voters last month defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I can't think of a single sermon where he ever had a political agenda," said Dave Palmer, an associate pastor.

Palmer said the church got an anonymous call last week from a person concerned for the welfare of Barnes and the church. The caller had overheard a conversation in which someone mentioned "blowing the whistle" on evangelical preachers engaged in homosexuality, including Barnes, Palmer said.

Palmer met with Barnes, who confessed. At an emergency meeting Thursday, a board of elders accepted Barnes' resignation after he admitted "sexual infidelity," violating the church's code of conduct. Church leaders also must affirm annually that they are "living the moral and ethical teachings of Scripture in my public and private life."

Asked for details of Barnes' transgressions, Palmer called them "infrequent events in his life" that to his knowledge did not take place in recent months.

Sitting cross-legged in jeans and an open-collar shirt, Barnes spoke in his video about evolving feelings growing up in a firm moral family: from confused little boy to adolescent racked with self-loathing and guilt.

In their only talk about sex, Barnes said his father took him on a drive and talked about what he would do if a "fag" approached him.

Barnes thought, "'Is that how you'd feel about me?' It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed."

When Barnes experienced a Christian conversion at 17, it gave him a glimmer of hope. But his homosexual feelings never went away, he said. He said he cannot accept that a person is "born that way," so he looks to childhood influences.

Barnes said he asked God many times why he was called to ministry, to start Grace Chapel, carrying a "horrible burden."

The soft-spoken Barnes is an unlikely big-church pastor.

After graduating from Dallas Theological Seminary, Barnes and his wife moved to Denver and began a Bible study. His church met in a school and a mortuary, bought property at Colorado Boulevard and Arapahoe Road, and now occupies a campus off County Line Road that used to be a car dealership.

Barnes described struggling with what he believes is the biblical teaching that homosexuality is an abomination. Over the years, he grew to accept that "this is my thorn in the flesh."

Barnes expressed hope for a future where one can "be who you are" and be accepted and loved in the Christian community and also spoke about "separating some of the teachings from Scripture" from Jesus Christ.

Palmer said he wasn't sure what Barnes meant, but Barnes told him that he believes God views homosexuality as a sin.

Barnes said he has been in counseling three times and never found anyone he could talk to.

His wife said on the video that she didn't know about her husband's struggles until he confided in her last week. The couple has two daughters in their 20s.

Char Barnes said she feels "like I'm living someone else's life" but was grateful her husband revealed himself. The couple said they hope to stay in Denver. Near the tape's end, Paul Barnes says, "This is what it is, it's right, and it's time."

Church elder Russ Pilcher said the reaction at services Sunday was largely concern for the couple. "I thought, 'Where did I fall short in making myself so unapproachable that he couldn't come to me?"' Pilcher said.

Paul and Char Barnes will get counseling, but unlike Haggard, they will not go into seclusion or report to a board of reconcilers, Palmer said. He said it will be more personal and that church members will play a role.

Associate pastor John Zivojinovic is the interim senior pastor, and choosing a successor is still months away, Pilcher said.

Given the Haggard story, Pal mer was asked whether Barnes' fall from grace would expose the evangelical community to further charges of hypocrisy.

"The criticism is valid if you look at perfection being the mark, because the next person who stands at our pulpit is going to be guilty of not being perfect as well," he said. "Does that mean we have to change what we say about the word of God? We can't do that."

Staff writer Eric Gorski can be reached at 303-954-1698 or egorski@denverpost.com.



Comment on this Article


Getting Away With Murder


Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid - Americans need to know the facts about the abominable oppression of the Palestinians

Jimmy Carter
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the past 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticise policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status. It is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Centre fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent". Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.



Comment on this Article


Desmond Tutu: Israel refused fact-finding mission to Gaza

Associated Press
11 Dec 06

Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu said Monday that the Israeli government's failure to permit a fact-finding mission to investigate Israeli-Palestinian violence was "very distressing."

"We find the lack of cooperation by the Israeli government very distressing, as well as its failure to allow the missing timely passage to Israel," Tutu told reporters after UN officials said Israel had blocked his UN fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Monday that no final decision has been made.
"Israel heard that they decided not to come. We had not given them a negative response, our final decision was pending," Regev said.

"At times not making a decision is making a decision," said Tutu. "We couldn't obviously wait in limbo indefinitely."

The former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town said he had accepted the mission on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council "at short notice."

"We cancelled important commitments to make ourselves available for this task and to submit a report by mid-December to the council," Tutu said, adding that to take up the mission he had left the bedside of his wife, who was in a hospital following a knee operation.

Christine Chinkin, a law professor at the London School of Economics, said she and other members of the a team had hoped to meet with Israeli authorities and had therefore decided against entering Gaza through Egypt.

"That would be one-sided. It would not give us the full picture. It would also look as though we were going in the back door," she said. "It was in no way at all a one-sided mission."

Because of the failure of Israel to approve the mission in time, the mission team had had to cancel its appointments in Israel and the Gaza Strip with people involved in the conflict.

Tutu was to begin leading a six-member team over the past weekend in the
northern Gaza town of Beit Hanun to investigate the killings of 19civilians in an Israeli artillery barrage last month.

But Israel refused to grant the South African anti-apartheid campaigner the necessary travel clearance, said officials in two separate UN departments who spoke on condition of anonymity before Tutu spoke.

Tutu's team was supposed to report its findings to the UN Human Rights
Council by Friday. It is unclear if Israel will allow the fact-finding mission to take place at a later date.

Israeli officials have expressed concern that Tutu's mission was only
entrusted with investigating alleged human rights violations committed by
Israel, and not also by Palestinian militants.

The 47-nation council authorized the mission last month, asking Tutu to assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors and make
recommendations on ways to protect Palestinian civilians against further
Israeli attacks.

The shelling, which Israel said was unintended, came after its troops wound up a weeklong incursion meant to curb Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from the town.

Palestinian militants frequently use Beit Hanun as a staging ground for their rocket attacks on Israel.

"We had a problem not with the personalities, we had a problem with the
institution," Regev said. "We saw a situation whereby the human rights
mechanism of the UN was being cynically exploited to advance an anti-Israel agenda. This would do the Israelis, the Palestinians and peace in the Middle East no good at all. This would also have done nothing to serve the interest of human rights."

The council, which replaced the widely discredited Human Rights Commission in June, has been criticized for passing eight resolutions criticizing Israel in its six-month existence, but none censuring any other government's policies.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the watchdog last month to deal with the Mideast conflict in an impartial manner, and said it was time to focus attention on "graver" crises such as Darfur. After that, European countries rallied enough support to require the council to hold a special session on Darfur, which has been scheduled for Tuesday.

"I'm glad the council will be discussing it, because it does underscore what makes for the credibility of an institution or of a person," Tutu said. "Human rights violations are human rights violations wherever they would occur."



Comment on this Article


Livni: Iraq not linked to Israel-PA conflict

Yitzhak Benhorin11:37 , 12.09.06

Foreign minister indirectly slams Baker report during ceremony opening Saban forum in Washington. 'Conflict is between moderates and extremists,' Livini insists

WASHINGTON - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni indirectly slammed the Baker-Hamilton report solicited by the United States administration, which linked the solution to the Iraqi crisis with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and recommended America directly negotiate with Iran and Syria.

According to Livni, "The problems in the Middle East do not result from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Decisions must be made according to current circumstances, and not outdated impressions."
The foreign minister spoke at the opening of the Saban Forum in Washington Saturday. Although she did not directly name the Baker report, her message was clear: "Today there is a completely different distribution of the Middle East. The conflict is between moderates and extremists, and in effect, Israel is on one side with the moderate Arab nations in the region.

"Some of the leaders, even if they are aware of it, don't always express it out loud because public opinion there is influenced by old impressions," she noted.

Livni further addressed the threat of Iranian nuclear armament. "Iran constitutes a threat not just on Israel but on all Muslim Arab nations in the region. No one in the moderate Arab world wants to see Iran, Hizbullah or Hamas succeed."

Livni was the keynote speaker at the forum's opening ceremony organized by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Senior Israeli and American officials participated in the forum.

Livni is slated to meet with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later Saturday; the Baker report is likely to come up during the talks.

The Washington forum was initiated by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, who flew dozens of Israeli officials to Washington to attend the three-day event. Ex-president Bill Clinton and expected presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are expected to attend, as was as Israel ministers Shimon Peres, Yuli Tamir and Avigdor Leiberman.

Comment: Flying in dozens of Israeli officials to keep the screws tight on US politicians. Business as usual...

It is mandatory for Israel to maintain the façade that the genocide of the Palestinians is linked in no way to the other crisis in the Middle East. However, it is a view that is intenable. As long as the world looks on in silence, people of conscience will react with outrage. What level of frustration must there be in Palestine, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the people of these countries wee the horrors commited against them? When their families are destroyed, when their livelihoods are destroyed?

These peoples have been pushed into a corner. Negociations and prayers do nothing against the intransigent enemy they face. Of course, it will finish in violence. How else could it finish? And that is exactly the goal.


Comment on this Article


Record Israeli arms sales irk US

Ariyeh Egozi
YNet
11 Dec 06

Israeli arms exports are breaking records and officials are concerned that it may irk the United States as the industry braces for a possible repeat of previous US attempts to limit the sale of weapons to certain countries, namely China.
In 2006 the Israeli Military Industries ended the year with an all time record sum total of USD 4.2 billion in exports, not counting the several multi-million dollar deals which are already in their final stages.

Israel exports virtually everything, from Tavor assault rifles to artillery shells to fortification systems, intelligence solutions, missiles, drones and space equipment.

"The ability of the Israeli Military Industry annoys certain US administration officials," said a source from within the security industry on Saturday. He claims that these officials are making allegations that Israel has sold technological information to 'problematic' countries like China.

The most noticeable growth in security exports was recorded in Israel Aerospace Industries sales. In the first nine months of 2006 IAI sales stood at USD 2 billion compared to USD 1.75 billion for the same period the year before - a 14 percent increase.

Orders from the IAI reached USD 6.9 billion in late September compared to USD 5.8 billion in 2005 - a 19 percent increase.

To compare, Russia's 2005 arms sales totaled at USD 7 billion (a 22 percent increase from 2004's USD 5.4 billion) but, as recently revealed by President Vladimir Putin, will drop to USD 6 billion in 2006.



Comment on this Article


Baker wants Israel excluded from regional conference

Insightmag
5-11 Dec 06

The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.

The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.
"As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure," an official said. "This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month."

Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.

"Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."

Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.

"He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit-that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks," another official familiar with Mr. Cheney's visit said. "Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis' attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed."

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.

"Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis," the official said. "The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians."

Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party's leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.

"Everybody has fallen in line," the official said. "Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq."

For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.

"We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions," Mr. Bush said. "I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world."

Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress-convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections-have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

"I would look at an entirely new strategy," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."

In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

"The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia," said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. "If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region."

But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.

"Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations," Mr. Gates said. "Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference."



Comment on this Article


Famous Author Excoriates Israel

by Sirocco
Aug 5th, 2006

Jostein Gaarder, the author of the global literary phenomenon Sophie's World (printed in 26m copies in 53 languages), launches a scorching attack on Israel in Aftenposten, Norway's paper of record. Gaarder, a historian of ideas, describes himself as a friend of the Jewish people but doubts whether Israel truly is the same. Suffice it to say that this will not appear in the New York Times anytime soon.

The form of Gaarder's condemnation is inspired by Amos, the first Judaic prophet whose message is preserved in scroll (ca. 750 B.C.). Quoting Wikipedia: "The central idea of the book of Amos according to most scholars is that Yahweh puts his people on the same level as the nations that surround it -- Yahweh expects the same morality of them all."
God's chosen people

Jostein Gaarder
Aftenposten 05.08.06

From the Norwegian by Sirocco

There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.

We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

Limits to tolerance

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.

We call child murderers 'child murderers' and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!

Unscrupulous art of war

We acknowledge and pay heed to Europe's deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flouted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.

We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.

Without defense, without skin

May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population. For it is not civilian individuals at whom our doomsaying is directed.

We wish the people of Israel well, nothing but well, but we reserve the right not to eat Jaffa oranges as long as they taste foul and are poisonous. It was endurable to live some years without the blue grapes of apartheid.

They celebrate their triumphs

We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as an insatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.

For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts.

The retribution of blood vengeance

We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." We do not recognize the principle of one or a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population-wide diets as political weapons. Two thousand years have passed since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

He said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion. Or as Albert Schweitzer expressed it: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose."

Compassion and forgiveness

We do not recognize the old Kingdom of David as a model for the 21st century map of the Middle East. The Jewish rabbi claimed two thousand years ago that the Kingdom of God is not a martial restoration of the Kingdom of David, but that the Kingdom of God is within us and among us. The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness.

Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating.

Israel does not listen

For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, but Israel does not listen. It was not the Pharisee that helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian. For we are human first of all -- then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Or as the Jewish rabbi said: "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?" We do not accept the abduction of soldiers. But nor do we accept the deportation of whole populations or the abduction of legally elected parliamentarians and government ministers.

We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more; more water and more villages. To obtain this, there are those who want, with God's assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have so many other countries, certain Israeli politicians have argued; we have only one.

The USA or the world?

Or as the highest protector of the state of Israel puts it: "May God continue to bless America." A little child took note of that. She turned to her mother, saying: "Why does the President always end his speeches with 'God bless America'? Why not, 'God bless the world'?"

Then there was a Norwegian poet who let out this childlike sigh of the heart: "Why doth Humanity so slowly progress?" It was he that wrote so beautifully of the Jew and the Jewess. But he rejected the notion of God's chosen people. He personally liked to call himself a Muhammedan.

Calm and mercy

We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May the surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. It is forever a crime without mitigation to lay hand on refugees and stateless people.

Peace and free passage for the evacuating civilian population no longer protected by a state. Fire not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!

Let not one Israeli child be deprived of life. Far too many children and civilians have already been murdered.



Comment on this Article


War Crimes: How Israeli Soldiers Kill and Civilians Grow Numb

By Orit Weksler
AlterNet
December 12, 2006

One Iraqi solder says the world doesn't seem to notice killing in small numbers. And those closest to the violence become too scared to empathize for those who die.
J and I met in middle school. He was a thin guy passionate about music; I was a raging teen who smoked way too much pot. We both went through our parents' divorces at the same time. We celebrated our birthdays in the same week. We were good friends- best friends at times. We graduated from high school and served in the army. I married, had a family and moved to the United States. He stayed, not only in Israel but also in the military, eventually becoming a high-ranking intelligence officer. We managed to keep our friendship for twenty years now.

When I visited Israel this summer we spent some time together, cruising the streets of Tel Aviv where the best lattes in the world are served in sunny, stylish sidewalk cafés. We talked about love, family and yoga. J, who had just returned from a month long retreat in India, shared his experiences and photos. We discussed old friends, music and art. There's nothing like hanging out with a childhood friend.

Then the war started. The way I saw it Israel was showering Lebanon with bombs, spraying it with artillery. My friend J said Hezbollah had too much ammunition. We had to destroy it sooner or later, this is as good a time as any, he said. Fine, I argued, I could see the need to destroy weapons that are aimed at civilian targets inside Israel, but why bomb Beirut? Why bomb civilians? Everyone does that, said J, the trick is to kill them three by three, not in big numbers. That way the world doesn't even notice.

Israel's summer adventures in Lebanon left the region with more grief, vengeance and hate. I flew back to California, inspired by my friend J to take up yoga.

Israel is still killing its neighbors three by three and as my friend pointed out, the world doesn't seem to notice. When 17 civilians, mostly women and children were killed in their sleep in the northern part of Gaza strip, there was some discussion about it in the UN. But Israel is killing civilians every day claiming it to be a war against those who are launching rockets at the southern Israeli towns of Shderot and Ashkelon.

In the winter of our senior year of high schools J and I would climb on the roof of his Jerusalem apartment building. Those were the days of the Gulf War and schools were closed. We would climb up there when the sirens sounded and cheer the scud missiles on their way to Tel Aviv. Our friends from the coast were terrified; a fact we found to be amusing. Only weeks before, they refused to visit us claiming that Jerusalem was too dangerous because of the riots and stabbings. And yes, it was dangerous, and we were afraid to walk to school. But now we knew that the Iraqis wouldn't aim at Jerusalem. Enjoying the unexpected school break, the fear of our friends in Tel Aviv felt surreal. The fact that it was they who were now in greater danger was a comic relief.

It's so easy to lose your capacity for empathy when you are scared.

A preschool teacher was killed in Gaza this past November while riding a bus with her students on their way to school. Well, there might have been someone driving on that same road that was planning to launch a missile, an Israeli would say to herself. She won't be thinking what it would be like for her own daughter to see her preschool teacher falling to the floor of the bus in a pool of blood.

Of course she can't be thinking of that, this Israeli mother who could have been me. That kind of thought is too terrifying. For an Israeli mother this situation is so real that when it happens to others it might actually be relieving. For her and other Israelis, who have been subject to attacks on civilians for as long as they can remember, it might not be possible to see the suffering of others. They're too scared.

But their government, generals and intelligence officers have no right to be scared. They are abusing their people's fear, their inability to empathize. They're killing and wounding Palestinian civilians one by one, two by two, three by three every day in the name of this fear.

Israeli society is worn, torn and terrified. It's led by an irresponsible government that is making them all into criminals of war. Because what Israel is doing in Gaza these past months is a war crime by any standard.

My friend J is very dear to me. I know he thinks his service in the Israeli Intelligence saved lives. Perhaps it did. Still I think nothing can justify civilian killings- neither mass killings nor killings that are done one by one. For those families it really doesn't matter if their children were all killed on the same day or during a course of a whole month.

Those of us who are lucky not to be living in fear, those of us who know this kind of life is possible, are obligated to stand up against war crimes that are committed in the name of fear and in abuse of peoples inability to see their neighbors' pain.

Orit Weksler, a psychotherapist living in the East Bay, emigrated with her family from Israel to the United States in 2003.



Comment on this Article


Israeli PM Olmert hints Israel has nuclear weapons

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 11:27:27

BERLIN, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert implied that Israel has nuclear weapons, a departure from Israel's longtime nuclear policy of ambiguity, although other Israeli officials immediately denied it.

During an interview to a German television, Olmert, who was kicking off a three-day visit to Germany and Italy, hinted that Israel has nuclear arms.

"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" Olmert said.
Olmert's remarks came in response to questions that in case Israel possesses nuclear arms, whether its argument against Iran's nuclear program would be weakened.

This was the first time Israel said it has nuclear arms, a break from its traditional policy of opacity, namely, neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons.

Foreign experts suspected Israel has some 50-200 warheads.

Immediately after the interview, Israeli officials dismissed the premier's remark as mis-interpreted saying its was taken out of context.

Olmert's spokesman Miri Eisin said he did not mean to say Israel had or aspired to pursue nuclear weapons.

Olmert's visit was aimed at enlisting Europe's support for its opposition to a nuke-armed Iran.



Comment on this Article


Israel: "nuclear ambiguity" policy not changed

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 19:07:45

JERUSALEM, Dec. 12 (Xinhua) -- Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Tuesday that Israel's vague nuclear policy has not changed, Israel's local newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported.

Peretz made the remark as a respond to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's statement implying that Israel has nuclear weapons,a departure from Israel's longtime nuclear policy of ambiguity.
"We will do our job, nobody should think that with all that is happening we will remain indifferent," Peretz was quoted by the paper. He continued to demand that the international community act on the Iran issue.

During an interview to a German television, Olmert, who was kicking off a three-day visit to Germany and Italy, said "Iran,openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Olmert's remarks came in response to questions that in case Israel possesses nuclear arms, whether its argument against Iran's nuclear program would be weakened.

This was the first time Israel hinted it has nuclear arms, a break from its traditional policy of opacity, namely, neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons.

Foreign experts suspected Israel has some 50-200 warheads. Immediately after the interview, Israeli officials dismissed the premier's remark as misinterpreted saying its was taken out of context.

Olmert's spokesman Miri Eisin said he did not mean to say Israel had or aspired to pursue nuclear weapons.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert had meant to categorize the four nations as democracies to set them apart from Iran, and was not referring to their potential nuclear capabilities or aspirations.

Comment: Iran has not said that it wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the map. That is what Israel is doing to Palestine. Ahmadinejad called for a democratic Palestine where everyone could vote on the type of government they wanted. But since the elections in Occupied Palestine last January showed that Israel and the West do not want free elections, the idea that democracy really come to the area is asking for the dissolution of the apartheid state of Israel.

Free elections, democracy, and freedom, including freedom of religion, are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.



Comment on this Article


Olmert's nuclear slip-up sparks outrage in Israel

Philippe Naughton and agenciesTimes Online December 12, 2006

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, faced calls for his resignation today after admitting - in an apparent slip of the tongue - that Israel has got nuclear weapons.

But Israeli officials tried to push the cat back into the bag, denying that Mr Olmert had made any such admission and falling back on the Jewish state's policy of "nuclear ambiguity".
Widely considered the Middle East's sole nuclear power, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. Mr Olmert appeared to break that taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin.

"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Mr Olmert, speaking in English, told the N24 Sat1 station.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?"

Mr Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, was quick to deny that the Prime Minister had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

Israel's Negev nuclear research centre has been capable of creating nuclear-grade weapons material since the early 1960s, but has never been subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA has said, however, that it considers Israel "to be a state possessing nuclear weapons" and proliferation experts reckon that it could have more than 100 devices.

Israel's policy of silence also allows it to skirt a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction and collect about $2 billion a year in military and other aid.

Mr Olmert's blunder came less than a week after Israeli officials rounded on Robert Gates, the incoming US Defence Secretary, for making the same slip-up during his Senate confirmation hearings.

"The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain Prime Minister," said Yossi Beilin, a leftist MP.

Yuval Steinitz, from the opposition Likud bloc, Yuval Steinitz called on Mr Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century".

Meanwhile, observers warned that Mr Olmert's statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons.

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the comment.

"Olmert's remark is nothing new, but it is a good thing that Israel decided to make it public," he told AFP.
"The world should now not only talk about Iran but also about Israel as a nuclear threat that has to be dealt in order to make a nuclear-free Middle East and bring peace."

In scrambling to contain the damage, Israeli officials said that Mr Olmert's slip would not change the decades-old policy of silence on the country's nuclear capacity.

"I support the policy of ambiguity and I don't see Olmert's statement as a declaration that Israel has nuclear weapons," said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the Infrastructure Minister. "I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God's sake and for the sake of Israel's security, stop it."

A senior Government official added: "This is a real slip of the tongue which was not planned. It is embarrassing for Israel particularly when it is dealing with such a sensitive issue. But this does not change a thing. Our policy stays the same."



Comment on this Article


Olmert's stray comment fuels the nuclear debate

Martin Hodgson
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian


The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, stumbled into controversy last night after apparently admitting that his country possesses a nuclear arsenal. Although widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny the existence of a nuclear weapons programme.

But arriving in Berlin for talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Mr Olmert seemed yesterday to undercut the longstanding policy of "strategic ambiguity". He is on a three-day trip to Germany and Italy, to lobby for stronger action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Asked by a television interviewer if Israel's alleged nuclear activities weakened his argument against Iran's atomic plans, Mr Olmert said: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level - when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons - as America, France, Israel, Russia?".

Israeli officials were quick to deny that the comments marked any policy change. Mr Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said he did not mean to say that Israel had or aspired to acquire nuclear weapons.

The CIA first concluded that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons in 1968, but few details emerged until 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Israel's nuclear weapons facility, gave the Sunday Times detailed descriptions that led defence analysts to rank the country as the sixth largest nuclear power.

Although Tehran says its nuclear programme is designed solely to generate electricity, Israel has warned that Iran is intent on developing atomic weapons. Mr Olmert told Germany's Spiegel magazine at the weekend that he ruled "nothing out", when asked about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Tehran.



Comment on this Article


US to double emergency equipment stored in Israel

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 12.12.06, 08:57


WASHINGTON - The American Congress gave Israel financial and security encouragement when the Senate and the House of Representatives gave their approval to double the emergency equipment the United States stores in Israeli stockpiles.

Within the next two years the Americans will fill the military emergency stockpiles in Israel with double the equipment they now hold.
In addition, the US will allow Israel to use the remainder of the US's monetary guarantees given to them that have not been used yet, and add up to USD 4.5 billion, by 2011.

The emergency stockpiles are meant to store American military equipment in the Middle East in case of an emergency. However, in case of an emergency, Israel is allowed to use the stockpiles.

The value of the equipment currently stored in Israel amounts to USD 100 million and the American government approved doubling its value to USD 200 million in the coming year.

In 2008 the military stock will be doubled and refilled once again in the value of USD 200 million.



Pro-Israel decisions

The Congress decided to give special aid to Israel in order to minimize war damages, without having to give Israel additional direct financial aid.

The bill was approved by the Senate and House and it renewed authority to transfer equipment to be stored in Israel.

A great portion of the American equipment stored in Israel last year was used for combat in the summer war in Lebanon.

The US approved guarantees in the sum of USD 9 billion to Israeli to be used over a period of three years, and this period was then prolonged an additional year.

Israel has only used half of this amount and has requested the United States again extend the time limit on using these guarantees. Following the second Lebanon war the US agreed to extend this period until the year 2011.

These pro-Israel decisions were made due to the lobbying efforts of Senate heads Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Bill Frist, and through Head of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations John Biden and Richard Lugar.

The bill was lead by the House of Representatives' heads of the Democratic Committee on Foreign Relations Tom Lantos and the Republican Committee on Foreign Relations Ileana Ross-Lehtinen and the House's republican head Jo Bonner.



Comment on this Article


Examining the Holocaust


Iran hosts int'l conference to discuss Holocaust

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-11 19:51:18

TEHRAN, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- Iran on Monday opened a two-day international conference to discuss the Holocaust, a move that has sparked widespread controversy.

But Iran has insisted that the conference was aimed at providing a venue for free discussions on "a historical issue" and discussing the scale of the Holocaust and whether the Nazis really used gas chambers to kill Jews.
"The objective of the conference is not to deny or prove the Holocaust. Its main aim is to create an atmosphere for thinkers to discuss freely the Holocaust," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the opening ceremony.

There was "no logical reason for opposing this conference," Mottaki said.

The conference, dubbed "Study of the Holocaust: A Global Perspective," was initiated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had called the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jewswere killed, a "myth."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry's Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), which organized the conference, said 67 researchers from 30 countries would attend the meeting.

"Some people who had been asked to attend refused, saying it aims to deny the Holocaust. Others assumed the international conference was politically motivated and were reluctant to attend," IPIS chief Rassoul Moussavi said.

"Officials in charge of organizing the conference do not intend to deny or confirm it (the Holocaust). The duty of the IPIS is to create a suitable atmosphere for discussing historical issues," hesaid.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has strongly opposed any attempt to question or deny the Holocaust, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said on Thursday, underlining that Annan will deeply deplore any conference whose purpose is to question or deny the reality of the Holocaust.

The conference has also aroused criticism from the United States and Germany.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Friday that "this meeting is really focused on highlighting those people who deny that there was, in fact, a Holocaust."

"In that regard, it's just yet another disgraceful act on this particular subject by the regime in Tehran," he added.

The German Foreign Ministry called in Iran's top envoy in Berlin on Friday in protest against the conference.



Comment on this Article


Hitler of Germany also killed millions of non-Jews, conference says

Tehran, Dec 11, IRNA

Tehran, Dec 11, IRNA -- Hitler of Germany also killed millions of non-Jews in addition to the Jews who fell victims to German leader's war, a poster on show at Holocaust Conference in Tehran said.
Other posters are challenging whether smoke ever rose from chimneys at Auschwitz.

Another poster make mockery of a film called 'Schindler's List' putting emphasis on deaths of Jews at the expense of ignoring war victims who were not Jews.

Some Jews taking part in the conference marched through the corridors sporting a flag of Israel with a big red line through it on their long black coats and the slogan "We are Jews, not Zionists" in Hebrew, Arabic and Persian.
"The reason we came here is to reveal to the world the misuse of the Holocaust by the Zionists," said one of their number, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who does not dispute the Holocaust itself.

"Minds are being switched off to the Holocaust dogma as it is being sold as a historical fact and yet we are not able to question it. This is a mental rape," said Frederick Toeben, historian from Australian.

"It is my duty to be here, if we cannot speak freely it is a crime against humanity," said Toeben, who has served a prison sentence in his native Germany.

The conference emerges to say that the international community is expected to consider Hitler's crimes against humanity entirely rather than promote the 'myths' of the Holocaust, a clear discrimination against non-Jews.

Toeben brought along a huge model of the Treblinka extermination camp, complete with model trains and human figures which he said he would use to argue his claim that the gas chambers did not exist.



Comment on this Article


Iran's president says Holocaust now up for debate

Reuters
December 10, 200

TEHRAN - The Holocaust is now a subject of serious debate, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday.

Iran has invited scholars from 30 countries to attend a conference starting on Monday about the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by the Nazis.

"For 60 years talking about the Holocaust was a crime in the West but now there is a serious debate about the Holocaust in the media and also in political and popular meetings," state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Ahmadinejad sparked an international outcry by referring to the Holocaust as a "myth" and saying Israel should be relocated to Europe or North America.
"Even some Western politicians have declared that the original foundation of the Zionist regime (Israel) was a mistake," he said on Saturday.

Ahmadinejad has said his questioning of the Holocaust is aimed at encouraging scholarly debate and an examination of the reasons behind the creation of the state of Israel.

Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi has said the Holocaust conference will look at issues such as "whether the gas chambers were actually used by the Nazis".

The conference has been condemned by various countries and organisations. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described it as "disgraceful."

"It is just flabbergasting that ... the leadership of the regime continues to deny that 6 million plus people were killed in the Holocaust," he told reporters on Friday.

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the British Holocaust Educational Trust, called the Iranian conference "ridiculous".

"Denial of the Holocaust is a virulent form of anti-semitism," she said in a statement. "It is not only deeply offensive to Holocaust survivors but to any right-minded human being."

Iran was also sharply criticised for hosting a cartoon competition on the Holocaust this year.

Comment: Problem is, because of Israel's track record, a lot, LOT of people in the world are beginning to ask the same questions and think the same thoughts as the so-called Holocaust Deniers. That does not bode well for Jews at large, and one wonders if it was intended? It also doesn't bode well for the rest of the world because that's what 9/11 was all about: to get the sympathy of the world behind Israel...

Comment on this Article


Propaganda: "Revisionist fringe gathers for Iran's Holocaust denial jamboree"

By Angus McDowell in Tehran
Published: 12 December 2006

President Ahmadinejad's long-promised Holocaust conference opened in Tehran yesterday to an audience including infamous revisionists, racists and anti-Semites. The only speakers who confirmed the Holocaust as a historical fact were a group of rabbis who criticised its use to justify Israeli abuses against Palestinians.

Mr Ahmadinejad called for the conference last year following Western revulsion at his assertion that the slaughter of six million Jews was a myth. But he missed the event to give a speech at Amir Kabir university, a hotbed of student radicalism, where he was heckled by protesters shouting "death to the dictator" and burning his photograph. In response, he quipped that "it is my honour to burn for the nation's ideals".
The Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, opened the Holocaust conference by attacking Western restrictions on "scientific and scholarly study". He said the West did not allow Holocaust denial because it would lead to questions "about the identity of the Zionist regime".

Rabbi Ahron Cohen, from Manchester, a member of Jews Against Zionism, said: "I and many others lost countless friends and relatives who perished by industrial genocide. It is a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of those who committed this crime."

Above the conference hall was an exhibition of books, photographs and DVDs that largely supported the view the Holocaust did not take place or was much exaggerated. Photographs of the Holocaust were labelled "myth", with revisionist explanations labelled "truth". Books by the jailed historian David Irving were prominently displayed.

Mostafa Mohammedi, a Tehran University student who helped set up the exhibition, said: "Between 150,000 and 300,000 Jews died because of the natural causes of war such as famine and air raids. Unfortunately, Iranian schools still teach the official history dictated by the West, but we are campaigning to change that."

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, said he was attending the confeence to defend freedom of speech. "We have a Holocaust mafia," said Mr Duke. "It's a shame Iran has to be the nation that calls into question that a world famous historian sits in prison for offering an opinion."

The Australian revisionist Fredrick Töben brought a model of the Treblinka death camp to prove the absence of gas chambers and said he faced arrest on his return.

An Iranian journalist outside the conference said: "It makes me ashamed, so ashamed."



Comment on this Article


European Speakers Deny Holocaust At Conference

AKI
11 Dec 06

Tehran - Addressing a conference in Tehran questioning the existence of the Holocaust on Monday, German-born Australian Frederick Toeben, said the Holocaust was "a great lie to justify the much more serious crimes committed by the Zionists in the past decades." Toeben, who has served a jail sentence in Germany on charges of inciting racial hatred, denied that six million Jews had died during World War II saying that "if something had ever occurred," the number of casualties would be much lower.
Holocaust denier Bradley R. Smith of the US told participants he is convinced that "gas chambers never existed because otherwise famous politicians like Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt or the pope [Pious XII] would have certainly spoken."

Robert Faurisson, a French professor who also denies the existence of gas chambers, addressed the conference Monday saying that it is "courageous and useful to establish the truth about something wich never existed."

"The courage of people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will allow the truth to emerge in the end and uncover this great lie which has influenced the history of humanity from World War II until today," he concluded.

Iran claims the conference, which opened on Monday and will end Tuesday, is aimed at opening a historic debate without preconceptions on the history of World War II while the West accuses Iranian leaders of denying the massacre of six million Jews. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for the destruction of Israel while rejecting charges of anti-Semitism.

Historians of the Third Reich, basing their figures on original Nazi documents, have estimated that approximately six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. The regime of Adolf Hitler also killed millions of non-Jews.

Holocaust denial is a crime in a dozen European countries, including Germany and Austria, where British historian David Irving was jailed in February for three years for denying the Holocaust.




Comment on this Article


Holocaust Deniers and Skeptics Gather in Iran

By NAZILA FATHI
December 11, 2006

TEHRAN - Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world gathered at a government-sponsored conference here today to discuss their theories about whether six million Jews were indeed killed by the Nazis during World War II and whether gas chambers existed.

In a speech opening the two-day conference, Rasoul Mousavi, head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry's Institute for Political and International Studies, which organized the event, said it was an opportunity for scholars to discuss the subject "away from Western taboos and the restriction imposed on them in Europe."
The foreign ministry had said that 67 foreign researchers from 30 countries were scheduled to take part. Among those speaking today are David Duke, the American white-supremacist politician and former Ku Klux Klan leader, and Georges Thiel, a French writer who has been prosecuted in France over his denials of the Holocaust.

Mr. Duke's remarks late this afternoon are expected to assert that no gas chambers or extermination camps were actually built during the war, on the ground that killing Jews that way would have been much too bothersome and expensive when the Nazis could have used much simpler methods, according to an advance summary of his speech published by the institute.

"Depicting Jews as the overwhelming victims of the Holocaust gave the moral high ground to the Allies as victors of the war, and allowed Jews to establish a state on the occupied land of Palestine," Mr. Duke's paper says, according to the summary.

One of the first scheduled speakers, Robert Faurisson of France, also called the Holocaust a myth created to justify the occupation of Palestine.

The conference is being held at the behest of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who likewise called the Holocaust a myth last year, and repeated a well-known slogan from the early days of the 1979 revolution in Iran, "Israel must be wiped off the map." He has spoken several times since then about a need to establish whether the Holocaust actually happened.

Most of the speakers at the conference today praised Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments.

Bendikt Frings, 48, a psychologist from Germany, said he believed Mr. Ahmadinejad was "an honest direct man," and said he had come to the conference to thank him for what he had initiated.

"We are forbidden to have such a conference in Germany," he said. " All my childhood, we waited for something like this."

Toben Feredrick, from Australia, said Mr. Ahmadinejad has opened an issue "which is morally and intellectually crippling the Western society."

"People are imprisoned in Germany for denying the Holocaust," he added.

Mr. Feredrick said he was jailed for six months in 1999 because of his ideas, and that a court in Germany has ordered him arrested if he speaks out publicly again denying that the Holocaust took place.

Other Western "revisionists" presented what they called new facts about the Holocaust at the conference, which also attracted attendees from some ultra-Orthodox Jews belonging to anti-Zionist sects that reject the state of Israel. One participant wearing the traditional long black coat and hat of such groups wore a badge saying: "A Jew, not a Zionist."

It was not entirely clear how the lineup of speakers at the conference was set. The Institute's website had invited scholars and researchers to submit papers in advance for consideration, but revealed little about how they were evaluated. The Iranian foreign ministry also provided little information about participants, saying that it feared they would be prosecuted by their home countries.

The conference included an exhibition today of various photos, posters and other material meant to contradict the accepted version of events, that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews and other "undesirables" in death camps during the war. New captions in Persian on some familiar photos of corpses at the camps argued that they were victims of typhus, not the German state.

Anti-Zionist literature, including a 2004 book by the American author Michael Collins Piper, about Zionist influence in America, was offered for sale to visitors at the conference. So, apparently, was a video recording of 12 Holocaust survivors telling their stories, suggesting that the views represented at the conference may not have been entirely one-sided.

The conference prompted outrage in the West. The German government summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires in Berlin to complain. The French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, warned that the conference would be strongly condemned if it propagated claims denying the Holocaust.

Iran also organized an exhibition last summer of cartoons about the Holocaust, which outraged Jews inside Iran and out.

Iranian Jewish leaders reacted angrily to Mr. Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying comments last year, issuing a statement saying that his words were spreading fear among Jews in Iran.

"We consider the Holocaust as a fact and a disgrace for humanity," Haround Yashayai, a leading voice among Iranian Jews, said today. "We cannot say that such a conference cannot be held here. We have condemned similar events in the past, and see no reason to condemn it again."



Comment on this Article


Iranian students interrupt Ahmadinejad's speech

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 09:56:02

TEHRAN, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- Protesting Iranian students on Monday briefly interrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a university by heckling him and burning his pictures, local Fars News Agency reported.

Some students, who were members of the banned Students Islamic Association, chanted slogans against the president when he was delivering a speech at the Amir Kabir University, Fars said.
In response to the students' slogans of "Down with Dictators,"Ahmadinejad said, "it is impossible to establish dictatorship in this country by the name of liberty."

"We have tasted dictatorship and our revolution has fought against it," the Iranian president said.

During his speech, some of the female students who were chanting slogans along with the male students, smashed the camera of Iranian state television to the ground, Fars said.

Some students even set Ahmadinejad's pictures on fire, Fars reported. In responding, the president said, "even if we were burnt for a thousand times, we will never step back even one centimeter."

The protesting students were confronted by pro-Ahmadinejad students, who began to chant "Ahmadinejad, we support you,"according to Fars.



Comment on this Article


Propaganda: 50 Students protest against Ahmadinejad

Robert Tait in Tehran
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, faced an unprecedented outburst of public opposition yesterday from student demonstrators who burned his picture and chanted "Death to the dictator".

In the first sign of open dissent since he took office last year, dozens of activists shouted abuse and set off firecrackers as Mr Ahmadinejad addressed students at Tehran's Amir Kabir university. They were voicing anger at what they say is an increasing repressiveness on Iran's campuses under his government. A presidential aide said 50 to 60 students took part in the protest.
The heckling prompted scuffles between the protesters and the president's supporters, who chanted: "Ahmadi, Ahmadi, we support you."

Mr Ahmadinejad, who was marking Iranian students' day, answered the "dictator" taunts by saying: "Everyone knows the real dictator is America and its servants." He added: "A few who claim there is a stifling climate are trying to stifle the majority by not letting them hear what is being said."

As students set fire to his picture, he said: "Everyone should know that Ahmadinejad is prepared to be burned in the path of true freedom, independence and justice."

Mr Ahmadinejad - who has turned his appearances before mass audiences into a potent political tool - has insisted that the protesters should not be punished, Reuters reported, citing a presidential spokesman.

The outburst came as Iranians prepare to go to the polls on Friday for elections to local councils and the powerful assembly of experts. It will be Mr Ahmadinejad's first electoral test since taking office and comes as his government is under pressure over rising prices and a perceived failure to deliver on economic promises.

The protest was also the latest in a series of recent signs of unrest on Iran's campuses, which had been largely quiet since the brutal suppression of a wave of pro-democracy demonstrations under Mr Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor, Mohammed Khatami.

On Sunday, an estimated 700 Amir Kabir university students protested against a clampdown that has included the closure of the Islamic students' committee and the exclusion of former activists from courses. They were also demonstrating against the demolition of the students' committee building and the imposition of the university chancellor without elections. Police restricted access to the campus as demonstrators shouted anti-government slogans. Last week, hundreds of students at Tehran university - a traditional hotbed of political protest - were confronted by police as they chanted: "We only want freedom of expression."

Vahid Abedini, a member of the university's democracy seekers' committee, told the pro-reformist Etemad newspaper that the gatherings had been organised to defend the independence and freedom of universities.

Hundreds of students with a record of political activism have been barred from academic courses while many lecturers have been forced to retire.

This year, Mr Ahmadinejad demanded a purge of "secular and liberal" lecturers, whom he accused of having been a fifth column for western values and colonialism in Iran for the past 150 years. Under his presidency, a hardline cleric was appointed chancellor of Tehran university for the first time.

The remains of "martyrs" from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been given burial ceremonies in several universities in what has been seen as a pretext for allowing pro-government vigilantes entry to keep watch on student activities.

Comment: And this is newsworthy? 20,000 Americans protested the war and American Covert Operations at Fort Bragg a couple of weeks ago and we never heard about it on the mainstream media. Now, 50 students protest Iran's president and it hits the news??? Anything wrong with this picture?

Comment on this Article


Whither the Occupation?


So-called "Experts" Advise Bush Not to Reduce Troops, counter Iraq Study Group Advice

By Michael A. Fletcher and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
December 12, 2006

President Bush heard a blunt and dismal assessment of his handling of Iraq from a group of military experts yesterday, but the advisers shared the White House's skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, sources said.

The three retired generals and two academics disagreed in particular with the study group's plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and to reach out for help to Iran and Syria, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was private.
The White House gathering was part of a series of high-profile meetings Bush is holding to search for "a new way forward" amid the increasing chaos and carnage in Iraq. Earlier in the day, Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other high-ranking officials at the State Department, where he was briefed on reconstruction and regional diplomatic efforts in Iraq.

The military experts met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and about a dozen aides for more than an hour. The visitors told the officials that the situation in Iraq is as dire as the study group had indicated but that alternative approaches must be considered, said one participant in the meeting. In addition, the experts agreed that the president should review his national security team, which several characterized as part of the problem.

"I don't think there is any doubt in his mind about how bad it is," the source said.

The group disagreed on the key issue of whether to send more troops to Iraq, with retired Gen. John M. Keane arguing that several thousand additional soldiers could be used to improve security in Baghdad, and others expressing doubt about that proposal, according to sources at the meeting. But the five agreed in telling Bush that the Army and Marine Corps both need to be bigger, and also need bigger budgets.

The group suggested the president shake up his national security team. "All of us said they have failed, that you need a new team," said one participant. That recommendation is likely to fuel Pentagon rumors that Bush and his new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, may decide to replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

White House officials emphasized that although the experts gave a bleak assessment, they still believe the situation in Iraq is "winnable."

"I appreciate the advice I got from those folks in the field," Bush said after emerging from the morning session. "And that advice is . . . an important component of putting together a new way forward in Iraq."

The carefully choreographed meetings are coming on the heels of the release last week of the Iraq Study Group's report, which pronounced the situation in Iraq "grave" and recommended fundamental shifts in how the Bush administration handles the war. To stem the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the report said, the administration should shift the focus of its military mission from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, while pressing harder for a diplomatic solution by engaging Iran and Syria -- something Bush has pointedly refused to do.

Yesterday's meetings are to be followed today by a videoconference with military commanders before Bush receives Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi at the White House. On Wednesday, Bush is scheduled to meet with his outgoing defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and another group of military experts.

Coming amid growing public discontent with the war and the defeat of his party in last month's congressional elections, the president's very public review of his Iraq policy is expected to culminate in a major address in which he will lay out what the administration has billed as a "new way forward" in the nearly four-year-old conflict. Press secretary Tony Snow said the administration is hoping for the president to deliver the speech before Christmas, although he said the timing has not been nailed down.

Even as the president has been reviewing his approach to the war, he has not backed off his position that victory in Iraq is crucial to victory in a larger fight against terrorism. Bush also calls it essential for Iraq to be stabilized as a functioning democracy -- a sweeping goal on which the Iraq Study Group's report was notably silent.

"Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States," Bush said. "This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat the extremists and radicals."

When the White House review began, the interagency group debated whether to try to beat the Iraqi Study Group's report or let it play out and then look "bigger and better" by doing a report later, said an official familiar with the discussions. It was agreed to wait. But the emphasis throughout the month-long process has been to produce a strategy that would be deliberately distinct, the official added.

The White House review does not have the depth or scope of the Iraq Study Group's, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. "There's a lack of thinking on other big issues -- oil, the economy, infrastructure and jobs," said one source who was briefed on the interagency discussions and requested anonymity because talks are ongoing.

During yesterday's White House meeting, Bush asked all the questions, except for one at the end from Cheney, a source said. But Cheney took copious notes throughout, filling several pages, he said. "They didn't really reveal their own views" in their questions, said retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, one of the five participants.

As a whole, the group of retired generals and academics who met Bush tend to be skeptical of the Iraq Study Group's proposals, and so were able to give him additional reasons to reject its recommendations.

The first to speak was Eliot A. Cohen, an expert in military strategy at Johns Hopkins University, who has criticized the study group's findings, particularly on engaging Iran and Syria and on decreasing combat troops. He was followed by Keane, McCaffrey and Wayne A. Downing, all retired four-star Army generals. Two have told friends they are skeptical of the study group's recommendation to cut U.S. combat forces over the next year while quadrupling the size of the training and advisory effort, which currently numbers around 4,000.



Comment on this Article


Democrats Must Fight Over Iraq Failure, But Don't Forget Katrina

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
AlterNet
December 11, 2006

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi wasted little time in jumping all over President Bush after the Iraq Study Group labeled his Iraq quagmire a bungled, wasted, and failed effort. The House's top Democrat vowed that she and House Democrats would spare no effort to get Bush to reverse course on the war. Pelosi will get lots of backing from Congressional Democrats for that. Iraq was the big issue that rocked Bush and the Republicans back on their heels November 7, and put the Democrats firmly in the driver's seat in the House.
Pelosi's crusade against Bush and the war is good and bad news for the countless number of Gulf Coast residents still displaced by the Katrina ravage. They are just as needy, homeless and ignored more than year after Katrina struck. More than a half dozen reports issued on Katrina's first anniversary last September told the same grim story. Not one new house has been built from the billions Congress allocated for construction. Thousands of small businesses have still not received loans, most schools, and hospitals are still shuttered, and most buses aren't running in New Orleans. The debris and wrecked homes are still piled up high in the blackest and poorest neighborhoods. Thousands of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast poor are still jobless, and live in FEMA constructed trailers, and subsist on private donations. Only about half of New Orleans residents have been able to return to their homes due to the government's foot drag on dispensing more federal housing aid.

A day after Pelosi saber rattled Bush, an angry New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin for the endless time lambasted Congress for continued delays on Katrina aid. He called the tormenting delays a "bureaucratic maze." It's much more than that. The massive funds promised and still needed for the colossal rebuilding effort aren't forthcoming because there hasn't been the political will or a sustained effort to finish the job. And that has frustrated the Congressional Black Caucus. The group has raised its voice the loudest and loneliest during the past year for Congress to do more to push Gulf rebuilding.

The Caucus's fight over Katrina is a litmus test that will determine how much clout it will have in a Democratic controlled House, as well as how much personal and political muscle Pelosi will put behind Gulf rebuilding.

The jury so far is way out on both. Even before Pelosi took the House leadership reins she publicly said little about Katrina aid. But during the same time she issued piles of statements and press releases on the war, and Republican sex and corruption scandals. The Caucus, meanwhile, put forth a carefully crafted and far-reaching reconstruction plan for the Gulf. It held press conferences, and virtually every week implored the Bush administration and Congress to jumpstart the flagging Katrina aid effort. For all the good it did, the Caucus might as well have held its news conferences and made its pleas from the far side of the Moon. They got almost no press ink and not much support from other House Democrats.

Now that she's in power, Pelosi has sent mixed signals about how much influence the Caucus will have in the new Congress. She has green lighted the takeover by the Caucus's ranking members of the powerful Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Intelligence Committees as well as another half dozen or more key sub-committees. But Pelosi hasn't said how vigorously she will push the Caucus's poverty reduction and justice issue agenda.

The take over of these committees and subcommittees is more than simply a reward for their longevity in the House and their loyal service to the Democratic Party. It's recognition of the hard political fact that blacks are the most loyal of Democrat shock troops, and did as much as any other voting group to insure the Democrat's November 7 triumph.

But Pelosi is hardly the only top Democrat that has been laggard on Gulf rebuilding. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards flailed away at Bush for his Katrina ineptitude, spoke in vague terms about Two Americas, and made a fleeting plea for a Marshall type plan to fight poverty, a plan doomed from the moment the call was made. While Edwards barnstorms the country crusading for more government initiatives to aid the poor, he holds no official position in the Democratic Party, and is largely a solitary voice crying in the wilderness on poverty.

Now that Pelosi and Congressional Democrats sniff Bush blood on Iraq, they will step up their attack. That will absorb much of their time, energy, and it will heighten public debate on Bush's failed war policy. That's a good thing. But Pelosi and the House Democrats also have an equal obligation to put time and energy, and to refocus public debate on Bush's equally failed policies at home. The languishing Katrina poor and needy is testament to the biggest of his failures.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the forthcoming book The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters.

Comment: Like Pelosi and the Dems are really going to DO anything??

Comment on this Article


Car bombs kill 57 in central Baghdad

Last Updated: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 | 5:17 AM ET
The Associated Press

Two car bombs targeting day labourers looking for work exploded within seconds of each other Tuesday on a main square in central Baghdad, killing at least 57 people and wounding more than 150, police said.
The co-ordinated attack in Tayaran Square involved a suicide attacker who drove up to the day labourers, pretended to want to hire them, then set off his explosives as they got into his minibus, Lt. Bilal Ali said. At virtually the same time - 7 a.m. - a bomb exploded in a car parked about 30 metres away.

The blasts set fire to at least 10 other cars, Ali said. Gunfire - possibly from insurgent snipers or a police checkpoint in the area - erupted as people fled the scene.

He said at least 57 Iraqis, including seven policemen, were killed and 151 people were wounded.

Iraqis gather on the square early in the morning, soliciting jobs as construction workers, cleaners and painters. They buy breakfast at stands selling tea and egg sandwiches while they wait for potential employers to drive up.

Khalil Ibrahim, 41, a shop owner in the area, was treated at a hospital for shrapnel wounds to his head and back.

"In the first explosion, I saw people falling over, some of them blown apart. When the other bomb went off seconds later, it slammed me into a wall of my store and I fainted," he said.

Tayaran Square is located near several government ministries and a bridge that crosses the Tigris River to the heavily fortified Green Zone, where Iraq's parliament and the U.S. and British embassies are located.

About a kilometre away, two roadside bombs targeting Iraqi police patrols exploded at 8:25 a.m. and 8:40 a.m., wounding two policemen and seven Iraqi civilians, said police Capt. Mohammed Abdul-Ghani.



Comment on this Article


Scores killed in Baghdad dual bomb attack

AP
12 December 2006

Suspected insurgents set off two bombs in a main square of central Baghdad where scores of Iraqis were waiting for jobs as day labourers today, killing at least 57 people and wounding 151, police said.

The carefully co-ordinated attack in Tayaran Square at 7am involved a parked car bomb and a suicide attacker who drove up in a minibus, pretended to hire day labourers, then set off his explosive as they got into his vehicle, said police Lt Bilal Ali.
The simultaneous explosions, which occurred about 100 feet apart, shattered windows in store fronts, left crafters and blood stains in the road, and set fire to least 10 other cars.

At least 57 Iraqis, including seven policemen, were killed in the attack and 151 people wounded, Ali said.

"In the first explosion, I saw people falling over, some of them blown apart. When the other bomb went off seconds later, it slammed me into a wall of my store and I fainted," said Khalil Ibrahim, 41, a shop owner.

When the attack occurred, police at a nearby checkpoint fired random shots in several directions, but residents soon rushed to the devastated area to see if friends or relatives had been killed or wounded.

In one area, mangled bodies were piled up at the side of the road and partially covered with paper. Two Iraqi men sat on a nearby pavement crying and sometimes covering their faces with their hands. Nearby, an older man dressed in a suit jacket and sweater, walked by in a daze with a bloody bandage tied around his head.

In Baghdad, where many people are unemployed, scores of Iraqis gather in the square early in the morning to wait for minibuses or private cars that stop by and hire them for the day as construction workers, cleaners or painters.

Nearby, small stands are set up to sell the labourers a breakfast of tea and egg sandwiches.

Tayaran Square is located near several government ministries and a bridge that crosses the Tigris River to the heavily fortified Green Zone, where Iraq's parliament and the US and British embassies are located.

About one mile away, two roadside bombs targeting Iraqi police patrols also exploded at 8.25am and 8.40am, wounding two policemen and seven Iraqi civilians, said police Capt Mohammed Abdul-Ghani.

Both loud explosions could be heard in Tayaran Square.

Yesterday, at least 66 people were killed or found dead in the Baghdad area and northern Iraq.

They included 46 men who were bound, blindfolded and shot to death in the capital - the latest apparent victims of sectarian death squads.

A Marine helicopter also made a hard landing in a remote desert area of Anbar province, injuring 18 people, the third US aircraft to go down in the insurgent stronghold in two weeks.

The US military announced that three American soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing north of the capital on Sunday, putting December on track to be one of the deadliest months of the war.

At least 2,934 members of the US military have died since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

The latest casualties underscored a major danger for Americans in Iraq, where the military relies heavily on air travel to transport troops and ferry officials and journalists to remote locations and to avoid the dangers of roadside bombs planted by insurgents.

The CH-53E Super Stallion, the US military's largest helicopter, was conducting a routine passenger and cargo flight with 21 people on board when it went down at about noon yesterday, the US command said, adding that hostile fire did not appear to be the cause.

Nine of the 18 injured were treated and returned to duty, it said. The military did not give the exact location where the hard landing occurred, saying recovery efforts were under way.

On December 3, a Sea Knight helicopter carrying 16 US troops went down in a lake, killing four. On November 27, a US Air Force fighter jet crashed in a field, killing the pilot. Both took place in Anbar, a volatile Sunni-dominated province west of Baghdad.



Comment on this Article


Soldier's Casket on Baggage Cart

Associated Press
December 01, 2006

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - The Army is investigating a woman's claim that a Soldier's flag-draped casket was placed in an airport baggage cart with other luggage while being transferred between airline flights.

"The Army is always concerned with treating all of our fallen comrades' remains with the utmost dignity and respect," spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Arata said in a statement Thursday.

Cynthia Hoag, 56, a former Army reservist, said she was waiting for a flight at Rochester International Airport on Oct. 27 when she saw the coffin taken off a commercial flight along with passengers' luggage. A uniformed Soldier accompanied the coffin as it was placed in a baggage car and transported to another flight, she said.
"At the very least, couldn't there have been a hearse to transport the fallen Soldier?" Hoag asked in an essay in Tuesday's Democrat and Chronicle newspaper. "At the very least, couldn't there have been a group of Soldiers to receive one of their own?

"It was a very sobering, sad experience for all of us," wrote Hoag, who said she witnessed the episode from a terminal window while waiting for a flight along with her sister-in-law and two friends. "Please don't let this happen again to any Soldier. Let's not treat our fallen troops like baggage."

Her account prompted Monroe County's executive, Maggie Brooks, to write a letter of her own to the Pentagon, asking it to change the policy for transporting the coffins of war casualties.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Cynthia Smith, said Hoag's description doesn't correlate with military procedure.

Remains of Soldiers killed in Iraq are taken to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, then usually flown to a Soldier's home, Smith said. Military escorts accompany each flight and when a casket reaches the home area, it is met by an honor guard of two people and then transported to a funeral home, she said.

Airport director David Damelio disputed Hoag's claims, saying a coffin wouldn't fit into a cart loaded with luggage.

Calls to Hoag's home in Dansville, 50 miles south of Rochester, went unanswered Thursday.



Comment on this Article


Cornering the Decider in Chief


Annan criticizes U.S. foreign policy

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 04:44:47

In an age of threats like weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states, terrorism, and health threats like SARS, "no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We share the responsibility for each other's security," Annan said.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (Xinhua)-- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized on Monday U.S. foreign policy, noting "Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity."

"When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," Annan said in his speech at the Truman library in Missouri.

"The U.S. has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint."

"Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level," he said.

Annan did not mention Iraq and the Bush administration by name, but his remarks sound to be a criticism of the American drive to Iraq war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the Bush doctrine of preemptive action against looming threats.

The UN chief argued that no nation could make its actions legitimate to others if they could not convince the world the use of military force was legitimate and for "broadly shared aims -- in accordance with broadly accepted norms."

In an age of threats like weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states, terrorism, and health threats like SARS, "no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We share the responsibility for each other's security," Annan said.

Annan will step down by the end of this month after 10 years as the UN chief and be replaced by South Korea's Foreign Minister BanKi-moon.



Comment on this Article


Kofi Annan gives Bush slap in farewell - Annan's 5 lessons in summary: Work together or perish.

by Evan Derkacz
December 11, 2006

In his farewell speech as Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan delivered a series of "lessons" which could be read as rebukes to the Bush/Cheney doctrine. Given at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, Annan's speech invokes Truman throughout, while conspicuously using Bush's name exactly zero times. The lessons:
First, we are all responsible for each other's security.

Second, we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law.

Fourth, states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.


Again and again, Annan's words were obvious, if not explicit, digs at the Bush/Cheney Administration:

In short, human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that Right Has Might." That's why this country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism. When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.

And states need to play by the rules towards each other, as well as towards their own citizens. That can sometimes be inconvenient, but ultimately what matters is not convenience. It is doing the right thing. No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose -- for broadly shared aims -- in accordance with broadly accepted norms.


Read the whole speech HERE.




Comment on this Article


Departing Annan attacks Bush's 'war on terror'

By David Usborne in New York
12 December 2006

Kofi Annan, the outgoing UN secretary general, has delivered a barely disguised broadside against President George Bush in his last major speech before leaving office at the end of the month.

He suggested that in the "war on terror", President Bush had ridden roughshod over the international community and compromised America's respect for human rights. Mr Annan made plain his concern that the United States had allowed its status as the world's sole superpower, coupled with its desire to protect itself against terrorists, to undermine its historical commitment to multilateralism.

He added: "No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other's security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves."
The speech was delivered in Independence, Missouri, in the presidential library of Harry Truman, who presided over the founding of the United Nations six decades ago.

At times, Mr Annan appeared to contrast the principles of global responsibility evoked by Mr Truman with the actions of Mr Bush.

The UN leader, who will be replaced in January by Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea, remained unspecific in his critique of the US, but few in the American audience will have mistaken his references both to the failure of Washington in 2003 to win unequivocal approval at the UN for the invasion of Iraq or subsequent human rights controversies, including revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

"This country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement," Mr Annan said. "But that lead can be maintained only if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism. When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

Backed by Washington when he was chosen 10 years ago to replace Boutros Boutros Ghali of Egypt to head the UN, Mr Annan has never enjoyed easy ties with Washington. He did not shy yesterday from touching the wounds left by the decision to invade Iraq, justified by the US and Britain as a mission to erase weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

"No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others," he warned. "When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose - for broadly shared aims - in accordance with broadly accepted norms."

It was a lesson expounded by President Truman, Mr Annan noted, implying that Washington needed reminding. "As Harry Truman said, 'We all have to recognise, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the licence to do always as we please'.

"The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level," he added.

The address included a laundry list of principles at the heart of the UN ideal. Among them was the lesson that "governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena as well as in the domestic one".

Others included the need to remain committed to multilateralism and to share responsibility to protect people from genocide, hunger and poverty. For these ideals to be followed and for all the multilateral institutions to function properly, "the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition," Mr Annan said.

On suffering, Mr Annan made clear his belief that the rhetoric of world leaders remained unmatched by action. "When I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond lip service," he said. "The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests," he insisted. "It is the management committee, if you will, of our fledgling collective security system."



Comment on this Article


Video - Olbermann: Worst President Ever?

Posted by Evan Derkacz
December 11, 2006

Dean and Olbermann discuss a presidency in decline...

Go HERE to see Video, transcript below:
OLBERMANN: For more on where the president's current stance places him, currently and historically, let's call in Nixon White House counsel John Dean, author of the books "Worse Than Watergate," "The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," and, of course, "Conservatives Without Conscience."

John, good evening.

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Let me start with this overall assessment. Between that opinion number, 27 percent approval on handling Iraq, to the speech by the Republican Senator Smith from Oregon [VIDEO], is this presidential administration in peril, not from impeachment, necessarily, but from some sort of internal revolution within the Republican ranks?

DEAN: Well, they--Bush did a wonderful job of dragging them down in the election that I'm sure they have not forgotten.

Keith, a president rules most powerfully with his bully pulpit. This president has never been very good at that. He's obviously got new plans in the works. He's going to have to go out and sell them. I'm told he's pretty good one on one. He may well be able to keep his party people in line.

But if he doesn't have something new to say to them, something that they believe and can buy into, and then they can, in turn, go out and sell it at home, he is in trouble.

So we'll have to wait and see what his review comes up with. But I think he's got to realize, given the aftermath of the election, he's in trouble.

OLBERMANN: But so far, he hasn't realized it. There hasn't been anything new. And about Iraq, do we attribute that kind ostrich-like stance from the president, and what we heard from the defense secretary in his kind of parting shot today, does this all tie into that prescient remark that you made before the election, that even if the Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate, Karl Rove and the others in the White House would view that setback as nothing more than a temporary phase? Is that--could they still be believing this is a temporary phase politically?

DEAN: I suspect they do. If you look at what kind of president Bush is--and I did this actually back in 2004, in April of 2004, and again in May of 2006, drawing on the very classic analysis by James David Barber, who puts presidents into various schools and categories, and he said this president would fit, on his criteria, into an active negative.

Those are people like...

...Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. They're people who ride their policies right down to defeat until the very end, and their presidents don't do very well.

So I would--I think it's going to be very surprising if this president does change. And that's why I think that's he's in a lot of trouble if he doesn't.

OLBERMANN: Having dealt with cynical and disastrous presidencies up close, does it look to you like this one, this president, having politicized his way into Iraq, might now be going to try to hold back getting out of Iraq until it can be used to his party's benefit in the 2008 campaign? Or is that too cynical even for this administration?

DEAN: Well, that's a fair question, Keith, because I did work for a president who did want to take every advantage. And I think Nixon was unable to pass the torch because he had to leave before then. I think this president is very definitely going to try to do something where the administration that follows him will not do to him what he has done to Clinton, and that is, to blame everything on them, because there's a lot of blame to be pushed around in this instance.

So if he can pass the torch and help the Republican Party get somebody in there in 2008, he's certainly going to do that. So that'll be a part of his calculation. He's a very political president.

OLBERMANN: I still retain a negative fondness for James Buchanan. But we have talked about this White House being the textbook case of authoritarianism before. Since the last time we discussed this, the war in Iraq has unbelievably gone to even much worse from the original bad.

If, in face of the overwhelming evidence that the plan in Iraq is not working, the public disapproval at this extraordinary high, if, even now, President Bush is not willing to change course on a real basis, and Mr. Rumsfeld's not to--not expressing any remorse, might that be the deciding historical factor in declaring once and for all this president the worst one ever?

DEAN: Well, the worst president ever is a great parlor game. I happen to enjoy playing it, as a lot of other people do. The interesting part of the game is, there's no criteria.

I've often thought if the criteria were, how long does it take us, after a president who makes mistakes, to bail ourselves out and extricate ourselves from the problems he creates, and we judge them on that basis, well, then, this president well could be leaving a legacy that's going to take us a long time to bail out. It would put him right down there with Richard Nixon, who we're still bailing out from.

OLBERMANN: John Dean, author of "Worse Than Watergate" and "Conservatives Without Conscience." As always, John, great thanks for being with us.

DEAN: Thank you, Keith.



Comment on this Article


Is George Bush "The Manchurian Candidate?"

12-11-06
Robert Buzzanco
History News Network

If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position-diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth-they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration's policies on these issues of war, terrorism, and global economics have.


Indeed, if one is an "enemy" of the U.S., then he/she would have to be heartened that Bush has pursued this agenda and would have to be elated that the war in Iraq continues today.
Given enough rope, Bush may hang not only himself, but American influence and credibility, and the global economy. Like a "sleeper" agent, or Laurence Harvey's famed character, Sgt. Raymond Shaw, in The Manchurian Candidate, George W. Bush, the ultimate insider, is doing more to damage America than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hassan Nasrallah, the Syrians, the Iranians, or any other enemy du jour, ever could.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the United States had the sympathy and respect of much of the world. The outpouring of goodwill was unprecedented in the post-Vietnam period, and the United States stood alone as a military and economic power. When Bush responded to the September attacks a month later with the invasion of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders were hiding out, the world community and U.S. populace supported him.

But, beginning in mid-2002, when he returned to his obsession with Iraq, the worm began to turn. Using politicized intelligence and outright lies, the Bush administration, congress and the media all went along with the invasion of Iraq, beginning in March 2003. Consequently, in what we can now see was a remarkably short time, the amity and power accrued after 9/11 melted away.

Although today much of the criticism of Bush and his policies comes from liberals, and Bush is quick to take shots at the "cut-and-run crowd" or "Defeatocrats," what's most striking is how much harm his military and economic policies have done to our national interests. Indeed, the number of conservatives now publicly repudiating Bush is testimony to how far he has strayed from the values he claimed to profess himself with regard to keeping America strong. If anything, George Bush has pursued a program inherently hostile to the conservative ideals he boasted about when running for office, and we have all suffered as a consequence.

Bush's legacy is already particularly troubling with regard to America's credibility and image in the world, our national security and the so-called war on terror, and the U.S. and global economy. In these areas, U.S. policies, in particular since September 11th, 2001, have left us precarious and vulnerable.

The U.S. standing in the world has probably never been lower than it is now in the wake of the dismal war in Iraq. Not only is anti-Americanism rampant in the Middle East, but U.S. enemies like Bin Laden and Nasrallah now dominate the political discourse of the region with great credibility on the so-called Arab Street. Even in Europe, the American image and influence is fading, and travelers may feel uncomfortable abroad, or, more seriously, American tourists and businesses fear boycotts or actual violence, as in Madrid or London in the past few years, and that seriously dampens the U.S. ability to influence other nations.

Ironically, Bush claimed to have launched the war in Iraq to protect American security, but it has had the opposite effect. American troops are stretched thin and lack adequate supplies, and the U.S. is facing its worst manpower crisis since the Vietnam era. Meanwhile, the number of military officials publicly speaking out against this administration's war in Iraq is staggering, discomfiting and unprecedented.

Even more frightening, Bush has actually increased the global threat of terrorism.
In October 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq, the Central Intelligence Agency warned that military action in the Middle East would foment serious resistance and actually recruit more terrorists. By going after Iraq, the Agency warned, the U.S. would be ignoring the "root causes" of terror-such as continued crisis in Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and internal dissent in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries-while getting tied down in a peripheral area.

By 2004, that prediction had come true, with even the CIA Director Porter Goss admitting that Iraq had become a "cause for extremists" as daily attacks in Iraq had already more than doubled over the previous year. Just this past Spring, the State Department was more bleak, identifying over 11,000 terrorist incidents in 2005 which killed almost 15,000 people, a four-fold rise over 2004 and were mostly the work not of al-Qaeda but new, smaller and "difficult to detect" groups, which were able to exploit the war to entice new members.

While Bush's policies in Iraq daily bring reports of Iraqis and Americans killed and abducted, some of the worst consequences are yet to be fully felt, namely the potentially devastating economic effects of the war. Bush and Rumsfeld promised a war on the cheap, somewhere in the area of 100 but no more than 200 billion dollars. Already, those figures have been surpassed and economists are now estimating that the costs of operations in Iraq, along with costs for rehabilitating wounded American soldiers and reconstruction, could easily reach the one trillion, or more, mark.

Despite these huge appropriations, Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker charged this past September the army did not have enough money to fight the war in Iraq. More ominously, as the war in Iraq drags on, the U.S. position in the global economy has become more precarious. To pay for the war in a period of massive tax cuts for the rich, Bush has borrowed more than any president in history and run up record deficits, a strange approach for an alleged conservative. The U.S. debt ceiling has risen to a stunning $9 trillion, the current accounts deficits rose above $200 billion, and trade deficits jumped to record highs, as have gas prices at home.

Much of the U.S. debt is held by China, whose own economy has erupted and now presents a serious challenge to U.S. influence in markets all over the world. In fact, China has just reached $1 trillion in currency reserves, more than one-fifth of all global reserves. While the U.S. is spending about $8 million per hour in Iraq and its foreign reserves are being depleted by about $80 million per hour, the Chinese are hourly adding $30 million. China could now purchase all the gold sitting in the vaults of the world's central banks, twice over, according to the Economist.

Obviously, the U.S. is in a much more delicate and dangerous position today-politically, militarily, and economically-than it was prior to the Iraq invasion. National prestige and national security have suffered, and the economic impact will be felt for years. At home, the emphasis on Homeland Security and the Orwellian-titled Patriot Act have restricted our freedoms and liberties. The United States, its soldiers, and its people have suffered because of this war, because of Bush's entire program. Meanwhile, American enemies and rivals-in the Middle East, in China, and elsewhere-have more power, prestige, and wealth than any of us could have imagined just a few years ago.

Given these conditions, there is now great reason for all Americans, including, if not especially, Republicans and conservatives, to demand an end to these policies in Iraq and at home that are making life more dangerous and costly. Some years ago, during the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon said that "Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that." It seems like George Bush has accomplished precisely that all these years later.

Mr. Buzzanco, Professor of History, University of Houston, is the author of several books and articles on Vietnam War.




Comment on this Article


Bush's Reign 'Grave, Deteriorating'

By Bill Gallagher
12 Dec 06

"Someone has to get the message to this man that there have to be significant changes." -- Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid, D-Nev.


DETROIT -- Good Luck. Even his daddy's buddies and a bipartisan panel can't get him to listen. It's not the message; it's his closed ears. President George W. Bush will never admit Iraq is disintegrating and his policies were doomed from the outset.

The body language screamed out as the Baker-Hamilton group leaders made their formal presentation to Bush. He gave his cavalier assurance that he deemed the report "interesting" and "worthy of study." So much so that he claims he actually read it. Methinks he's fibbing. I'm reading it now.
If the White House reporting wimps have any nerve they'll quiz him at his next availability about recommendation 72, starting on Page 91, that states, "Costs of the war should be included in the President's annual budget request, starting with FY 2008: the war is in its fourth year, and the normal budget process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in Iraq should be presented clearly to Congress and the American people. Congress must carry out its constitutional responsibility to review budget for the war in Iraq carefully and to conduct oversight."

Bush will never come clean with the costs of his war, and the idea that he would bring Congress in to discuss his unbridled spending and welcome a review of the Pentagon's no-bid contracts with Halliburton is unthinkable. War, in the Bush-Cheney perverted view, is the exclusive domain of the unitary executive. They consider congressional oversight a quaint concept best left in civics textbooks.

Bush will take the Iraq Study Group Report, grab a couple of insignificant shards from it, feature his "military assessments" (read: what he wants to hear and what Gen. Peter Pace, the sycophant chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will dutifully provide), toss in a bunch of bromides, and then have a prime-time pre-Christmas address to the nation where he'll sell his massaged policy as the path for "victory" in Iraq.

Bush declared the Iraq Study Group Report was "an opportunity to come together and work together," when in fact, he is already scrapping any aspects of the report that don't satisfy his appetite for unilateralism and don't conform with the neocon madness built on the fantasy that invading Iraq was the way to spread democracy in the region, protect western corporate interests and make Israel more secure in the process.

With those delusions in mind, Bush set out like a picky adolescent spooning through a fruit salad looking for all the maraschino cherries and rejecting the grapefruit, apples and other tart-yet-healthy choices. Just give me those sweet cherries and I'll call them "bipartisan," Bush thought. He'll use the report for a little political cover and then toss the bulk of the recommendations into the trash heap of history.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee the next day, Jim Baker said that his report outlined a "comprehensive strategy" and warned, "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say 'I like this but I don't like that.'" By that time Bush's tongue was already scarlet.

Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't even bother with the niceties and lip service his underling in the Oval Office so disingenuously employs. Cheney sat and scowled as James Baker and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, presented their report.

As the camera panned, we got a glimpse of Cheney, who had the gas-pained look of someone who had just scarfed down four Taco Bell bean burritos with green onions for breakfast.

Cheney is still fuming over his buddy and mentor Donald Rumsfeld's ignominious departure from the Pentagon. He blames Jim Baker and Bush the Elder's crew for dumping Rummy and trying to get the younger Bush to see the light of the dark failure in Iraq.

Cheney, for now, will retreat to his bat cave to work on a plot to have a military confrontation with Iran, the next move in the neocon playbook for American dominance in the Middle East and beyond.

Big Dick is still a skilled infighter and, like his boy Bush, the more wrong they are, the more disastrous their polices, the more intransigent they become. Facts don't faze them -- only their messianic mission matters.

Just ask Cheney. He'll still tell you al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, a 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague, Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and the insurgency is in its "last throes."

Bush reaffirmed his Iraq delusions at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair where the leaders vowed not "to quit" the mess they created in Iraq. Refusing to even consider what he and his neocon corner men did with their fantasies, ignorance, arrogance and incompetence, Bush warned we must focus on bailing out these "sorcerer's apprentices," somehow salvaging his mad mission: "If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future."

He is incapable of introspection and reflection. Bush only looks at the present fiasco and still clings to his claim that even though all the reasons used to support the war were unfounded, it still was a dandy idea to topple Saddam, in spite of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, nearly 3,000 American troops and the result of turning Iraq into a terrorist training ground to spread more violence throughout the region and world.

The Baker-Hamilton report stated bluntly that "the United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional stability."

The report reminded Bush of his own words, which for now remain just words: "There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

Blair underscored that point, saying, "It is important that we do everything we can in the wider Middle East to bring about peace between Israel and Palestine." Blair will soon go to the Middle East and engage in personal diplomacy. Bush has never been personally involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and his malign indifference helps sustain the violence. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quick to reject the Baker-Hamilton report's linkage of the Palestinian conflict to broader issues in the region.

Olmert showed his shameless fealty to Bush during a recent White House visit when he said, "We are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability which the great operation of America in Iraq brought to the Middle East." Only fools and professional asskissers would utter those words.

Instead of being "an honest broker" for peace, as Blair urged, under Bush there's not a dime's worth of difference between U.S. policy toward Palestine and the position of whatever fractious Israeli government happens to be in power at the moment.

Bush is unlikely to renounce permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and he'll never agree to prevent American and British corporations from making claims on Iraqi oil reserves. The agony in Iraq is exposing the true, craven U.S. ambitions in the nation.

The biggest failure in the Iraq Study Group Report was the legislative restriction in its creation limiting the panel's focus to the present mess and not even considering how we got into the quagmire. No looking back. All eyes on "the way forward." We are in the midst of the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history, but don't dare think about how we got there. How can we learn and understand with such artificial political restraints?

As the Congress adjourns, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, got his way, lying and stonewalling efforts to examine the White House's use and abuse of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.

The loathsome Roberts had promised for years that the so-called Phase Two investigation -- an examination of the misuse and distorting of intelligence -- was proceeding. Roberts is the poster boy for the Republicans' choice to abandon congressional oversight and protect the administration's lies and abuses of power.

The new Congress with the Democrats in charge will certainly do better; a family of orangutans could. But with prominent party leaders like Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., still clinging to their notion that invading Iraq was a good idea and sound policy -- just poorly executed under Bush -- the Democrats still bear significant culpability for the ongoing fiasco there.

Bush is now in the phase of his failed presidency other mentally unbalanced megalomaniacs experienced in the Oval Office. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon are now the best Bush models.

The deeper they got into the pit of Vietnam, the more unhinged they became. Nixon dropped more bombs in Southeast Asia than were used during the entire Second World War. Johnson once told an aide in a tape-recorded conversation discussing Vietnam that "it's just the biggest damn mess I ever saw." At least Johnson recognized what Bush will never admit when he added, "It's damned easy to get in a war, but it's gonna be awfully hard to ever extricate yourself if you get in."

George W. Bush is desperately trying to save face and prove his vision to change the Middle East is an inspiration he worked out with God. He will never change his disastrous course.

Bush's presidency is in the same situation as the Baker-Hamilton group described Iraq being in, "grave and deteriorating."



Comment on this Article


Big and Little Nukes


4 tested in Germany for polonium that kills Litvinenko

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 13:13:18

BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Four people were hospitalized in Hamburg Monday, on suspicion they had been contaminated by polonium, the same radioactive substance that killed former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, The New York Times reported.
The four had contact in Germany with Russian businessman Dmitri Kovtun, who spent four days in Hamburg in late October before flying to London, where he and two other Russian men met at a hotel with Litvinenko on Nov. 1. Litvinenko fell ill later that day from radiation poisoning and died several weeks later.

German prosecutors have started a criminal investigation of Kovtun, who is reported to be in a Moscow hospital. They suspected he may have illegally handled polonium and could also have left traces of it after being contaminated himself.

Police confirmed Monday that evidence of polonium was found on a seat in a BMW that picked up Kovtun at the Hamburg airport on Oct. 28. There were also traces in a second car he used.

While in Hamburg, Kovtun slept for two nights in the apartment of his former wife. Police said they detected radioactive traces on a child's car seat, and in two bedrooms, suggesting that the ex-wife, her two children and her boyfriend had been contaminated.

The four are not sick, according to Ulrike Sweden, a ??? police spokeswoman, and it will take a few days of tests to determine whether they ingested the substance. She said there was no public health danger.

Andrei Lugovoi, another key figure in the case, was questioned in Moscow on Monday by Russian and British detectives, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The British investigators arrived in Moscow on Dec. 4. They and their Russian colleagues interviewed Kovtun last week.



Comment on this Article


Key witness questioned in Litvinenko death probe

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 13:16:09

BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Andrei Lugovoi, a key witness in the probe into the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, was questioned on Monday by Russian and British detectives, Itar-Tass news agency reported.
Scotland Yard detectives and Russian prosecutors visited a Moscow hospital that specializes in treating radiation cases on Monday and interrogated Andrei Lugovoi on the afternoon, the Russian news agency said.

Lugovoi told Itar-Tass that the questioning lasted three hours. "I gave testimony exclusively as a witness. I was officially informed of that before the interrogation," Itar-Tass quoted him as saying after questioning.

The British investigators arrived in Moscow on Dec. 4. They and their Russian colleagues interviewed Russian businessman Dmitry Kovtun, another key figure in the case, last week.

German investigators have been focusing on Kovtun since traces of polonium-210, the radioactive element that killed Litvinenko, were found in and around Hamburg last week.

Kovtun visited the city, where his ex-wife lives, on the eve of his Nov. 1 trip to London, where he and Lugovoi met with Litvinenko. Litvinenko said he fell ill that day and he died three weeks later.

Kovtun has also been diagnosed with radiation sickness.



Comment on this Article


Litvinenko Update: Four Germans Test Positive for Spy-Linked Radiation (Update1)

By Patrick Donahue
Bloomberg
11 Dec 06

Four people in Germany may have ingested the radioactive substance that killed former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, German police said, as investigators probed the activities of one of his business associates in Hamburg.

The ex-wife and two children of Dmitry Kovtun, who is being investigated for suspected handling of polonium 210, likely had contact with the substance while Kovtun was in Hamburg in late October, police said at a briefing broadcast on the N24 television channel. A fourth person, Kovtun's ex-wife's partner, also tested positive.
German authorities discovered radioactive traces linked to Kovtun that he left while visiting the city days before his Nov. 1 meeting with Litvinenko, who died last month in London following radiation poisoning. The probe expands a case involving former agents and Russian-émigré businessmen that has strained U.K.-Russian relations and drawn scrutiny to President Vladimir Putin.

Hamburg Police spokesman Andreas Schoepflin said it was unclear whether Kovtun, who is also currently being treated for radiation poisoning in Moscow, knowingly handled the material or was one of the latest victims of alpha-ray contamination. A U.K. investigator from London's Metropolitan Police arrived today to assist the probe.

It's also not clear whether the other four were contaminated, which doesn't represent an imminent danger, or have ingested the substance, the police said in a statement. Ingestion could only occur as a result of "very intensive bodily contact'' with Kovtun.

Litvinenko's Death

Litvinenko, a critic of the Kremlin, died on Nov. 23 after exposure to polonium 210. Authorities have detected radiation contamination in at least 12 London locations and British police are treating the inquiry as a murder investigation. Russian authorities on Dec. 7 opened a criminal case into Litvinenko's death and what it described as the attempted murder of Kovtun.

In a statement dictated two days before his death Litvinenko -- a former officer of Russia's FSB state security agency -- blamed his illness on the government of Putin, who has denied the allegation.

Kovtun is suffering from an acute form of radiation sickness, Russia's Interfax reported on Dec. 8, without saying where it got the information. Kovtun's illness was caused by the radioactive poisoning which affected Litvinenko, Russian prosecutors said. Kovtun's cell phone was switched off.

Russian investigators aren't yet cooperating with the investigation, Hamburg police spokesman Schoepflin said.

Days in Hamburg

Kovtun, 41, who has an apartment in Hamburg, arrived on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow on Oct. 28 and spent four nights in the northern German city, the police said. Police have reconstructed his activities between the apartment of his 31- year-old ex-wife, and stops at the immigration office, restaurants and a gambling hall, according to a statement.

Traces of polonium were found in the ex-wife's apartment, another apartment in Hamburg's Pinneberg district, in the seat of the BMW that drove him from the airport and on a file that he signed at the registration office, according to the police.

Kovtun flew to London at 6:40 a.m. on Nov. 1 on a flight operated by Deutsche Lufthansa AG's Germanwings unit. There he met at the Millennium Hotel Mayfair in central London's Grosvenor Square with Litvinenko and another Russian businessman who has been treated for radiation exposure, Andrei Lugovoi.

Russian and British investigators began to question Lugovoi at a closed Moscow hospital, Interfax reported today. The newswire also reported that Russian investigators plan to fly to London this week to probe Litvinenko's death.

The German investigation into Kovtun centers on "suspected abuse of ionizing radiation and for illegal handling of radioactive material,'' Koehnke said in a statement yesterday.

Enemies at FSB

Litvinenko's death was caused by leukemia, north London coroner Andrew Reid said on Nov. 30. Leukemia, a cancer of the blood or bone marrow, can be brought on by radiation.

Litvinenko's wife Marina, 44, told the U.K.'s Mail on Sunday yesterday that Russian authorities may have been involved with her husband's death, echoing the final statement by Litvinenko directed at Putin's government. She said Litvinenko had enemies at Russia's FSB, though she said it was unlikely that Putin had ordered his assassination.

"Obviously it was not Putin himself, of course not,'' she told the newspaper. "But what Putin does around him in Russia makes it possible to kill a British person on British soil. I believe that it could have been the Russian authorities.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Patrick Donahue in Berlin at pdonahue1@bloomberg.net .



Comment on this Article


Russian atomic chief voices support for Iran's nuclear right

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-11 01:50:00

TEHRAN, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- Visiting Russia's atomic agency head Sergei Kiriyenko voiced Monday his support to Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear activities, Iran's official IRNA news agency reported.

Any country in the world has the right to develop peaceful nuclear industries and that "holds true for Iran," Kiriyenko told a joint press conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
However, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons should also be observed, said Kiriyenko, who is making a visit for an Iran-Russia Economic Commission meeting in Tehran.

"The right for use (of nuclear energy) and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons should be definitely observed. Of course it is too hard to mix the two points but a breakthrough should be found," Kiriyenko said.

The Russian official held that Iran's nuclear case should only follow the diplomatic course for a political solution, adding "Iran's nuclear case should be settled diplomatically and in this connection, Russia's stances are the same both in words and action."

"Russia will never yield to imposition and Iran's nuclear case should have only a political solution," Kiriyenko stressed.

For his part, Mottaki reiterated Iran's determination to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle, saying "we have already developed our nuclear facilities and access to relevant technology has been materialized by Iranian scientists."

"Iran aims to access nuclear fuel cycle. However, this does not interfere with our assessment of other proposals," Mottaki said, adding that Iran was still studying Russia's proposal to set up a uranium enrichment company in the Russian territory.

Mottaki, meanwhile, praised that implementation of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant marks an expansion of Iran-Russia relations.

"Bushehr nuclear power plant project will be on the agenda of the meeting between Kiriyenko and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh," he added.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says it needs to enrich uranium as a peaceful, alternative energy source and has the right to do so under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

However, the West has accused Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons under a civilian cover, a charge has been denied by Tehran.

Due to Iran's resistance to suspend uranium enrichment, the European countries and the United States have been seeking a UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Tehran.



Comment on this Article


Iran, Russia ink document to boost economic cooperation

Tehran, Dec 12, IRNA

Iran and Russia here Monday signed a 17-article document during the 6th session of their joint economic commission for expansion of bilateral economic cooperation.

The document was signed by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Russian Atomic Energy chief Sergei Kiriyenko as co-chairs of the commission.

Pursuant to the document, the two sides will step up their cooperation in the fields of energy, oil, gas, electricity, nuclear energy, industry, technology, science, trade, banking, tourism, health, transportation and natural disasters.

The commission will hold its 7th session in Moscow next year (2007).




Comment on this Article


Political Diversions


Group seeks probe of evangelical military video - Radical Evangelizing by Senior Military

By Kristin Roberts
Reuters
11 Dec 06

WASHINGTON - A watchdog group that promotes religious freedom in the U.S. military accused senior officers on Monday using their rank and influence to coerce soldiers and airmen into adopting evangelical Christianity.

Such proselytizing, according to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has created a core of "radical" Christians within the U.S. armed forces and Pentagon who punish those who do not accept evangelical beliefs by stalling their careers.

"It's egregious beyond the pale," said Mikey Weinstein, president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. "We apparently have a radicalized, evangelical Christian Pentagon within the rest of the Pentagon."
The group asked the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate a video in which some Army and Air Force officers discuss their faith while in uniform.

According to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the video played for reporters was a promotional tool for Christian Embassy, a group that describes itself as a ministry helping national and international leaders blend faith and work.

The executive director of Christian Embassy, Bob Varney, did not respond to a request for comment.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department does not endorse any religion or religious organization or judge the validity of religious expressions.

He confirmed the Defense Department inspector general, the Pentagon's internal watchdog agency, received the letter requesting the probe, but noted it was the inspector general's policy not to say whether an investigation had been opened.

"At this point it would be inappropriate to speculate as to what actions might be taken," Whitman said.

RELIGIOUS RECRUITING

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said the officers on the video violated military rules by wearing their uniforms while discussing their religious beliefs, giving the appearance of official participation in a religious organization.

That appearance, according to the group, is particularly damaging in the military, where rank carries great influence.

"It associates the power of office with sectarian ideology," said MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran reverend and former Air Force chaplain who said her military career was hurt because she did not adopt evangelical views.

The religious freedom group also raised issues with the content of the video, including a comment from Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton that he would discuss his faith with people who came to his Joint Staff directorate within the Pentagon.

Weinstein compared what he said was radical proselytizing within the military with the Islamist militants U.S. troops are confronting in wars overseas.

"When we're facing a global war on terror against what we call Islamic extremists, it certainly doesn't help when we have apparently a viewpoint from the cognoscenti and glitterati, the leadership of the Pentagon, pushing a particular virulent worldview down the throats of people who are helpless to argue against it," Weinstein said.



Comment on this Article


Tony Snow on GOP Senator Who Hit White House on War: Should We Fight a Duel?

By E&P Staff
11 Dec 06

NEW YORK White House Press Secretary Tony Snow held his first briefing for reporters today since Gordon Smith, the formerly pro-war Republican senator from Oregon, gave a speech in Congress attacking the U.S. handling of the conflict in Iraq, using words like "criminal" and "absurd" and "immoral." Naturally reporters asked Snow about this, as well as other war-related topics.

Referring to Sen. Smith's charges, Snow said that it was the killing of U.S. soldiers, not the conduct of the war itself, that was "immoral." He also responded to Smith's claim that the Americans were getting "blown up," by urging, "do not assume that people are simply being blown up. They are on missions."

The relevant part of the transcript follows.
Q Republican Senator Gordon Smith, last week, said, "Our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day, it's absurd. It may even be criminal," and that he can no longer support this. What is your reaction to a Republican senator saying that what's going on right now in Iraq is criminal?

MR. SNOW: Well, we dispute the "criminal" part, obviously, and at the same time, understand the senator's concern. We share the concern about not doing well enough fast enough. But do not assume that people are simply being blown up. They are on missions. And as General Corelli said last week, "There's not an engagement our people have lost, but it is still important to continue the work of building greater capability and capacity on the part of the Iraqi government and helping them out."

People on both sides are going to have disagreements, much as Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat, apparently run out of his party for disagreeing with what was seen as orthodoxy at that time, but Gordon --
Q Republican Senator Smith is challenging the strategy. What he basically said yesterday, as well, was, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory, that is dereliction, that is deeply immoral. Such is the dispute. He's saying what the President is doing is immoral.

MR. SNOW: Well, then we disagree.

Q You're just going to blow it off? A Republican senator is saying the President's policy may be criminal and it's immoral, and you're just saying, we just disagree?

MR. SNOW: And what would you like me to say? Should I do duels at 10 paces?

Q Don't you think you should answer for that? You're saying -- you've said from this podium over and over that the strategy is a victory, right? And you have a Republican senator is saying there is no clear strategy, that you don't have a strategy.

MR. SNOW: Well, let's let Senator Smith hear what the President has to say. We understand that this is a time where politics are emotional in the wake of an election. And you know what? Senator Smith is entitled to his opinion. But I'm not sure exactly what you would like --

Q Well, how about answering the central thrust about the strategy, not about, like, politics --

MR. SNOW: Okay, the strategy is pretty simple. If you take a look, for instance -- if you take a look at the Baker-Hamilton commission report, what do they talk about? They talk about building greater capability on the part of the Iraqis so that you can have an Iraqi government that governs itself, sustains itself, defends itself, who's ally in the war on terror is a democracy.

I don't think it's immoral to be a democracy. I don't think it's immoral to have a state that is able to stand up and defend itself against acts of terror. I don't think it's immoral to defend the Iraqi people against acts of terrorism aimed at Muslims.

Q The Senator is not saying that's immoral. He's saying that the U.S. -- he's saying, of course democracy is a great goal --

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed? Ed, I'll tell you what. You're engaging in an argument and you're trying to fill in the gaps in a --

Q It's not an argument. It's a Republican senator saying it, not me. It's a Republican senator saying it, and he's not --

MR. SNOW: Then tell me exactly what --

Q -- of course he's in favor of democracy.

MR. SNOW: Tell me --

Q Are you saying Republican Senator Smith is not in favor of democracy?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. You just said he said it's immoral; when I listed the elements of the policy, you said that's not what he was talking about. So please tell me what he was talking about.

Q He's saying that day after day, that now U.S. soldiers are patrolling the same streets, that they're caught up in the middle of a civil war -- not about the government there --

MR. SNOW: Okay, here's what's immoral: the killing of American soldiers. We agree.



Comment on this Article


Tom Delay's blog - Warning! Graphic Content!

by John in DC
11 Dec 06

Tom Delay just launched a blog. Really. Apparently the initial comments he received from readers weren't very kind, so he removed them. Fortunately, someone saved them. I can't vouch for these being real, but they sure sound real. And in George Bush's America that's enough justification for going to war, so I figure we've met the blogger credibility threshhold.

A lot of the comments are a bit harsh, but a few are priceless, including this one:

Everyone already assumes bloggers are unemployed losers... thanks for reinforcing that stereotype...


More comments on Delay's Blog WARNING! GRAPHIC LANGUAGE!
High Tom I was just wondering what you thought of certain a Congressman who tried to get a bill passed claiming the war is "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States"

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter doctorsmith


Such unmitigated gall.
Your 3 First Principles "Order, Justice, and Freedom" obviously don't include Honesty, Integrity, or Ethics. I particularly like the way the House Ethics Committee chairman, Joel Hefley, was removed after rebuking you 3 times. Yes, he was replaced by Delay groupie Doc Hastings, with a couple other groupies connected with your PAC. Sorta make sure no more untoward rebukes occur.

It's good that you're no longer a Representative; the stench of the 109th Congress will take a long time to fix.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Wilbur


YOUR ARE A FUCKING DISGRACE TO THE IDEAS OF GOLDWATER. CRAWL BACK INTO A HOLE YOU TURD!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Clayton Hutchinson


Zalmay Khalilzad is now resigning as ambassador to Iraq. In my opinion, a staunch supporter of the war such as yourself should volunteer to fill this important post. It would do you some good to get first hand knowledge regarding Iraq, a country in which the situation is said to be "grave" and "deteriorating."

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Larry Talbot



What a magnificently, terrifically boring and irrelevant blog. Honestly, who on earth cares what you have to say?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Miles Coverdale



You left Congress disgracefully and you want people to take you seriously? You should be in prison you assclown, piss off Tom.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom you suck



Tom DeLay is a pussy-ass faggot moneygrubber.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Jar Jar



Didn't we already stick a fork in your ass and decide you're done?

To paraphrase you: You WERE the Federal Government...now you're a nothing.

The fact that you are trying to keep your name alive by starting a stupid blog is actually kind of pathetic and sad. Please just go away.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Meadows



You wouldn't know "honesty" if came up and BIT YOU IN THE ASS.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bill Davis



How pathetic you are, Mr. Delay. You are a criminal, and you should be serving time in jail alomg with your buddies Abramhoff and Cunningham.

The damage you have done to this country is reprehinsible.

Do us all a favor and just disappear, you sorry excuse for a person.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter cosmo



Tom,

When you're locked up, will you smuggle blog posts out in your visitors' rectums?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Rick Derris


SLeaze bag!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Joe


Aesthetically speaking, this is the most visually bland yet offensive piece of crap to ever find it's way onto a server.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter dfd


Tom, you corrupted the conservative cause and brought disgrace to our party. We can never forgive you for that. Please crawl back into your hole.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter American Patriot


OK, fuck all you critics, I was the best leader the House of Representatives has ever had. Don't try to smear me, I am the definition of honesty and integrity, so fuck all you liberal commies.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


Forget the blog, Tom. Just hook up with OJ and write a book.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Me Too


OK, fuck all you critics,

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


OK, fuck all you critics,

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


Everyone already assumes bloggers are unemployed losers... thanks for reinforcing that stereotype...

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Marc



Is this blog serious? And if so, then did you mean it when you said that "unfortunately, many D.C. insiders are simply incapable of looking outside the capital beltway for fresh opinions and new approaches that might otherwise help our nation?"

WTF were you doing during those years of gerrymandering and hammering away votes for Bush's rubberstamp 109th Congress? Were you looking outside the beltway for fresh opinions and new approaches then?

No wonder your miserable party lost last month. And the longer you act detached from reality, the longer you and your party will suffer a horrible isolation by the American people. And besides, you're a potential criminal.

I suggest you focus on that rather than this stupid blogl.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Dookiestix


When I go to prison I will have the best bitch in the cellblock so eat your hearts out. His name is Jack Abramhoff and he gives good head.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


WoW! America's poster-child for white entitlement, greed, authoritarianism and the exploitation religion for corporate interests finally has a blog! The intertubz are finally complete... Go back to your hole Tom. Your "conservative revolution" is dead. No one cares what a ignorant exterminator has to say anymore, now that we are all pretty sure you're a criminal.

Though in all honesty, keep posting. This should be entertaining... in a "rubbernecking a car accident" sort of way.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter raoul duke


I am crook and a liar. I only care about my own enrichment.


December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


Oh, fuck all you critics. I was the best Republican leader of the House Majority ever! Now if you'll excuse me, I have appointment to get reamed up the butt by Rev. Ted Haggard, another good conservative Christian. Hey, I gotta practice for when I finally end up in the big house. Toodles!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom DeLay


Fuck you all, i am the greatest assfucker ever.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


You are a fucking moron

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter john w


Tom,

Amazon has a new book you should bone up on (forgive the pun)
"How to have great sex in the American prison system"
I mean while you're there, try to make good memories.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Jim Montague



Although I am against Tom having any free and legimate contact with the "normal" folk of the great United States, the responses to this blog just made my Sunday. Hee hee. Thanks Tom!! But seriously, someone should do us a favor and escort Tom to Iraq, outside of the green zone so he can practice order, justice and freedom...for uh let's say 90 seconds.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter SAK



Oh, by the way I mostly put the blame on your corrupted,twisted,criminal,phycotic,evil existance on your PARENTS who bought your no-good ass into this world.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bill Davis



Did I mention that you are a fucking moron?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter john w



hahahahaha

what a joke.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Muhammed Ali


Go drink some ddt you assholes, i am going to church so I can get a blow job from some alter boys.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay


Just thought I'd mention you are a fucking moron

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter john w


You corrupt hypocrite, crawl back to the hole you came out of.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter An American



I think I said this but just in case - you are a fucking moron

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter john w


I can see you have an adoring public.

Don't lose your body guards.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter xoites


Take this from a soldier and a veteran: Where is your integrity. You were getting paid while we're dying in Iraq.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter GI Joe


Mr DeLay,

I'm quite distressed that you are using the f-word in response to these people saying such terrible things about you. Please clean up your language! I'll pray for you, sir.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Suzie Sue


may your days in prison be filled with water-boarding, anal sodomy, and eye-liner...

to be duke cuuningham's bitch is too good for you, you wretched little man...

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter e coli


Nobody wants to hear from you, Tom Delay. Disappear. Suck on some dog eggs while you wait to go to prison. Maybe your pretty little bride will find someone with a little integrity while you're away, but I doubt it. You don't screw America and then expect us to take you seriously.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Terry Olson


I like to smother myself in tapioca pudding and play the bongos in front of the fireplace. Looking for S/W/M who shares same interests.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay



This is a joke, right?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter BatMan



rot in hell bich!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter mike



Oh my, Mr. Delay, I make a killer tapioca, and my brother left his bongos last time he was here. Would you be interested....? I love your hair.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Suzie Sue



Oh Tom, just shut this blog down, it is hurting our regressive reputation. If you could've just shown a little more integrity and fucked a couple of page boys you wouldn't be in any trouble but you had to take some money from Jack. I will miss you Tom, we need more crooks like you in Congress, those librul Dems are just gonna get in the way of fucking this country in the ass.


December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter George W. Bush



Thanks,Tom.You had the opportunity to be a good public servant, and you used it to gerrymander and slander and line your own pockets. Great example for the kids. What a prick.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBarney



Is suzie sue your stage name??

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bubba



The polling here seems unscientific but i think the overall sentiment is quite accurate.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter xoites



My "friends" in the pen called me Sally the Stank.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bubba



Goodness, Bubba, that's my actual name given to me by my daddy. I'm his special girl!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Suzie Sue



When you sign on to start helping Americans and Iraqis outside that green zone, maybe I'll start taking you seriously. Until then you're just another power hungry politico-criminal who has taken my belief system and values and exploited them to achieve your ends. You're about as Christian as a horse's ass, with scarcely a trace of integrity.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Puh-leez



Oh so your really a girl....uh nevermind.


December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bubba



911 was an inside job.
The USA attacked the USA on Sept 11th, 2001 in order to have an excuse to attack other countries.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



Thankfully, Stanley won't replace this hammer free of charge if it ever breaks, rusts, or otherwise can't perform it's duties.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Rick Santorum



Tom, you are a disgusting piece of shit.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of shit.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of shit.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of shit.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Wade F. Godot



Ever had an inside job Mr. Athiest? You'll never forget your first one! MMmmmm good!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bubba



Fuck all you libruls, get off Toms back, he is one great American hero and he will get a medal for his great service to our corporations, so just fuck of you libruls.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter George W. Bush



Fuck you Tom

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter George W. Bush



Oh Bubba, bless your heart. I'm sure Mr. DeLay knows someone in a ministry who could help you with your problem...

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Suzie Sue



Building Seven of the WTC fell 47 stories in 6.5 seconds.
It was NOT hit by any airplane.
It fell at the speed of a billiard ball.

EVERY SINGLE SUPPORT COLUMN FAILED AT EXACTLY THE SAME INSTANT!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



Fuck you Tom

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter George W. Bush



Thanks for K Street loser.

Have fun in prison and do not drop the soap.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter getalife



Fuck you Tom

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter George W. Bush



911 was used as an excuse to kill a half million Iraqis.

Have you noticed?

We killed a half a million people based on a lie.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



Go back to killing bugs, Tom. You did everything you could while in the House to steal money from the American people and channel it to your friends. You deserve jail time, not public discourse.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Person of Integrity



Fuck you W, get off my blog

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay



hi, tom!!!!

so glad you joined the blogosphere! now you can link to my articles and to michelle's too :)

speaking of michelle, she just received a new batch of iraqi baby blood from general pace...if you would like to come up to nyc, drop in and you can suck on some of it too!

and, to you liberals on here....HAVE I TOLD YOU LATELY HOW MUCH I HATE YOU!!!!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter ann coulter



If your vision was complete the world had been turned into a pile cockroach infested cinders. Remember how much a part you could have played in destroying the world and the American democratic experiment.

Thankfully though, you and your Maoist republican friends have been driven back to the Texan prostitutes den...spread your virus amongst yourselves.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Sasquatch



President Bush! I am shocked! Surely you and Mr. DeLay support one another! Please reconsider your language. I'll pray for you, too!

You are a fine gentleman, and I have encouraged all six of my sons to be just like you. And I have forced all four of my daughters to be just like Jenna and Barbara. Their daddy loves them so...

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Suzie Sue



My hairpiece was carefully hand crafted by slave labor using only the best of Ted Haggard's pubic hair.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay



The USA killed 3000 of its own citizens as an excuse to kill a half a million Iraqis.

911 was a lie.

Dov Zakheim and Dick Cheney are responsible for all these murders.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



I hope this works!

Wanted: Former discraced yet handsome minister into male backrubs and meth use. Me: A stylish 6'4" male ex-con with several large appendages and a hairy back yet a smooth head looking for a friendship first then LTR. Let's Get It On!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Bubba



I am glad to see the Hammer has found some work. Tom, you best make some good money from your effort blogging as you will soon have to spend some time with your new cell mate. You are a worthless peice of shit that has been puffed up with lobbyuist meals and taxpayer funds. It is because of you that your republican buddies are all leaving DC. Thanks for your help on that you ethically challenged pile of shit. Better yet, FUCK YOU, you nazis bastard. Maybe the buddies you made in the Marianas Islands can help you out You have no business criticizing Jimmy Carter you whacked out nut.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Chris in NM



ummm....have you decided on who is gonna be your pimp in jail?..now there is something you can blog about.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter fuckyoutom



WOW! The only thing better than all of these posts, is imagining that fucktard sitting and reading these tonight and then trying to "filter" us all out. What a sad sad man. HE HE! :)

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter TiMM4HH!



Fuck this, i am the best Congress have ever seen. Soon I will be the best excogressman to take it in the ass, I will be the best bitch, promise, don't you believe me, I would never lie.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay



hi, tom!!!

mmmmm, i have the biggest, blackest, leather strap-on just for you, you bad bad boy...

i am going to ream you out until you squeal like a little ann coulter-pig...

-this will get you ready for rufus in the big house-

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter michelle malkin



I'm beginning to think this blog was a big mistake.
December 10, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterTom Delay
Haha this comments section is the funniest thing I have seen all day. Looks like things have started off with a bang, Tom!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Commie Liberal



911 was a bald faced lie used to justify the MURDER of 500,000 people AND COUNTING.

www.whatreallyhappened.com

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



I can't help but think of DeLay standing over this web server screaming, "How do you turn this fucking thing off!"

Let's hear it for the First Amendment, eh Tommy-boy?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter devilbush



Great blog Tom, you really have some big fans and I hope to start a blog and get the same praise as you are receiving today. Gotta go shoot a pal in the face so have a great day Tom, great blog.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Dick Cheney



Eat me, Tom.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Skank



How many times did you put your daughter Danielle in a hot tub and feed her to the lobbyists? Is that why they paid her the 500K?

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Mike



Here's an idea.

Go away!
You are a divisive, elitist lack of a human being who cares nothing for the little guy.
You claim to be a Christian?
Why are you against the poor and publicly funded education, among so many other subjects?

Tom, you need to truly find God instead of molding him to your privileged, white upbring.

I pray for your soul because I don't think you have one. I have never believed I am righteous in my life.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Paul



"There is nothing more important than cutting taxes in a time of war."
Or so says the EXTERMINATOR / HAMMER

Well, how's this for a corrallary:

"There is nothing more important than treating your hemroids in a time of JAIL."

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



Remember this Tom?

As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Joe Wilson



http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



GOD, I HATE YOU PEOPLE!!!

mr delay wants a place for all those who love him and miss him to come and visit and leave notes of adoration, and, you, you LIBERAL SWINE, have ruined his opening...

if i ever see any of you, i will BITE YOU IN THE NECK and poison you with my saliva...

love and kisses,

ann coulter

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter ann coulter



Haven't you gone back to killing roaches yet, Tom? I know your brain's most likely scrambled due to the use of toxic chemicals (after all, how else could you justify your politics?) but now that you're out of office, what else are you going to do? Oh, right. You're going to become the next Jack Abramoff. Silly me.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterP.



God I am glad Tom is still around so we can continue making fun of just how wrong he is. We owe him a debt of gratitude for helping destroy conservative philosophy and the GOP (Gang of Pedophiles). Keep going you moron, we need more of your help. Maybe you can share a cell with Mark Foley or Jack Abramoff; you could all be butthole buddies. Have Fun

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Honest



Would you expect anything different Tom. It will be good to see you in prison garb. Make sure you say Hi to Bubba down there in Texas prison and make sure to drop the soap once in a while, you deserve some bum pumping for what you have done. Sincerely though, you are a piece of shit and no friend of America.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter howie



http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/

Hey Tom:

Save these for your jail sentence, even if you don't have time to read them now.

911 was a lie perpetrated by Republicans FOR Republicans.

Delay was at the very least Part of the Cover-Up.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Atheist



Hey Tom,,
Just reminding you about the old Klan-bible reading party tonight at Rusty's. Don't forget to bring your hood.

See you there

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Jack Ruby



Hi Tom cool blog. I hope you can cum join me in prison soon, my rectum just gets moist every time I think about you Tom. Just plead guilty because you know you are. Don't bring that soap on a rope, you wont need it, Hugs and kisses ,Jack.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Jack Abramhoff



tom

don't worry about unsustainable deficits, just keep redistributing the wealth to all the patriots and pioneers

don't worry about the bill of rights, the 10 commandments will do just fine, we can sin under either one, you've proved to be able to shit on most of both anyway

don't worry about the person, the corporation is much more important

don't worry about your crimes, they just have a max sentance of life in prison, someone thought that suborning the vote in a democracy was a big thing, go figure

by the way, fuck you and the horse you came with last night

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter tofubo



I thought there was a filter? Is this how your friends talk to you, Tom?

I finger myself just thinking about you reading your comments sections. Of course, I totally fucking cum when I look at your mug shot. Oh my god!! Maybe you could sign one for me? Please? I'll suck you off.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Skank




Tom !

You never call anymore ?! Pastor Haggard wants to Hang out and ya know .... get a massage ;o

Hugs & kisses **

Jeff Gannon / Jim Guckert / Johnny Gosch

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Jeff Gannon


God, this has got to be tough to hear your friends say this about you:

Rep. Zach Wamp: "Our leadership and some of our members grew arrogant in their own power, and with arrogance comes corruption,"

---snip---

"If Tom DeLay said it one time, he said it 15 times: 'The most important thing we can do for the American people is keep our Republican majority.' That was just wrong, and it had to catch up to us in the end."

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Rick Santorum



Fuck you, Gannon, I was here first. Get lost, fairy.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Skank



Come on!
"Tom Delay" isn't actually Tom Delay!
Eat more fish.
Good grief.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Paul



Let me see: 98 posts. 98 unanimous posts.

You really do have a knack for organizing people.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter xoites



As a child, my hamster came to an untimely and unnatural demise in my Easy Bake Oven.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Tom Delay



This is a good example of values that I hold dear to my heart. All these great comments, i am just impressed with all these great fans you have Tom, keep up the great work Tom!

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Rick Santorum



Ya'll are invited to my house for an orgy tonight. Super discreet! Tom, you come over too, you can have a reunion with all your friends. The fucking is sooooo boring, but I charge admission, so it's all good. I just wish Ricky Santorum would leave my dog alone.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Skank



you


have


killed


500,000


of


us


....



from


the


grave


we

shout


FUCK YOU TOM DELAY

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter dead iraqi children



hehehehehe
silly criminal

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter michael



Justice would have you spending a lifetime making clothes in a sweatshop at pennies a day.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter ricky bobby



Do I make you horny?

Cool, but you are too old for me.

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter Mark Foley



Dear Mr. Delay,

Please ignore all untoward comments published here. We will take care of you. You have served us well and we do not forget.

After you get a little tired of this exercise in free expression please bring your family along and report to the Eunuchizing Station. You and your family will be well cared for, as long as you remember your place in the grand scheme of things.

Merry Christmas,

Your overseeers in the oilarchcy

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter ExxonMobil




burn

burn in hell

die

die you fucker die

December 10, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter dead iraqi children



Comment on this Article


Has Politics Contaminated the Food Supply?

By ERIC SCHLOSSER
December 11, 2006

THIS fall has brought plenty of bad news about food poisoning. More than 200 people in 26 states were sickened and three people were killed by spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. At least 183 people in 21 states got salmonella from tainted tomatoes served at restaurants. And more than 160 people in New York, New Jersey and other states were sickened with E. coli after eating at Taco Bell restaurants.
People are always going to get food poisoning. The idea that every meal can be risk-free, germ-free and sterile is the sort of fantasy Howard Hughes might have entertained. But our food can be much safer than it is right now.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year because of something they ate.

Part of the problem is that the government's food-safety system is underfinanced, poorly organized and more concerned with serving private interests than with protecting public health. It is time for the new Democratic Congress to reverse a decades-long weakening of regulations and face up to the food-safety threats of the 21st century.

One hundred years ago, companies were free to follow their own rules. Food companies sold children's candy colored with dangerous heavy metals. And meatpackers routinely processed "4D animals" - livestock that were dead, dying, diseased or disabled.

The publication of Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle" in 1906 - with its descriptions of rat-infested slaughterhouses and rancid meat - created public outrage over food safety. Even though the book was written by a socialist agitator, a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, eagerly read it.

After confirming Sinclair's claims, Roosevelt battled the drug companies, the big food processors and the meatpacking companies to protect American consumers from irresponsible corporate behavior. He argued that bad business practices were ultimately bad for business. After a fight in Congress, Roosevelt largely got his way with passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

The decades that followed were hardly an idyll of pure food and flawless regulation. But the nation's diverse agricultural and food-processing system limited the size of outbreaks. Thousands of small slaughterhouses processed meat, and countless independent restaurants prepared food from fresh, local ingredients. If a butcher shop sold tainted meat or a restaurant served contaminated meals, a relatively small number of people were likely to become ill.

Over the past 40 years, the industrialization and centralization of our food system has greatly magnified the potential for big outbreaks. Today only 13 slaughterhouses process the majority of the beef consumed by 300 million Americans.

And the fast-food industry's demand for uniform products has encouraged centralization in every agricultural sector. Fruits and vegetables are now being grown, packaged and shipped like industrial commodities. As a result, a little contamination can go a long way. The Taco Bell distribution center in New Jersey now being investigated as a possible source of E. coli supplies more than 1,100 restaurants in the Northeast.

While threats to the food supply have been growing, food-safety regulations have been weakened. Since 2000, the fast-food and meatpacking industries have given about four-fifths of their political donations to Republican candidates for national office. In return, these industries have effectively been given control of the agencies created to regulate them.

The current chief of staff at the Agriculture Department used to be the beef industry's chief lobbyist. The person who headed the Food and Drug Administration until recently used to be an executive at the National Food Processors Association.

Cutbacks in staff and budgets have reduced the number of food-safety inspections conducted by the F.D.A. to about 3,400 a year - from 35,000 in the 1970s. The number of inspectors at the Agriculture Department has declined to 7,500 from 9,000.

A study published in Consumer Reports last week showed the impact of such policies: 83 percent of the broiler chickens purchased at supermarkets nationwide were found to be contaminated with dangerous bacteria.

Aside from undue corporate influence and inadequate financing, America's food-safety system is hampered by overlapping bureaucracies. A dozen federal agencies now have some food safety oversight. The Agriculture Department is responsible for meat, poultry and some egg products, while the F.D.A. is responsible for just about everything else.

And odd, conflicting rules determine which agency has authority. The F.D.A. is responsible for the safety of eggs still in their shells; the Agriculture Department is responsible once the shells are broken. If a packaged ham sandwich has two pieces of bread, the F.D.A. is in charge of inspecting it - one piece of bread, and Agriculture is in charge. A sandwich-making factory regulated by the Agriculture Department will be inspected every day, while one inspected by the F.D.A. is likely to be inspected every five years.

Neither agency has the power to recall contaminated food (with the exception of tainted infant formula) or to fine companies for food-safety lapses. And when the cause of an outbreak is unknown, it's unclear which agency should lead the investigation.

Last year, Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, introduced an important piece of food-safety legislation that tackles these problems. Their Safe Food Act would create a single food-safety agency with the authority to test widely for dangerous pathogens, demand recalls and penalize companies that knowingly sell contaminated food.

It would eliminate petty bureaucratic rivalries and make a single administrator accountable for the safety of America's food. And it would facilitate a swift, effective response not only to the sort of inadvertent outbreaks that have occurred this fall, but also to any deliberate bioterrorism aimed at our food supply.

The Safe Food Act deserves strong bipartisan backing. Aside from industry lobbyists and their Congressional allies, there is little public support for the right to sell contaminated food. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you still have to eat.



Comment on this Article


Dennis Kucinich's Showdown With the Democratic Leadership

By Joshua Scheer
6 Dec 06

In an interview with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer*, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) criticizes the leadership of his own party for announcing Tuesday that it would support a massive increase in spending for the Iraq war.
Truthdig: What was the upshot of [Tuesday's] Democratic caucus meeting?

Kucinich: At this point the Democratic leadership-the speaker and the majority leader and Rahm Emanuel-are all recommending that the Democrats support the appropriation that is going to be brought forward in the spring, for the purposes of [continuing to fund] the war in Iraq.

Truthdig: Why do you think that is?

Kucinich: The leadership feels that they can bring about greater transparency [in spending], that they can bring special committees to look at what's gone wrong with the war, and that there's going to be improved oversight.

Truthdig: Were there dissenting opinions ... ? Do you think this will pass?

Kucinich: I think this is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction in Iraq. It goes without saying that they expect greater transparency and oversight, but they also expect us to do something to bring the troops home. Now, if Congress goes ahead under Democratic leadership and votes to approve what some are now estimating as an additional $160 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total for the fiscal year to $230 billion, the Democratic Congress will have bought George Bush's war. Now, who would buy a used war from this administration?

Truthdig: Weren't the Democrats elected because of the war in Iraq?

Kucinich: The Democrats came to power because of a strong desire on the part of the voters to get out of Iraq. That's why people voted Democratic. So now, with the Democratic leadership taking a position saying they're going to approve the supplemental budget in the spring, this could be seen by many as a breach of faith.

Truthdig: What can people do?

Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.

They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.

Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.

Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.

Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.

Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?

Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion. If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?

The Iraq Study Group recognized the perilous nature of this war, and there is no indication that the administration is going to bring the troops home. Every statement that the president has made has been very clear with respect to his intent to continue the U.S. presence. He has basically said, "No timetables," and he hasn't set any call for troop reductions. Now, we have men and women who are dying there, and for what? That's why it's more than disappointing that the Democratic Party is not standing up.

Truthdig: So, again, what can people do?

Kucinich: I think it's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word, because not a lot of people know about this. It's going to be important for people to organize. It's going to take a mass movement to change this situation. It's going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.

Truthdig: Thank you.

*Truthdig interviewer Joshua Scheer worked as an entry-level staffer on Kucinich's state Senate campaign and was later a summer associate in his congressional office. In this weekly interview series, Rep. Kucinich gives his take on the goings-on in Congress in the wake of the Democrats' victory.




Comment on this Article


The Government's Assault on Press Freedom

By William Bennett Turner
San Francisco Chronicle
December 12, 2006

The United States government consistently undermines democracy by eroding the media's ability to report.
Vladimir Posner, the former Soviet journalist, used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States. This was during Glasnost, as the Soviet empire was disintegrating. Posner explained that the government was dysfunctional, so journalists did not have to worry about the official censors, and the media had not been privatized, so journalists were not accountable to commercial sponsors and advertisers. The result was a kind of anarchic freedom. The press was free, but only for a brief window in time.

The window in America once was open wide and, I thought, permanently so. I used to tell my students on the first day of class that we had the freest speech and press in the world. I can't do that anymore.

In recent years American press freedom has eroded. Many other countries are now ranked freer than the United States -- all of the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and many others. In the most recent survey by Freedom House, an independent American-based organization that assesses liberties around the world, the United States tied for 17th place, with the Bahamas, Estonia, Germany and others.

The international free-press advocates Reporters Without Borders ranked us 53rd, tied with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. These rankings may not be scientifically valid, for a lot of subjective judgment is involved. But it is sobering to see the consensus that the United States is no longer anywhere near the top.

By virtue of Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. press remains freer than the press elsewhere in a few respects.

First, our law provides significantly greater protection for the press against libel suits, especially by government officials. In many countries, libel is a bullying tool for officials and the powerful to silence dissent. Under the 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, insults, parodies and vicious criticism of officials are protected by the First Amendment.

Second, our law protects the press against almost any attempt by government to impose a "prior restraint" on what can be published. That is, the government is not allowed to censor, in advance, information the press may wish to publish. The famous "Pentagon Papers" case in 1971 allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish information about a classified Defense Department study on American involvement in Vietnam, despite the government's contention that publication would impair national security.

Third, perhaps unique in the world, our law protects the advocacy of dangerous, potentially divisive ideas. One can preach overthrow of the government -- domestic "regime change" -- religious hatred, racial discrimination and even criminal activity. Under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, government may not suppress ideas, however repugnant to most, unless their expression amounts to incitement to imminent unlawful acts.

It also is true that American journalists have not been physically attacked based on what they report, at least at home (although overseas, some have been, and one was beheaded). In some other countries, journalists risk harassment or worse for reporting that offends government officials or powerful figures. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 47 journalists were murdered last year.

But U.S. press freedom has been slipping away since Sept. 11, 2001. Now that we are in a seemingly permanent "war" on terrorism, the government claims wartime powers that result in restricting press freedom.

The Bush administration has multiplied exponentially the number of documents it classifies as secret, shielding them from public view. It has classified literally millions of documents "top secret," according to reports filed with the National Archives; and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney claims to be exempt from reporting even the numbers of records it brands with the "classified" stamp. (The administration has also tried to retrieve antique classified documents from columnist Jack Anderson's estate, contending that only the government may possess such documents, however old.) Within weeks after 9/11, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, allowing him to veto public release not only of his own presidential papers but those of former President Ronald Reagan, Bush's father and former President Bill Clinton.

The administration also is aggressively pursuing leaks, not with a Nixonian Plumbers unit but by threatening criminal prosecution. Some Republicans in Congress have called for Espionage Act prosecution of the New York Times for publishing revelations about the National Security Agency's monitoring of communications by U.S. citizens and tracking international financial transactions. Bush himself said it was "disgraceful" for the Times to reveal these government activities and publishing the security agency's leak was "helping the enemy."

Pursuing leaks inevitably means pursuing the reporters who received and published the leaks, forcing them to give up confidential sources or telephone records or go to jail. Whatever Judith Miller's motivation and however questionable her arrangement with "Scooter" Libby, she went to jail solely because she refused to reveal communications with her source to the federal grand jury.

Although all states (except Wyoming) legally recognize some sort of privilege for reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, there is no federal shield law, and the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the First Amendment does not itself serve as one, at least where the information is sought by a federal grand jury investigating a crime.

So reporters who dare to report leaked information that may be classified, or information about testimony before a grand jury -- as Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did in the BALCO proceeding about steroids in sports -- face subpoenas requiring them to reveal their confidential sources to grand juries or go to jail. And now, Williams and Fainaru-Wada have been ordered to serve as much as 18 months in federal prison, a ruling they have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

So far, the courts have refused to protect subpoenaed reporters no matter how important the information they unearthed or how insignificant the alleged crime. It is true that reporters have never had strong protection against federal subpoenas, but they have hardly ever needed it. Until now.

One of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's first post-Sept. 11 acts was to issue a directive to federal agencies restricting access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Ashcroft's directive effectively reversed the presumption of openness and told agencies not to allow inspection of records if there was any arguable basis for withholding the records, assuring officials that Justice Department lawyers would defend them if sued.

Ashcroft's Justice Department also proceeded to round up mostly Muslim immigrants and conduct deportation hearings in secret, not allowing the press or public even to know that any hearing took place, which caused one federal judge to remark that "democracy dies behind closed doors." Ashcroft's moves toward greater secrecy were of a piece with Cheney's refusal when sued under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose even the identity of the corporate executives he met with to determine the administration's energy policy.

Unlike in Sweden, where the right of access to government documents is enshrined in the Constitution, our 1966 information act is solely a legislative creation. Unlike in South Korea, where the Supreme Court decided in 1989 that the right of access to government documents was an integral part of the constitutional freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court held (in a case I lost, Houchins vs. KQED) that there is no such thing as a First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities. Consequently, Americans' right to know what their government is up to is not as well recognized as it is in some other countries.

Nor is government propaganda healthy for a free press or the citizenry. The Bush administration did not advance press freedom by producing and canning favorable "news" stories with fake reporters and peddling them to television stations, or by clandestinely paying friendly columnists for publishing opinions supporting administration policies.

Other recent U.S. government actions also cut into press freedom. The Federal Communications Commission's campaign to stamp out "indecency" and "profanity" in the broadcast media, with congressionally increased fines of $325,000 per violation for allowing a breast to be glimpsed or a dirty word uttered, has intimidated broadcasters.

The campaign may initially have been aimed at Howard Stern, but it puts at risk serious programming like a CBS documentary on 9/11 in which strong language escapes from the lips of firefighters and others in the inferno, "Saving Private Ryan" and even Masterpiece Theater's "Prime Suspect." Other countries like Sweden are bemused by American prissiness about sex and impose no comparable restrictions on their broadcasters.

The press is free in countries that trust the people to make wise decisions when they're fully informed, countries that remain willing to take the risks of dissent, rude discourse, instability and some insecurity, that tolerate eccentricity and unorthodox ideas. The erosion of press freedom in the United States, relative to other nations around the world, is disheartening. We have always had high expectations of freedom, which we now don't live up to.

It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy abroad while restricting at home the very freedoms that make democracy possible.

William Bennett Turner is a San Francisco lawyer who teaches a course on the First Amendment and the press at UC Berkeley.



Comment on this Article


The Five Most Powerful Americans... Guess who's on top?

by Robert Reich
November 28, 2006

The five most powerful people in America over the next eighteen months will be:
1. Dick Cheney, because he runs the executive branch and is the closest thing the Republicans have to an ideological rudder. Forget the Baker Commission. Forget Bush (if you haven't already). Cheney will have more say over what happens in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, during the next eighteen months than any other single person. He will want to American troops to stay in Iraq until the civil war makes that impossible. He will also seek to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

2. John McCain, because he is the major counterweight in the Republican Party to Dick Cheney and the neo-cons, and is more trusted by the American people than any other person in public life. McCain has the capacity to restrain Cheney's wild ambitions, and quietly bolster the case Robert Gates and Jim Baker will make about changing the direction of foreign policy in the Middle East. It is in McCain's interests to do so. McCain will become steadily more powerful as power ebbs in the White House. McCain's decisions in the next eighteen months about what other issues to take on and how will shape the national debate.

3. Nancy Pelosi, because she is the closest thing the Democrats have to a leader, and the Democrats are the closest thing America has to an opposition party. HRC will not risk getting out in front on any major issue. So Pelosi's decisions about priorities for the Democrats over the next eighteen months - whether getting out of Iraq, setting out an agenda for national health care, or making the tax code more progressive - will do much to determine how the public views what's at stake in 2008.

4. Ben Bernanke, because he will have more influence than anyone over how fast the economy moves. If he is too hawkish on inflation, he could turn the current slowdown into a full-blown recession. That would propel a Democrat into the White House in 2008.

5. Jon Stewart, because he is the closest thing America has to a guide as to what is most laughable in Washington, and effective ridicule is one of the most powerful of all political weapons.

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Read more of his blog HERE.



Comment on this Article


Burn these Republican words into your mind - Ike's Farewell

Posted by Evan Derkacz
December 11, 2006

On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower said goodbye to public office with an address that concluded with the words below [strangely, the Eisenhower Library's version and the audio in the video to the right, differ slightly. Brackets represent the text in the Library version omitted from the audio file...].

You're familiar with the warnings in this speech against the "military-industrial complex," but the subtler parts of the speech are every bit as powerful and refreshing...
As we peer into society's future, we - you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

[Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.]

[Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.] Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war - as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years - I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So - in this my last good night to you as your President - I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith, that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace, with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.



Comment on this Article


International Poker


French and British Ambassadors to honor female WWII spy Who was Rejected for Service by U.S. State Department

By BEN NUCKOLS
Associated Press
10 Dec 06

BALTIMORE - In 1942, the Gestapo circulated posters offering a reward for the capture of "the woman with a limp. She is the most dangerous of all Allied spies and we must find and destroy her."

The dangerous woman was Virginia Hall, a Baltimore native working in France for British intelligence, and the limp was the result of an artificial leg. Her left leg had been amputated below the knee about a decade earlier after she stumbled and blasted her foot with a shotgun while hunting in Turkey.

The injury derailed Hall's dream of becoming a Foreign Service officer because the State Department wouldn't hire amputees, but it didn't prevent her from becoming one of the most celebrated spies of World War II.
On Tuesday, the French and British ambassadors plan to honor Hall, who died in 1982 at age 78, at a ceremony at the home of French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte in Washington.

British Ambassador Sir David Manning plans to present a certificate signed by King George VI to Hall's niece, Lorna Catling. Hall should have received the document in 1943, when she was made a member of the Order of the British Empire.

"I think it was ironic that the State Department turned her down because she was an amputee, and here she went on and did all this other stuff," said Catling, who lives in Baltimore. Catling said she didn't learn many of the details of her aunt's espionage career until after her death.

Hall, who was fluent in French, was living in Paris when the Nazis invaded in 1940, and she decamped for London, where she was recruited by the secret British paramilitary service, the Special Operations Executive, becoming its first female field operative.

Hall was sent to Lyon, becoming "the heartbeat" of the local French Resistance, said Judith L. Pearson, whose biography of Hall, "Wolves at the Door: The True Story of America's First Female Spy," was published last year.

"Any agent from London came through her flat. She coordinated them with Resistance members," Pearson said. "Most agents only stayed about three months in the field. She stayed 15 months."

After the Gestapo wanted posters made her situation untenable, she fled through the Pyrenees mountains into Spain. During the journey, she sent a radio message to London, reporting that "Cuthbert" - her nickname for her prosthetic leg - was giving her trouble.

Her commanders didn't understand the reference, and their reply suggested the gravity of Hall's circumstances and her value to the Allied cause: "If Cuthbert troublesome eliminate him."

Back in London, she joined the American Office of Strategic Services - the precursor to the
CIA - and returned to France in 1944, disguised as an elderly peasant. She located parachute drop zones where money and weapons could be passed to Resistance fighters and later coordinated guerrilla warfare. Her teams destroyed bridges, derailed freight trains and killed scores of German soldiers.

"I would certainly put her name in the pantheon of people who distinguished themselves in intelligence," said Peter Earnest, executive director of the International Spy Museum in Washington, which has an exhibit devoted to Hall.

Hall maintained her cloak of secrecy after the war. The certificate that went with her British OBE medal sat in a vault for more than 50 years because the British government was unable to track her down.

In the meantime, OSS chief William Donovan had presented Hall with a Distinguished Service Medal in September 1945 during a private ceremony in his office that was witnessed only by Hall's mother. She was the only civilian woman to win the medal for service in World War II.

In 1950 she married French-born OSS agent Paul Goillot. She took a job with the CIA in 1951 and retired in 1966, living out her days with her husband on a farm in Barnesville.

"She would talk about books and she was very into animals and things like that. But work, no. There was a big wall about anything like that," Catling said. "She always seemed kind of glamorous and mysterious."

On the rare occasions that Hall told war stories, they weren't particularly harrowing.

"One time she said she and Paul found a deserted chateau, and they discovered a whole wine cellar," Catling said. "They had a wonderful evening enjoying that."



Comment on this Article


Pinochet and Saddam -- the Ironies - The two dictators have one major thing in common -- support from the U.S.

by Barry Lando
December 11, 2006

You have to admit there are certain ironies to the situation: on one side of the globe, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, a ruthless, corrupt dictator, expired from natural causes in a hospital in Santiago, Chile. Though he will not be granted a state funeral, (after all, the current president of Chile was tortured during his reign), Pinochet is to be buried with full military honors. Meanwhile, in Baghdad's Green Zone, another brutal, corrupt tyrant, Saddam Hussein, is on trial for his life, and will probably be twitching at the end of a hangman's noose within the next few months.
Though Pinochet's dictatorship was far less murderous than Saddam's, just the same, at least three thousand people were killed or "disappeared" during the Chilean tyrant's reign. Thousands more were tortured and imprisoned, while others considered enemies of the regime were murdered abroad, including Allende's former Foreign Minister, Orlando Letelier, blown apart by a car bomb in Washington D.C. on Pinochet's orders.

Pinochet and Saddam also had friends in common. During some of their most repressive periods, both tyrants were strongly backed by the U.S. government. Pinochet was seen as a staunch ally by the U.S. in the 1970's ,during what the Nixon White House regarded as a life or death struggle against International Communism.

After first failing to block the election of Marxist Salvador Allende in Chile, under Nixon and Henry Kissinger's direction, the CIA then spent millions to destabilize the new Chilean government. When the Chilean army under Pinochet finally overthrew and murdered Allende, they launched a wave of brutal repression. As thousands of bodies piled up in Santiago's Central Morgue, Secretary of State Kissinger battled all attempts by the U.S. Congress to enact sanctions against Pinochet's regime.

In November 1975, when he met with Pinochet's foreign minister Patricio Carajal, Kissinger mocked his own State Department staff "who have a vocation for the ministry" for focusing on human rights. He reassured Carajal that the condemnation of Pinochet's human rights record is "a total injustice," but that "somewhat visible" efforts by the regime to alleviate the situation would be useful in changing Congressional attitudes. " That said he spent the rest of the meeting emphasizing the U.S. government's efforts to expedite Ex-Im Bank credits and multilateral loans to Chile as well as sales of military equipment..

When Kissinger finally met with Pinochet on June 7, 1976, the Secretary of State had just received a report saying that mass arrests, torture, and disappearances continued in Chile. "Numerous political prisoners have been killed arbitrarily or have died from torture received or from lack of medical treatment," the report said. An OAS report detailed those tortures: women beaten, gang raped, and forced to endure electric current applied to their bodies; men subjected to electric current, especially to their genitals, burned with cigarettes, hanged by the wrists or ankles.

Yet Kissinger assured Pinochet of the strong bond in their overriding anticommunism, and made it clear that, despite the U.S. Congress, the White House was determined to send new jet fighters to Chile. "In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here," Kissinger said. "We wish your government well." He later added, "My evaluation is that you are a victim of all leftwing groups around the world, and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government which was going Communist."

Though Kissinger warned Pinochet he was obliged to make some comments about human rights in his speech to the OAS, he never explicitly condemned the Chilean government. Back in Washington, Kissinger notified his staff that he did not want all he had said publicly applied too literally in practice.

Fifteen years later, in the 1980's, the White House would be backing another tyrant-Saddam Hussein, then seen as the bulwark against America's new archenemy of the day, the Ayatollah Khomeini and radical Islam, thought to be threatening the petroleum states of the Gulf. And, so it was that while Saddam's critics in Congress attempted to enact trade sanctions against the Iraqi tyrant, the Reagan and then the Bush White Houses ignored horrific human rights reports from their own State Department to throttle attempts by the Congress to enact trade sanctions against the Iraqi tyrant, while refusing to meet with his victims.

There are other ironic parallels. In 2002, Colin Powell would condemn America's policy towards Pinochet, saying, 'It is not a part of American history that we are proud of.'" But during the Reagan era, one of the White House officials leading the White House drive to protect Saddam Hussein from Congressional Sanctions was none other than the White House National Security Advisor, Colin Powell.

Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush." He also blogs at Barrylando.com.



Comment on this Article


France still plans to bring Pinochet allies to trial

PARIS, Dec 11, 2006 (AFP)

French judges still intend to bring 17 allies of Augusto Pinochet to trial over the disappearance of four French citizens in the 1970s despite the Chilean dictator's death, a legal official said Monday.

Nineteen people, including Pinochet and senior retired Chilean military officers, were being investigated over the disappearance of four Frenchman in Chile between 1973 and 1975.
French judges issued international warrants for their arrest in 2001 and again in 2005, for illegal "arrests, abduction and detention accompanied by acts of torture" or complicity in those crimes.

Pinochet's death formally closes the chapter of the inquiry against him, while a second figure, former Chilean general Javier Palacios Ruhmann, died in June before he could be brought to trial.

But top figures including Manuel Contreras, founder of the secret police under Pinochet, and Paul Schaefer, who founded Colonia Dignidad, a sect and camp for political prisoners in the Andes mountains, still stand to face trial.


France renews arrest warrant for Pinochet
French judge Sophie Clement, who wrapped up her investigation on December 5, now has until March to refer the accused to be tried in absentia in a French criminal court. If she does so, the trial would start in 2008 at the earliest.

Foreign Minister Philippe-Douste Blazy on Monday voiced hope the accused would be made to stand trial, saying France "regrets" that Pinochet died before he could be brought to justice.

"Other judicial procedures, targeting officials from Chile's military dictatorship, remain ongoing," Douste-Blazy said in a statement. "France hopes that their conclusion will help us to allow us to bring the truth to light."

The four Frenchmen - a political adviser to ousted president Salvador Allende, a former priest and two members of a left-wing movement - are among the more than 3,000 people thought to have been killed under Pinochet's regime.

The victims' families insisted on Sunday that "the Chilean dictatorship will be put on trial in Paris" and that it would be "the only such trial in the world."



Comment on this Article


$20bn gas project seized by Russia

Terry Macalister, Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

Shell is being forced by the Russian government to hand over its controlling stake in the world's biggest liquefied gas project, provoking fresh fears about the Kremlin's willingness to use the country's growing strength in natural resources as a political weapon.

After months of relentless pressure from Moscow, the Anglo-Dutch company has to cut its stake in the $20bn Sakhalin-2 scheme in the far east of Russia in favour of the state-owned energy group Gazprom.
The Russian authorities are also threatening BP over alleged environmental violations on a Siberian field in what is seen as a wider attempt to seize back assets handed over to foreign companies when energy prices were low.
The moves will alarm many investors in the City of London as Shell and other share prices are hit, but the news will also increase ministers' concerns about Britain's energy security.

Russia is becoming a key source of natural gas to the UK and Gazprom has already made clear it would like to buy a company such as Centrica, which owns British Gas. One third of western Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia - a figure expected to rise over the next decade. The security of energy supply is now the main political issue between the EU and the Kremlin. Nervousness about the Russians was heightened last winter when the gas supply to Ukraine was cut off in the middle of a political dispute.

Shell confirmed last night that its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, met Gazprom's chairman, Alexei Miller, in Moscow last Friday but would say only that the talks on Sakhalin-2 were "constructive". The Russian company said that "Shell did indeed make several proposals concerning Sakhalin-2" at the meeting which came after Shell was threatened with having its operating licence withdrawn.

The energy minister, Viktor Khristenko, is expected to give details today of a deal under which Shell and its Japanese partners are likely to get a cash payment in return for giving Gazprom a stake in the project.

Dmitry Peskov, the official spokesman of Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, hit out yesterday at critics in the western media who implicated the Russian government in manipulating oil projects and the poisoning of dissidents. He said there was too much "anti-Russian hysteria".With reference to BP's oil spills in Alaska, he added: "If it's an environmental problem in Alaska it's environmental. If it's in Russia you call it politics."

But other senior politicians in Moscow had no doubt Shell was being harassed into reducing its 55% stake in Sakhalin-2 to something close to 25% through relentless pressure from ministries.

"In the current situation Shell will not be able to defend its economic interests in a civilised process with the Russian authorities, so they will be obliged to give up control if they want to save at least some adequate part of the project," said Vladimir Milov, Russia's former deputy energy minister.

Bob Amsterdam, the lawyer of the jailed oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, said the Kremlin was "once again" using legal pretexts to cover what was essentially an expropriation of private resources in the energy sector. "The Kremlin ought to cease this behaviour," he said.

The Sakhalin-2 project is scheduled to start operations in 2008 and involves finding and producing oil and gas near Sakhalin island, formerly known only as a penal colony during the tsarist and Soviet eras.

The two fields that make up Sakhalin-2 have an estimated 1.2bn barrels of oil and 500bn cubic metres of natural gas. The gas is to be brought ashore, liquefied and frozen before being shipped to customers in Japan and elsewhere.

The scheme created almost immediate controversy with western conservation groups because it involves putting equipment close to breeding grounds of endangered western grey whales. There has also been criticism that sensitive salmon fishing areas are being hit by dumping of dredging spoil waste amid worries about oil spills from platforms in the Okhotsk and Japanese seas.

But even non-governmental organisations have expressed surprise at the way the Russian authorities have taken up environmental issues since the summer after taking little interest before.

Mr Peskov said it was a coincidence of timing and that it was "a process that is natural for every country" to come to eventually. Mr Putin's spokesman said Russia wanted to encourage western investment and wanted closer links with west European countries to foster mutual "interdependence".



Comment on this Article


2 Days of Torture Force Couple to Take Own Lives

By ABNER BOLOS
Gitnang Luzon News Service
Posted by Bulatlat

For couple Librado and Martina Gallardo of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, the torture and the threats inflicted on them by soldiers of the 48th Infantry Battalion were so brutal they chose to commit suicide. Even the dead couple's son, Jason, was beaten so bad for failing to produce the money and gun the soldiers insist that the his late parents were hiding that he vomited blood.
For couple Librado and Martina Gallardo of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, the torture and the threats were so brutal they chose to commit suicide. They left nine children.

At about 9 a.m. October 11, they were found sprawled in the porch of their home in Barangay Conversion barely alive after ingesting Malathion, a powerful pesticide used to kill farm and house pests. The couple died while they were being brought to the hospital.

"Sinabi nila sa amin na hindi na nila kaya ang pagpapahirap sa kanila," (They told us they could no longer endure the torture), Jason Gallardo, a son of the couple told THE Gitnang Luzon News Service (GLNS).

Jason said two hours before the suicide, his parents gathered the family in the kitchen and amid tears, told them of their decision, bade them farewell and asked them to leave the house.

Fact-finding mission

Jason, 18, his two brothers Rolando and Rico, and other relatives recounted the tragic event to a fact-finding mission to Barangay (village) Conversion organized by the United Methodist Church (UMC) last November 8-10.

The mission was led by the United Methodist Church (UMC) Manila Episcopal Area Bishop Solito Tuquero and district superintendents from the south, central and north Nueva Ecija UMC districts. The 61-page mission report was released to media last December 5.

News of the suicide has trickled from various sources in the past months but could not be confirmed until the mission was conducted. The 50-member contingent arrived at the remote village after more than eight hours of travel from Metro Manila mostly over rough mountain roads.

The report said around midnight of October 8, some 50 soldiers of the 48th Infantry Battalion led by Lt. Noel Ruezal arrived in Conversion and occupied the village hall. The following morning, Librado and his sister Macera Villajuan, 50, were taken from their homes by soldiers and brought to the village hall.

Interrogation

Villajuan said they were taken to separate rooms in the second floor of the building where they were blindfolded while being interrogated.

Villajuan said the soldiers accused her of supporting the New People's Army (NPA) but she denied the accusation and defied the soldiers by removing her blindfold. She said she heard her brother crying in pain as he was being forced to admit that he was a member of the NPA.

The interrogation went on until 2 p.m. It was interrupted when the soldiers ordered Librado to attend a meeting with residents at the village plaza in front of the hall.

In the meeting the soldiers asked the residents to stop supporting the NPA and to surrender their firearms. The soldiers read a list of some 40 Bayan Muna (People First) members who they accused of being supporters or members of the NPA.

The Gallardo couple was in the list, as well as Eduardo Navalta Jr, the local UMC pastor. Librado is a lay leader of the congregation in the village. After the meeting, Librado was not allowed to go home and was interrogated until 8 p.m.

Rolando, 28, the oldest of the nine Gallardo siblings, said he was able to talk to his father on the night of October 9. He said his father looked weak and forlorn and complained that he was severely beaten in the chest, head and neck.

The elder Gallardo was also strangled and a plastic bag was put over his head to suffocate him. "Napatae siya sa salawal dahil sa sakit" (He defecated in his pants because of the pain), Rolando said.

'They will kill us all'

Early in the next day, October 10, Librado and his wife were again taken by the soldiers, along with Villajuan and at least 10 other residents who were in the military's list.

Librado was blindfolded inside his home before he was brought to an abandoned house in the village that the soldiers occupied and used as a detachment. His wife was with him but she was not allowed to go inside the house. Librado was tortured while blindfolded the whole day and was allowed to go home at around 9 p.m.

Rolando stayed in his father's house that night. He said his father could hardly eat because his throat ached from blows on his neck and severe beatings on his chest and head. He said his father was repeatedly strangled and a plastic bag was put over his head.

The soldiers told Librado that he will be killed the next day if he did not surrender an M-16 rifle, P40, 000 ($805.31 at an exchange rate of $1=49.67) in cash and documents -matters that his father knew nothing about, Rolando said.

"Pag wala daw siyang inilabas at hindi umamin, pati kaming pamilya niya ay idadamay ng mga sundalo. Papatayin daw kami lahat," (If he would not produce (the items) and confess, the soldiers would also go after his family. They will kill us all.) Rolando said quoting his father.

Maricel, 18, wife of Rico, one of the Gallardo siblings said the couple talked the whole night of October 10. Her home is just behind the elder Gallardo's residence at the back of the UMC chapel in the village.

October 11

At around 7 a.m. October 11, Martina, the wife of Librado went to the house of one of their relatives and asked that she be given pesticide. Maricel said the couple then gathered the family in the kitchen.

"Pakiwari ko sila ay naghahabilin at nagpapaalam. Sinabi nila sa mga nakakatandang magkakapatid na alagaang mabuti ang mga maliliit na kapatid," (I felt they were saying goodbye. They asked the older brothers to take care of the little ones), Maricel said.

She said the couple was in tears as they talked to the family and later asked them to leave the house. She said the five youngest Gallardo siblings, aged five to eleven years old, were in the house at that time.

Rico, 26, husband of Maricel said he passed by his parents' house at about 9 am on October 11 on his way to the forest to haul charcoal. He saw four soldiers talking to his parents in the porch.

"Pinipilit nila at tinaningan ng 20 minutos na pumunta na dun," (The soldiers were forcing my parents to go to the detachment and were given 20 minutes to do so) Rico said. He said he left the house at the same time as the soldiers did.

He said he had not gone far and was about to cross the river on his way to the forest when he was called by relatives and told that his parents have committed suicide by drinking poison.

He said it took them two hours to look for motorized tricycles to bring their parents to the nearest hospital in Carranglan town which was more than one hour ride away. He said his parents were still alive but barely conscious when they left the village but they died on the way.

Rico said his younger siblings told him soldiers came to their house after they left and took the suicide note of their parents from a table in the porch.

More victims

Aside from Villajuan and the Gallardo couple, other residents who were in the list were also summoned by the soldiers- Eduardo Navalta Jr, the local UMC pastor, Dante Castro, Bayan Muna party chairperson in the village, Arthuro Tarlino, Victor Castaneda, Delfin Castaneda, Rey Doria, Emmie Manahan, Boy Pascua and Boy Ramos, among others.

Tarlino, 47, was made to hold a hand grenade and a plastic bag was put over his head as he was beaten and interrogated. Victor Castaneda was subjected to electrocution and his brother, Delfin, was also beaten and a plastic bag placed over his head. All of the victims suffered injuries.

On November 3, Jason Gallardo was accosted by soldiers on his way to the village hall and punched in the stomach several times. He vomited blood because of the blows. He was being forced to produce the M-16 rifle and money that the soldiers tried to extract from his father.

On November 4, a group of young male teen-agers were forced by the soldiers to beat each other using a paddle. Some had their hair cut as punishment by the soldiers. Many of those who were in the military list have left the village because of fear.

Barangay Conversion

Barangay Conversion (pop. about 700 families) is a poor village nestled in the western slope of the Sierra Madre mountains at the edge of the Pantabangan dam, one of the country's major dam projects. It is a remote village reachable from Cabanatuan City by a five-hour drive through winding, rough mountain passes.

Residents make a living out of subsistence farming and fishing, making charcoal and gathering forest products. The Gallardo family, like the other victims and rest of the residents live on a hand-to-mouth existence. The village is considered by the military as a stronghold of the NPA.

On November 9, 2001, five young fishermen were killed allegedly by soldiers who were looking for NPA guerillas in Conversion. The victims' bodies were recovered only after two days on the shore of the dam used as a makeshift docking area for fishing boats. One of the five young men, Leo, is a son of the Gallardo couple.

Mission findings

Among the conclusions of the fact-finding mission are:

the 48th IB is 'hamletting' the village in 'total disregard of the supremacy of civilian authority and the civil rights' of residents
residents are arrested and detained without warrant and subjected to torture, intimidation, harassment and grave threats as part of the government's counter-insurgency campaign
torture and threats against the Gallardo couple and their family led them to commit suicide
the village hall is under control of the 48th IB and barangay officials are required to report to the army commanding officer
even children were interrogated by the military and teen-agers were subjected to cruel punishment in violation of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of a Child


The mission team is demanding for the immediate pull-out of the 48th Infantry Battalion from Barangay Conversion. It is also asking for an impartial investigation to be conducted by the Commission on Human Rights to look into the accountability of the commanding officers of the 48th IB and their superiors, and to determine the accountability and civil liability of the State.



Comment on this Article


France sends back 24,000 immigrants in 2006

PARIS, Dec 11, 2006 (AFP)

France will have repatriated some 24,000 illegal immigrants by the end of 2006 - a 20 percent increase on 2005, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday.

The figure falls slightly short of the government objective for 2006, which was 25,000 expulsions.
The centre-right government has progressively stepped up repatriations since coming to office in 2002, when there were 10,000 expulsions. In 2005 there were 20,000.

The numbers refer only to immigrants sent home from mainland France, and not from overseas territories - from where a further 22,000 will have been expelled in 2006, Sarkozy said.

Mainland France is believed to have between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants.

Under a government decree published over the weekend, businesses that employ illegal immigrants will be obliged to contribute to the costs of their expulsion.

The amount businesses will be charged is just over EUR 2,500 euros for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, 2,300 for immigrants from southeast Asia and the Middle East, and 2,125 euros for north Africans.

Figures released last week showed that the number of legal immigrants entering France in 2006 fell slightly to 190,000.



Comment on this Article


Do We Have a Future?


Global Dimming

Video
BBC Runtime
49 Minutes


TRANSCRIPT:

NARRATOR (JACK FORTUNE): This is a film that demands action. It reveals that we may have grossly underestimated the speed at which our climate is changing. At its heart is a deadly new phenomenon. One that until very recently scientists refused to believe even existed. But it may already have led to the starvation of millions. Tonight Horizon examines for the first time the power of what scientists are calling Global Dimming.
NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic..

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming. Two years ago most of them had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong. The trail that would lead to the discovery of Global Dimming began 40 years ago, in Israel with the work of a young English immigrant called Gerry Stanhill. A trained biologist, Gerry got a job helping to design irrigation schemes. His task was to measure how strongly the sun shone over Israel.

DR GERALD STANHILL (Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel): It was important for this work to measure solar radiation, because that is the factor that basically determines how much water crops require.

NARRATOR: For a year Gerry collected data from a network of light meters; the results were much as expected, and were used to help design the national irrigation system. But twenty years later, in the 1980s, Gerry decided to repeat his measurements to check that they were still valid. What he found, stunned him.

DR GERALD STANHILL: Well I was amazed to find that there was a very serious reduction in sunlight, the amount of sunlight in Israel. In fact, if we compare those very early measurements in the 1950s with the current measurements, there was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me.

NARRATOR: A 22% drop in solar energy was simply massive. If it was true surely Israelis should be freezing. There had to be something wrong. So when Gerry published his results they were ignored. DR GERALD STANHILL: I must say the publications had almost no effect whatsoever on the scientific community.

NARRATOR: But in fact Gerry was not the only scientist who had noticed a fall in sunlight. In Germany a young graduate climatologist called Beate Liepert found that the same thing seemed to be happening over the Bavarian Alps too. DR BEATE LIEPERT (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory): I was the same, I was as sceptical as any other climatologist. But then, um, I, I saw the same results er in Germany, so um I believed him.

NARRATOR: Germany, Israel, what about the rest of the world? Working independently of each other, Liepert and Stanhill began searching through publications, journals and meteorological records from around the world. And they both found the same extraordinary story. Between the 1950s and the early 1990s the level of solar energy reaching the earth's surface had dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, by almost 30% in Russia. And by 16% in parts of the British Isles. This was a truly global phenomenon, and Gerry gave it a suitable name - Global Dimming. But again, the response from other scientists was one of sheer disbelief.

DR GERALD STANHILL: The scientific community was obviously not ready to deal with the fact that there was a Global Dimming phenomena.

NARRATOR: Of course, there was a good reason for the scepticism. Less energy from the Sun should be making the world cooler. Yet scientists knew the Earth was getting hotter. As the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we emit trap ever more heat in the Earth's atmosphere and cause Global Warming.

DR BEATE LIEPERT: My friends' reaction actually to Gerry's and to my work at the same time too was, oh my God this is really extreme, you are um contradicting global warming. Er do you know how many billions of dollars was spent on global warming research and you and this old guy er are contradicting er us.

NARRATOR: So Liepert and Stanhill's work was widely dismissed. But Global Dimming was not the only phenomenon that didn't seem to fit with Global Warming. In Australia two more biologists, Michael Roderick and Graham Farquhar were intrigued by another paradoxical result - the world-wide decline in something called the pan evaporation rate.

PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR (Australian National University): It's called pan evaporation rate because it's evaporation rate from a pan. Every day all over the world people come out in the morning and see how much water they've got to add to a pan to bring it back to the level it was the same time the morning before. It's that simple.

NARRATOR: In some places agricultural scientists have been performing this rather dull daily task for more than a hundred years.

PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR: The long-term measurements of pan evaporation are what gives it its real value.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK (Australian National University): And the fact that they're doing the same thing day in day out with the same instrument.

PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR: Yeah, they deserve a medal. Each of them.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK: Yeah.

NARRATOR: For decades, nobody took much notice of the pan evaporation measurements. But in the 1990s scientists spotted something very strange, the rate of evaporation was falling.

PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR: There is a paradox here about the fact that the pan evaporation rate's going down, an apparent paradox, but the global temperature's going up.

NARRATOR: This was a puzzle. Most scientists reasoned that like a pan on the stove, turning up the global temperature should increase the rate at which water evaporated. But Roderick and Farquhar did some calculations and worked out that temperature was not the most important factor in pan evaporation.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK: Well it turns out in fact that the key things for pan evaporation are the sunlight, the humidity and the wind. But really the sunlight is a really dominant term there.

NARRATOR: They found that it was the energy of the photons hitting the surface, the actual sunlight, that kicks the water molecules out of the pan and into the atmosphere. And so they too reached an extraordinary conclusion.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK: You know, if the pan is going down then maybe that's the sunlight going down. NARRATOR: Was the fall in pan evaporation in fact evidence of Global Dimming? Somewhere in the journals, they felt, must be the hard numbers that could tie the two things together.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK: And then one day, just by accident, I had to go to the library to get an article out Nature. As you do, I couldn't find it. And I just glanced at a, through the thing, and there was an article called Evaporation Losing Its Strength. Which reported a decline in pan evaporation over Russia, United States and Eastern Europe. And there in the, in the measurements, they said that the, the pans had on average, evaporated about a hundred millimetres less of water in the last thirty years.

NARRATOR: Mike knew how much sunlight was needed to evaporate a millimetre of water. So he put the two sets of figures together - the drop in evaporation with the drop in sunlight.

DR MICHAEL RODERICK: And so you just do the sum in your head. A hundred millimetres of water, less a pan evaporation, two and a half mega joules, so two and a half times a hundred is two hundred and fifty mega joules. And that is in fact what the Russians have measured with the decline in sunlight in the last thirty years. It was quite amazing.

NARRATOR: It was the same with Europe and the USA. The drop in evaporation rate matched exactly the drop in sunlight reported by Beate Liepert and Gerry Stanhill. Two completely independent sets of observations had come to the same conclusion. Though it seemed incredible, there was no doubting Global Dimming now.

DR BEATE LIEPERT: All of a sudden you see, oh my God the world is dimming, and then you, all of a sudden you see oh my God this really has a tremendous impact.

PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR: There had to be dimming in Europe in America and in Russia, this is on a global scale. And we thought, this is really important because the amount of dimming was enormous. So this is BIG on a global scale.

NARRATOR: But what was causing it? Scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with the sun itself. The culprit had to be here on Earth. And as they searched for clues, they would make another startling discovery. Global dimming is a killer. It may have been behind the worst climatic disaster of recent times, responsible for famine and death on a biblical scale. And Global Dimming is poised to strike again.

NARRATOR: The Maldives: a nation of a thousand tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean, so recently battered by the Asian tsunami. It was here that Veerabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists first began to unravel the mystery of what's causing Global Dimming. He had first noticed declining sunlight over large areas of the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1990s.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN (University of California): But we didn't know at that time it was part of a much larger global picture, but I knew we had to find out what was causing that.

NARRATOR: Ramanathan was certain of one thing, the big drop in sunlight reaching the ground had to be something to do with changes in the Earth's atmosphere. There was one obvious suspect.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: Almost everything we do to create energy causes pollution.

NARRATOR: Burning fuel doesn't just produce the invisible greenhouse gases which cause global warming. It also produces visible pollution, tiny airborne particles of soot and other pollutants. These produce the haze which shrouds our cities. So Ramanathan wondered: Could this pollution be causing Global Dimming? The Maldives were the perfect place to find out. The Maldives seem unpolluted, but in fact the northern islands sit in a stream of dirty air descending from India. Only the southern tip of the long island chain enjoys clean air coming all the way from Antarctica. So by comparing the northern islands with the southern ones, Ramanathan and his colleagues would be able to see exactly what difference the pollution made to the atmosphere and the sunlight. Project INDOEX, as it was called, was a huge multinational effort. For four years every possible technique was used to sample and monitor the atmosphere over the Maldives. INDOEX cost twenty-five million dollars, but it produced results - and they surprised everyone.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The stunning part of the experiment was this pollutant layer which was three kilometre thick, cut down the sunlight reaching the ocean by more than 10%.

NARRATOR: A 10% fall in sunlight meant that particle pollution was having a far bigger effect than anyone had thought possible.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: Our models led us to believe the human impact on the dimming was close to half to one per cent. So what we discovered was tenfold.

NARRATOR: INDOEX showed that the pollution particles were blocking some sunlight themselves; but far more significant was what they were doing to the clouds. They were turning them into giant mirrors. Clouds are made of droplets of water. These only form when water vapour in the atmosphere starts to condense on the surface of naturally occurring airborne particles, typically pollen or sea salt. As they grow, the water droplets eventually become so heavy they fall as rain. But Ramanathan found that polluted air contained far more particles than the unpolluted air, particles of ash, soot and sulphur dioxide.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: We saw ten times more particles in the polluted air mass north of the Maldives compared with what we saw south of the Maldives which was a pristine air mass.

NARRATOR: In the polluted air billions of man-made particles provided ten times as many sites around which water droplets could form. So polluted clouds contained many more water droplets, each one far smaller than it would be naturally. Many small droplets reflect more light than fewer big ones. So the polluted clouds were reflecting more light back into space, preventing the heat of the sun getting through. This was the cause of Global Dimming.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: Basically the Global Dimming we saw in the North Indian Ocean, it was contributed on the one hand by the particles themselves shielding the ocean from the sunlight, on the other hand making the clouds brighter. So this insidious soup, consisting of soot, sulphates, nitrates, ash and what have you, was having a double whammy on the Global Dimming.

NARRATOR: And when he looked at satellite images, Ramanathan found the same thing was happening all over the world. Over India. Over China, and extending into the Pacific. Over Western Europe... extending into Africa. Over the British Isles. But it was when scientists started to investigate the effects of Global Dimming that they made the most disturbing discovery of all. Those more reflective clouds could alter the pattern of the world's rainfall. With tragic consequences.

NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER: Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers here is the closest thing to hell on earth.

NARRATOR: The 1984 Ethiopian famine shocked the world. It was partly caused by a decade's long drought right across sub-Saharan Africa - a region known as the Sahel. For year after year the summer rains failed. At the time some scientists blamed overgrazing and poor land management. But now there's evidence that the real culprit was Global Dimming. The Sahel's lifeblood has always been a seasonal monsoon. For most of the year it is completely dry.. But every summer, the heat of the sun warms the oceans north of the equator. This draws the rain belt that forms over the equator northwards, bringing rain to the Sahel. But for twenty years in the 1970s and 80s the tropical rain belt consistently failed to shift northwards - and the African monsoon failed. For climate scientists like Leon Rotstayn the disappearance of the rains had long been a puzzle. He could see that pollution from Europe and North America blew right across the Atlantic, but all the climate models suggested it should have little effect on the monsoon. But then Rotstayn decided to find out what would happen if he took the Maldive findings into account.

DR LEON ROTSTAYN (CSIRO Atmospheric Research): What we found in our model was that when we allowed the pollution from Europe and North America to affect the properties of the clouds in the northern hemisphere the clouds reflected more sunlight back to space and this cooled the oceans of the northern hemisphere. And to our surprise the result of this was that the tropical rain bands moved southwards tracking away from the more polluted northern hemisphere towards the southern hemisphere.

NARRATOR: Polluted clouds stopped the heat of the sun getting through. That heat was needed to draw the tropical rains northwards. So the life giving rain belt never made it to the Sahel.

DR LEON ROTSTAYN: So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the 1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting the properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere.

NARRATOR: Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system. Let me take you to anther part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point six billion people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the Global Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people.

NARRATOR: For Ramanathan the implications are clear.

PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: There is no choice here we have to cut down air pollution, if not eliminate it altogether.

NARRATOR: Fortunately, tackling air pollution needn't be too difficult. It wouldn't mean giving up on oil and coal altogether. We'd just have to burn them more cleanly. And in Europe we've already made a start: scrubbers in power stations, catalytic converters in cars and low sulphur fuels, though they do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, have already begun to cut down visible air pollution. This should be good news for the Sahel, and in recent years the droughts have been nothing like as bad. But there's a terrible catch. Because while Global Dimming is itself a major threat to humanity, it now appears it has been protecting us from an even greater threat. Which means that as we reduce the dimming, we may find ourselves faced by something even worse.

NARRATOR: It was David Travis who first caught a glimpse of what the world could be like without Global Dimming. It happened in those chaotic days following the tragedy of 9/11. For fifteen years, Travis had been studying the vapour trails, or contrails, left behind by high-flying aircraft. Though each individual contrail seems small, when they all spread out, they can blanket the sky.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: Here are some examples of what we call outbreaks of contrails. These are large clusters of contrails. And here's a particularly er good one from Southern California. Here's the west coast of the United States.. And you can see here this lacing network of contrails er covering at least fifty per cent, if not seventy five per cent or more of the sky in that area. It doesn't take an expert to er realise that if, if you look at the satellite picture and see this kind of contrail coverage that they've got to be having an effect on temperature at the surface.

NARRATOR: But the problem Travis faced was to establish exactly how big an effect the contrails were actually having. The only way to do that was to find a period of time when, although conditions were right for contrails to form, there were no flights. And, of course, that never happened. Until September 2001. Then, for three days after the 11th virtually all commercial aircraft in the US were grounded. It was an opportunity Travis could not afford to miss. He set about gathering temperature records from all over the USA.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: Initially data from over 5,000 weather stations across the 48 united states, the areas that was most dominantly affected by the grounding.

NARRATOR: Travis was not looking just at temperature - that varies a lot from day to day anyway. Instead he focused on something that normally only changes quite slowly: the temperature range. The difference between the highest temperature during the day and the lowest at night. Had this changed at all during the three days of the grounding?

DR DAVID TRAVIS: As we began to look at the climate data and the evidence began to grow I got more and more excited. The actual results were much larger than I expected. So here we see for the 3 days preceding September 11th a slightly negative value of temperature range with lots of contrails as normal. Then we have this sudden spike right here of the 3 day period. This reflects lack of clouds, lack of contrails, warmer days cooler nights, exactly what we expected but even larger than what we expected. So what this indicates is that during this 3 day period we had a sudden drop in Global Dimming contributed from airplanes.

NARRATOR: During the grounding the temperature range jumped by over a degree Celsius. Travis had never seen anything like it before.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: This was the largest temperature swing of this magnitude in the last thirty years.

NARRATOR: If so much could happen in such a short time, removing just one form of pollution, then it suggests that the overall effect of Global Dimming on world temperatures could be huge.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: The nine eleven study showed that if you remove a contributor to Global Dimming, jet contrails, just for a three day period, we see an immediate response of the surface of temperature. Do the same thing globally we might see a large scale increase in global warming.

NARRATOR: This is the real sting in the tail. Solve the problem of Global Dimming and the world could get considerably hotter. And this is not just theory, it may already be happening. In Western Europe the steps we have taken to cut air pollution have started to bear fruit in a noticeable improvement in air quality and even a slight reduction in Global Dimming over the last few years. Yet at the same time, after decades in which they held steady, European temperatures have started rapidly to rise culminating in the savage summer of 2003.

Forest fires devastated Portugal. Glaciers melted in the Alps. And in France people died by the thousand. Could this be the penalty of reducing Global Dimming without tackling the root cause of global warming?

DR BEATE LIEPERT: We thought we live in a global warming world, um but this is actually er not right. We lived in a global warming plus a Global Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global Dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter.

NARRATOR: This is the crux of the problem. While the greenhouse effect has been warming the planet, it now seems Global Dimming has been cooling it down. So the warming caused by carbon dioxide has been hidden from us by the cooling from air pollution. But that situation is now starting to change.

DR PETER COX (Hadley Centre, Met Office): We're gonna be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up, CO2 will be going up and particles will be dropping off and that means we'll get an accelerated warming. We'll get a double whammy, we'll get, we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's, that's a problem for us.

NARRATOR: And that's not all. Climatologists like Peter Cox have begun to worry that Global Dimming has led them to underestimate the true power of global warming. They fear that the Earth could be far more vulnerable to greenhouse gases than they had previously thought.

DR PETER COX: We've got two competing effects really, that we've got the greenhouse effect, which has tended to warm up the climate. But then we've got this other effect that's much stronger than we thought, which is a cooling effect that comes from particles in the atmosphere. And they're competing with one another. And we know the climate's moved to a warmer state by about point six of a degree over the last hundred years. So the whole thing's moved this way. If it turns out that the cooling is stronger than we thought then the warming also is a lot stronger than we thought, and that means the climate's more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we originally thought, and it means our models may be under sensitive to carbon dioxide.

NARRATOR: The models that everyone has been using to forecast climate change predict a maximum warming of 5 degrees by the end of the century. But Cox and his colleagues now fear those models may be wrong. Temperatures could rise twice as fast as they previously thought with irreversible damage just twenty-five years away.

DR PETER COX: If we don't do anything by about twenty thirty we could have a global warming of exceeding two degrees, and at that point it's believed the Greenland ice sheet would start to melt in a way that you wouldn't be able to stop it once it started it, it would melt. Take a long time to melt but ultimately it would lead to a sea level rise of seven or eight metres.

NARRATOR: Once the Greenland ice cap begins to melt, nothing will stop it. Many of the world's major cities will be living on borrowed time. Decade by decade, the risk of catastrophic flooding would increase inexorably. But unless action is taken it won't stop there. Because after Greenland, the world's tropical rainforests will start to wither in the heat.

DR PETER COX: 2040 it could be four degrees warmer, the climate change could have led to big drying particularly in the Amazon Basin, that would make the forest unsustainable, we'd expect the forest to catch fire probably, turn into savannah and maybe ultimately even desert if it gets really really dry as our model suggests.

NARRATOR: And as the rainforest burnt away, it would release vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, driving global warming still further. Cox calculates that in just a century, the world could be 10 degrees hotter, a warming more rapid than any in Earth history. If this were to happen, the landscape of England would be utterly transformed.

DR PETER COX: We're talking about a change from er a lush, moist climate, environment like this, to a North African climate in just a few decades or a hundred years.

NARRATOR: Most British plant species could not survive a North African climate. With vegetation dying everywhere, soil erosion would become a severe problem. From a green and pleasant land, England would become a country of extremes, with winter flooding giving way to summer dust storms. And it will be far worse elsewhere.

DR PETER COX: You can imagine ten degree warming in the UK in a hundred years is catastrophic. Ten degree warming in a hot country already makes it essentially uninhabitable.

NARRATOR: And just when one might think things could get no worse in the far North a ten degree warming might be enough to release a vast natural store of greenhouse gas bigger than all the oil and coal reserves of the planet..

DR PETER COX: We will be in danger of destabilising these things called methane hydrates which store a lot of methane at the bottom of the ocean in a kind of frozen form, ten thousand billions tons of this stuff, and they're known to be destabilised by warming.

NARRATOR: At this point, whatever we did to curb our emissions, it would be too late. Ten thousand billion tons of methane, a greenhouse gas eight times stronger than carbon dioxide, would be released into the atmosphere. The Earth's climate would be spinning out of control, heading towards temperatures unseen in four billion years. But this is not a prediction - it is a warning. It is what will happen if we clean up pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases. However, the easy solution - just keep on polluting and hope that Global Dimming will protect us - would be suicidal.

DR PETER COX: If we carried on pumping out the particles it would have terrible impact on human health, I mean particles are involved in all sorts of respiratory diseases, that's why they're being brought under control, and of course they effect climate anyway. If you, if you fiddle with the, the balance of the planet, the radiative balance of the planet, you affect all sorts of circulation patterns like monsoons, which would have horrible effects on people. So it would be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to cancel out the greenhouse effect just by carrying on pumping out particles, even if it wasn't for the fact that particles are damaging for human health.

NARRATOR: Instead we have to take urgent action to tackle the root cause of both global warming and Global Dimming - the burning of coal, oil and gas. We may have to make very difficult choices, about how we live and how we generate our electricity. We have been talking about such things for 20 years. But so far very little has been done in practical terms. The discovery of Global Dimming makes it clear that we are rapidly running out of time.

DR PETER COX: One of the real driving forces is that you leave an environment that is comfortable for your children. And we carry on going the way we're going, we're not going to do that, we're going to leave an environment that's much worse than the environment we lived in; and it will be down to what we did when we were using that environment, and that would be, um, tragic really, if that happened.



Comment on this Article


Small nuclear war could disrupt global climate for decades

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 10:03:37

BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on the Earth, U.S. scientists said on Monday.

The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge temperatures across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest climate change in recorded human history," said Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College.
Robock and colleagues generated a series of computer simulations of potential climate anomalies caused by a small-scale nuclear war.

"We looked at a scenario of a regional nuclear conflict say between India and Pakistan where each of them used 50 weapons on cities in the other country that would generate a lot of smoke," Robock said.

They discovered the smoke emissions would plunge temperatures by about 1.25 degrees Celsius over large areas of North America and Eurasia - areas far removed from the countries involved in the conflict.

Typically when sunlight travels through the atmosphere, they explained, some rays get absorbed by particles in the air, before reaching Earth's surface.

After a nuclear blast, however, loads of black smoke would settle into the upper atmosphere and absorb sunlight before it reaches our planet's surface, they added. Like a dark curtain pulled over large parts of the globe, the smoke would cause cool temperatures, darkness, less precipitation and even ozone depletion.

At the end of the 10th year, the simulated climate still hadn't recovered, they warned.

The study showed it doesn't take much nuclear power to drive the meteoric results. Whereas the scenarios presumed the countries involved would launch their entire nuclear arsenals -- just three-hundredths of a percent of the global arsenal, they said.?

"Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large," said Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term." ?

Comment: The same effects could be caused by meteorites falling and smashing the earth. Mike Baillie, in his book Exodus to Arthur, argues that the Dark Ages in Europe were triggered by just such an event. His case is based upon an analysis of tree rings that show a period of an extended winter that lasted year-round for several years in the mid sixth century.

Comment on this Article


Climate threat from nuclear bombs

Alok Jha in San Francisco
Tuesday December 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned.

In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday, Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history.
He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions".

According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict.

In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles.

Alan Robock, the co-author of the study, told Guardian Unlimited: "Nuclear weapons are the greatest environmental danger to the planet from humans, not global warming or ozone depletion."

There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, 95% of which are held by the US and Russia.

In addition, there is enough unrefined nuclear material to make a further 100,000 weapons.

Human costs
It was Prof Turco who coined the phrase "nuclear winter" in the 1980s to describe the potential apocalyptic global consequence of all-out nuclear war.

In this study he and Prof Robock led research teams to create models of the impacts from nuclear blasts.

They examined an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs (15 kilotons each) between two countries, a conflict they argued was well within the ability of many emerging nuclear states.

The results showed that the most densely packed countries would fare worst in the aftermath of a nuclear war. India and Pakistan could face 12m and 9m immediate deaths respectively, while an attack on the UK would cause almost 3m immediate deaths.

A single nuclear blast in a major urban area would kill more than 125,000 people in the UK, injuring a further 100,000.

"Most of the human population is moving into very concentrated cities. At the same time, nuclear proliferation is accelerating again: we have Pakistan and India, Iran and North Korea," said Profe Turco.

While human losses would be constrained by geography, the environmental impacts of the bombs would spread worldwide.

Black smoke
In the 100 warhead scenario, more than 5m tonnes of sooty black smoke would spew from the resulting firestorms. This smoke would float to the upper atmosphere, get heated by the sun and end up being carried around the world.

The particles would absorb sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface, which would result in a rapid cooling of the Earth by an average of 1.25C.

"This would be colder than the little ice age, the largest climate change in human history," said Prof Robock.

The model also showed that the smoke would stay in the upper atmosphere far longer than anyone had previously thought.

Older models had assumed that the smoke would linger for around a year, as has been observed with the dust from volcanic eruptions. However, using improved atmospheric data the new study showed that the climate would still be suffering a decade on from the initial conflict.

"Far removed from the conflict, there would be large impacts on agriculture - there would be less precipitation and less sunlight; it would be a huge shock to agriculture everywhere," said Prof Robock.

There is a precedent for this sort of climactic change: major volcanic eruptions in the past have thrown global ecosystems into temporary turmoil.

The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was the biggest such event on record. The resulting cloud of ash spread around the world and caused crops to fail the following year in North America and Europe, resulting in the worst famine of the century.

Shock to the system
The scientists said a sudden change to the Earth's ecosystem because of nuclear blasts would be worse than any of the effects predicted by global warming due to greenhouse gases.

"Global warming is a problem and we certainly should address it but in 20 years, the temperature might go up by a few tenths of a degree and it will be gradual," said Prof Robock.

"We'll be able to adapt from some of it. But the climate change from even the small nuclear war we postulated would be instantaneous and such a shock to the system"

He said that the results should act as a warning to the international community.

"Proliferation is very dangerous - even using a couple of weapons is so much worse than anyone can imagine. I think the world should be much more concerned about proliferation than we are."

Prof Turco said that the end of the cold war had taken people's minds focus off the potential dangers of nuclear war.

"Look at 9/11 - there were 3,000 fatalities in that attack and that's considered a watershed in terms of terror that can be inflicted on a country. But in fact that's really a minor event to what's possible," he said.

"I can't imagine what would happen if there was a detonation in London: people would head to the countryside, there would be fallout everywhere, the country would shut down."



Comment on this Article


Another Active Volcano Discovered At The Kamchatka Peninsula

Kizilova Anna
December 12, 2006

Recent studies of scientists from the Institute of Volcanic Geology and Geochemistry (Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) have resulted in another potentially active volcano appearing on the map of the peninsula. Scientists have previously considered the last eruption of the Khangar volcano, which was also thought to be the only one eruption of said volcano, had happened in Holocene about 7 thousand years ago, and its consequences were catastrophic. However, thorough geological and chronological analysis of rocks surrounding the volcano, which was considered to be extinguished, showed not less than 10 layers of ash and other erupted materials, the most recent of which is aged 400 years..
According to existing scientific classification potentially active volcanoes of the Kamchatka peninsula must have at least one eruption over the last 3 or 4 thousand years. The peninsula boasted 28 active volcanoes and 160 dormant volcanoes, until scientists made the discovery described above. From this moment the Ichinskaya Sopka volcano, which was thought to be the only active volcano of the Sredinny (Middle) Range of Kamchatka, has a companion - the Khangar volcano. To find out the truth scientists have performed a huge set of complex experiments - they needed to make sure that previously erupted rocks and ashes belonged to the Khangar volcano. They have finally succeeded in proving that the Khangar volcano was an active one by defining the composition of volcanic material and thickening of its bands while getting closer to the dormant volcano. Ashes of the Khangar volcano were identified by biotite mineral, which is a characteristic feature of this very volcano - biotite is never found in ashes of neighbouring volcanoes.

After that researchers have performed radiocarbon analysis of over fifty samples of volcanic material, which allowed defining the age of previously unknown Holocene eruptions of the volcano. The Khangar volcano appeared to have two active periods in the recent geologic period. Besides the eruption, which happened 7 thousand years ago, there also were powerful explosions, forming a giant 6 square km crater, dated 10 and 6.5 thousand years ago. The last of said eruptions has marked the end of early active period of the Khangar volcano.


After a long period of dormancy the volcano has woke up 4.5 thousand years ago. Since that eruption scientists have detected several weaker eruptions, which happened 4 thousand, 2.5 thousand, 1 thousand and 400 years ago. Scientists admit the possibility of even weaker explosions, which could have happened during relatively quiet period of the volcano, which lasted between 500 and 2500 years. While first eruptions of this active period consisted mainly of pumice, volcanic sand and dust, two most recent eruptions have thrown mainly ashes, consisting of yellow and grey arena gorda (coarse sand and gravel), out of volcano funnel.

Most recent eruptions of the Khangar volcano have resulted in piles of hardened lava, which geologists use to call extrusions. Currently the crater of the Khangar volcano hosts a lake, which is over 150 m deep - one of the above mentioned dome structures, looking like three closely located small islands, can be seen above the lake surface.

Considering discovered dates of recent eruptions of the Khangar volcano, scientists have classified the volcano as potentially active volcano, which now is relatively dormant. They have even given a definition to most probable type of future eruption - phreatomagmatic, which means that erupted volcanic material will interact with lake waters. Scientists also predict that future volcanic eruption brings no instant threat to lives of human beings inhabiting the area, because human settlements are located far from the volcano. However, the explosion may have catastrophic impact on the environment. Even small eruption may cause catastrophic mud flows: weak eastern wall of the crater may break releasing the lake, which contains about 0.4 cubic kilometers of water.



Comment on this Article


Big Pharma Juggernaut Rolls To Victory - Health Freedom Reels

By Byron J. Richards, CCN
December 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson not only rolled over in their graves, they had a stake driven through their coffins by the departing 109th Congress. Big Pharma is now fully in charge of the FDA. Therapeutic nutrition is now marked for elimination from the free market. How did this happen? What does it all mean? Why did the House Democrats, at 3:06 A.M., while Americans slept, stab our people in the back? It is an ominous sign of things to come.
As the lame duck session drew to a close, it became clear that the Republican's scorched-earth policy was intended to make it difficult for the Democrats to get anything done next year. They are hoping to regain voter confidence by making Democrats look even worse than the Republican's near-total ineptitude, which is not a very tall order.

However, the Republicans and Democrats were able to agree on several key points regarding your health: health options for Americans should be curtailed and the American public should be subjected to massive drug experimentation. Thus, with little fanfare or reporting by the general media, the Destroy Effective Supplements and Poison Americans with Biotech Drugs Innovation Act of 2006 (S.666 and HR.1832), was passed in the middle of the night, just as the lame duck session came to a close.

Americans seem almost numb to the fact that Big Pharma kills several thousand of us every week. Kudos to the 109th Congress, those numbers will now dramatically rise.

Big Pharma Now Runs the FDA

Yes, the fox is now officially in charge of the henhouse. Over the objection of a small handful of Senators Big Pharma couldn't buy, Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D, was confirmed to head the FDA. His clearly stated agenda is, and always has been, speeding new and dangerous drugs onto the market with little testing for safety or effectiveness. Von Eschenbach would like to turn every doctor's office in America into a large clinical trial run by an FDA supercomputer, he would like a computer chip in your arm, and your DNA in his supercomputer - and if you don't comply you soon won't get medical services (read Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA's Betrayal of America). The experiment, known as the Critical Path Initiative, is now full steam ahead! Of course, when Americans are injured and killed, von Eschenbach is pushing heavily to make sure no one can sue for damages.

Andrew von Eschenbach is up to his eyeballs in Big Pharma connections. As director of the National Cancer Institute he perverted billions of taxpayer dollars away from solid science on desperately needed cancer research and into the coffers of his biotech and pharmaceutical pals, collectively known as C-Change. Now, he actually wants to turn part of the FDA into a drug company and even has a name for it, the Reagan-Udahl Center for Biomedical Research. Big Pharma co-sponsors, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Mike Enzi (R-MT), are attempting to fund his new FDA drug company with taxpayer money, which could easily be funneled through the National Cancer Institute, into the hands of his C-Change friends, and then used to pay for FDA drug approvals (S.3807). In other words, the American taxpayer will soon be slated to pay for the development of all these new biotech drugs, and then pay exorbitant drug prices for the "privilege" of being part of a human experiment.

As temporary head of the FDA, von Eschenbach proved he could adeptly cover for drug companies, even when they blatantly lied to the FDA! Such was the case with Trasylol, the Bayer heart bypass drug that needlessly kills and causes permanent kidney damage, which, thanks to von Eschenbach, is still on the market injuring Americans this holiday season.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) was hot and heavy on the von Eschenbach protection agenda for Big Pharma and had placed a hold on his nomination over von Eschenbach's flagrant violations of law and the FDA's cover-up of fraud relating to the Ketek antibiotic. Von Eschenbach's utter disdain of Congressional oversight should be a major concern to all Americans. On December 7, 2006, this is what Grassley had to say:

People ought to be ashamed of saying Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach has done a superb job in the position he is currently occupying [acting head of the FDA]....That is an insult....In my interactions with the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA these last 8 months, I have seen a complete and utter disrespect for congressional authority and hence the law....In Cedar Rapids, IA, I have a family that lost an 18-year-old because of a drug [Ketek] that was on the market then and which is not on the market now....It seems to me that if you are concerned about the safety of drugs, this information is important, and if you are going to have it covered up in the FDA, you aren't protecting the public....This body [the Senate] should not walk hand in hand with the executive branch and sit idly by as instances of abuse and fraud continue to endanger the health and safety of American people.

Following these frank and chilling statements of fact, the opinions of Orrin Hatch (R-UT) were put forth to quell the concerns just raised:

To me it is simply unconscionable that the Food and Drug Administration, one of the best little agencies in Government, has gone leaderless for such a period of time...I know Dr. von Eschenbach well. He is a man of integrity....I urge my colleagues--no, I implore my colleagues--to do what is right and vote [for] this nomination....it is what the American people deserve.

Such a character endorsement, coming from a man at the top of Big Pharma's payout list, is hardly an encouragement to anyone. What is it that constitutes integrity in Hatch's mind? And just what is it that the American people deserve? These questions were answered for us by Grassley, in his follow-up testimony:

A vote for this nominee would be an endorsement of the stonewalling, but, more importantly, the disrespect for Congress he has shown by not cooperating with congressional oversight....Under Dr. Von Eschenbach, the FDA has not only avoided transparency, it also has threatened those who are trying to desperately expose the truth....

This started back in January with Ketek and our getting involved in the oversight. There was fraud in this Ketek study....In June, Dr. Von Eschenbach held a meeting of FDA staff involving this drug I have been investigating, questioning how it was handled--Ketek. FDA employees who were present say that he used a lot of sports metaphors regarding being a "team player" and keeping opinions "inside the locker room." Basically, he said to not criticize the FDA outside the locker room, "outside the locker room" being his words. Apparently he stated that anyone who spoke outside the locker room might find themselves "off the team"...

This nominee held this meeting in the midst of this ongoing congressional investigation of this drug Ketek. He called the meeting after a number of critical reports in the media about the FDA's handling of Ketek. A number of FDA employees interviewed by the committee were offended by his comments, found them highly questionable, inappropriate, and potentially threatening. I don't think there was any "potential"' about it, they were meant to be threatening, and I agree with the employees.

Leaders of an agency should not hold a meeting to suggest that dissenters will be kicked off the team, particularly when the lives of American people are at stake, when drugs are going to be put on the line and they might not be safe. I can refer to the death of an 18-year-old in Cedar Rapids, IA. His is the type of action that shows the true stripes of the nominee....The way the Food and Drug Administration under this nominee has handled the investigation of Ketek shows the agency would like to keep its business secret.

This gives us a very clear understanding of how Hatch defines a "man of integrity."

The Rise of the Hatch-et-man

In the gospel according to Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the R now stands for regulation. It has been somewhat difficult for him taking large sums of money from the supplement industry and Big Pharma at the same time; however, after 30 years of Senate politicking Hatch-et-man has talking out of both sides of his mouth down to a science. And unfortunately for the supplement industry, he takes the most money from Big Pharma. He has even been able to completely forget that Republican core values center around less government regulation, not more - especially when such regulation is totally unnecessary.

Under the false guise of consumer safety, Hatch-et-man was clearly the driving force that ramrodded AER (Adverse Event Reporting) legislation for dietary supplements, without any testimony or hearings, through the Senate and the House. The net effect of the legislation will be to remove therapeutic nutritional supplements from the market, health options millions of Americans count on to remain well. This is a favor to Big Pharma, not the supplement industry.

Of course, Democrats love the smell of any legislation smacking of increased regulation of health care, thus they pounced on the bill, driving it through the House with Democrats voting 134-4 to pass it. This is the first of many bills the Democrats will endorse in the coming months to undermine the supplement industry. Leading the charge against health freedom will be the Big Pharma Democrat cartel. This group is composed of the vitamin-hating Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), along with Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY). These Big Pharma sponsors are sure to pile on in the coming months.

Now there are those out there who think Hatch-et-man is a friend of the supplement industry, based on his long ago support of DSHEA. Well times have change. Hatch-et-man wears a supplement industry suit and has a heart of Big Pharma gold. His veins are icy cold, filled with a synthetic FDA-approved blood.

Emboldened by his rise to power as a profit broker between Big Pharma, the FDA, and the supplement industry, Hatch-et-man actually started to publicly spill the beans. Maybe all the idiots in the supplement industry that either supported the AER legislation or did little or nothing to stop it will start to wake up.

In his December 6, 2006 Senate testimony he tells us that he has spoken to Andrew von Eschenbach to ensure that the FDA will more vigorously pursue supplement companies. His AER legislation was crafted with the help of over twenty meetings with the supplement-despising FDA. He pays special thanks to David Dorsey, a Senator Kennedy staffer, once a top FDA lawyer, who was instrumental in drafting the bill, and his own Bruce Artim who has now, but not surprisingly, moved on to a top position at Eli Lilly.

Yes, our wonderful Big Pharma-sponsored legislative system has now produced draconian supplement-regulating legislation that could easily obliterate natural therapeutic health options from planet earth, the true competition to Big Pharma profits.

In Part 2 of this report I will explain how Hatch-et-man accomplished the sell out of health options and health freedom for Americans, with special help from traitors within the supplement industry itself.

© 2006 Truth in Wellness, LLC - All Rights Reserved



Comment on this Article


Doctor-legislator asks utilities to stop putting fluoride in water

By JESSICA FENDER
Staff Writer

The only practicing physician in the state legislature has asked hundreds of water districts to stop adding fluoride to drinking water, citing recommendations from the American Dental Association that moms avoid using tap water to mix baby formula.

State Rep. Joey Hensley, a Republican from Hohenwald, said he mailed about 250 letters last week after hearing that ingesting too much fluoride can cause fluorosis - or staining of the teeth - in young children.
"I'm just trying to bring it more to the front, because more and more people are concerned about it. They don't have a choice now," Hensley said.

Hensley added he was worried about low-income mothers who may have to mix baby formula with bottled water, which could be costly.

Water districts decide individually whether to add fluoride - long touted for its cavity-fighting properties - to its water, and Hensley said he doesn't plan to introduce legislation banning the practice.

Metro Water Services in Nashville adds fluoride to its water. (To see whether your water system adds fluoride, go HERE and click on the name of the county where you live.)

A statement by the dental association still recommends fluoridating water to prevent tooth decay.

Read more about the American Dental Association's recommendations.



Comment on this Article


Top scientist says Mars lurking with killer aliens 'frozen' in subterranean 'oceans'!

London, Dec 12

A top UK space scientist Dr. John Murray has said that Mars could be lurking with killer aliens lying frozen beneath its surface.

He has said that bringing them to Earth will be catastrophic, as they will wipe out humanity.
Now Dr. Murray, who is also UK lead scientist with Europe's Mars Express mission, has said he has overwhelming evidence of the life surviving in the frozen ocean near its equator, where simple life could thrive as microbes.

Prospects for life on Mars were boosted last week by NASA's discovery of running water on the Red Planet, reports The Sun.

Dr. Murray believes the aliens are all lying in a dormant state. As such, a rocket should be used to blast a crater into ice floes in the region - named Elysium - allowing access to the aliens and water should be sprinkled on the dormant creatures to revive them.

"Then we could land a follow-up probe to scoop up the soil, put it under a microscope and add water," he said.

However, the danger was in bringing them to Earth, he said.

"Both NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) plan to bring samples of Mars 48million miles back to Earth in the next decade to be studied in a lab. That is where the danger lies," he said.

"It is going to be extremely primitive life. We are talking about bacteria. The only danger is if we brought it back and it escaped, we could have a War Of The Worlds situation," he added.

"Earth bacteria killed the invading Martians in that. The Martians brought to us could kill off humans. We'd best have a good look at things on Mars before bringing anything back," he said.



Comment on this Article


Study: Arctic basin ice free by September 2040

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 19:02:36

BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- A recent climate study using computer models indicates that if greenhouse gases continue to be released at their current rate, most of the Arctic basin will be ice free in September by 2040.

And winter ice, now about 12 feet thick, will be less than 3 feet thick.
The most recent study by scientists from The National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo., disputes a previous study that predicted the region will be free of summer ice by 2060, and another that forecasts ice until 2105.

The rapid meltdown, caused by global warming, will speed up the heating of the oceans, according to the latest study.

"As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming and leading to the loss of more ice," said study lead author, Marika Holland, a scientists from NCAR. "This is a positive feedback loop with dramatic implications for the entire Arctic region."

Plus, ocean circulations -- affected by global warming -- are driving warm ocean currents into the Arctic.

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," Holland said. "These changes are surprisingly rapid."

However, the future of the Arctic doesn't have to be so grim: running simulations with less greenhouse gases, the researchers found that the summer sea ice melted at a much slower rate.

"Our research indicates that society can still minimize the impacts on Arctic ice," Holland said.



Comment on this Article


Latin America Says "Enough"!


Gore Vidal Breaks US Blockade on Cuba

Havana, Dec 11 (Prensa Latina)

I came to Cuba with my broken knee to help break 40 years of embargo, said US writer Gore Vidal, who will be visiting Havana until December 14, after referring to the distortion of information about the Island by his country s media.
He told Cuban journalists upon his arrival at the Jose Marti international airport that he had been invited several times to come, but the trip was always postponed for one reason or another.

I lost one of my knees the last time and I almost sent my knee to you, and it would have been more interesting than myself, he said ironically, but I have an artificial one, and was able to come here to see the beginning of the end of colonialism in the Western Hemisphere.

Born in 1925, Gore Vidal (81) is used to specifying that he has lived three quarters of the 20th century and a third of US history, the course of which he has assessed in inquiring essays, novels, and interviews characterized by his critical lucidity.

Without hesitation he told Prensa Latina his opinion about the most worrying symptoms of the US future political panorama: The collapse of the Republic. We have lost habeas corpus and the Constitution that we inherited from England 700 years ago. Suddenly, we were robbed of it.

The current regime has done it, and the legal bases of our Republic have gone with it, and as I am one of the historians of that Republic, I am not happy.

Retaking the distortion of the Cuban reality, he said that they never told us why we should hate the Cubans, and in his opinion, his compatriots were motivated by vanity.

At that time, he said, my friend John F. Kennedy was running for president, and about this country, Cuba, he did not agree and turned it into something boosted by vanity.

"When we invaded Cuba [in 1898] it was only a pretext to start the war against Spain and end up taking the Philippines, as we did in the end."

I hate to say it, but you were just a step for the United States to reach Asia, although we always had our eyes on the Caribbean.

He recalled how when World War II had just ended in 1945, US President Harry Truman began to say: "the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming."

With 20 million dead Russians, he said ironically, there was barely anybody to come. Even so, the decision was made: the only way to rule the country is by terrorizing everybody.

A large delegation is accompanying Vidal, including his nephew Burr Steers, a Hollywood film director; Saul Landau, a professor at American University; Dennis Ferrera, San Francisco Attorney General-elect; and Matt Tyrnauer, editor of the magazine Vanity Fair.

One of his closest friends, former Senator James Abourezk; Kimiko Burton, a lawyer from the Attorney General s office, and others are also in the delegation.

The writer of "Homeland and Empire" will fulfill a program in Cuba that includes meetings with Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, Culture Minister Abel Prieto, and Cuban National People s Power Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon.

He will meet, in parallel, with university students and teachers, and will tour the Information Technology University, the Latin American School of Medicine, and the National Fine Arts Museum.

At the airport, he was welcomed by Culture Vice Minister Ismael Gonzalez and Book Institute President Iroel Sanchez.



Comment on this Article


Venezuela Single Party Underway

Caracas, Dec 12 (Prensa Latina)

The Venezuelan political organizations of the Change Bloc supporting President Hugo Chavez are presently facing the challenge of designing a single party.

The initiative he issued during the recent electoral campaign is gaining space within national society and the Fifth Republic Movement, Venezuela s main political force.
The latter is making progress in that direction through the integration of a work group centered with groups in favor of the presidential plan.

Headed by Elias Jagua, it will conceive a proposal to be debated and presented to the political organizations supporting the revolutionary movement.

Similarly parties Patria Para Todos (PPT) and Por la Democracia Social (PODEMOS) agreed to provide a political, legal and social response to the dignitary s proposal.



Comment on this Article


South American Leaders Hold 2nd Summit for Integration

Monday, Dec 11, 2006
By: Michael Fox
Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, December 11, 2006 (venezuelanalysis.com)- Leaders of South America's twelve nations met late last week in Cochabamba, Bolivia for the 2nd South American Summit. On Saturday, at the close of the meeting, they signed the Cochabamba Declaration, which they called the "cornerstone of the South American process integration" and which calls for a new model of integration for the 21st century.
The two-day summit was attended by the Presidents from Guyana, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile, and Paraguay. The Nicaraguan and Ecuadorian President-elects Daniel Ortega and Rafael Correa, where also in attendance, including representatives from Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, Colombia and México.

"These are instruments that will permit us to work for our South America," said Morales, according to the Venezuelan daily El Universal, while opening the first and only work session of the Summit.

According to the Declaration, which was signed on Saturday, "The regional integration is an alternative to evade that globalization increases with its asymmetries, and contributes to economic, social, political marginality, and attempts to take advantage of the opportunities for development."

"The Construction of the South American Community of Nations looks for the development of an integrated space in politics, social, cultural, economic, financial, environmental and infrastructural. This South American integration is not only needed to resolve the great scourges that affect the region, in the case of poverty, exclusion, and the persistent social inequalities, that have transformed the last few years in to a center of anxiety for all of the national governments, but it is also a decisive step towards the achievement of a multi-polar, stable, just world, based on a culture of peace," continues the Declaration.

According to the declaration, this new integration is based on six principles: solidarity and cooperation; sovereignty and respect for territory and self-determination of the people; peace; democracy and pluralism, "in order to consolidate an integration without dictators"; "universal, interdependent and indivisible" human rights; and "harmony with nature" for sustainable development.

Concretely, the declaration additionally establishes a Commission of High Officials to work towards, and implement the steps of South American integration in the themes of energy, infrastructure, commercial, financial, industrial and productive, migratory, culture and defense. However, the Caracas daily Últimas Noticias reported that according to Brazilian President Lula da Silvia, this Commission is only temporary, and established until next year's summit.

The declaration pushes for the strengthening of the institutionalism of the South American Community of Nations (CASA), while stopping short of the creation of a General Secretary.

According to Últimas Noticias, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was disappointed that the creation of the General Secretary was not included in the declaration, but Brazilian President Lula da Silva explained that there was "no consensus."

According to varying reports, the Summit was filled with agreement and disagreement. Bolivian President Evo Morales once again invited Venezuela back to the Community of Andean Nations (CAN), which President Chavez pulled out of earlier this year.*

There was also suggestion from some on the possibility of uniting South America's two major trading blocks, CAN and MERCOSUR.

"With all due respect," responded Chavez, according to Mexico's La Jornada, "I think that the CAN doesn't work, nor MERCOSUR. They are not adequate instruments for the time in which we live, they are instruments for the elite."

Lula commented during the closing ceremony that although the region has many differences, there are also many convergences which will help integrate the region in a shorter period than the fifty years that it took the European Union. Chavez and Peruvian President, Alan García additionally shook hands and declared an end to the cold relations over the last seven months.

But the job ahead is not easy, considering the ideological differences between leftist presidents Hugo Chavez, and neo-liberal leaders, such as Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez , that has already signed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

People's Summit

Chavez, Morales, and Ortega greeted tens of thousands of activists and supporters late on Saturday, when they addressed the Summit of the People which took place simultaneously during the official diplomatic summit. Chavez reaffirmed his support for Bolivian President Morales, and stated that if the United States were to attack the Morales government, Venezuela would not "stay arms-crossed."

The third summit of the heads of State of the CASA will be held in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia in 2007. The Presidential Summit on Energy Integration will take place in Venezuelan in 2007.

* The CAN is made up of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Peru, while MERCOSUR is composed of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. Venezuela joined MERCOSUR in July, 2006.



Comment on this Article


Isabel Allende: Chile under the gun

Isabel Allende
12 December 2006

How did Chile's generals manage to overthrow a democratic government and maintain their brutal junta for 17 years? For novelist Isabel Allende, a close relative of the flawed but idealistic man Augusto Pinochet swept from power, the pain of confronting these questions is acute. As the death of the dictator closes a grim chapter in her nation's history, she describes what living through it was like - and the joy of seeing her homeland heal itself


To give an idea of what the military coup was like, you have to imagine how a citizen of the United States or Great Britain would feel if the army rolled up in full battle gear to attack the White House or Buckingham Palace, and in the process caused the deaths of thousands of citizens, among them the President of the US or the Queen and Prime Minister of Great Britain, then indefinitely suspended Congress or Parliament, disbanded the Supreme Court, abrogated individual liberties and political parties, declared absolute censorship of the media, and finally, over time, strove mercilessly to extinguish every dissident voice.

Now, imagine that these same military men, possessed with Messianic fanaticism, installed themselves in power for years, prepared to root out every last ideological adversary. That is what happened in Chile.

The socialist adventure led by Salvador Allende ended tragically. The military junta, presided over by General Augusto Pinochet, applied the doctrine of "savage capitalism", as the neoliberal experiment has been called, but refused to acknowledge that, to function smoothly, it requires a labour force free to exercise its rights. Brutal repression was used to destroy the last seed of leftist thought and implant a heartless capitalism. Chile was not an isolated case - the long night of dictatorships darkened the continent for more than a decade. In 1975, half of Latin America's citizens lived under some kind of repressive government, most of which were backed by the United States.

The Allende family - that is, those who didn't die - were taken prisoner, went into hiding, or left the country. My brothers, who were out of the country, did not return. My parents, who were in the embassy in Argentina, remained in Buenos Aires for a while, until they received death threats and had to escape. Most of my mother's family, on the other hand, were bitterly opposed to the Unidad Popular, and many of them celebrated the military coup with champagne.

My grandfather detested socialism and eagerly awaited the end of Allende's government, but he never wanted it to be at the cost of democracy. He was horrified to see the government in the hands of the military, whom he despised, and he ordered me not to get involved. It was impossible, however, for me to stay on the edges of what was happening. This fine old man spent months observing me and asking tricky questions; I think he suspected that his granddaughter would vanish at any moment. How much did he know about what was happening around him? He lived an isolated life, he almost never went out of the house, and his contact with reality came through the press, which suppressed the truth and overtly lied. I may have been the one person who gave him the other side of the picture.

At first, I tried to keep him informed because, in my role as a journalist, I had access to the underground network that replaced serious sources of information during that period, but eventually I stopped bringing him bad news because I didn't want to frighten or depress him. Friends and acquaintances began to disappear; some returned after weeks of absence, with the eyes of madmen and signs of torture. Many sought refuge in other countries. In the beginning, Mexico, Germany, France, Canada, Spain and other countries took them in, but after a while, they had to call a halt because thousands of other Latin American exiles were being added to the waves of Chileans.

In Chile, where friendship and family are very important, something happened that can be explained only by the effect that fear has on the soul of a society. Betrayal and denunciation snuffed out many lives; all it took was an anonymous voice over the telephone for the badly named intelligence services to sink their claws into the accused, and, in many cases, nothing was ever heard of that person again. People were divided between those who backed the military government and those who opposed it; hatred, distrust, and fear poisoned relationships. Democracy was restored more than a decade ago, but that division can still be felt, even in the heart of many families.

Crimes perpetrated in shadows during those years have, inevitably, been coming to light. Airing the truth is the beginning of reconciliation, although the wounds will take a long time to heal because those responsible for the repression have not admitted their guilt and are not disposed to ask for forgiveness. The acts of the military regime will go unpunished, but they can no longer be hidden or ignored. Many, especially young people who grew up without political dialogue or without a critical spirit, believe that there's been enough digging through the past, that we must look to the future, but victims and their families cannot forget. It's possible that we will have to wait until the last witness to those times dies before we can close that chapter of our history.

By 1980, I was no longer in Chile. I stayed awhile, but when I felt repression tightening like a noose around my neck, I left. I watched the country and its people change. I tried to adapt and not attract attention, as my grandfather had asked, but it was impossible because, in my situation as a journalist, I knew too much. At first, my fear was something vague and difficult to define, like a bad smell. I discounted the terrible rumours that were circulating, alleging that there was no proof, and when proof was presented to me, I said those were exceptions. I thought I was safe because I wasn't visibly "involved" in politics, in the meantime sheltering desperate fugitives in my home or helping them over embassy walls in search of asylum.

I thought that, if I were arrested, I could explain that I was acting out of humanitarian motives. Apparently, I was somewhere on the moon. I broke out in hives from head to foot, I couldn't sleep, and the sound of a car in the street after curfew would leave me trembling for hours. It took me a year and a half to realise the risk I was running, and, finally, in 1975, following a particularly agitated and danger-filled week, I left for Venezuela, carrying a handful of Chilean soil from my garden.

A month later, my husband and my children joined me in Caracas. I suppose I suffer the affliction of many Chileans who left during that time: I feel guilty for having abandoned my country. I have asked myself a thousand times what would have happened had I stayed, like so many who fought the dictatorship from within, until it was overthrown in 1989. No one can answer that question, but of one thing I am sure: I would not be a writer had I not experienced that exile.

The hard question is why at least one third of Chile's total population backed the dictatorship, even though, for most, life wasn't easy, and even adherents of the military government lived in fear. Repression was far-reaching, although there's no doubt that the poor and the leftists suffered most. Everyone felt he was being spied on, no one could say that he was completely safe from the claws of the state. It is a fact that information was censored and brainwashing was the goal of a vigorous propaganda machine; it is also true that the opposition lost many years and a lot of blood before it could get organised. But none of this explains the dictator's popularity.

The percentage of the population that approved of him was not motivated solely by fear: Chileans like authority. They believed that the military was going to "clean up" the country. "They put an end to delinquency, we don't see walls defaced with graffiti any more, everything is clean, and, thanks to the curfew, our husbands get home early," one friend told me. For her, those things compensated for the loss of civil rights because she wasn't directly affected: she was in the fortunate position of not having her children lose their jobs without compensation, or of being arrested.

I understand why the economic right, which, historically, has not been characterised as a defender of democracy, and which, during those years, made more money than ever before, backed the dictatorship, but what about the rest? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that question, only conjectures.

Pinochet represented the intransigent father, capable of imposing strict discipline. The three years of the Unidad Popular were a time of experimentation, change, and disorder; the country was weary. Repression put an end to politicking, and neoliberalism forced Chileans to work, keep their mouths closed, and be productive, so that corporations could compete favourably in international markets. Nearly everything was privatised, including health, education, and social security. The need to survive drove private initiative.

Today, Chile not only exports more salmon than Alaska, but also, among hundreds of other non-traditional products, ships out frogs' legs, goose feathers, and smoked garlic. The US press celebrated the triumph of Pinochet's economic system and gave him credit for having turned a poor country into the star of Latin America.

None of the indices, however, revealed the distribution of wealth; nothing was known of the poverty and uncertainty in which several million people were living. There was no mention of the soup kitchens in poor neighbourhoods that fed thousands of families - there were more than 500 in Santiago alone - or of the fact that private charities and churches were trying to replace the social services that are the responsibility of the state. There was no open forum for discussing government actions or those of businessmen; public services were handed over to private companies, and foreign corporations acquired natural resources such as forests and oceans, which have been exploited with very little ecological conscience. A callous society was created in which profit is sacred; if you are poor, it's your own fault, and if you complain, that makes you a Communist. Freedom consists of having many brand names to choose from when you go out to buy on credit.

The figures of economic growth, which won The Wall Street Journal's praise, did not represent real development since 10 per cent of the population possessed half the nation's wealth, and there were a hundred people who earned more than the state spent on all social services combined. According to the World Bank, Chile is one of the countries with the worst distribution of income, right alongside Kenya and Zimbabwe.

The head of a Chilean corporation earns the same, or more, than his equivalent in the United States, while a Chilean labourer earns approximately 15 times less than a North American worker. Even today, after more than a decade of democracy, the disparities in wealth are staggering because the economic model hasn't changed. The three presidents who followed Pinochet have had their hands tied; the right controls the economy, the Congress, and the press. Chile, none the less, has proposed to become a developed country within the span of a decade, which is possible if, in fact, wealth is redistributed in a more equitable fashion.

Who was Pinochet, really? Why was he so feared? Why was he admired? I never met him personally, and I didn't live in Chile during the greater part of his government, so I can only judge him by his actions and what others have written about him. I suppose that, to understand Pinochet, you need to read novels such as Mario Vargas Llosa's Feast of the Goat or Gabriel Garcia Marquez's Autumn of the Patriarch, because he had a lot in common with the typical figure of the Latin American caudillo so aptly described by those authors.

He was a crude, cold, slippery, authoritarian man who had no scruples or sense of loyalty other than to the army as an institution - though not to his comrades in arms, whom he had killed according to his convenience, men such as General Carlos Prats and others. He believed that he was chosen by God and history to save his country. He was astute and suspicious, but he could be genial, and, at times, even likeable. Admired by some, despised by others, feared by all, he was possibly the man in our history who has held the greatest power in his hands for the longest period of time.

In Chile, people try to avoid talking about the past. The youngest generations believe the world began with them; anything that happened before they were born doesn't interest them. And it may be that the rest of the population shares a collective shame regarding what took place during the dictatorship, the same feeling that Germany had after Hitler. Both young and old want to avoid discord. No one wants to be led into discussions that drive even deeper wedges. Furthermore, people are too busy trying to get to the end of the month with a salary that doesn't stretch far enough, and quietly doing their job so that they won't be fired, to be concerned about politics.

It's assumed that digging too much into the past can "destabilise" the democracy and provoke the military, a fear that is totally unfounded since the democracy has been strengthened in recent years - since 1989 - and the military has lost prestige.

Besides, this is not a good time for military coups. Despite its many problems - poverty, inequality, crime, drugs, guerrilla wars - Latin America has opted for democracy, and for its part, the United States is beginning to realise that its policy of supporting tyranny does not solve problems - it merely creates new ones.

The military coup didn't come out of nowhere; the forces that upheld the dictatorship were there, we just hadn't perceived them. Defects that had lain there beneath the surface blossomed in all their glory and majesty during that period. It isn't possible that repression on such a grand scale could have been organised overnight unless a totalitarian tendency already existed in a sector of the society; apparently, we were not as democratic as we believed.

As for the government of Salvador Allende, it wasn't as innocent as I like to imagine; it suffered from ineptitude, corruption, and pride. In real life, it may not always be easy to distinguish between heroes and villains, but I can assure you that in democratic governments, including that of the Unidad Popular, there was never the cruelty the nation has suffered every time the military intervenes.

In 1988, the situation changed in Chile; Pinochet had lost the referendum and the country was ready to reinstate democracy. So I went back. I went with fear; I didn't know what I was going to find, and I nearly didn't recognise Santiago or its people: everything was different. The city was filled with gardens and modern buildings, seething with traffic and commerce, energetic and fast-paced and progressive. But there were feudal backwashes, such as maids in blue aprons taking their elderly charges in the wealthy barrios for walks, and beggars at every stoplight.

Chileans were cautious; they respected hierarchies and dressed very conservatively - men in ties, women in skirts - and in many government offices and private enterprises, employees were wearing uniforms, like flight attendants. I realised that many of the people who had stayed and suffered in Chile considered those of us who left to be traitors, and believed that life had been much easier for us. There were many exiles, on the other hand, who accused those who stayed in the country of collaborating with the dictatorship.

The candidate of the Concertacion Party, Patricio Alwyn, had won by a narrow margin; the presence of the military was still intimidating, and people were quiet and frightened as they went about their lives. The press was still censored; the journalists who interviewed me, trained in discretion, asked careful, ingenuous questions, and then didn't publish the answers. The dictatorship had done everything possible to erase recent history and the name of Salvador Allende. On the return flight, when I saw San Francisco Bay from the air, I gave a sigh of exhaustion and, without thinking, said: Back home at last. It was the first time since I'd left Chile in 1975 that I felt I was "home."

In 1994, I went back again to Chile, looking for inspiration, a trip I have since repeated yearly. I found my compatriots more relaxed and the democracy stronger, although conditioned by the presence of a still- powerful military and by the senators Pinochet had appointed for life in order to control the Congress. The government had to maintain a delicate balance among the political and social forces. I went to working-class neighbourhoods where people had once been contentious and organised. The progressive priests and nuns who had lived among the poor all those years told me that the poverty was the same but that the solidarity had disappeared, and that now crime and drugs, which had become the most serious problem among the young, had been added to the issues of alcoholism, domestic violence, and unemployment.

The rules to live by were: try to forget the past, work for the future, and don't provoke the military for any reason. Compared with the rest of Latin America, Chile was living in a good moment of political and economic stability; even so, five million people were still below the poverty level. Except for the victims of repression, their families, and a few organisations that kept a watch out for civil-rights violations, no one spoke the words "disappeared" or "torture" aloud.

That situation changed when Pinochet was arrested in London, where he had gone for a medical check-up and to collect his commission for an arms deal. A Spanish judge charged him with murdering Spanish citizens, and requested his extradition from England to Spain. The general, who still counted on the unconditional support of the armed forces, had, for 25 years, been isolated by the adulators who always congregate around power. He had been warned of the risks of travel abroad, but he went anyway, confident of his impunity. His surprise at being arrested by the British can be compared only to that of everyone in Chile, long accustomed to the idea that he was untouchable. By chance, I was in Santiago when that occurred, and I witnessed how, within the course of a week, a Pandora's box was opened and all the things that had been hidden beneath layers and layers of silence began to emerge. In those first days, there were turbulent street demonstrations by Pinochet's supporters, who threatened nothing less than a declaration of war against England or a commando raid to rescue the prisoner.

The nation's press, frightened, wrote of the insult to the Esteemed Senator-for-Life, and to the honour and sovereignty of the nation, but a week later, demonstrations in his support had become minimal, the military were keeping mute, and the tone had changed in the media: now they referred to the "ex-dictator, arrested in London".

No one believed that the English would hand over the prisoner to be tried in Spain, which in fact didn't happen, but in Chile, the fear that was still in the air diminished rapidly. The military lost prestige and power in a matter of days. The tacit agreement to bury the truth was over, thanks to the actions of that Spanish judge.

Taken from 'My Invented Country' by Isabel Allende, published by Harper Perennial at £7.99. Isabel Allende's new novel, Inés of My Soul, will be published by Fourth Estate in April 2007



Comment on this Article


Spying, It's a Way of Life


US bugged Diana's phone on night of death crash

Mark Townsend and Peter Allen in Paris
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer


The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
In a move that raises fresh questions over transatlantic agreements on intelligence-sharing, the surveillance arm of the US has admitted listening to her conversations as she stayed at the Ritz hotel, but failed to notify MI6. Stevens is understood to have been assured that the 39 classified documents detailing Diana's final conversations did not reveal anything sinister or contain material that might help explain her death.

Scotland Yard's inquiry, published this Thursday, also throws up further intelligence links with the Princess of Wales on the night she died. The driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, was in the pay of the French equivalent of M15. Stevens traced £100,000 he had amassed in 14 French bank accounts though no payments have been linked to Diana's death.

Stevens's conclusion is that Diana, her companion Dodi Fayed, and Paul himself died in an accident caused by Paul driving too fast through the Pont de l'Alma underpass in Paris while under the influence of drink. The car was being pursued by photographers at the time.

Tests have confirmed that Paul was more than three times over the French drink-drive limit and was travelling at 'excessive' speed. The inquiry will quash a number of conspiracy theories that have circulated since 31 August 1997, among them that Diana was pregnant. It also found no evidence that the princess was planning to get engaged to Dodi, son of Mohamed Fayed.

The Harrods tycoon believes that Paul's blood samples were swapped to portray him as a drunk in an elaborate cover-up by the establishment to stop Diana marrying Dodi, a Muslim.

Stevens is expected to concede that while there was a mix-up it was an accident and that the original French post-mortem which found that Paul was three-times over the French drink-drive limit was correct.

He is also expected to discount the role of the white Fiat Uno which struck Diana's car shortly before the crash, even though British police officers have failed to track down the vehicle which left paintwork on the black Mercedes.

The inquiry will support the findings of the original French accident inquiry in criticising the paparazzi as a possible reason for encouraging Paul to speed. The 'bright light' theory - the claim that the driver was deliberately blinded by a beam immediately before the crash - is also dismissed by Stevens.



Comment on this Article


Police may use CCTV for eavesdropping

Freelance UK
1 Dec 06

Police are considering installing a next generation of CCTV camera that is powerful enough to record people's conversations up to 100 yards away.

Ultra sensitive microphones may be attached to surveillance systems across the UK, so law enforcement has the chance to thwart aggressive behaviour before it turns violent.

Councils and transport authorities have also reportedly expressed interest in installing the new systems before the London Olympics in 2012.
However the Association of Chief Police Officers says a full debate on the technology's impact on privacy will be needed before they can be installed in the UK.

Already the smart cameras are live in 300 sites across Holland, where they currently detect the conversations of people in shops, city centres, jails and benefit offices.

According to The Sunday Times, which has met the Dutch makers of the technology, one six week-trial in Groningen resulted in 70 genuine alarms, yielding a total of four arrests.

Derek can der Vorst, director of Sound Intelligence, told the paper that the devices are technically capable of recording 24 hours a day.

As a result, exactly how long they are in operation "really depends on the privacy laws in a particular country," he said.

Der Vorst added: "The cameras work on the principle that in an aggressive situation the pitch goes up and the words are spoken faster.

"The voice is not the normal flat tone, but vibrates. It is these subtle changes that our audio cameras pick up on."

Responding to a future deployment in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office has said the audio cameras would be treated, under law, in the same way as CCTV footage.

Under the IOC's code, audio can be used on the grounds it detects and prevents crime, or apprehends and prosecutes the offenders.

However, audio cannot be used for recording private conversations or conversations between staff members, as enforced under the first and third Data Protection principles.

In a current guide on how employers should install and use CCTV, the Commissioner says: "If the equipment has a sound recording facility, this should not be used to record conversations between members of the public."

Greame Garrard, chairman of the chief police officers' video and CCTV working group, reportedly said using audio-enabled CCTV would mark a "new step" for surveillance in the UK.

"We would need to have a debate as to whether or not this is something the public think would be a reasonable use of technology," he told the ST.

His comments come as Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, published a report into Britain's surveillance society - defined as "one where technology is extensively and routinely used to track and record our activities and movements."

In a section of the report entitled 'what's wrong with a surveillance society?,' the IOC's draw attention to an observation made after September 11, 2001.

"Surveillance fosters suspicion," said David Leyon, a leading sociologist and contributing author to the report.

"The employer who installs keystroke monitors at workstations, or GPS devices in service vehicles is saying that they do not trust their employees.

"Social relationships depend on trust and permitting ourselves to undermine it in this way seems like slow social suicide."

In supporting notes, another post-9/11 study is cited for proposing cameras that detect "just about anything" the state may need to know, including "the conversations of pedestrians."

The IOC responded: "The more that states, organisations, communities and people become dependent on surveillance technologies, the more there is an apparent 'lock-in' which prevents other options from being considered, and a comprehension gap which increases a dependence on expertise outside the democratic system.

"ID cards are a key case in point and will inevitably increase our reliance on those providing both technological and commercial expertise."



Comment on this Article


Malaysia puts Islamic cult under scrutiny

Reuters
12 Dec 06

RAWANG, Malaysia, Dec 12 (Reuters) - In a corner of this Malaysian town, a devout Islamic sect has created a self-contained commune, running businesses from restaurants to schools through a group called the Rufaqa Corporation.

Claiming supernatural powers, from averting death to bringing down an aircraft merely by pointing at it, these are no ordinary people -- and the government is deeply suspicious of them.

The authorities in mainly Muslim Malaysia suspect Rufaqa, or "Comrades" in Arabic, could be a front for the revival of the "Al-Arqam" movement, which was founded in 1968 by preacher Ashaari Muhammad but outlawed in 1994 as being heretical.
Ashaari spent two years in prison in the 1990s when Al-Arqam was banned after having won 10,000 followers and up to 100,000 sympathisers, including government officials.

Suspicions can only be raised by the life-sized portrait of the turbaned and bearded Ashaari, complete with his poems, that greets visitors walking into the Rufaqa commune in Rawang, just north of Kuala Lumpur.

But Rufaqa, which has operations in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Jordan, says it has no agenda except to preach for Islam and build its multi-million-dollar businesses.

"The allegations by former members that we have a hidden agenda is a total lie," Rufaqa company secretary Zulkifli Awang Kechik said in a statement. "We face a lot of tests from Allah while we are in this world."

The cult's bizarre teachings include a promise to absolve members' sins by transferring them to Ashaari, who is believed to be able to defer death, and the belief that an Islamic messiah from the east will appear just ahead of a prophesied doomsday.

This teaching is offensive to many Muslims, who say it contradicts the Koran.

DEVIANT TEACHINGS

In recent weeks, religious police in the central state of Selangor have arrested about 100 members of Rufaqa, including two top officials, as details of the sect's teachings have emerged.

"We plan to charge 12 of them by this month," said Fakhrul Azam Yahya, a spokesman for the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department, adding they could be charged with deviant teachings.

Selangor will also decide on Dec. 21 whether to ban Rufaqa. All those arrested have since been released on bail.

The sprawling four-storey complex in Rawang boasts a baker's shop, a school, a mosque, a car workshop, a maternity clinic, a printing shop, a grocery, a kindergarten and restaurants.

One woman running a clinic said Rufaqa paid a token salary but took care of her lodging, food and other essentials. "We don't mind. I get peace of mind here," said Mimi, 57, who left her family in Kuala Lumpur to live in the commune.

With 700 companies under its wings, Rufaqa was founded in 1997 by Ashaari after the government banned Al-Arqam, or "the Numbers", movement. The government said then that Al-Arqam was training armed warriors.

Ashaari said recently he was "too disillusioned" to revive Al-Arqam, which claimed to have assets worth 300 million ringgit ($84.4 million) at the height of its activities in the late 1980s.

"When Rufaqa grew, the issue of my trying to revive the movement came up," Ashaari, 69, told the New Straits Times newspaper. "Do not confuse developing a legitimate enterprise with reviving the movement."

Nicknamed "Abuya" (father), Ashaari has four wives and 37 children. But he and his family don't live in the commune, preferring instead their several homes scattered across two Malaysian states.

Ashaari has not been personally investigated by the authorities this time around.

Both religious and political concerns are behind the government crackdown on Ashaari's followers, analysts say.

"The current administration can't afford to allow such movements to undermine its position," said political analyst Yahaya Ismail. "This is why they are going all out."

But some Malay Muslims feel the government's action against the movement could be a bit high-handed. "The followers don't go around harming people, but just focusing on their businesses," said Zaki Usman, a 48-year-old advertising executive in Kuala Lumpur.



Comment on this Article


And What About China?


Feeding the Chinese Dragon

Mike Hewitt
Financial Sense University
3 Dec 06

China has had a significant impact on commodity supplies and subsequent price. Some of that demand may be attributed to 'displaced demand' in the sense that a consumer good produced in China consumes the same amount of material as it would if produced in the US. However, the development of an emerging Chinese middle class and a mass migration, perhaps the most significant one in modern history, of millions of Chinese from rural to urban areas of the country will result in a fundamental structural change in the Chinese economy.

On the global stage, China's policy of non-involvement in sovereign nations has enabled its state-owned companies to seek out trading agreements with those countries of the world considered unsavoury to the US and Europe. China's position as a founding member on the UN Security Council and subsequent veto power has been instrumental in China building diplomatic and economic relationship with 'rogue' nations. China can be expected to bear continued pressure from the international community as it seeks to secure raw materials from any source for its fast-growing economy.
For the first four months of 2006, new construction expenditure in China was 40 percent higher year on year, driven by increased infrastructure development for the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Shanghai's World Expo in 2010, and continued high rates of rural to urban migration.

China will spend more on underground and overland rail networks in the next five years than the rest of the world has spent in the last 20 years! (Credit Suisse, Brave New World II, Nov 2006)

These new railways will include: six railways for passenger transportation, a major one being the rail connecting Beijing to Shanghai; five inter-city railways, including one between Beijing and Tianjin; and the upgrading of five existing railways such as the one between Datong and Qinhuangdao.

There are planned upgrades to twelve seaports, including those in Dalian, Tianjin and Shanghai in order to receive raw materials such as coal, imported oil, gas and iron ore. Port construction along inland rivers and canals is expected to accelerate with continued dredging of the Yangtze, Pearl River and the Beijing-Hangzou Canal.

Ten airports will be expanded upon to accommodate for increased air traffic, including those in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Those in Kunming and Hefei will be relocated.

With nearly 100 Chinese cities housing more than one million people and increasing numbers of Chinese moving into urban centres in search of employment, the associated requirements for housing and metro infrastructure projects such as public transit, water and wastewater infrastructure, power transmission, and roads is expected to continue to place pressure on global raw material supplies.

Global Commodities and China

China is the global leader in consumption of aluminum, coal, copper, gold, lead, nickel, tin, and zinc.

Galvanized and stainless steels for Chinese steel and automotive industries are consuming zinc and nickel at such a pace that metal stocks in the London Metal Exchange are falling to multiyear lows.

China was an oil exporter during the 70's and 80's. As recently as 1992, China was self-sufficient in oil. Presently, the world's most-populous country is importing 40 percent of its needs. Oil makes up only 23 per cent of the country's total energy consumption, far less than coal, which accounted for 68 per cent. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts the reliance of China on foreign oil to reach 75 percent by 2025.

China is now the second largest oil consumer behind the United States, having recently surpassed Japan.

China is currently the sixth largest oil producer but recent statistics from BP's Review of World Energy 2005 show reserves will only sustain the country for a further thirteen years if current production levels are maintained.

Growth in Chinese oil consumption has accelerated mainly because of a large-scale transition away from bicycles and mass transit toward private automobiles, made more affordable since China's admission to the World Trade Organization.

The number of privately owned automobiles in China is now 23 million, more than double the figure three years ago. By year 2010, China is expected to have 90 times more cars than in 1990. Some projections predict that China could surpass the total number of cars in the U.S. by 2030.

According to the Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs D'Automobiles (OICA), China was the fourth largest producer of automobiles in 2005. China is expected to easily surpass Germany in 2006.

For the first four months of 2006, China produced 2.6 million motor vehicles, 32 per cent more than in the corresponding period of 2005. Low labour costs and greater access to China's growing market for motor vehicles have encouraged manufacturers such as Ford and General Motors to relocate more production capacity to China.

Over the next five years, China is set to create fourteen new expressways, including one connecting Beijing to Hong Kong and Macao.

Chinese Foreign Investment

As China's demand for raw materials increases, Chinese foreign investment has been skyrocketing. China's foreign investment grew on average 65.6 percent from 2000 to 2005. For 2005, Chinese investment in other countries hit US$12.26 billion and is likely to reach US$60 billion by 2010.

The principal destinations for 2005 were Hong Kong (16.5%), the United States (10.3%) and Russia (5.8%). (United Press)

This money is also used to secure sources of oil and raw material in countries that may be shunned by the United States and/or Europe, such as Sudan, Angola, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba.

Chinese companies enjoy several major advantages over Western firms when seeking trade agreements.

1. China has a strict policy of non-interference in other nations' internal affairs allowing Chinese firms to enter countries where international sanctions restrict activities by US or European firms. This has served China well as it secures resources from authoritarian style governments that the west has criticized or sanctioned. At least China isn't hypocritical.

2. Chinese firms have access to financing from state-owned banks, which are more willing to back projects where risk-versus-return tradeoffs would seldom appeal to private investors. China's existing projects in Sudan, as well as the preliminary agreement by Sinopec to develop the Yadavaran oilfield in Iran, illustrate this effect.

3. The Chinese government can make side deals involving foreign aid and arms sales to promote its interest in acquiring raw materials. Sudan is a prime example, as Chinese state-owned arms manufacturers have sold T-59 tanks and Shenyang F-7 combat aircraft in the wake of Chinese development of Sudanese oil resources.

4. Lack of transparency constitutes another competitive advantage. Western firms have reporting requirements that do not apply to Chinese firms and are often under pressure from their home country governments and investors to keep their transactions with foreign governments transparent. For US firms, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits some types of side payments that Chinese firms could easily make.


South America and the Panama Canal

Through Hong Kong billionaire, Dr. Li Ka-shing's Panama Ports Company, China controls the ports at either end of the strategic Panama Canal which left US control on Dec 31, 1999.

China is interested in potentially widening the Panama Canal to allow for larger Chinese ships to move goods from the Pacific to the Atlantic. (Washington Times)

Access through the Panama Canal has been beneficial to China's recent strengthening of diplomatic and economic ties with Latin America as it seeks to gain raw materials to support its manufacturing base.

In 2004, Baosteel signed a framework agreement with Arcelor and Companhia do Rio Doce (CVRD) to build an integrated steel plant in Brazil for an expected US$1.5 billion. There are current plans between Sinopec and Brazilian Petrobras to build a 2,000 km natural gas pipeline backed by an US$10 billion energy deal.

China has entered trade and infrastructure agreements with Cuba. In 2005, Sinopec signed a shared-production agreement for prospecting and exploiting crude oil with Cubapetroleo. In 2006, China announced it would invest US$500 million in Cuba's in nickel industry.

Especially important for China is oil-rich Venezuela. As relations between Venezuela and the US have soured, China has been quick to move in. In 2005, China announced it would invest US$400 million in Venezuela's infrastructure, including oil and gas fields as well as railway and refinery infrastructure. In August of 2005, Caracas purchased three military grade radar systems from Beijing.

Jamaica is China's biggest trading partner in the English-speaking Caribbean countries and an important source of bauxite ore for China's aluminum demand.

China and Africa

China's thirst for oil and raw materials has lead to stronger ties between China and numerous African countries. China's overall trade with Africa has risen from $10.6 billion in 2000 to $40 billion in 2005. According to Chinese government the statistics for 2006 will be larger still.

Angola is China's most important partner on the African continent and leading supplier of oil. Angola is currently the second-largest oil producer in Africa and may soon overtake Nigeria as its oil boom continues. When Angola emerged from its 27-year long civil war in 2004, China greatly increased diplomatic relations by granting Angola an immediate US$2 billion credit line to rebuild infrastructure. The international community criticized the action because the loan lacked transparency or accountability.

Since 1997, China has invested billions of dollars in Sudan and is by far the largest investor. In September 2004, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1564, threatening Sudan with oil sanctions unless it curbed its support for janjaweed militia groups that have massacred tens of thousands of people in the Darfur region. To protect its oil interests in Sudan, which supplies seven percent of China's oil imports, Beijing stated very clearly that it would veto any bid to impose such sanctions.

China and Iran

The Iran issue is the most recent source of tension between China and the West. The United States and Europe are pushing the United Nations to impose sanctions because of Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment programs. China has threatened to veto any such measure as its right being a permanent member of the Security Council. China does support the demand that Iran curtail the program.

Mike Green, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies has stated that the Iran issue is "...the first test of whether the world can influence China, or China influence the world."

The reason behind China's support for Iran is from a preliminary agreement signed in 2004 to buy a 51 percent stake in Iran's Yadavaran oil field, located in the Western Kurdistan province near the border with Iraq. This deal would also allow China to buy 150,000 barrels of Iranian crude a day and 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas at market rates for 25 years amounting to as much as US$100 billion.

There is growing speculation that China will take over the Japanese contract to develop the south Azadegan oilfield. Japan and Iran signed the US$2 billion contract in 2004, but delays as a result of Iran's nuclear program have resulted in Iran's announcement that Japan will be dropped if it fails to advance the project.

Conclusion

China has had a significant impact on commodity supplies and subsequent price. Some of that demand may be attributed to 'displaced demand' in the sense that a consumer good produced in China consumes the same amount of material as it would if produced in the US. However, the development of an emerging Chinese middle class and a mass migration, perhaps the most significant one in modern history, of millions of Chinese from rural to urban areas of the country will result in a fundamental structural change in the Chinese economy.

On the global stage, China's policy of non-involvement in sovereign nations has enabled its state-owned companies to seek out trading agreements with those countries of the world considered unsavoury to the US and Europe. China's position as a founding member on the UN Security Council and subsequent veto power has been instrumental in China building diplomatic and economic relationship with 'rogue' nations. China can be expected to bear continued pressure from the international community as it seeks to secure raw materials from any source for its fast-growing economy.



Comment on this Article


Yuan's rate is our business, China tells US

Reuters
11 Dec 06

BEIJING - China raised the stakes today for high-level economic talks with the US by reporting a near-record monthly trade surplus and telling Washington that its exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty.
The surplus for November of $22,9bn, just shy of October's record $23,8bn and more than double that of November last year, handed fresh ammunition to US critics who say China is unfairly holding down the value of its currency to give its exporters an edge in global markets.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who leads a high-level delegation to China this week, warned Beijing on Friday that the world was growing impatient for economic and currency reforms.

Following up today in an article he wrote in the Washington Post, Paulson said: "The United States believes China can do more to reduce its trade surplus. We are encouraging China to introduce greater flexibility for its currency."

In response, a senior Chinese central banker reaffirmed Beijing's determination to let market forces play a greater role in determining the yuan's exchange rate, but said currency adjustments alone could not iron out trade imbalances.

"The exchange rate issue is A) a sovereign issue and this is our principle. B) We will take internal and external balances into account when making decisions on the yuan," People's Bank of China assistant governor Yi Gang told reporters on the sidelines of a financial forum.

China has let the yuan rise by about 3,45% since it revalued the currency by 2,1% in July last year, but US lawmakers and business groups say the currency remains grossly undervalued given China's bulging balance-of-payments surplus.

A report in the New York Times on Friday quoted an unnamed Chinese official as saying there would be a package of "deliverables" to show this week's so-called "strategic economic dialogue" can produce results.

Senior Chinese officials today, though, confined themselves to general statements of intent. "We will keep the yuan exchange rate basically stable at a reasonable and balanced level and increase flexibility in the exchange rate system," Yi said.

Yi was echoed by Deng Xianhong, vice-head of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, the currency regulator, who reaffirmed China's intention to gradually promote capital account convertibility so that the yuan will one day be freely tradable for purely financial purposes.

Deng also said that China, in a move that could reduce pressure for the yuan to rise, would encourage banks, insurers and industrial companies to ship more capital overseas.

He said China was particularly keen for its industrial companies to pursue mergers and acquisitions abroad. That could foreshadow further friction with the US, where political opposition last year forced a Chinese oil company to abandon efforts to buy Californian rival Unocal.

November's trade surplus, which exceeded economists' forecasts of $20,bn, took the running total for the latest 12 months to $167,5bn from $155,1bn in October. In all of last year, the surplus tripled to $102bn.

Exports soared 32,8% from a year earlier, while imports grew 18,3%, the customs administration said.

"This is very strong. It highlights China's competitiveness and strength as the world's factory," said Dong Tao, a senior economist with Credit Suisse in Hong Kong.

He said China would probably let the yuan rise a little faster even though that would not tackle the root cause of the trade friction with the US.

"If Americans keep spending as they have been doing, a stronger Chinese currency won't necessarily correct the trade imbalance. The bottom line is Americans need to spend less and Chinese need to spend more," he said.



Comment on this Article


Chinese companies unveil video players with homegrown DVD technology

Associated Press
6 Dec 06

BEIJING: China's top electronics makers on Wednesday unveiled dozens of video players made with a homegrown DVD format in a campaign to promote a Chinese alternative to foreign technology.

The DVD format, known as EVD, is part of state-backed efforts to create standards for mobile phones and other products and reduce dependence on foreign know-how and possibly reap licensing fees if they are adopted abroad.

EVD, or Enhanced Versatile Disc, was first released in 2003, but an effort to promote it was dropped in 2004 after the players failed to catch on with consumers and producers squabbled over licensing fees.
Now Chinese electronics makers have revived the campaign on a massive scale, saying they plan to switch completely to EVD by 2008 and stop producing DVD players. Electronics makers, film studios and retailers are promising to sell EVD discs and players.

The move also adds a new twist to rivalry between the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc next-generation video standards being promoted by competing groups of U.S., Japanese and European companies.

Promoters of EVD say it provides crisper pictures and sound, bigger recording capacity and better anti-piracy features than standard DVD.

Zhang Baoquan, general secretary of the EVD Industry Alliance, a group promoting the alternative format, expressed confidence that sales in China's booming consumer electronics market will be strong enough to support producers after they stop making DVD players.

"By 2008, when EVD replaces DVD, there will be no major impact on Chinese manufacturers," he said at a news conference.

Chinese sales of high-definition TV sets next year are expected to grow by 60 percent to 8 million units, driving sales of video players, Zhang said. He said producers plan to start trying to export EVD machines next year.

On Wednesday, 54 video players from 20 Chinese manufacturers were displayed at a Beijing art gallery. They included models from Haier Group, one of the world's top three appliance makers, and TCL Group, which owns French television maker Thomson and the RCA brand.

Chinese companies produce 80 percent of the world's DVD players under their own brand names and for foreign electronics companies or retailers. But manufacturers complain that fees paid to foreign owners of technology cut into profits in a highly competitive industry.

At Wednesday's exhibition, film distributors displayed dozens of Chinese movies and a handful of foreign titles including the Hollywood thriller "Cellular" in EVD format.

The industry group says EVD players will retail for about 700 yuan (US$87; €70), about the same as a DVD player.

The 20 manufacturers in the EVD alliance account for 90 percent of DVD sales in China, according to Zhang.

Chinese authorities have had only mixed success with earlier efforts to promote homegrown standards for the fast-growing fields of mobile phones and wireless encryption.

Last year, Beijing dropped an effort to make its encryption standard mandatory for computers and other goods sold in China after the United States and other governments complained it would hamper market access for foreign companies. In March, the global industrial standards body rejected the Chinese system for worldwide use.

Beijing has postponed announcing a next-generation mobile phone standard as its researchers try to develop their own system. The delay has prompted complaints by mobile phone carriers and handset manufacturers.

State media say the Chinese system has performed poorly in tests.



Comment on this Article


Boost for China's offshore ambition

Andrew Yeh, Beijing
December 07, 2006

CHINA Development Bank, the world's largest development institution by assets, is to put more resources behind the overseas expansion of Chinese enterprises, particularly in natural resource projects, its top executive says.

The bank's shift of direction is likely to bring it into conflict with Western-dominated multilateral lenders concerned about China's record on human rights and environmental issues.
CDB has so far focused on domestic power and transport projects, such as the Three Gorges dam. By the end of last year, only 64 billion yuan ($10.4 billion) of its total of 1.7 trillion yuan in outstanding loans were for foreign projects - under 4 per cent.

But CDB governor Chen Yuan told the Financial Times it was seeking international financing opportunities in energy and minerals.

He said the bank's lending for foreign projects had grown "very fast" and was expected to rise.

"We follow the biggest market players in China abroad," he said.

His comments suggest CDB is set to become integral to financing the overseas push by China's state-owned enterprises.

Beijing has encouraged domestic companies to invest offshore, both to sharpen global competitiveness and to secure raw materials under China's "resource security" policy.

CDB has extended credit to local groups with foreign operations, among them technology companies Huawei and Lenovo, car giant Chery, and resource groups China National Petroleum Corporation, Sinopec and Minmetals.

The bank has sent teams to Venezuela, Russia and central Asia. A likely target is Africa, where Chinese groups have a big presence.

"We are making our strongest efforts to support these projects abroad and assist the countries where these projects are located," said Mr Chen.

The governor confirmed that the bank was negotiating to set up a financing mechanism for several projects in Venezuela.

The Government of President Hugo Chavez has said it was preparing a fund of up to $US6 billion ($7.6 billion) to build housing, roads, railways and telecommunications, with the Chinese contributing $US4 billion.

CDB came under fire late last year for its role in plans for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia.

Philippe Maystadt, European Investment Bank president, said last week he feared the EIB could lose projects in Asia and Africa to Chinese banks because they "don't bother about social or human rights conditions".

Mr Chen said the bank often had to explain to foreigners how it operated. "Not many people understand what CDB is." It was often mistaken for an extension of China's Finance Ministry, he said.



Comment on this Article


Computing


Antikythera: Ancient Computer Provides More Questions Than Answers - Scientists Mystified by 2,100-Year-Old Device

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post
December 11, 2006

The island of Antikythera lies 18 miles north of Crete, where the Aegean Sea meets the Mediterranean. Currents there can make shipping treacherous -- and one ship bound for ancient Rome never made it.

The ship that sank there was a giant cargo vessel measuring nearly 500 feet long. It came to rest about 200 feet below the surface, where it stayed for more than 2,000 years until divers looking for sponges discovered the wreck a little more than a century ago.

The Antikythera Mechanism

Pulled from the Mediterranean Sea in 1900, the artifact was recently examined using high-resolution X-ray tomography.

Ancient Computer


Inside the hull were a number of bronze and marble statues. From the look of things, the ship seemed to be carrying luxury items, probably made in various Greek islands and bound for wealthy patrons in the growing Roman Empire. The statues were retrieved, along with a lot of other unimportant stuff, and stored.

Nine months later, an enterprising archaeologist cleared off a layer of organic material from one of the pieces of junk and found that it looked like a gearwheel. It had inscriptions in Greek characters and seemed to have something to do with astronomy.

That piece of "junk" went on to become the most celebrated find from the shipwreck; it is displayed at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Research has shown that the wheel was part of a device so sophisticated that its complexity would not be matched for a thousand years -- it was also the world's first known analog computer.

The device is so famous that an international conference organized in Athens a couple of weeks ago had only one subject: the Antikythera Mechanism.

Every discovery about the device has raised new questions. Who built the device, and for what purpose? Why did the technology behind it disappear for the next thousand years? What does the device tell us about ancient Greek culture? And does the marvelous construction, and the precise knowledge of the movement of the sun and moon and Earth that it implies, tell us how the ancients grappled with ideas about determinism and human destiny?

"We have gear trains from the 9th century in Baghdad used for simpler displays of the solar and lunar motions relative to one another -- they use eight gears," said Fran?ois Charette, a historian of science in Germany who wrote an editorial accompanying a new study of the mechanism two weeks ago in the journal Nature. "In this case, we have more than 30 gears. To see it on a computer animation makes it mind-boggling. There is no doubt it was a technological masterpiece."

The device was probably built between 100 and 140 BC, and the understanding of astronomy it displays seems to have been based on knowledge developed by the Babylonians around 300-700 BC, said Mike Edmunds, a professor of astrophysics at Cardiff University in Britain. He led a research team that reconstructed what the gear mechanism would have looked like by using advanced three-dimensional-imaging technology. The group also decoded a number of the inscriptions.

The mechanism explores the relationship between lunar months -- the time it takes for the moon to cycle through its phases, say, full moon to full moon -- and calendar years. The gears had to be cut precisely to reflect this complex relationship; 19 calendar years equal 235 lunar months.

By turning the gear mechanism, which included what Edmunds called a beautiful system of epicyclic gears that factored in the elliptical orbit of the moon, a person could check what the sky would have looked like on a date in the past, or how it would appear in the future.

The mechanism was encased in a box with doors in front and back covered with inscriptions -- a sort of instruction manual. Inside the front door were pointers indicating the date and the position of the sun, moon and zodiac, while opening the back door revealed the relationship between calendar years and lunar months, and a mechanism to predict eclipses.

"If they needed to know when eclipses would occur, and this related to the rising and setting of stars and related them to dates and religious experiences, the mechanism would directly help," said Yanis Bitsakis, a physicist at the University of Athens who co-wrote the Nature paper. "It is a mechanical computer. You turn the handle and you have a date on the front."

Building it would have been expensive and required the interaction of astronomers, engineers, intellectuals and craftspeople.

Charette said the device overturned conventional ideas that the ancient Greeks were primarily ivory tower thinkers who did not deign to muddy their hands with technical stuff. It is a reminder, he said, that while the study of history often focuses on written texts, they can tell us only a fraction of what went on at a particular time.

(Imagine a future historian encountering philosophy texts written in our time -- and an aircraft engine. The books would tell that researcher what a few scholars were thinking today, but the engine would give them a far better window into how technology influenced our everyday lives.) Charette said it was unlikely that the device was used by practitioners of astrology, then still in its infancy. More likely, he said, it was bound for a mantelpiece in some rich Roman's home. Given that astronomers of the time already knew how to calculate the positions of the sun and the moon and to predict eclipses without the device, it would have been the equivalent of a device built for a planetarium today -- something to spur popular interest, or at least claim bragging rights.

Why was the technology that went into the device lost?

"The time this was built, the jackboot of Rome was coming through," Edmunds said. "The Romans were good at town planning and sanitation but were not known for their interest in science."

The fact that the device was so complex, and that it was being shipped with a quantity of other luxury items, tells Edmunds that it is very unlikely to have been the only one ever made.

Its sophistication "is such that it can't have been the only one," Edmunds said. "There must have been a tradition of making them. We're always hopeful a better one will surface."

Indeed, he said, he hopes that his study and the renewed interest in the Antikythera Mechanism will prompt second looks by both amateurs and professionals around the world.

"The archaeological world may look in their cupboards and maybe say, 'That isn't a bit of rusty old metal in the cupboard.' "



Comment on this Article


German gamers face jail for acts of virtual violence

Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

Players and creators of video games could face imprisonment for acts of virtual violence under draft legislation being drawn up by two of Germany's state governments.

Politicians in Bavaria and Lower Saxony have proposed a new offence that will punish "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" inside games. Early drafts suggest that infringers should face fines or up to 12 months' jail for promoting or enacting in-game violence.
The scheme comes in response to a shooting last month in the town of Emsdetten on the Dutch border, where Sebastian Bosse, an 18-year-old games fan, stormed into his former school and wounded 37 people before killing himself.

The incident caused outrage and the bill's sponsor, the Bavarian interior minister Günther Beckstein, claimed there was a direct connection between Bosse's actions and his love of the game Counter Strike. "It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect," he said.

Germany already has drastic censorship laws for games, and industry officials are preparing organised protests against the proposals. Research has yet to show a link between violence in video games and violent acts in the real world.



Comment on this Article


Business sense


Israel Bonds raises $1.2 billion in 2006

By AVI KRAWITZ
Jerusalem Post
10 Dec 06

The Israel Bonds Organization surpassed its annual goal, raising $1.2 billion in 2006 after investments accelerated when US support for Israel rallied during the war in Lebanon.

"We weren't able to stop at a billion because of the outpouring of support because of the war," Rafi Rothstein, spokesman for the group told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's not that we raised so much more, rather that the pace was accelerated by the war, that at the end we were getting people to commit for next year, there was a surge of support."

"When the 2007 campaign starts in January, we will already have a few hundred million dollars in commitments," he added.
An Israel Bonds leadership task force was in the country last week for a three-day visit during which they met with politicians including Finance Minister Avraham Hirchson, Education Minister Yuli Tamir and opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. The government has given the organization a goal of raising $1b. per year and Israel Bonds CEO and President Joshua Matza informed Hirchson of the success of this year's campaign during last week's meeting.

"We are the major providers of foreign capital for Israel's infrastructure and among the least expensive in terms of interest rates in international markets," Matza said.

Hirchson told the group the economy is growing even after the war and thanked them for their support during and after the conflict and added that Israel bonds would be an important partner in his plan to narrow social gaps in Israel.

The delegation traveled to the North during the visit, which was the organization's first since the summer's conflict, bringing a "human element" to the war that had spurred their campaign.

The task force included members of the organization's leadership and board members and newer investors who have recently started promoting bond investments in their communities.

The organization embarked on a nationwide campaign in August, in the midst of the war, to boost bond purchases, which traditionally are used by US investors as an expression of support for Israel.

"Bonds are not a substitute for direct investment, but a lot of people who would buy companies in Israel or invest in groups here also buy bonds," Rothstein said. "It's kind of a measure of connection and support for Israel to be a bond holder. If you look at a Jewish American activist, it's almost inevitable they own bonds, it's just part of their credentials."

Jeffrey Blankfort Comments:
We see the International Socialist Organization, which was almost dead, begin to suddenly arise, and one of the first issues they started talking about was Palestine. But when the Afghan War started and we were going to have a big march, and a number of us wanted to bring up the issue of Israel and the Occupation, the ISO opposed that. I wanted to debate one of the ISO leaders, who happens to channel Chomsky without even quoting him. (We can get into Chomsky later.) And he agreed to do it and discuss the Israel Lobby. I was going to give them all the money from the proceeds. And then he wrote back that, "I've been told that we don't really have time to have me debate you." And then we have ANSWER, the Workers World Party. They also opposed . . . all the Left groups have opposed the Palestinian issue being made a major part of the anti-war movement until fairy recently. SF-IMC: Why? Jeffrey Blankfort: For various reasons, some that are obvious but not valid. None of them are valid. One is labor. The American labor movement is part and parcel of the Israel Lobby. Seventeen hundred unions own over five billion dollars worth of Israel Bonds. That obliges them to support Israel to make sure the investment of their members' dues, made without their members' knowledge, is secure. Twenty three states have also invested in Israel Bonds as well. This is taking taxpayers' money and investing in the economy of a country that is dependent economically and politically on the United States. This makes all these people lobbyists for Israel. Very clever on their part.


Comment on this Article


Mining leader: Gold boom probably only half way through

By SCOTT SONNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPARKS, Nev. -- Buoyed by high prices, demand from Asia and a weak U.S. dollar, the gold industry has flourished since prices bottomed out in 2000 and probably is only halfway through the current boom cycle, a leading industry official said Wednesday.

"Overall, our market is strong and will remain strong for some time to come," said Ronald Stewart, senior vice president for exploration for Canada-based Kinross Gold Corp., the eighth largest gold producing company in the world.
"We're probably in the middle innings of this current route," he said in a keynote address to the 112th annual meeting of the Northwest Mining Association.

The 1,500-member group is meeting for the first time outside of Spokane, Wash., to try to draw more involvement from members in Nevada, the third largest producer of gold in the world behind South Africa and Australia, sponsors said. The theme of the three-day convention is "Sustaining the Boom."

"I believe we are in a super-cycle of extended high metals prices spurred by demand from China and to a lesser extent India," said Laura E. Skaer, the association's executive director.

"Most up cycles historically have been based on development and consumption primarily in the United States," she said.

But now, the U.S. population of 300 million is dwarfed by China's 1.3 billion and India's 900 million "and they've got a taste of what we have, the fruits of civilization, like computers and cell phones," Skaer said.

Stewart said in his speech that the industry's challenges include inflation, shortages of labor and supplies, and barriers that discourage entry into the business, such as the permit process, capital costs and access to property.

The price of gold is about $640 an ounce today after bottoming out around $275 an ounce.

"We were all trying to figure out how we were going to stay alive," he recalled when he last addressed the convention in 2000.

Since 1800, the industry's average boom and bust cycles have averaged about 10 years - the last downward trend lasting 14 years from 1986-2000, Stewart said.

Even though production levels are down, the value of gold being purchased today is up 47 percent from a year ago, he said.

"So there is still a considerable amount of demand there for the product, and we see good reason to believe this demand will continue," Stewart said.

He predicted the industry will continue to consolidate, with competitive advantages shifting from the largest companies to those with the most growth.

"Size is no longer the most important value driver in our business," he said.

From 2000-06, there have been almost $40 billion in consolidation transactions involving gold alone, he said. This year, it's close to $16 billion, he said.

"Ultimately, it strengthens our industry. It shows stakeholders we are going to be in business a long time," he said.

The industry is spending $7.1 billion a year on exploration, up from about $2.6 billion a few years ago, he said. About half of that exploration is for gold, 30 percent on copper and other base metals and about 20 percent on other minerals, such as diamonds and uranium, he said.

Inflation is taking its bite with overall costs up about 25 percent, including a 25 percent increase in the price of steel and energy costs up about 40 percent, Stewart said.

"The industry's challenge is to try to maintain a low-cost profile," he said.

The costs of regulation and environmental protection also are rising, he said.

"In the court of public opinion, we are ranked along with our lowest or poorest performers. We owe it to ourselves to police ourselves," he said.

Stewart said the continued appetite in the Asian market for U.S. dollars is keeping the value of the dollar higher than it really should be in a free market. But that could change, he said, noting that China has only 1.5 percent of its reserves in gold bullion, compared with most of Europe which has about 15 percent in gold reserves.

If China were to raise its gold reserves to the 15 percent level, it would have to purchase 8,000 tons of gold, he said.

"So all the signals are the gold price could be higher or really much higher. All the factors are there."

The secondary impacts of the industry's economic success was evident Wednesday by the more than 200 exhibitors who joined the more than 1,200 pre-registered attendees.

"We're busy," said Kenny Brown, who works in Elko for the Montrose, Colo.-based Connors Drilling LLC.

Delhur Industries Inc., based in Port Angeles, Wash., and Hermiston, Ore., builds tailings ponds and heap leach pads to process minerals at mines across much of the West.

"With the boom, you need more ponds and leach pads," said John Doyle, its vice president for operations.

John Sangster of Riggins, Idaho, said his Miners supply company for geologists, engineers and surveyors has lagged behind the boom a bit.

"It's been so-so. It's coming," he said. "We notice pretty much like everybody else most of the business seems to be overseas."



Comment on this Article


Sex, Cognition, and Nuking ET


Different sexes have different cognitive processes

www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-12 11:31:35

BEIJING, Dec. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Boys and girls tend to use different parts of their brain to learn some fundamental parts of grammar, according to a new U.S. study on Tuesday.

"Sex has been virtually ignored in studies of the learning, representation, processing and neural bases of language," said lead author Michael Ullman, a neuroscientist at Georgetown University. "This study shows that differences between males and females may be an important factor in these cognitive processes."
Men and women may process words differently because of different levels of the hormone estrogen, which is much higher in females and affects brain processing, according to Ullman.?

For the study, published in Developmental Science, researchers investigated the different brain systems that children used when they made mistakes like "Yesterday I holded the bunny." They found that girls tended to use a process that dealt with memorizing words and associations between them, whereas boys used a process governing the rules of language.

For this study, Ullman and his colleagues studied how a group of 10 boys and 15 girls, between the ages of two and five, used regular and irregular past-tense forms of verbs.

Children would be likely to make mistakes like "holded," as those errors result from children applying the "add-ed" rule of regular verbs when they can't remember the form of the irregular verb.

The results of the study showed: Girls used "holded" far more than boys. Digging deeper, the researchers found that words liked "holded" had many rhyming verbs with regular past-tense forms, like folded and molded.

According to the researchers, the girls were using their declarative memory to memorize the regular past tense forms and then applying those forms to rhyming irregular verbs.

Declarative memory referrs to a "mental lexicon" in memorizing and remembering words, Ullman explained.?

"This memory is not just a rote list of words, but underlies common patterns between words, and can be used to generalize these patterns," Ullman said.

But for boys, there was no association between the number of rhyming regular past-tense verbs and the verbs that were used incorrectly. According to Ullman, this suggests that boys were using their procedural memory that contains the rule to add "-ed" to create past tense verbs. ?

Procedural memory, controlled by a different part of the brain, is used to combine words in sentences, Ullman gave the explanation. (Agencies)



Comment on this Article


Gorbachev and Reagan: A Military Alliance Against a Hypothetical Alien Attack

by Luca Scantamburlo
December 12, 2006
UFO Gigest

My question to the great Russian politician was an unusual one for a statesman - it concerned certain public statements by Ronald Reagan about the possibility of "an alien threat [to the Earth] from outside this world "coming from "another planet," which would eventually help all people recognize the common bond which "unites all the members of humanity." (Speeches at a high school in Maryland on December 4, 1985, and before of the General Assembly of the United Nations during the Forty-second Session on September 21, 1987.) During my question, ex-premier Gorbachev interrupted me and, referring to Reagan, said, "Among other things he once talked about it with me as well."
On June 23, 2006 ex-Soviet premier Michail Sergeyevich Gorbachev held a press conference for a large gathering of national and local reporters on the first day of an international seminar entitled "Media between Citizens and Power" at the congress centre of the Venice Province on San Servolo Island in the Venetian Lagoon. The international seminar (June 23 and 24, 2006) was supported by the Venice Province and by the World Political Forum founded by Gorbachev.

On that occasion I was the correspondent for the Gruppo Editoriale Olimpia, Italian publisher of the magazines "Tecnologia & Difesa" and "UFO Notiziario," and I was able to question Mr. Gorbachev. My question to the great Russian politician was an unusual one for a statesman - it concerned certain public statements by Ronald Reagan about the possibility of "an alien threat [to the Earth] from outside this world "coming from "another planet," which would eventually help all people recognize the common bond which "unites all the members of humanity." (Speeches at a high school in Maryland on December 4, 1985, and before of the General Assembly of the United Nations during the Forty-second Session on September 21, 1987.) During my question, ex-premier Gorbachev interrupted me and, referring to Reagan, said, "Among other things he once talked about it with me as well." Immediately I replied, "In Geneva, in 1985," without denial from Gorbachev. I ended my questioning by referring to the baffling statements made in September, 2005 by Paul Hellyer, ex-Canadian Minister of Defense, at Toronto University. Hellyer talked about the possibility of an imminent "intergalactic war" for which the United States of America was preparing in secret. (See the article by Maurizio Molinari for the Italian newspaper "La Stampa," November 26, 2005, page 10).

Although Gorbachev's answer was, "We are looking at a range of hypotheses," and he concentrated on "the more serious" cometary and asteroidal threat of the so-called NEOs (against which we could use a "reduced armament of nuclear defense" kept only for that purpose), his recent confirmation of a particular moment in the discussion with Reagan is remarkable.

But why did Reagan talk to Gorbachev in private about an alien threat from other species? We were still waiting for a precise answer and some weeks ago we unexpectedly got further details on the Genevan summit which took place in November, 1985. On October 29, 2006, Fabio Fazio, an Italian presenter of RAI TRE (one of the State channels in Italy), had Gorbachev as a guest on his evening show.

The interview with the famous statesman lasted half an hour. At the end, with a bit of embarrassament, Fabio Fazio asked him about his discussions with Reagan during the 1980s, with reference to UFOs. The Italian host explained to Gorbachev that someone (perhaps some spectator at home, I suppose) had written him a question about that. Keeping in mind my question already put to the former Soviet premier on the same subject, Gorbachev once again had an opportunity to answer more thoughtfully, and, moreover, this question was less specific than mine, therefore more manageable.

From Channel RAI TRE, show Che Tempo Che Fa, 10-29-2006, with simultaneous translation from Russian into Italian by a female voice-over. The following transcription is my translation into English:

[...]

The ex-Soviet premier recalled that moment with seriousness: Gorbachev: It was the first meeting and our conversations were very difficult ... particularly because our conversation began with him calling me 'a very stubborn Bolshevik' and me calling him a 'dinosaur.'

Fazio [smiling]: Kind. Nice...

[laughter and applause from the audience]

Gorbachev: But in a couple of days we went a long way. So much so that we got to a conclusive document where there was written that we, the Presidents, believed that nuclear warfare was not acceptable because there could be no winners. Fazio: The end of the Cold War, practically.

Gorbachev: Almost. No! It still needs a little time. As regards the dialogue, at that time it was a very difficult dialogue because we could not totally meet each other halfway. And I remember during a walk by the villa garden where we met, President Reagan stopped and said, 'But, listen to me, President Gorbachev. If we were attacked from Space, would we come together? Would we unite?' - I answered him, 'I do not know what you think about it but I propose to come together, that we join forces.' [...] [applause from the audience]

The recent Gorbachev recollection is really meaningful and confirms what Zecharia Sitchin, the well-known Russian historian living in New York, wrote in his essay "Genesis Revisited," (1991) chapter 13: "The new era of understanding, trust and co-operation was also born because there was an alien threat to all the nations of the Earth."

And maybe it does still exist.

Translation assistance by Fran Forstadt.

© Luca Scantamburlo
21 November 2006
www.angelismarriti.it - Published with the permission of the author



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