Why would the US want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?
The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. His power is being replaced with rule by civil war, apparently now the American Administration's favoured model across the region.
Fratricidal fighting is threatening to engulf, or already engulfing, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. Both Syria and Iran could soon be next, torn apart by attacks Israel is reportedly planning on behalf of the US. The reverberations would likely consume the region.
Western politicians like to portray civil war as a consequence of the West's failure to intervene more effectively in the Middle East. Were we more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or more aggressive in opposing Syrian manipulations in Lebanon, or more hands-on in Iraq, the sectarian fighting could be prevented. The implication being, of course, that, without the West's benevolent guidance, Arab societies are incapable of dragging themselves out of their primal state of barbarity.
But in fact, each of these breakdowns of social order appears to have been engineered either by the United States or by Israel. In Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, sectarian difference is less important than a clash of political ideologies and interests as rival factions disagree about whether to submit to, or resist, American and Israeli interference. Where the factions derive their funding and legitimacy from -- increasingly a choice between the US or Iran -- seems to determine where they stand in this confrontation.
Palestine is in ferment because ordinary Palestinians are torn between their democratic wish to see Israeli occupation resisted -- in free elections they showed they believed Hamas the party best placed to realise that goal -- and the basic need to put food on the table for their families. The combined Israeli and international economic siege of the Hamas government, and the Palestinian population, has made a bitter internal struggle for control of resources inevitable.
Lebanon is falling apart because the Lebanese are divided: some believe that the country's future lies with attracting Western capital and welcoming Washington's embrace, while others regard America's interest as cover for Israel realising its long-standing design to turn Lebanon into a vassal state, with or without a military occupation. Which side the Lebanese choose in the current stand-off reflects their judgment of how plausible are claims of Western and Israeli benevolence.
And the slaughter in Iraq is not simply the result of lawlessness -- as is commonly portrayed -- but also about rival groups, the nebulous "insurgents", employing various brutal and conflicting strategies: trying to oust the Anglo-American occupiers and punish local Iraqis suspected of collaborating with them; extracting benefits from the puppet Iraqi regime; and jockeying for positions of influence before the inevitable grand American exit.
All of these outcomes in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq could have been foreseen -- and almost certainly were. More than that, it looks increasingly like the growing tensions and carnage were planned. Rather than an absence of Western intervention being the problem, the violence and fragmentation of these societies seems to be precisely the goal of the intervention.
Evidence has emerged in Britain that suggests such was the case in Iraq. Testimony given by a senior British official to the 2004 Butler inquiry investigating intelligence blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was belatedly published last week, after attempts by the Foreign Office to hush it up.
Carne Ross, a diplomat who helped to negotiate several UN security council resolutions on Iraq, told the inquiry that British and US officials knew very well that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and that bringing him down would lead to chaos.
"I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said, adding: "At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
The obvious question, then, is why would the US want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?
Until the presidency of Bush Jnr, the American doctrine in the Middle East had been to install or support strongmen, containing them or replacing them when they fell out of favour. So why the dramatic and, at least ostensibly, incomprehensible shift in policy?
Why allow Yasser Arafat's isolation and humiliation in the occupied territories, followed by Mahmoud Abbas's, when both could have easily been cultivated as strongmen had they been given the tools they were implicitly promised by the Oslo process: a state, the pomp of office and the coercive means to impose their will on rival groups like Hamas? With almost nothing to show for years of concessions to Israel, both looked to the Palestinian public more like lapdogs rather than rottweilers.
Why make a sudden and unnecessary fuss about Syria's interference in Lebanon, an interference that the West originally encouraged as a way to keep the lid on sectarian violence? Why oust Damascus from the scene and then promote a "Cedar Revolution" that pandered to the interests of only one section of Lebanese society and continued to ignore the concerns of the largest and most dissatisfied community, the Shia? What possible outcome could there be but simmering resentment and the threat of violence?
And why invade Iraq on the hollow pretext of locating WMDs and then dislodge its dictator, Saddam Hussein, who for decades had been armed and supported by the US and had very effectively, if ruthlessly, held Iraq together? Again from Carne's testimony, it is clear that no one in the intelligence community believed Saddam really posed a threat to the West. Even if he needed "containing" or possibly replacing, as Bush's predecessors appeared to believe, why did the president decide simply to overthrow him, leaving a power void at Iraq's heart?
The answer appears to be related to the rise of the neocons, who finally grasped power with the election of President Bush. Israel's most popular news website, Ynet, recently observed of the neocons: "Many are Jews who share a love for Israel."
The neocons' vision of American global supremacy is intimately tied to, and dependent on, Israel's regional supremacy. It is not so much that the neocons choose to promote Israel's interests above those of America as that they see the two nations' interests as inseparable and identical.
Although usually identified with the Israeli right, the neocons' political alliance with the Likud mainly reflects their support for adopting belligerent means to achieve their policy goals rather than the goals themselves.
The consistent aim of Israeli policy over decades, from the left and right, has been to acquire more territory at the expense of its neighbours and entrench its regional supremacy through "divide and rule", particularly of its weakest neighbours such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese. It has always abominated Arab nationalism, especially of the Baathist variety in Iraq and Syria, because it appeared immune to Israeli intrigues.
For many years Israel favoured the same traditional colonial approach the West used in the Middle East, where Britain, France and later the US supported autocratic leaders, usually from minority populations, to rule over the majority in the new states they had created, whether Christians in Lebanon, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, or Hashemites in Jordan. The majority was thereby weakened, and the minority forced to become dependent on colonial favours to maintain its privileged position.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for example, was similarly designed to anoint a Christian strongman and US stooge, Bashir Gemayel, as a compliant president who would agree to an anti-Syrian alliance with Israel.
But decades of controlling and oppressing Palestinian society allowed Israel to develop a different approach to divide and rule: what might be termed organised chaos, or the "discord" model, one that came to dominate first its thinking and later that of the neocons.
During its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel preferred discord to a strongman, aware that a pre-requisite of the latter would be the creation of a Palestinian state and its furnishing with a well-armed security force. Neither option was ever seriously contemplated.
Only briefly under international pressure was Israel forced to relent and partially adopt the strongman model by allowing the return of Yasser Arafat from exile. But Israel's reticence in giving Arafat the means to assert his rule and suppress his rivals, such as Hamas, led inevitably to conflict between the Palestinian president and Israel that ended in the second intifada and the readoption of the discord model.
This latter approach exploits the fault lines in Palestinian society to exacerbate tensions and violence. Initially Israel achieved this by promoting rivalry between regional and clan leaders who were forced to compete for Israel's patronage. Later Israel encouraged the emergence of Islamic extremism, especially in the form of Hamas, as a counterweight to the growing popularity of the secular nationalism of Arafat's Fatah party.
Israel's discord model is now reaching its apotheosis: low-level and permanent civil war between the old guard of Fatah and the upstarts of Hamas. This kind of Palestinian in-fighting usefully depletes the society's energies and its ability to organise against the real enemy: Israel and its enduring occupation.
The neocons, it appears, have been impressed with this model and wanted to export it to other Middle Eastern states. Under Bush they sold it to the White House as the solution to the problems of Iraq and Lebanon, and ultimately of Iran and Syria too.
The provoking of civil war certainly seemed to be the goal of Israel's assault on Lebanon over the summer. The attack failed, as even Israelis admit, because Lebanese society rallied behind Hizbullah's impressive show of resistance rather than, as was hoped, turning on the Shia militia.
Last week the Israeli website Ynet interviewed Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen and co-founder of MEMRI, a service translating Arab leaders' speeches that is widely suspected of having ties with Israel's security services. She is also the wife of David Wurmser, a senior neocon adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Meyrav Wurmser revealed that the American Administration had publicly dragged its feet during Israel's assault on Lebanon because it was waiting for Israel to expand its attack to Syria.
"The anger [in the White House] is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians ... The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space ... They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its [Iran's] strategic and important ally [Syria] should be hit."
Wurmser continued: "It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East."
Neocons talk a great deal about changing maps in the Middle East. Like Israel's dismemberment of the occupied territories into ever-smaller ghettos, Iraq is being severed into feuding mini-states. Civil war, it is hoped, will redirect Iraqis' energies away from resistance to the US occupation and into more negative outcomes.
Similar fates appear to be awaiting Iran and Syria, at least if the neocons, despite their waning influence, manage to realise their vision in Bush's last two years.
The reason is that a chaotic and feuding Middle East, although it would be a disaster in the view of most informed observers, appears to be greatly desired by Israel and its neocon allies. They believe that the whole Middle East can be run successfully the way Israel has run its Palestinian populations inside the occupied territories, where religious and secular divisions have been accentuated, and inside Israel itself, where for many decades Arab citizens were "de-Palestinianised" and turned into identity-starved and quiescent Muslims, Christians, Druze and Bedouin.
That conclusion may look foolhardy, but then again so does the White House's view that it is engaged in a "clash of civilisations" which it can win with a "war on terror".
All states are capable of acting in an irrational or self-destructive manner, but Israel and its supporters may be more vulnerable to this failing than most. That is because Israelis' perception of their region and their future has been grossly distorted by the official state ideology, Zionism, with its belief in Israel's inalienable right to preserve itself as an ethnic state; its confused messianic assumptions, strange for a secular ideology, about Jews returning to a land promised by God; and its contempt for, and refusal to understand, everything Arab or Muslim.
If we expect rational behaviour from Israel or its neocon allies, more fool us.
Comment on this Editorial
This fact, finally reported by the mainstream press, goes to the very heart of and proves accurate much of what we have been saying on the Signs of the Times page for several years.
The following are facts, indisputable by all but the most self-deluded:
Number 1:
The US and British invasion of Iraq was NOT for the purpose of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqi people, but rather for the purpose of securing Iraq's oil resources for the US and British governments and expanding their control over the greater Middle East.
Number 2:
Both the Bush and Blair governments deliberately fabricated evidence (lied) about the threat the Saddam posed to the west and his links to the mythical 'al-Qaeda' in order to justify their invasion.
Number 3:
Dressed as Arabs, British (and CIA and Israeli) 'special forces' have been carrying out fake "insurgent" attacks, including 'car suicide bombings' against Iraqi policemen and Iraqi civilians (both Sunni and Shia) for the past two years. Evidence would suggest that these tactics are designed to provide continued justification for a US and British military presence in Iraq and to ultimately embroil the country in a civil war that will lead to the breakup of Iraq into more manageable statelets, much to the joy of the Israeli right and their long-held desire for the establishment of biblical 'greater Israel'
Coming not long after the botched London bombings carried out by British MI5 where an eyewitness reported that the floor of one of the trains had been blown inwards (how can a bomb in a backpack or on a "suicide bomber" INSIDE the train ever produce such an effect), more than anything else today's event in Basra highlights the desperation that is driving the policy-makers in the British government.
British intelligence would do well to think twice about carrying out any more 'false flag' operations until they can achieve the 'professionalism' of the Israeli Mossad - they always make it look convincing and rarely suffer the ignominy of being caught in the act and having the faces of their erstwhile "terrorists" plastered across the pages of the mainstream media.
 |
| The REAL face of "Islamic Terror" - Two SAS agents caught carrying out a false flag terror attack in Basra, Iraq September 20th 2005. |
Official: British troops freed in jailbreak
CNN 2005/09/20
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A British armored vehicle escorted by a tank crashed into a detention center Monday in Basra and rescued two undercover troops held by police, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official told CNN.
British Defense Ministry Secretary John Reid confirmed two British military personnel were "released," but he gave no details on how they were freed.
In a statement released in London, Reid did not say why the two had been taken into custody. But the Iraqi official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said their arrests stemmed from an incident earlier in the day.
The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.
The two gunmen fled the scene but were captured and taken in for questioning, admitting they were British marines carrying out a "special security task," the official said.
British troops launched the rescue about three hours after Iraqi authorities informed British commanders the men were being held at the police department's major crime unit, the official said.
Iraqi police said members of Iraq's Mehdi Army militia engaged the British forces around the facility, burning one personnel carrier and an armored vehicle.
Video showed dozens of Iraqis surrounding British armored vehicles and tossing gasoline bombs, rocks and other debris at them.
With one vehicle engulfed in flames, a soldier opened the hatch and bailed out as rocks were thrown at him. Another photograph showed a British soldier on fire on top of a tank.
"Many of those present were clearly prepared well in advance to cause trouble, and we believe that the majority of Iraq people would deplore this violence," Reid said. [...]
From the Washington Post
Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives. Photographs of the two men in custody showed them in civilian clothes.
When British officials apparently sought to secure their release, riots erupted. Iraqi police cars circulated downtown, calling through loudspeakers for the public to help stop British forces from releasing the two. Heavy gunfire broke out and fighting raged for hours, as crowds swarmed British forces and set at least one armored vehicle on fire.
Witnesses said they saw Basra police exchanging fire with British forces. Sadr's Mahdi Army militia joined in the fighting late in the day, witnesses said. A British military spokesman, Darren Moss, denied that British troops were fighting Basra police.
From China View (orginally pooled from the BBC)
Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said.
"Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers," an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua.
The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said. He added that the two were being interrogated in the police headquarters of Basra.
The British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that the two soldiers were performing an official duty, the source said. British military authorities said they could not confirm the incident but investigations were underway.
Comment on this Article
Iraq Special Inspector Exposes Fraud, Gets Fired By Congress
Jacob Hornberger
SWNewsHerald
December 19, 2006
Stuart W. Bowen should be grateful. He's the special inspector who was exposing fraud in federal contracts in Iraq. Consequently, Congress terminated his job.
So, why should Bowen be thanking his lucky stars? Because he got off light compared to Donald Vance, a 29-year-old American who went to Iraq as a security contractor. No doubt a bit naïve due to his age, Vance began reporting suspicious activity to the FBI about possible illegal weapons trading in the Iraqi security firm he was working with, including a steady flow of weapons to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which has been tied to death squads in Iraq.
When the firm was raided, at Vance's urging, Vance learned the hazards of being a whistleblower. He got taken into custody and was imprisoned in one of the U.S. military's infamous detention centers in Iraq. Spending 97 days in that hellhole, his confinement appears to be eerily similar to that of another American imprisoned by the Pentagon - Jose Padilla. According to the New York Times:
"American guards arrived at the man's cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep. The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared."
Vance's request to talk to a lawyer, one of the principal tenets of America's criminal justice system, was rebuffed by U.S. military authorities. After all, he was in Iraq, where that pesky U.S. Constitution isn't operative.
Giving the same response that they have in the Padilla case, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's detentions operations in Iraq, a first-lieutenant named Lea Ann Fracasso, said that Vance was "treated fair and humanely."
The sad part of this is the distinct possibility that Fracasso, along with her Pentagon cohorts, really and truly believes this. One day, Vance wrote in his Bible: Sick, very. Vomited. Told no more phone calls til leave."
Yesterday, the federal judge in the Padilla case ordered an official examination into Padilla's mental competency, given Padilla's apparently having been subjected to the same type of mental torture that American GIs were subjected to by the North Korean communists during the Korean War.
I've said it before but it bears repeating: Heaven forbid that the American people ever permit the U.S. military to import to America the type of "freedom" and "humaneness" it has brought to the Iraqi people. But that's certainly the direction our nation continues to head in, thanks to the horrible fear of "the terrorists" that 9/11 engendered in American adults. Just ask Jose Padilla and Donald Vance.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is one of the 22 speakers at FFF's upcoming conference "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties" on June 1-4, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston in Reston, Virginia.
Comment on this Article
Propaganda Alert! Jazeera TV says to air tape by al Qaeda's Zawahri
Reuters
20/12/2006
Al Jazeera television said on Wednesday it would air a tape by al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri.
The station did not give further details in its news flash.
The tape would be the first since September 29 when Zawahri appeared in a video posted on the Internet in which he called President Bush a lying failure for talking of progress in the war on terrorism.
Comment on this Article
Bush defies commanders by bolstering troops
Mark Tran and agencies
Wednesday December 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
George Bush today confirmed that a temporary increase in US troops for Iraq is under consideration, despite the opposition of his top generals.
In an interview with the Washington Post, the US president also acknowledged for the first time that the US is not winning the war in Iraq, reversing a declaration in November when he said: "Absolutely we're winning".
Mr Bush is expected to unveil his new strategy for Iraq early in the new year. Despite the opposition of his joint chiefs of staff and his top commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, the president appears to be leaning towards the idea of a temporary surge - six to eight months - of 20,000 to 30,000 troops in "one last big push".
The president has, however, persuaded Tony Blair of the need not to set a timetable to pull troops out of Iraq, according to Iraq's vice president.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York yesterday, Tareq al-Hashemi reportedly said that the prime minister was originally in favour of a timetable but was "brainwashed" by Mr Bush into changing his mind on the subject.
In a speech in Dubai today, Mr Blair appeared to back the president's comments, saying that "cutting and running" from Iraq would not just be a "breach of faith [but also] disastrous for our own wider interests".
Mr Bush was asked whether a troop increase in Iraq was even viable after the Republican defeat in the November midterm elections, Mr Bush replied: "Yes, all options are viable."
Gen Abizaid has resisted the idea with the argument that the presence of US troops is part of the problem as it breeds resentment among Iraqis. The joint chiefs fear that an increase would accomplish little as the insurgents would simply lie low until the extra US troops leave.
But the imminent retirement of Gen Abizaid, as commander of US forces in the Middle East, in March would pave the way for a change of plans for Iraq.
Gen Abizaid submitted his retirement documents just over a month ago, shortly before Donald Rumsfeld was forced out as defence secretary. Gen Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but the move was blocked by Mr Rumsfeld, who insisted his war commanders stay in place.
Gen Abizaid has been the primary architect of US military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan since becoming head of the US central command more than three years ago.
While top commanders question the value of a troop increase for Iraq, they have begun making preparations for such a move, according to US media reports.
Central command has made two separate requests to the new defence secretary, Robert Gates, for additional forces in the Middle East, including an army brigade of about 3,000 troops to be used as a reserve force in Kuwait and a second navy carrier strike group to move to the Persian gulf.
Mr Gates, who arrived in Baghdad today, has yet to approve the moves, which could increase US forces in the region by as many as 10,000 troops. The additional carrier strike group would have the useful dual purpose of sabre-rattling towards Iran while increasing military capabilities in Iraq.
An increase in US military strength in Iraq would fly in the face of the Baker-Hamilton report, but Mr Bush has made pretty clear his lack of enthusiasm for its two key recommendations.
The Iraq Study Group urged the Bush administration to shift the emphasis in Iraq from combat to training and to launch a diplomatic initiative, including direct talks with Iran and Syria.
Mr Blair today called on moderate Muslim states to form an "alliance of moderation" to counter Iran, saying the country wanted to "to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine".
In another change of course, Mr Bush said he had ordered Mr Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the army and marine corps, amid warnings that Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the US military to breaking point.
Gen Peter Schoomaker, the army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty force "will break" under the strain of current operations.
"We need to reset our military," Mr Bush said. Mr Rumsfeld had opposed an increase in troop levels in keeping with his vision of a smaller army relying on advanced technology.
The US army has already temporarily increased the number of troops from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that.
Comment on this Article
Spam: Bush reveals plan to expand military size
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 07:13:52
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Tuesday that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of "a long-term global war against terrorists."
In an interview with The Washington Post at the White House, Bush said it was a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.
He said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces.
The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.
The decision comes at a time when he is rethinking his strategy in Iraq and considering, among other options, a short-term surge in troop levels to try to secure violence-torn Baghdad.
In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against extremists around the world rather than Iraq specifically.
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to make a trip to Iraq to assess the situation for himself.
Comment on this Article
Report: Bush administration split over military plan for Iraq
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-19 23:54:19
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- The Bush administration is split over the idea for a surge in troops to Iraq, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
White House officials are aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report quoted U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate as saying.
Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table as the White House reviews its policy and attempts to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq.
However, the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching onto the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, as they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing U.S. President George W. Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends.
The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side.
For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now.
Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear.
"The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest... and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Comment on this Article
U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005
Reuters
20/12/2006
Suicides among U.S. soldiers in Iraq doubled last year over the previous year to return to a level seen in 2003, U.S. Army medical experts said on Tuesday.
Twenty-two U.S. soldiers in Iraq took their own lives in 2005, a rate of 19.9 per 100,000 soldiers. In 2004, the rate was 10.5 per 100,000 and in 2003, the year of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the figure was 18.8 per 100,000.
The figures cover U.S. Army soldiers only. They do not include members of other U.S. military services in Iraq such as the Marine Corps.
Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the Army's surgeon general, cautioned against overinterpreting the figures, saying suicide rates tended to fluctuate from year to year.
"We think that the numbers are so rare to begin with that it's very hard to make any kind of interpretation," he said at a news conference to present a study on the mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
"We have not made a connection between the stress on the force and some massive or even significant increase in suicides," he said.
While every suicide was one too many, Kiley said, the suicide rate among soldiers was lower than the average among civilians of the same age and gender.
The survey, a snapshot of the morale and mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in late 2005, found 13.6 percent of the soldiers reported symptoms of acute stress and 16.5 percent reported a combination of depression, anxiety and acute stress.
Those rates were lower than in 2003 but higher than in 2004, the experts said.
Comment: Oh what a lovely war! Just to make it clear, US soldiers are killing themselves because of what they have done and seen done to innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Now tell me, how do you think this has happened? Do you think that perhaps the people directing this war are in fact emotionless psychopaths?
Comment on this Article
Bush Government lying about levels of violence in Iraq
Reuters
06/12/2006
WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.
In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.
The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.
A request for
Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered.
Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.
Comment on this Article
U.S. defence chief in Iraq, Bush concedes war in trouble
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 5:45 AM ET
CBC News
New U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates made a surprise visit to Iraq on Wednesday one day after U.S. President George W. Bush conceded American forces are not winning the war and may need more troops.
Gates, who was sworn in on Monday, said he was in Iraq to see for himself what is happening.
"The whole purpose is to go out, listen to the commanders, talk to the Iraqis, and see what I can learn," Gates told reporters on Tuesday before boarding a plane in the U.S. capital.
Gates was being joined on the trip by U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for meetings with Iraqi military and political leaders.
Pace, meanwhile, found his words being quoted on Tuesday by Bush during an Oval Office interview with the Washington Post.
'Not winning, not losing'
"You know, I think an interesting construct that Gen. Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments," the president said.
"And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing - constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said.
Bush also indicated he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill who say the military is stretched too thin, and said he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to deal with the global war against Islamist extremists.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops - the army, the marines," Bush told the Post.
"And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
Bush did not say how many troops might be added.
He said he disagreed with former secretary of state Colin Powell's statement on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday that "the active army is about broken."
'Need to reset'
"I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " the president said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.'... We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is: Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?"
Bush said the decision to expand the military was a response to the broader war against Islamist extremists, and not specifically Iraq.
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from Iraq to get a first-hand look at the situation.
"I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward."
But Bush has been considering a plan to send up to 30,000 or more troops to Iraq for six to eight months in an effort to secure Baghdad, where sectarian violence has climbed to record levels.
Some top generals, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have reportedly rejected the idea of a "surge," saying it would be ineffective and could lead to more attacks from al-Qaeda.
Comment: Bush's "new way forward" is going to be the smae, old way forward. More guns, more troops, more death, more chaos.
Comment on this Article
If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say
December 14, 2006
The Guardian
- Fears of massacre prompt king's warning to Cheney
- Iranian influence across region adds to concern
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, that the kingdom would provide money and arms to Sunni militias in Iraq if America withdrew its troops from the country, it emerged yesterday.
The conversation, during a visit by Mr Cheney to Riyadh last month, was the most serious indication to date of Saudi concerns about a possible massacre of the minority Sunni community in Iraq in the event of a withdrawal of US forces, as well as rising Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Saudi Arabia has been concerned for months about rising domestic pressure on George Bush to bring US troops home from Iraq, despite the administration's avowals that it has no plans for a troop withdrawal. Those fears were exacerbated by the Iraq Study Group's report, which recommends the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq in early 2008 as well as the opening of diplomatic negotiations between the US and Syria and Iran.
Since then Mr Bush has held consultations with the Pentagon and state department officials in what seems an attempt to show the White House's commitment to carrying out a broad-based review of its policy on Iraq. The White House said it would unveil its new strategy in January.
Yesterday's New York Times reported that during the Riyadh meeting the king also expressed strong opposition to the recommendation that Washington open diplomatic talks with Iran, and called for a resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. King Abdullah said that Saudi Arabia would move quickly, but acknowledged that the intervention on behalf of Sunni tribal chiefs might help insurgent forces who have been fighting the Americans.
Saudi officials and the White House both denied the report.
"That's not Saudi government policy," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters. "The Saudis have made it clear that they're committed to the same goals we are, which is a self-sustaining Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, that will recognise and protect the rights of all, regardless of sect or religion," he said. "And furthermore, they share our concerns about the role the Iranians are playing in the region."
In Baghdad the military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, was also sceptical. "I don't think that came from the government of Saudi Arabia," he said.
But Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution told CNN that Saudi Arabia had strong motivation to take sides in a civil war. "They're terrified that civil war will spill over into Saudi Arabia. But they're also terrified that the Iranians, backing the various Shi'ite militias in Iraq, will come out the big winner in a civil war," he said.
In addition, reports emerged last week that Saudi private citizens were funnelling money to Sunni militias in Iraq through charities or pilgrims.
The warning to Mr Cheney was the most high-level indication of Saudi concerns. In October the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited".
The same message was delivered last month by Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the Saudi embassy, in the Washington Post. "One of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis," Mr Obaid wrote. "Options now include providing Sunni military leaders [primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency] with the same types of assistance - funding, arms and logistical support - that Iran has been giving to Shi'ite armed groups for years."
Prince Turki sacked Mr Obaid a week later, and the official Saudi press agency said there was no truth to his remarks. Days later Prince Turki told his staff that he had resigned. There has been no official confirmation from Saudi authorities.
Comment: How very strange that the Saudi position on Iraq is almost identical to that of Israel. Both do not want the US to withdraw troops (which are killing Arabs) and both do not want the US to talk to Iran but isolate it and/or bomb it. Of course, you will say that their reasons are very different, but are they? First, consider the next story...
Comment on this Article
British government blocks police investigation into corrupt arms deals with Saudi dictatorship
BBC News
14/12/2006
As bad news days go, Thursday 14 December 2006 must rank amongst Tony Blair's worst.
He was interviewed by police probing corruption claims in the cash-for-honours affair, and he pulled the plug on a fraud office investigation into corrupt dealings between BAE Systems and the Saudi government.
No wonder then, that he left Britain for an EU summit, and a later "peace tour" of the Middle East, to headlines accusing him of trying to bury bad news and even, through his spin doctors, lying to a London newspaper about the timing of the police visit to Downing Street.
The claim was he had deliberately timed these events for the day the long-awaited Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana was published.
But, as Downing Street flatly denied the allegation, it was apparent that these bits of bad news were refusing to be buried.
The best that could be said from the government's point of view was that they got them out in one big bang.
Defence customer
Of the two, it is probably the row over the Saudi corruption inquiry that has caused the greatest shock, and not a small amount of relief, in Westminster.
After a two-and-a half year long SFO investigation, and just at it was about to probe Swiss bank accounts, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced late in the day and to a sparsely-attended House of Lords that the investigation had been stopped in "the wider public interest" and national security.
The claim was that Saudi Arabia - Britain's biggest defence customer and its most powerful ally in the Middle East - might withdraw diplomatic, security and intelligence cooperation if the probe was allowed to go ahead.
And that at a time when its intelligence and influence is deemed crucial in helping the fight against Islamist terrorism.
The Liberal Democrats and others, however, believe it was a simple case of economic blackmail because the Saudis were threatening to withdraw a £6bn order for warplanes, threatening thousands of jobs in the UK, if the investigation was allowed to continue.
But to have made the decision purely on economic or commercial grounds would have likely walked the government into an international legal minefield, while the Attorney General is entirely within his powers to rule on the national interest.
Peace moves
He is not even required to spell out what those interests are.
MPs are now demanding further explanation of the decision and it is another black cloud cast over the prime minister's last months in office.
It is particularly sensitive as it comes when he is set to visit the Middle East in an attempt to re-start peace moves and, finally, move on from Iraq.
Critics are already unhappy at Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia, a non-democratic state with a controversial human rights record, but which is probably the most powerful and certainly one of the most oil rich in the region.
Successive government have been well aware of the dangers in putting relations with the Saudis under too much strain.
And it is, therefore, no surprise that former Tory ministers have welcomed the government's decision.
It was, after all, Tory minister Michael Heseltine who in 1985 signed the Al-Yamamah deal at the centre of the alleged corruption claims.
Tension
Former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken whose own career was ended amid allegations over his own dealings with Saudi Arabia a decade ago has also welcomed the decision.
But so have many Labour MPs and others who believe the investigation was threatening thousands of jobs in their constituencies.
So was this a simple piece of Realpolitik and was the prime minister right to act "in the national interest" because of the near certain reaction which would have followed from the Saudis if the investigation had been allowed to continue to its conclusion?
It is almost certainly the case that, at this time of high tension in the Middle East and against the background of the on-going battle against Islamic extremism, the very last thing the UK government wants is to fall out with its strongest regional ally.
Comment: What does the future hold?
The US finally "leaves" Iraq. Saudi Arabia (controlled by Zionists) arms Iraq's Sunnis with British weapons, but rather than turning on each other, Iraqis join with Iran, Lebanon and Syria, and turn on Israel. Israel threatens attacks on all, in the belief that the US will continue to support them. At the last moment, the US "balks", telling Israel it will have to fight this one alone. Israel, and much of the Middle East is destroyed in the ensuing war.
Comment on this Article
Iranigans
Blair blames Iran for Middle East conflicts
Wednesday December 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Tony Blair today labelled Iran as the main obstacle to hopes for peace in the Middle East.
Speaking in Dubai at the end of his five-day tour of the region, the prime minister called on moderate Muslim states to unite in combating Islamic extremists, such as the hardline regime of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr Blair said that Iran wanted "to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine", and went on to criticise the "indifference" of many world leaders towards its nuclear ambitions.
He said elements of the government of Iran were "openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process, trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon, flouting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine - at the same time as denying the Holocaust".
"And yet," Mr Blair continued, "a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious."
Some Iraqi politicians, mainly Sunni Muslims, have accused Tehran of fuelling sectarian violence by supporting Shia militias.
Tehran also backs the Lebanese guerrilla group and opposition party Hizbullah, which is leading a drive for early elections after failing to obtain veto power in government.
Meanwhile, Iraq's vice president claimed Mr Blair had been "brainwashed" by George Bush into dropping his support for a timetable for US and UK forces to withdraw from the country.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York yesterday, Tareq al-Hashemi said the prime minister had originally supported his proposal to announce a timetable for withdrawal.
In a later interview with the World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 last night, Mr Hashemi said Mr Blair appeared "willing and interested" to raise the matter with Mr Bush when they discussed it several months ago.
But once Mr Blair flew out to Washington and met with the US president he appeared to change his mind, said Mr Hashemi.
"He promised to take up this matter with President Bush within a couple of days because he was planning to fly to Washington at that time.
"But I was observing the joint press conference that he made with President Bush after his visit and I saw him talking about something quite different."
Mr Hashemi speculated Mr Bush opposed declaring a timetable for withdrawal "to avoid passing wrong messages to terrorism".
Comment: Blair's comment would indeed be hilarious if it was not an attempt to absolve himself and his Neocon and Zionist friends of their 100% responsibility for the long-standing "Middle East crisis". Israel continues to murder Palestinians and threaten other Middle Eastern Arab nations and Blair blames Iran. Quite literally, unbelievable.
Comment on this Article
Iranian FM spokesman: Blair's claims indicate London's meddling in region
Tehran, Dec 20, IRNA
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said on Wednesday that British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent "hostile and malicious" claims indicates Britain's "blatant and harmful" interference in regional affairs.
"Abuse of such concepts as democracy exists in Britain's black record and negative performance of the country and its procrastination in connection with Palestinian elections, victory of Hamas and other popular and political organizations in the region are clear examples of Britain's disbelief in the democratic process in the region," said Hosseini in a statement on Wednesday.
Hosseini said Blair's statements regarding formation of a coalition force are in line with the divisive policies of Britain in the region.
"The negative and divisive approach of Britain as well as unilateralism and war mongering policies of (the US President George W.) Bush and Blair account for tension and extremism in the region," noted Hosseini.
He said common interests and friendly bonds as well as peaceful coexistence of regional states are inseparable.
"Such claims will not have the least effect on fraternity, friendship and peaceful coexistence of regional states," he said.
Comment on this Article
Iran demands UN action to force Israel to forego nuclear weapons, sign NPT
Reuters
20/12/2006
Iran has urged the UN Security Council to condemn Israel's "clandestine development and possession of nuclear weapons" and to consider slapping sanctions if the Jewish state refuses to scrap its arsenal.
In a letter to Qatar's UN envoy Nasser Abdulaziz al-Nasser, the president of the Council for December, Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif cited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's apparent admission last week that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
"The Israeli regime's clandestine development and possession of nuclear weapons not only violate basic principles of international law, the United Nations Charter, the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and Security Council resolutions, but also clearly defy the demand of the overwhelming majority of UN member states," he said.
"Peace and security cannot be achieved in the Middle East while the massive Israeli nuclear arsenal continues to threaten the region and beyond," he added.
The Iranian envoy urged the 15-member council to "condemn the Israeli regime's clandestine development and possession of nuclear weapons, compel it to abandon nuclear weapons, urged it to accede to the NPT without delay, and demand that this regime place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) full-scope safeguards."
"Should the Israeli regime fail to do so, the council must take resolute action under Chapter Seven of the (UN) Charter (meaning sanctions) to ensure compliance," Zarif added.
Olmert's apparent admission breached the Jewish state's decades-long policy of nuclear ambiguity.
Under this policy, Israel, which is believed to have an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons, would not carry out any nuclear tests and stay silent on the issue in order to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Olmert's statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from secretly trying to build nuclear arms under the cover of a civilian atomic power program.
Comment: What an utterly logical and reasonable suggestion! So, when can we expect it to happen?
Comment on this Article
President: Bullying powers have no choice but to make friend with Iranian nation
Kermanshah, Dec 20, IRNA
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the best way for bullying powers to resolve Iran's nuclear case is to make friend with the Iranian nation.
Addressing a large crowd of local residents of the city of Kangavar in this western province, he addressed the bullying powers saying the Iranian nation is not afraid of your objection, frown or hostile gesture.
"You are not dealing with one political party but with a pious, committed, faithful, vigilant and united nation who is determined to reach climax of nuclear success," he said.
Addressing Western powers, he said "Do not create problems for the Iranian nation because this grate and united nation will thwart all your plots and it is only one step away from success." Opposition of bullying powers to Iran's access to peaceful nuclear energy has roots in their habit of seeking wealth and power, he said.
"The bullying powers try to ignore the scientific progress of our country as part of the Islamic world," he said.
"During my visit to New York they said their objection to Iran's peaceful use of nuclear energy was that they feared that other Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt might gain access to nuclear know-how," he said.
Despite all objections, excuses, irrational and illogical approaches of bullying powers, the powerful Iranian nation is determined to successfully carry out its nuclear programs and celebrate the occasion during Ten Day Dawn (February 1-11) ceremony, he said.
With the blessings of the Almighty God and perseverance of Iranian youths, we are to attain success in all fields, the president said.
Ahmadinejad said all wars, blood-shed, poverty, discrimination and misunderstanding have roots in lack of respect for god and religions and ignoring the culture of holy prophets, he said.
"Our mission is to depict a successful image of Iran in scientific, political, economic and militarily fields and we seek God's assistance to materialize such a goal," he said.
Addressing the youths in the province, he said the government is to create employment opportunities in the province.
President Ahmadinejad, accompanied by members of his cabinet, arrived in Kermanshah Tuesday for a three-day visit.
He is to preside over a cabinet session in Kermanshah city to discuss the province's problems before he and his entourage return to Tehran on Thursday.
The president's current visit is his 23rd to various provinces of the country since the start of his initiative of bringing the government closer to the people.
Comment on this Article
Russian Foreign Minister Criticizes Western Policy on Iran
Created: 20.12.2006 15:03 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:20 MSK, 2 hours 49 minutes ago
MosNews
Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov criticized the West for trying to punish Iran in the U.N. Security Council draft resolution on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, Reuters news agency reported Wednesday.
Lavrov, referring to the Europeans and the United States, said a proposed travel ban on Iranian officials "is in our view an attempt to bring an element of punishment and we agreed from the start not to do that".
"Our partners are trying to turn the situation around in their favor by inserting into the resolution statements which would in actual fact lift all limits on the restraints that are being introduced in Iran and will sever trade-economic ties with Iran in completely legitimate areas," he said.
Earlier, at the United Nations, Britain and France, which drafted the text along with Germany, decided to distribute the measure to the council so the 15 members could prepare for a vote.
But no vote has been set yet because of differences with Russia and China.
The text allows for a lifting of all sanctions if Iran fully complies with all council resolutions and demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors.
It bans imports and exports of materials and technology relating to uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water reactors, as well as ballistic missile delivery systems
To meet Russia's objections, it excludes any mention of a light-water reactor Moscow is building at Bushehr in southwest Iran, Iran's first nuclear power plant. But Russia has continued to seek deletion of the travel ban on leading Iranian officials and firms associated with the nuclear program.
Comment on this Article
Six powers still at odds over draft resolution on Iran
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 09:11:32
UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- Envoys from the six countries -- France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and the United States -- were still unable to agree on a draft UN resolution on Tuesday after concluding another round of informal meetings.
The draft, sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, would slap a ban on imports and exports of materials and technology relating to uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water reactors, as well as ballistic missile delivery systems.
The lack of progress was largely due to Russia's opposition to a travel ban on Iranian officials and firms associated with the nuclear program, as well as to a list of some Iranians subject to an assets freeze, UN diplomats said.
In an earlier resolution, the 15-nation UN Security Council required Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment by Aug. 31. But Iran ignored the deadline.
The United States has been seeking to impose sanctions on Iran through the UN Security Council on the grounds that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon program under the cover of a civilian program.
Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
Comment on this Article
Russia Calls Off Mission to Iran to Protest Holocaust Denial Conference
Created: 20.12.2006 12:10 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:02 MSK, 1 hour 11 minutes ago
MosNews
Russia called off a parliamentary mission to Iran to protest its recent Holocaust denial conference.
The speaker of the Russian Parliament revealed the decision this week in talks with Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramowitz, who was visiting Moscow.
In an interview with Israel Radio, Abramowitz said several high-level Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, his deputy and the director of the National Security Council, had been outspoken in condemning the conference hosted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Russia has been less decisive on Iran's nuclear program, resisting many Western initiatives to curb it through the threat of sanctions.
Comment on this Article
Russia Ties Knot with Brazil, Argentina
Moscow, Dec 19 (Prensa Latina)
Brazil and Argentina desire to cooperate with Russian enterprises in economic associations and infrastructural projects in South America, Russian Foreign Relations Minister Serguei Lavrov announced Tuesday.
In a government meeting, chaired by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, Lavrov provided detailed information on his recent visit to those nations, explaining both South American giants are interested in Russian participation in great inter-regional plans.
He specifically mentioned the transcontinental gas pipeline and the major modernization of the railroad system in South America, and compared the majesty of such tasks in this region to that by the United States in the 19th century.
They are interested in having major Russian Federation corporations take part in segments of the important work, said Lavrov, as quoted by the Voice of Russia.
During the visit of the head of Russian diplomacy to Buenos Aires and Brasilia, officials signed joint cooperation agreements related to the international agenda and the regional integrationist formations of Latin American.
Comment on this Article
Iraq Bleeds US Taxpayers Dry
Washington, Dec 20 (Prensa Latina)
The three-year war on Iraq, bleeding dry US taxpayers, will demand in 2007 another 110 billion dollars, the White House reported.
Rob Portman, director of the government s budget office, warned the figure is not definite and could be larger, according to the crisis faced by invaders of that Arab nation.
President George W. Bush is currently considering more troops for Iraq as part of confronting the spiral of violence described by many as a civil war.
The increase of military presence "is something being explored", said the spokesman Tony Snow in statements quoted by CNN TV network.
To counter this situation, The Washington Post wrote Tuesday that the high echelons of the US army question a Bush plan to send from 15 to 30 thousand more troops for a period of eight months to Iraq.
The paper said the opposition is based in the lack of definition of the objectives of such reinforcements.
Snow insisted, however, that the president "has not yet made a decision and has asked the military chiefs to consider a wide variety of options."
This step could be influenced by the imminent trip to Baghdad of new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who this week assumed the post.
The new head of the Pentagon formed part of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) which recommended a change of strategy in that country.
Also he said Washington should not engage indefinitely to maintain a great number of troops deployed in Iraq.
Comment on this Article
Good Government
Physical details of all UK residents to be held on ID database
Scotsman
20/12/2006
EVERYBODY living in the United Kingdom, including foreigners, will be required to have their biometric details recorded under the government's identity card scheme, it emerged yesterday.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, announced that all UK residents, whether or not they were British citizens, would be forced to have their irises scanned and their fingerprints taken for the national database.
"We are going to look at how we could do it for people who are already here," the Home Secretary said.
Mr Reid also revealed he had ditched plans for a single super-computer to hold the entire database.
For reasons of cost, the government will now spread the load between three existing computer systems.
It is not known how much this will save the government, which still insists identity cards for all can be delivered for about £5.4 billion.
Mr Reid denied there had been a U-turn over the computer system. He said: "We have decided it is lower risk, more efficient and faster to take the infrastructure that already exists."
Liam Byrne, the immigration minister said a consultation paper would be published in the new year.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said ID cards would turn out to be a "financial disaster" for Britain.
He said: "
It is beyond belief that John Reid is still prepared to waste up to £20 billion of taxpayers' money on this expensive white elephant.
"ID cards are at best a distraction from the serious, patient painstaking task of making Britain more secure. At worst, they actually risk making Britain less safe.
"What we have is a designer database targeted solely at those who obey the law. Illegal immigrants will not turn up to apply for visas and submit their biometrics."
Comment on this Article
Witness: New Orleans cops shot man in back as he ran away
CNN
18/12/2006
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana -- New Orleans police lined up "like at a firing range" and fatally shot an unarmed man in the back as he fled from them in the days after Hurricane Katrina swept ashore, a witness to the shooting told CNN.
It marks the first time a witness has come forward publicly with information about the shooting of Ronald Madison, a 40-year-old mentally retarded man whose death has sparked a police investigation and a grand jury probe into what happened in and around the Danziger Bridge that day.
"He just fell like he was collapsing," Kasimir Gaston told CNN. "Like something just wiped him out." (Watch Gaston describe what he saw Video)
Gaston was one of many flood refugees living on the second floor of the Friendly Inn, a low-income motel on the city's east side. On Sunday, September 4 of last year, he says he woke up and stepped onto the balcony of the motel and saw a man running, hands outstretched and being fired upon.
Initial police accounts said that Madison reached for his waistband and turned on police, but Gaston said Madison did not appear to have a weapon and that he was running away from police "hands out, full speed" when he was shot.
Police declined CNN's request for an interview.
After the shooting last year, police said officers had responded to reported gunshots on the Danziger Bridge and that a running gunbattle ensued with six suspects.
One teenager was killed near the base of the bridge and three other people were wounded, according to police reports.
A police department press release from October 4, 2005, said Madison, described as an unidentified gunman, was "confronted by a New Orleans Police officer. The suspect reached into his waist and turned toward the officer who fired one shot, fatally wounding him."
When asked if Madison had a gun, Gaston said, "I didn't see any on him."
No gun was found on Madison's body.
An autopsy obtained previously by CNN and verified by the Orleans Parish Coroner said Madison suffered five gunshot wounds to his back and two in his shoulder. (Watch police describe a running 'gunbattle')
'What I saw with my own eyes'
Gaston said he came forward now because he is still troubled by what happened. He said he decided to break his silence after watching a "CNN Presents" documentary, "Shoot to Kill," about the days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005.
CNN has visited the room where Gaston was staying. From that balcony, it is about 100 feet to where Madison was shot and killed.
The police department has said the shooting has been thoroughly investigated. But Gaston said no officer or detective approached him about what he saw. He was not asked for his name or phone number, Gaston said.
Gaston said his only contact with police on that day was when officers told him not to touch Madison's body, which was lying behind Gaston's truck, parked in the motel entranceway.
CNN has obtained a newspaper photo taken that Sunday morning that shows where the body fell. The back of a truck with a rusted trailer hitch and broken tail light can be seen in the photo. The photo appears to be Gaston's truck, which now sits in a parking lot in Dallas, Texas, where he now lives.
"They notified me that I had two bullet holes in the passenger side," he said. Two bullet marks can be seen at the right rear of the truck today.
Mary Howell, an attorney suing New Orleans police on behalf of the dead man's family, says there were several potential witnesses living at the Friendly Inn at the time of the shooting. She has accused police of violating procedures by failing to even write down their names.
Howell said Ronald Madison and his older brother, Lance Madison, were trying to avoid the shootout between police and others that day when they ran up the Danziger Bridge, toward the other side of the Industrial Canal.
Lance Madison has said a policeman pointed what looked like a rifle or shotgun at his brother and shot Ronald near the top of the bridge. Lance said he helped carry his wounded brother to the entrance of the motel and left him there while he ran for help. After being arrested, Lance was brought back to the motel where, he says, he first saw his brother was dead.
Howell said police, in the chaos after Hurricane Katrina, failed to properly investigate the fatal shooting and are now trying to put everything behind them.
"There's a lot of things that have been washed away with this hurricane," Howell said. "We are doing everything we can to make sure this is not one of them."
While the family of Ronald Madison presses on with its lawsuit, a grand jury in New Orleans is investigating the case. Gaston said he is willing to testify before the grand jury if it will help get to the truth.
"I'm not trying to say nobody did this and nobody did that," Gaston said. "I'm just saying what I saw and being truthful and honest about what I saw with my own eyes."
Comment on this Article
FBI Probes State Senate Majority Leader Bruno
December 20, 2006
Yesterday, Joseph Bruno, the NY State Senate's majority leader, revealed that the FBI was investigating him for his "outside business interests." Wow, is being investigated by the feds the new black for Republicans? Or is being investigation something most politicians need to go through (we're talking to you, Alan Hevesi!)? Republican Bruno called a press conference and told reporters, "I have nothing to hide. They are going into background over the past five or six years."
According to a source that spoke to the Times Union, the investigation may be related to his dealings with Joseph Abbruzzese, a "business partner and friend." :
Abbruzzese, a horse owner, is involved in numerous ventures, including at least one that has received $500,000 in discretionary grants, called member items, directed by Bruno. The two have several ties, including land development, plane rides and thoroughbred horses.
Abbruzzese is part of a group called Empire Racing Associates, which bid on the state's racing franchise that officials, including Bruno, plan to award within the next year. Abbruzzese led the effort to raise $3 million to fund the organization this spring.
He also is under state investigation for furnishing his aircraft to Bruno for political and fundraising trips.
Bruno's consulting business, Capital Business Consultants, was set up six years ago; the Post describes its activities as helping "clients with marketing, strategy and business development." Member grants as business development - the new future of Albany!
Bruno was recently re-elected the majority leader; the NY Times reports one Republican senator as saying, "Did we know? We didn't. Would it have changed things if we'd known? Maybe. I would have definitely had more questions if I'd known this."
Bruno will be the highest-ranking Republican in NY once Pataki leaves office. But with the Democrats in the Senate interested in recruiting some Republicans, there could be serious fallout for the GOP's state power.
The NY Times has a profile on Bruno's rise from poverty to political power. And Bruno is not the only politician in hot water: State Comptroller Alan Hevesi is awaiting to hear if he'll be indicted on charges related to using state employees to chauffeur his wife.
Comment on this Article
Chile Group Says Close Guantanamo
Santiago de Chile, Dec 20 (Prensa Latina)
About 420 people from 35 countries are imprisoned in the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without being declared guilty of any crime at all, Chilean International Amnesty (IA) denounced Wednesday.
Detainees, IA added, do not have access to any independent court, many of them have no lawyer nor family visits, and near 200 of them have gone on hunger strike in protest of bad conditions.
When convening the seminar "Terrorism: Humanitarian Challenge," the organization described US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "an outrage for human rights and a symbol of injustice" of Washingtons so called war against terrorism.
Chilean IA demanded that the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, immediate close and urged the US to take all detainees to a court of justice, or on the contrary immediately release them.
Since September 11, 2001 the United States and its allies have "kidnapped people and imprisoned them in secret, moved them from one country to another and subjected them to torture and mistreatment in detainee camps, like Guantanamo or other secret places," IA expressed.
Comment on this Article
Democracy: Washington's Real Enemy in Venezuela
By: Chris Carlson
Tuesday, Dec 19, 2006
History of Democracy Prevention in Venezuela - Part 1
Hugo Chavez isn't the only Venezuelan leader to ever challenge and anger the United States. Cipriano Castro, president of Venezuela from 1899 to 1908, was probably as big of an adversary to Washington as Hugo Chavez is today. Throughout Castro's reign, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was itching for an excuse to invade Venezuela. He considered the Venezuelan president a "villainous little monkey," and threatened to take action in order to teach Castro a lesson. Referring to the Venezuelan people, Roosevelt said he would "show those Dagos that they will have to behave decently." But, to his dismay, he could not get the support of the American public for an intervention in Venezuela and would have to, for the time being, put up with Castro's disobedience.
Castro was no revolutionary, but like Chavez, he was an outsider, rejected by the white elite class. He had an obvious mixed heritage with some Indian features, and came from the rural Andean region of Tachira. He was an ambitious nationalist and openly defied the interests of the United States, hostile to U.S. imperialism and the foreign companies who committed excesses in his country. But perhaps most of all, Castro had become fed up with the corrupt Caracas elite and their control of the political system. He led a movement to take over the political system and change it.
The threat of change was as feared then as it is now. For the local elites and their allies in Washington, change has never been in their interests. Since the colonial days, a small, white, economic and political elite has controlled the country and enriched themselves from the unfair, undemocratic system of exploitation. This system is closely linked to the interests of Washington, as Venezuela exports vast amounts of raw materials to the United States, and serves as a lucrative market for American products. Any attempts to change this structure would be very threatening to elite interests.
U.S. politicians did their best to smear Castro, calling him anti-American and corrupt. U.S. Secretary of State Elihu Root said he was a "crazy brute." Cartoonists in the U.S. portrayed him in a racist fashion, or as an ornery child. U.S. minister to Venezuela, Francis B. Loomis, described him as a "small, dark man" with an "admixture of Indian blood." He added that he had "slight acquaintance with public men and with the details of Governmental business." Although Castro may have had the support of Venezuelan nationalists, U.S. officials assured that he was not supported among the "better class of people."
Hugo Chavez is seen in a very similar way. Upper and middle class Venezuelans will assure you that it is only the "stupid," and "uneducated" poor people who support Chavez. Among the elite classes he is despised and regarded as an obnoxious idiot, a backwards "campesino" from the country's interior. They will assure you that no "educated" person would ever support Chavez. "Ask any criminal or thug, they are the ones who support Chavez, " one middle class student told me. "It's just the poor people who vote for Chavez, but since the majority is poor, Chavez wins the elections, " a neighbor told me. The majority of the population is seen as sub-human. They are too stupid to know anything, too stupid to know who to vote for.
As with Chavez, the Caracas elite was vehemently opposed to Cipriano Castro. With funding from the U.S. and other foreign companies, Manuel Antonio Matos, the richest man in Venezuela, launched a long and expensive revolution against the Castro government. Two years and twenty thousand deaths later, the revolution failed and Castro remained in power. The elites, however, continued calling for the U.S. to intervene and U.S. officials seem willing to oblige. The United States military drew up plans to kidnap the president and send him into exile. A provisional government made up of elite leaders would take power, but would need to be protected from the population, as the Caracas elite did not represent the majority of Venezuelans and might be met with violence. But the invasion never took place as another solution came about. When Castro had to go to Europe for health reasons, he was prevented him from ever returning to Venezuela with a U.S. naval blockade. The dictator Juan Vicente Gomez, supported by the U.S and friendly to elite interests, would rule for the next 30 years. In order to maintain order, dictatorship was preferable to democracy. Participation of the masses had to be avoided.
With almost one hundred years of history between them, Castro and Chavez both received very similar receptions from the Caracas elite and their allies in Washington. Since neither of them belonged to the white elite class of Venezuelans, they both presented a similar threat: they weren't loyal to the interests of the elite.
In a nation founded on exploitation of Indian and African slaves, designed to make a few rich at the labor of the rest, class conflict has always been present. From the very beginning, the Venezuelan economy operated solely for the benefit of the Spanish landowners and the commercial traders. In order to build wealth from the exploitation of the nation's riches, it was necessary to construct this unfair system. A system that served a minority, and inevitably, a system that excluded the vast majority. In a society such as this, which is built upon an undemocratic economic and political system, the biggest threat is democracy itself. The threat is that the people will elect someone who really represents them, who fights for their interests, who seeks real structural change, and who allows for the real democratic participation of the masses; a system that serves the interests of the majority, not a minority. But to be democratic, to serve the interests of the majority, means the unraveling of the whole colonial construction. Thus, the hidden truth has always been that democracy must be prevented, at all costs, by any means.
Comment on this Article
President Bush on Iraq, Elections and Immigration
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; Page A16
This 25-minute interview was conducted yesterday in the Oval Office by Washington Post staff writers Peter Baker, Michael A. Fletcher and Michael Abramowitz.
President Bush: Listen, a couple of things before we get going. Obviously, I've been thinking about -- and talking to a lot of people about -- the way forward in Iraq and the way forward in this ideological struggle. I want to share one thought I had with you, and I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines. And I talked about this to [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea. I want to give him a little time to get his feet on the ground. And so I'll be addressing this after consultations with him. I just want to share that with you before we get going.
You're talking about troops in Iraq, not --
No, I'm talking about overall size.
-- overall size of the Army. Do you have a rough idea how much --
I'm going to wait for Secretary Gates. As I say, I'm inclined to believe it's important and necessary to do so. The reason why is, it is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while, and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace.
So you've not made a decision about Iraq, per se, about what to do --
I have not, Mike, I have not. And we'll spend some more time -- Secretary Gates, as he indicated, is going to head to the region at some point in time. I need to talk to him when he gets back. I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we are -- have got a new way forward to achieve an important objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself.
And one thing that will be clear is that I want the American people to know that -- and the Iraqi people to know that -- we expect the Iraqi people to continue making hard choices and doing hard work necessary to succeed, and our job is to help them do so.
Are we winning in Iraq, in your estimation?
You know, I think an interesting construct that General [Peter] Pace uses is, "We're not winning, we're not losing." There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing -- constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself.
I think one of the -- obviously, the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with. So part of my policy review is how do we deal with that in a way that then enables the Iraqi people to live in a more secure society so that the government can prove its worth to the people -- saying, we can help you. And one of the main functions of government is to provide security for its people. Our job is to help the Iraqis provide that security. And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective.
There's other threats, by the way. It's a multiple-front war, if you really think about it. You got Shia discord in the south; you've got Sunni attacks, much of that -- many of them are caused by al-Qaeda. A lot of them, former Baathists and regimists who are angry that Saddam is no longer in power, and they are a source of conflict in al-Anbar province. And we've got a very robust effort -- I said the other day something that, I guess, people didn't pay that much attention to -- but for October and November and the first week of December, our actions on the ground have -- as a result of action on the ground, we killed or captured nearly 5,900 people. My point in making that point is our troops and coalition troops are on the offense in a lot of areas.
And then the third area of conflict, the one that gets a lot of attention, as it should, is the sectarian violence taking place in Baghdad. And I fully understand that we've got to help the Iraqis deal with that. So my thinking is -- and a lot of our strategy sessions revolve around how best to deal with this problem, and how best to help the Iraqis deal with it. And I've got some more work to do, and I'll come forth at the appropriate time and explain the way forward to the country.
Given the election results, is increasing the troop level in Iraq even a viable possibility or option?
Yes, Mike, all options are viable.
-- given the political will out there?
Well, all options are viable. I think what the people want is -- they want a couple of things. They want to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve a common objective, and they want us to win in Iraq. A lot of people understand that if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences -- in other words, if we leave before the job is done. There are some, a fair number of people, who say, "Get out now." So I view the election results as people are not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq and expect to see a different strategy to achieve an important objective.
But the election results seemed people wanted to bring the venture in Iraq to closure. That seemed to be the strong lesson. And what indications are there that you're actually listening to that sentiment?
Oh, Mike, look, I want to achieve the objective. I think the American people -- I know the American people are very worried about an external threat and that they recognize that failure in Iraq would embolden that external threat, and they expect this administration to listen with people, to work with Democrats, to work with the military, to work with the Iraqis to put a plan in place that achieves the objective. There's not a lot of people saying, "Get out now." Most Americans are saying, "We want to achieve the objective."
But there are a lot of people who are saying, "Let's get out with a phased deployment over a certain period of time."
If they felt -- if that leads to victory, it needs to be seriously considered. And I'm considering all options and listening very carefully to a lot of good people who have got different opinions about how to proceed.
Can we come back to General Pace's formulation about winning, not losing? You said October 24th, "Absolutely, we're winning." And I wanted to --
Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win. Look, I've got four constituencies I speak to on a regular basis; one is the American people, who are justifiably frustrated at the progress in Iraq. And they expect the commander in chief and the people in Washington to support our troops. Supporting our troops not only means good equipment, good [pay], good housing -- it also means a plan that helps achieve the objective.
The second constituency is the enemy. I'm not through yet.
Sure.
The enemy wants to know whether or not the United States has the will to stay engaged in this ideological struggle. They don't believe we do. That's what they say. And I believe that's what they believe.
The third group of people I speak to are the Iraqis. They wonder whether the United States has got the will to help them achieve their objectives. That's what they wonder. The leaders I have talked to wonder whether or not -- what the elections mean, or what the Baker-Hamilton commission means, or what changing [former defense] secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld means -- that's what they wonder. But in the back of their mind, they're saying, "Are they going to leave us again?" And that's an important question for them to have answered, because in order to make difficult choices and to take risk for peace, they're going to have to be assured that they'll get support. This is a group of people that have had their hopes dashed in the past.
And the fourth group is the military. Our troops wonder whether or not our country supports them, and they do. They wonder whether or not the mission and the sacrifice and the toil that they're making is worth it. And they need to know from the commander in chief: Not only is it worth it, but I strongly support them and believe that their work will lead to victory. That's what I believe.
Anyway, you just need to know that's who I'm speaking to when I speak. And to you, of course. You're the objective filter through which my -- (Laughter.)
I suspect your message gets out. (Laughter.)
I do want to say something about the press. I hope you realize that, one, I enjoy the relationship, and two, know it is vital for my presidency. You can't exist without me, and I can't exist without you. And I generally respect the hard work of the press corps. I don't necessarily generally respect every word you write, but nevertheless, I do respect the fact that you're a hardworking group of people seeking the truth. And we're necessary for each other. And that relationship can either be a positive relationship or a suspicious, harmful relationship. And I have worked hard to make it a positive relationship. And I think it is, generally, I do believe it is. And I bear no ill will, and I don't think you do, either.
We appreciate that, and you've certainly been good for business --
Good. That's what decision-makers do, Peter, people who seize the moment and make decisions to lead give people things to write about.
Some of the supporters of the war and you from the beginning have begun to ask the question publicly: Was it, in fact, the idea that turned out not so great, or the execution that turned out not so great?
The idea of?
The idea of the war in the first place, and the --
I've never really asked that question. I believe it's justifiable and necessary. Obviously, the war has not -- the results on the ground haven't happened as quickly as I hoped, and part of this review process is to develop new strategies and tactics so that we can expedite success. Look, I of all people would like to see the troops come home. But I don't want them to come home without achieving our objective, because I understand what happens if there's failure. And I'm going to keep repeating this over and over again, that I believe we're in an ideological struggle that is -- that our country will be dealing with for a long time.
Can I ask you a question about history?
Yes.
President Lincoln fired a number of his generals in the Civil War until he found Grant.
Is that what triggered your question, looking at Abe?
Why haven't you fired any generals? And does the fact that you haven't fired generals suggest that you are satisfied with the military strategy that they have pursued?
We're reviewing the strategy, because it has -- the results aren't -- we haven't achieved the results as quickly as we wanted -- precisely what the secretary of defense said, by the way. And the chain-of-command issues are issues that percolate up through the Pentagon. And there is a clear chain of command that I adhere to, and I think it's important for the commander in chief to do just that.
I've often talked about how it's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans as the key advisers to the president, as opposed to the president determining the tactics on the ground, which has happened in previous wars. And so I'm a strict adherer to the command structure.
But isn't there a point in which you say, "We screwed up the amount of troops we need there, we screwed up the WMD, someone ought to pay a penalty for that"?
There is a constant review of the commanders, and I support that constant review. And to the extent that people think they can do -- somebody can do a better job, those recommendations will come forward.
Sir, when you look back at last month's election, do you see that strictly as a repudiation of Iraq and the fact that we're not winning in Iraq, or is it also a judgment of your leadership in general?
Michael, I said in my press conference, I think it's -- no question Iraq was a significant part of the elections. People were troubled by the lack of progress. War is difficult for people, particularly the American people are very compassionate people. When you turn on your TV screens and see bombings and deaths, and read about beheadings or sectarian violence, it troubles America. And they wonder or not -- whether or not we have a plan that succeeds. And I can understand that level of frustration.
Secondly, there's a sense that people's votes were being taken for granted, in a way. We had ethics disputes, and just a lot of signals that said that it's time to -- that people wanted a change. There was a lot of -- look, you've got a guy using earmarks to enrich himself; there was sex and all kinds of issues that sent the signal that perhaps it was time to give another group a chance to lead. I also believe that people are sick and tired of the needless partisanship in Washington. And there's a lot of it. And for some, every expression of position by somebody is an opportunity to attack, and people are tired of it. And there's some big issues that we need to work together.
I will tell you that I view the elections as an opportunity to say to all of us in Washington, "Let's work together." People want that. And what are some issues we can work together on -- energy, or immigration, budgetary reforms. I mean, there's a lot -- education, No Child Left Behind reauthorization. I believe there are some wonderful opportunities --
So you don't think you're out of the policy business with the Democrats in charge on the Hill?
Do what now?
You're not out of the domestic policy business --
Quite the contrary. Quite the contrary. The microphone of the president has never been louder, and I think we have a good -- in other words, to talk about what I think is important. But it turns out that what I think is important, the Democrat leadership thinks is important, as well -- energy security, immigration reform, education -- and Republicans on the Hill agree. And so my task is going to be to talk about big issues that the American people expect us to work on, and work with both Republicans and Democrats.
Will it be easier with Democrats, in some ways? Are there some issues --
I think the legislative process, Peter, is always hard, from the executive-branch perspective. They're pretty independent-minded people, they -- no matter who's in charge, they tend to take some ideas from the president, but they've got their own minds. And the task is to work together in a collegial and constructive spirit to solve some big problems.
I'll tell you one I want to work on, as well, is entitlements. And that's a hard issue, as you know. Social Security is viewed as the third rail of American politics. I've campaigned on it every time -- two times I ran for president. I've talked about it in the State of the Union every time. It's an issue that's -- a president is just going to have to keep talking about to convince people it's worthwhile to take the risk, the political -- so-called political risk to work together to get something done. And we will continue to do so. [Treasury Secretary Henry M.] Paulson is going to take the lead for us up there, working with members of both parties.
I will tell you this: In an issue like this, unless the president tries, nothing is going to happen. Without presidential involvement, nothing will happen. So we have a chance, and I'm going to work it. And I think that's -- I know that's the job of the president, is to say, "This is important to the future of the country, let us work together."
Yes, sir.
Just on that point, are you willing to sit down with Democrats in a commission that puts all the options on Social Security on the table? Not just reductions and benefits, not just private accounts, but also some kind of revenue increases, tax increases?
I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table. I have made it clear that I've got a way forward that can do it and I want to hear other people's opinions. And that's what Hank Paulson is telling both Republicans and Democrats. It's going to be very important for people to feel there can be a full, wide-ranging discussion about how to move forward.
And specifically, tax increases on the table then?
Well, specifically, personal accounts; specifically, everything that the Democrats think will work, as well.
Well, they talk about tax increases.
Well, let them; that's fine. They can come to the table and talk about them. I proposed a way forward that doesn't require tax increases. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing their opinions.
[Incoming Speaker of the House] Mrs. Pelosi has identified six or seven things that she wants the House to do in the first 100 hours. Can I just mention -- ask you in a bullet-point way just your point on this?
No. (Laughter.)
Minimum-wage increase -- generally supportive or against it?
Generally supportive. But, no, the answer is no, you can't. (Laughter.)
Look, here's the challenge. The challenge is to find out specifically what they have in mind and to explain to them areas where we can work together and can't work together. I'm pleased with our initial round of discussions. I fully understand that they're going to come out with this -- they made it very clear. And I want to work with them on issues where we can find common ground.
On immigration -- you mentioned immigration. Can you envision supporting a deal --
See, now you're getting me to negotiate with myself --
No, no, no, but this is a policy --
Same thing he's trying to do. (Laughter.) It's a classic ploy. (Laughter.)
This is about your policy, Sir, in terms of can you envision a deal in which you would agree with Democrats that would not necessarily have a majority support among Republicans --
Peter, remember the speech I gave right here in the Oval Office?
I remember several.
The one on immigration. I gave a comprehensive speech to the country from the Oval Office, prime time, about how I thought we ought to move forward on immigration. I still feel very strongly about that. And I hope that Congress will join me on a comprehensive bill, and I would hope that the majority of both parties support it.
[Former House] speaker Hastert had a policy that he would not put forward a bill that didn't have a majority support of his caucus. Is that important to you, having majority support of the Republican caucuses?
I'm interested in getting a comprehensive bill out, because I believe it is vital to solving the pressure we have on our border.
One of the interesting things that, if you notice from the recent enforcement activities that ICE took, there are a lot of people who are using forged documents to do jobs Americans are not doing. And my attitude is that there ought to be a way for people to come to this country on a temporary basis and fill those jobs in an open way, a transparent way, that doesn't cause there to be, one, a smuggling operation that's vibrant and making money, a housing operation that is illegal, and a document forgery operation that clearly is in effect.
There is a better way to treat people, and there's a better way to deal with the issue of finding workers Americans are not doing, to fill on a temporary basis. And, therefore, there need -- and that in itself will take pressure off our border. In other words, if people feel like they can come in on a temporary, legal basis, they're not going to have to sneak in, which in itself does away with -- that in itself does away with this kind of underground industry that has sprung up.
The point I make to you on that is that it's a comprehensive reform of the immigration system that is going to make our borders more secure. I strongly believe that is important, and look forward to working with people on the way forward. It's hard for me to predict the dynamics yet on how the Congress is going to handle the immigration bill. The point I'm telling you is that I think it's vital and necessary, and this is an area where we can work together to get it done.
I'd like to come back to your first statement, because I'd like to expand a little bit. You talked about the size of the military. Colin Powell said on a Sunday show that the Army was nearly broken. Do you believe that's true? And, if so, do you feel responsible for that? Do you --
I heard -- we have been transforming our Army to make it lighter, more lethal and easier to move, and that transformation has been very important. Secondly, we have been changing our force posture around the world to reflect the threats of the 21st century, and that has been a very important reform.
I also believe that the suggestions I've heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government -- particularly, the Pentagon -- that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so. He's going to come back and report --
So is our Army nearly broken, or not?
The people that would know best are those in the Pentagon. I haven't heard the word "broken," but I've heard the word "stressed." I know that we need to -- and my budgetary requests will reflect what a lot of people in Congress have been saying and in the Pentagon, and that is we need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war, and this ideological struggle?
Can I ask a hometown question?
Final question -- yes, which one, Crawford, Midland, Houston, Dallas or Washington?
Washington. Do you support a bill that would give the District of Columbia residents a vote in the House of Representatives?
This is a Fletcher question. This is a Fletcher question.
He's not asking about a specific question. We're asking about your broad view on --
Do the residents of the District of Columbia -- should they have a vote in the House?
I will look at what Congress proposes. I will look carefully at what Congress proposes.
But what is your philosophical view of that? Because we've gone to Iraq to provide freedom for people in Iraq, and the people in this country --
I understand that. You're trying to get me to opine on specific legislation that may be forthcoming, and I look forward to working with Congress on that.
I'm actually asking you to opine on general --
That's my answer. (Laughter.)
-- philosophy on whether --
I know what you're trying to ask me to opine on, and I'm answering that there is -- I will look and see what Congress proposes.
Is Vice President Cheney correct, do you believe that secretary Rumsfeld was the best defense secretary?
I think he was one of the finest defense secretaries, and I said that there have been more profound change -- policy change under his leadership than at any time since the formation of the Defense Department.
Thank you.
Comment on this Article
White House foresees 110 bln USD war costs in 2007
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 07:20:28
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- The White House on Tuesday estimated that Iraq war will probably cost the country 110 billion U.S. dollars in fiscal year 2007 which started Oct. 1.
In a testimony sent to the Congress, White House budget office chief Rob Portman said although accurate figures are hard to predict at present, but the costs "will be in excess of 110 billion dollars."
Portman said his office will release a detailed estimate of war costs early 2007.
The 110-billion-dollar sum approaches the record reached in fiscal year 2006, when war spending hit an all-time high of 120 billion dollars in the 12-month period which ended Sept. 30.
The war costs will be covered in a supplemental spending request for fiscal year 2007.
Nearly four years into the war, the Bush administration has resorted to requesting supplemental spending in addition to the defense budget to cover the war costs.
The Congress has already earmarked 70 billion dollars for war costs under the defense appropriation bill for fiscal year 2007.
But news reports said the administration may ask for another 100 billion dollars in supplemental funds for military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan in February 2007.
Comment: Think what could be done with all of the money spent on the Iraq occuption if it were used to improve the living standards of people in the US and the world.
Comment on this Article
Cheney Will Testify in C.I.A. Leak Case
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: December 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Vice President Dick Cheney will be summoned as a defense witness in the trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, a defense lawyer said Tuesday in federal court. A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney signaled that he would not resist the request for his testimony.
The decision to call Mr. Cheney was announced by Theodore V. Wells, a lawyer for Mr. Libby, whose trial is scheduled to begin next month.
"We're calling the vice president," Mr. Wells said at a hearing before Judge Reggie B. Walton in Federal District Court.
Mr. Cheney has been a looming presence in the C.I.A. leak case from the start, and his appearance as a defense witness would keep the vice president and the White House in the foreground of Mr. Libby's trial. Mr. Libby is the only person charged with a crime as a result of an investigation into whether anyone in the Bush administration intentionally leaked the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
After the announcement at Tuesday's hearing, Lea Anne McBride, Mr. Cheney's spokeswoman, said: "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved. And as we've stated previously, we're not going to comment further on the legal proceedings."
The prospect of Mr. Cheney's testimony suggested that Mr. Libby's trial could be transformed from a narrowly gauged perjury case into a riveting courtroom drama with the taciturn vice president as the star witness. He would testify under oath and be exposed to cross-examination by prosecutors.
Mr. Cheney would be the first sitting vice president, at least in modern times, to appear as a witness in a criminal trial, said Prof. Joel Goldstein of the St. Louis University Law School, an authority on the vice presidency.
Although Mr. Cheney has been a vigorous proponent of sweeping executive authority, which includes the notion that the president and perhaps other high officials could resist calls to testify in criminal trials involving their official conduct, his appearance may not set precedents, legal experts said. That is mostly because the Libby case presents a different situation from one in which such officials are subpoenaed to testify, they said.
Mr. Cheney appears to have voluntarily agreed to testify on behalf of Mr. Libby, whom he has steadfastly supported. It is unclear whether Mr. Cheney would appear personally in the courtroom or seek to testify in a less exposed manner like having his testimony taken at the White House and introduced into the trial by videotape.
The trial stems from the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. officer in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak. The fallout from that disclosure led to an investigation by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a special prosecutor, into whether the leak violated any laws and whether Ms. Wilson's name was disclosed as part of a campaign to punish her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, for his criticism of the White House.
Mr. Wilson wrote an opinion article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003 - shortly before the Novak column - in which he claimed that the White House had twisted intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. He wrote that he had personally investigated whether Iraq bought uranium in Africa and had not found any basis for that belief.
Mr. Fitzgerald did not bring any charges in connection with laws that prohibit the willful disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert operative. But he did indict Mr. Libby, also known as Scooter, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, saying he had untruthfully testified to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he had learned about Ms. Wilson's role at the C.I.A. from reporters rather than from several officials, including Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Libby's lawyers have said, in court papers, that they will seek to demonstrate that he had no motive to lie and that if he made any inaccurate statements about his conversations with reporters, they were a result of his being distracted by far more important issues of national security.
In his testimony, Mr. Cheney will probably be asked to affirm Mr. Libby's statements that he was occupied with many important issues and that there was no deliberate White House plan to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.
Prosecutors have said in legal filings that Mr. Cheney played a central role in the White House reaction to Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article. Mr. Fitzgerald has hinted in filings that Mr. Cheney may be a prosecution witness, although he said at the hearing that the government had no plans to call the vice president.
According to Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony, cited in prosecution legal papers, Mr. Cheney believed that the article falsely attacked his credibility because it asserted that the vice president's office instigated Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger.
Prosecutors have already disclosed a copy of the article on which Mr. Cheney made handwritten notations asking whether it was Mr. Wilson's wife who sent him on the trip.
In previous legal briefs, prosecutors have said they want to use Mr. Cheney's notes as evidence, saying they show the agitated environment in Mr. Cheney's office and the importance that Mr. Libby attached to the effort to rebut the article.
After Mr. Cheney expressed concern, Mr. Libby told several reporters that Mr. Cheney's office had not sent Mr. Wilson on the trip and that he might have traveled on what was little more than a junket arranged by Ms. Wilson.
With the trial scheduled to start on Jan. 16, Mr. Libby's lawyers and federal prosecutors skirmished throughout the hearing over several likely issues about Mr. Libby's motives and state of mind.
William H. Jeffress Jr., one of the defense lawyers, said he planned to call Mr. Libby as a witness, along with several reporters who interviewed him in mid-2003, to show that Mr. Libby had encouraged the reporters to testify or give depositions in the case.
Comment on this Article
The Lobby (that doesn't exist)
Pro-Israeli media show no reaction to Olmert remarks: envoy
Kuala Lumpur, Dec 20, IRNA
Iran's Ambassador to Indonesia Behrouz Kamalvandi said on Wednesday that pro-Zionist regime media showed no reaction to recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his country's possession of nuclear weapons.
The Indonesian daily 'Republika' on Wednesday published Kamalvandi's viewpoints on the Zionist regime's threats against the Palestinian people and Olmert's statement who has recently confirmed that his country possesses nuclear weapons to defend itself.
"It is not covert to anybody that the Zionist regime has over 250 atomic warheads.
"It is clear that the regime's atomic threat against the Palestinian people cannot target them directly. In fact, the threat will be just a suicide operation," he said.
He added, "Start of the first Intifada (uprising) in the occupied lands just after publication of news on Israel's nuclear weapons is another proof of the Zionist regime's ineffective threats against Palestinians.
"Officials of the Zionist regime have access to atomic weapons to tilt the balance in their own favor and against countries which support the Palestinian nation."
The Iranian envoy expressed his regret over 10-year unsuccessful performance of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in settling international problems including restoration of the Palestinians' rights and the US attack on Iraq and massacre of its nation.
Annan has confessed that the UN Security Council has turned into another place to serve the interests of big powers while it was founded after World War II to establish and consolidate peace and security in the world.
"Olmert, confident of the US support, is well aware of the fact that the UN Security Council will take no measure against the Zionist regime's extremism."
Kamalvandi stated that senior US and French official made similar remarks during the past two years on use of nuclear weapons which contradicted with peace-seeking intentions of humans and were against their international responsibilities including
implementation of Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) concerning fight against nuclear weapons.
Pointing to the US all-out support for the Zionist regime in its 33-day attack on Lebanon, he said Israel failed to achieve even its minor goals including release of two of its soldiers and disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah.
"Unfortunately, information released on Washington's policies and measures are not true, a clear instance of which was seen when the US hid its goals behind its attack on Iraq.
"Israel intends to make the international community and regional states and Iran in particular not to pursue restoration of the Palestinians' rights or provide support for them," he added.
"Israel is ignorant of the fact that the threat will be another sign of its weakness," he said.
Comment on this Article
Australian rabbis slam Neturei Karta as 'reviled misfits'
Aus Jewish News
18/12/2006
AUSTRALIA'S Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbis have dissociated themselves from the "poisonous" presence of members of Neturei Karta at last week's Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran.
Leading Chabad identity Rabbi Joseph Gutnick said images of Neturei Karta, a small sect of ultra-Orthodox, anti-Zionist rabbis, embracing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were "horrific" and "offensive".
"[It is] deplorable, abhorrent and despicable [that] people who masquerade themselves in beards and hats could associate themselves with this Hitler of our generation."
Rabbi Gutnick said he was concerned that a connection may be drawn between the Neturei Karta rabbis who attended the two-day conference in the Iranian capital and other Jews in traditional Orthodox garb in Australia.
"I have a beard and wear a yarmulke. [Most] people do not know the difference between this [Neturei Karta] person in the paper or someone in Crown Heights, and me. These people [Neturei Karta rabbis] should be locked up."
Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick, president of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia, also distanced the Australian rabbinate from the rabbis.
"People should not in any way believe this is representative of Orthodox Jewry. They're [Neturei Karta] out on their own and that's where they should stay."
In a rare public statement, the ultra-Orthodox congregation of Adass Israel Australia - which has communities in Melbourne and Sydney denounced the "nefarious and totally irresponsible handful of Jewish charlatans who attended the recent Holocaust-denial conference of Jew haters in Tehran".
"We are disgusted and repelled by the treacherous and contemptible conduct of this deranged and reviled group of misfits and mechallelei Hashem [desecraters of God's name], who in their boundless and obsessive craving for publicity habitually raise their ugly heads and besmirch the reputation and honour of all observant Jews," the statement said.
"Under no circumstances, should ... their garb and their calling themselves 'rabbis' deceive anyone. In fact, they are an insignificant group of unemployed parasites who represent nobody but themselves.
"The Adass Israel community, which is made up of first-, second- and third-generation Holocaust survivors, cannot ignore, and will never forgive, the desecration of the memory of our kedoshim by these self-hating Jews."
But Rabbi Joseph Gutnick called on Adass' spiritual leader, Rabbi Avrohom Tzvi Beck, whose brother is reportedly associated with Neturei Karta, to personally condemn the delegation that went to Tehran.
"I don't think it [the Adass statement] is sufficient under the circumstances," Rabbi Gutnick said. "The community needs the Adass spiritual leader, whom many of us deeply respect, to come out with an outright statement endorsed by himself personally."
Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, a judge on the Sydney Beth Din, said Jews the world over should dismiss the Neturei Karta as a "few lunatics".
"They do not reflect the view of even the most right-wing Jews in Israel," Rabbi Gutnick told the AJN by phone en route from Israel.
In calling for the rabbis' cherem, or excommunication, Israeli Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said: "They betrayed the Jewish people and their heritage and particularly disgraced the Shoah and desecrated its memory. They tried to stain the Jewish people, who shy away from this low behaviour, with their shameful behaviour."
Israel's former chief rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau, said the Neturei Karta rabbis' actions were "insane".
"If it's possible that there is any Jew, who for some reason or another can support a Holocaust denier in a generation where people with numbers tattooed on their arms are still among us it's an insanity that has no justification and no explanation."
Speakers at the two-day conference included Adelaide-based Holocaust-denier Dr Frederick Toben, who upon his return to Australia faces contempt charges for flouting a 2002 Federal Court order to remove hate material from his website Australian socialite Michelle Renouf, a supporter of jailed revisionist Dr David Irving, who is reportedly on a committee to organise the next denial conference and Richard Krege, an electrical engineer for Airservices Australia in Canberra.
This week, Melbourne Child Survivors of the Holocaust president Henri Korn expressed his "anxious voice of protest" against the Tehran conference.
He said the threat from Iran poses more danger to Jews and the West than the Nazis did in World War II.
"Let us be warned, alarmed and ready to face the scourge of the 21st century. Let us emphasise the dangers we face, be prepared and we shall be victorious."
Comment: If only other Jews would take heed of the anti-Zionist Jews rather than listen to the lies of fascist, hate-filled Rabbis such as the one in this article.
Comment on this Article
Holocaust denier Irving to be released early
Wednesday December 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The far right British author and Nazi apologist David Irving should serve the rest of his three-year jail sentence for Holocaust denial on probation, an Austrian court ruled today.
Vienna's highest court granted Irving's appeal, meaning he will be released from prison before Christmas, the Austria Press Agency reported.
Irving said he was "fit and well" after serving more than a year in jail. He added that he would be calling for an academic boycott of German and Austrian historians until their governments stopped putting historians in prison.
Irving was jailed in February after he admitted denying the Holocaust in two speeches during a visit to Austria in 1989.
The speeches included a call for an end to the "gas chambers fairytale" and claims that Hitler had "helped" Europe's Jews and that the Holocaust was a myth.
At his trial in February, Irving said he had revised his opinion after seeing the personal files of Adolf Eichmann. Speaking in German, he told the court he now accepted that the Nazis had killed millions of Jews.
Austria has the world's toughest laws against denying the Holocaust, and Irving could have received a maximum of 10 years in prison.
In 2000, Irving sued the US Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel at the high court in London, losing the case. Charles Gray, the presiding judge in that case, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist".
In Germany in 1992, he was fined several thousand pounds for saying the Auschwitz gas chambers were a hoax.
Irving has contended in the past that most of the people who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz were not murdered but succumbed to diseases.
Comment on this Article
Former Israeli Consul in Moscow Charged With Visa Issue Graft
Created: 20.12.2006 14:01 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:19 MSK, 3 hours 54 minutes ago
MosNews
Michael Dror, who had served as the Israeli Consul in Moscow for two years, was accused of bribe taking Monday, www.globes.co.il reports.
Dror worked for the Foreign Ministry in 1995-2002, serving in various ministry postings in Russia. In last two years of his career, he was the Israeli Consul in Moscow, where he was responsible for granting visas to Israel for tourism and family visits. He also issued transit documents and passports for Israeli citizens who filed applications with the consulate.
Dror is accused of taking $20,000 in bribes, as well as other benefits and gifts, from a Russian named Georgy Rienko, an employee of a Russian travel agency, in exchange for issuing hundreds of Israeli visas.
Rienko allegedly gave Dror dozens of visa applications from citizens of Russia and other CIS states, where the local Israeli consul was not authorized to handle visas. The applications were based on false declarations and forged documents.
For six months, Dror allegedly received a weekly $800 bribe from Rienko, who also paid for a holiday for Dror and his wife outside of Moscow, repaired the Dror's private car, and provided gifts, including a leather bag and alcoholic beverages.
Comment on this Article
Dems Turn to Center: Jewish Progressives To Hold Fire
Nathan Guttman | Fri. Dec 08, 2006
Forward
As Democrats prepare their agenda for the next Congress, party leaders are attempting a delicate balancing act, seeking to assure party faithful that they are not planning a shift to the right, while crafting a legislative program that has a chance of becoming law - and that does not alienate newly acquired moderate voters.
In early meetings, House Democrats have agreed largely on what party leaders tout as their legislative agenda for the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. The agenda underlines fiscal responsibility and middle-class benefits such as student loans, while steering clear of controversial issues that do not have a chance of gaining bipartisan approval.
The 29 Jewish Democrats in the House, who make up some 12.5% of the Democratic caucus, have a particularly delicate balance to maintain, symbolically representing a constituency that is well to the left of the electorate at large, but is deeply concerned about terrorism and the Middle East.
"The Jewish community, which tends to be more liberal, will see that those among us who hold liberal views will continue to work on issues related to their agenda," said Rep. Henry Waxman, the longest-serving Jewish member and dean of the informal Jewish members' caucus.
At the same time, Waxman cautioned, liberal hopes of sweeping legislative change "have great limitations, because of the Senate filibuster and the presidential veto. We would like to do more on prescription drug benefits, for example, but it will be difficult due to the many obstacles."
"Our main goal is to achieve a real record with the voters in the next two years," said a congressional staffer who asked not to be identified. "The Republicans want us to fall, and that will only happen if we move too fast with a liberal agenda."
Thorniest of all is the issue of Iraq, which the administration - and many Jewish groups - presents as a touchstone of the struggle against Islamic extremism. Democrats see unhappiness with the war as the top reason for their win last month, but they have been unable to agree on an alternative policy.
Conventional wisdom in the capital suggests that the election produced a more centrist Democratic caucus in the House, symbolized by the growth of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition of moderate-to-conservative Democrats. The Blue Dogs gained nine new members last month, bringing their total to 44. They are still far from becoming the party's leading ideological group, but many observers see the rise of moderate Democrats as a cursor pointing to the route the party is about to take in Congress.
"This was a victory for the center in both parties. The pendulum has landed exactly in the middle," said New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, one of the few Jewish lawmakers affiliated with the Blue Dog Coalition. During this year's campaign, Israel was chosen to lead the Democrats' campaign on national security issues and was in charge of conveying a message of strong support for the State of Israel to the Jewish community.
Still, liberals insist that the party did not suddenly turn conservative. Even after the election, they note, the left-liberal Progressive Caucus is the biggest single faction among House Democrats. Moreover, liberal Democrats fared well in most races they ran. "It is a misreading of the political map to claim that the party has shifted to the center," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York. Nadler, who places himself on the liberal side of the Democratic spectrum, said he "feels perfectly comfortable with where the party is" after the elections.
Another sign pointed out by congressional staffers as proof that Democrats aren't going centrist is the blow dealt to conservative Rep. Jane Harman of California, who lost her bid for chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman's fellow Blue Dog Democrats wrote to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker, urging her to give Harman the job, but Pelosi refused.
Harman is Jewish, but Jewish members did not rally behind her as a group, dividing their support among various contenders along ideological and regional lines. Pelosi ended up tapping Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a former Border Guard officer, to head the intelligence panel.
According to exit polls, Jews voted Democratic in higher proportions than any other ethnic or religious group except for blacks. Recent surveys suggest that Jews are closer to the liberal pole of the Democratic spectrum and that they have not undergone a swing toward the center of the political map, despite repeated predictions by conservative groups.
Congressional sources stress that in Democratic caucus meetings held after the elections, there were no signs of dispute over the agenda proposed by the party leadership for the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.
In crafting the agenda, Democrats put an emphasis on social issues relating to the middle class and the needy. Top goals, they say, include cutting interest on federally funded student loans, funding stem-cell research and lowering costs of Medicare drugs by enabling the government to negotiate prices.
Other priority issues include ethics reform, implementation of the 9-11 Commission Report and increased oversight on presidential authority regarding surveillance and eavesdropping. "These are all legislative issues that are close to the Jewish community," Israel said. "It doesn't matter if you are a liberal Jew or a conservative Jew - you still want us to adopt the 9/11 Commission recommendations."
But other issues, seen as hot-button, socially divisive topics, will not be high on the Democratic legislative agenda. Same-sex marriage, school choice and abortion are not seen as issues on which the Democrats can make progress, and they will be largely left aside, insiders say.
Democratic strategist Jim Gerstein ran focus groups in 14 congressional districts leading up to this year's elections and examined the voters' reactions to these issues. He found that they did not evoke the same reaction as in previous elections. "The so-called values issues were not part of the elections," Gerstein said. "The country does not want a huge fight on these issues now. That's not what Congress was sent to do."
The issue of Iraq, which dominated the elections, is still being debated among Democrats. While some lawmakers argue that the administration has begun to recognize the need to change course on Iraq and that it will have to cooperate with the Democrats, they also admit they have no agreed plan of action. Ideas range from increased congressional oversight over the war's conduct to a direct call for setting a withdrawal timetable. But so far, none of the suggestions has become a legislative policy of the Democratic caucus.
"I don't think we can all unite over one policy regarding Iraq, but there is a growing consensus that it is a disastrous situation and that the administration's policy causes instability in the entire region," said Waxman, who will be leading congressional investigations on the issue as chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the main House investigative body.
Comment on this Article
Dear John
Fri. Dec 08, 2006
JJ Goldberg
Forward
John Bolton's resignation as American ambassador to the United Nations is an important and welcome step in the national healing process that began on Election Day, November 7. Bolton's presence at the U.N. for the past 15 months, despite the Senate's refusal to confirm him, has been a daily reminder of the Bush administration's arrogant, willful style of governance, of its contempt for the meaning of democracy and the separation of powers. Bolton's performance at the world body, his stubborn flaunting of American exceptionalism, has been a perfect metaphor for this administration's ideological high-handedness in coping with the problems of the nation and the world.
President Bush, in his decision to resubmit Bolton's name to the Senate last month despite the clear statement of the national will, as expressed by the voters, managed to demonstrate once again the deep capacity for denial of reality that guides him as a leader. Bolton, at least, had the wisdom to see the midterm election for what it was: a national repudiation of the Bush governing style. His decision to pack his bags is an occasion for a national sigh of relief and even gratitude.
Alas, one major constituency on the public stage has chosen to greet Bolton's resignation not with relief but with regret. In a noisy, tin-eared outpouring of sycophantic unanimity, a phalanx of America's most influential and respected Jewish organizations has flooded cyberspace this week with heartfelt salutes to Bolton and laments of his departure. At last count, the list included the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the World Jewish Congress, B'nai B'rith International, the Orthodox Union and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. In statement after statement, the agencies hail Bolton for his supposed effectiveness and passion in defending Israel and advancing the causes of democracy and U.N. reform.
The passion, let it be said, is real. The effectiveness, on the other hand, is wholly imagined. Bolton is a man of brilliant, articulate intellect. He has stood at Israel's side throughout his career. As an assistant secretary of state during the first Bush administration, he quarterbacked the successful campaign to repeal the infamous U.N. Zionism-racism resolution. As U.N. ambassador, he has bluntly spoken truth to power. But every American ambassador to the U.N., with a handful of notable exceptions (Andrew Young and the senior George Bush come to mind), has been a staunch defender of Israel. Every one has used the American veto liberally in the Security Council to block unfair resolutions. All have sought to use American power and influence more broadly to protect Israel from the designs of its enemies.
That said, none of them has done as much as Bolton to undermine that American influence by alienating the rest of the world community. His actions, and the larger Bush administration policies that they reflect, have left Israel and America huddled together in utter isolation, facing ever-growing, worldwide impatience and disdain. Even the signature cause of U.N. reform, which had been taken up by Kofi Annan and advocated with determination in the Clinton and current Bush administrations, suffered crippling setbacks as a result of Bolton's inflexibility, his insistence on holding out for the unattainable and refusing to accept the best deals possible.
All this is now obvious to the American public, to the Congress - even to the outgoing, Republican-led Congress - and, in the end, to Bolton himself. Everyone gets it except the Jewish advocacy community.
It's no great secret why the Jewish agencies continue to trumpet support for the discredited policies of this failed administration. They see defense of Israel as their number-one goal, trumping all other items on the agenda. That single-mindedness binds them ever closer to a White House that has made combating Islamic terrorism its signature campaign. The campaign's effects on the world have been catastrophic. But that is no concern of the Jewish agencies. Given the record, the agencies' paeans to Bolton come as no surprise. And yet, they still offend. Coming barely a month after the midterm elections, in which Jews voted 7-1 against the Bush record, the statements show a communal representative structure working directly against the wishes and values of the community it purports to represent.
As Nathan Guttman reports from Washington this week, congressional Democratic leaders are scrambling right now to reassure the Jewish voting public that the party will not abandon its liberal traditions come January in the name of pragmatism. They know that the Jewish community, despite its small numbers, is an essential, influential bloc within the party, and within the larger American mosaic. And they know that American Jews cling in overwhelming numbers to values of liberalism and inclusiveness.
Those liberal values are the irreducible underpinning of Jewish freedom in American society. Defending them is the most basic duty of the advocacy institutions created by the community. If they can't understand their job, it's time that somebody else stepped forward.
Cmment from Jeff Blankfort: If that statement by Forward editor, JJ Goldberg, (author of "Jewish Power,") is not an indictment of the Jewish lobby as a Fifth Column and Israel-First operation, I would be hard pressed to find any more damning. Those Jewish lobbyists do not care what happens to the rest of the world, do not care how many Americans, and, of course, Iraqi lives are lost, and, moreover, they know, thanks to their control of Congress and the mainstream media, they will not have to pay any price, political or otherwise for their actions. An editorial such as this could never be found in the mainstream press and apart from the Forward, in the nation's Jewish press.-JB
Comment on this Article
Secret of Borat's fluent Kazakh - it's Hebrew
Staff and agencies
Wednesday December 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Sacha Baron Cohen's antics as Borat may have made him and his backers the target of lawsuits and screening bans, but he's going down very well in one rather unexpected place: Israel. That's because Israeli film fans understand what the anti-semitic character is saying when he's supposedly spouting Kazakh - Borat is actually speaking fluent Hebrew.
The 35-year-old British comic is an observant Jew whose mother was born in Israel and whose grandmother still lives in Haifa. In high school he belonged to a Zionist Jewish youth group, Habonim Dror, and upon graduation spent a year working and studying on a kibbutz, or collective farm, in northern Israel, according to the Associated Press.
The irony of a Hebrew-speaking anti-semite is not lost on the admiring Israeli audience, which has made the movie a huge hit in the country. "It is extremely funny and kind of cool to realise that you are understanding something no one else does," said Gaby Goldman, 33, of Tel Aviv. "It's not just the Hebrew but also the way he speaks. He sounds almost Israeli, he sounds like one of us."
The film is peppered with Hebrew expressions and Israeli slang, inside jokes only Israelis could truly appreciate. In one scene, Borat sings the lyrics of a Hebrew folk song, Koom Bachur Atzel, which means "get up lazy boy". Later, he refers to a Kazakh government scientist, "Dr Yarmulke," who proved that a woman's brain is the size of a squirrel's. Even Borat's signature catchphrase - "Wa wa wee wa," an expression for wow - derives from a skit on a popular comedy show and is often heard in Israel.
Some American Jews fear Borat's humour will go over people's heads and reinforce bigotry. But in Israel, Borat's fans are clearly in on the fun. "It was sort of like a wink to the Hebrew speaker," Oded Volovitz, 32, said. "It was a message that basically said, 'Although the movie is very anti (Jewish), I am still with you, I am still the same Mr Cohen. I'm just trying to send a message here and I hope you guys understand it."'
Comment on this Article
Modern Science
Mayo Clinic Zooms In On Nanobacteria
20 December 2006
Mayo Clinic researchers have successfully isolated nanoparticles from human kidney stones in cell cultures and have isolated proteins, RNA and DNA that appear to be associated with the nanoparticles. Reporting in the Journal of Investigative Medicine, the researchers say the findings could lead to solving the mystery of whether nanoparticles are viable living forms that can lead to disease - in this case, kidney stones.
The existence of living nanoparticles - or more controversially, nanobacteria - is a hotly debated topic in scientific circles. Isolating a genetic signature - which would indicate that the entities were indeed alive - has proven problematic, and what would appear to be successful laboratory culturing of the entities has in the past been discounted as simple crystal growth. Now, however, Mayo Clinic researchers believe they have isolated genetic material from the entities and in this case linked them with the formation of kidney stones.
Kidney stones are associated with calcification, the process in which organs and blood vessels become clogged with calcium deposits. What causes calcium deposits to build up is something of a mystery. Other studies have linked calcification to the presence of nanosized particles which some scientists believe could play a role in the development of kidney stones.
"We are looking at how kidney stones start as very small calcifications inside the kidney and then eventually grow into stones," said Mayo Clinic's John Lieske. "In the laboratory, we have isolated nanoparticles from kidney tissue and kidney stones, and have successfully propagated them in culture. This does not clearly confirm the role of nanoparticles in the formation of kidney stones, but it offers insight not otherwise known."
It's theorized that if nanoparticles become localized in the kidney, they can become the focus of subsequent growth into larger stones over months to years. Other factors, such as physical chemistry and protein inhibitors of crystal growth, also play a role. But what scientists don't quite understand is why, where and how they start growing.
Frustratingly, the presence of proteins, RNA and DNA does not prove that nanoparticles are viable living forms because a genetic signature has not been identified, explains Lieske. A genetic signature would prove beyond doubt that nanoparticles are indeed living forms that replicate and can cause disease.
Intriguingly, the study cites evidence that the calcification process is not driven solely by physical chemistry, but instead is influenced by specific proteins and cellular responses. "There are at least two novel hypotheses here in terms of how stones might actually form. One: an infectious agent. If that was the case, that would point us in the direction of using different kinds of treatments specific to an infectious agent. Two: the idea that cells drive calcification. That would suggest other alternative therapies," added co-researcher Virginia Miller.
Another study by the Mayo Clinic researchers in the same journal documents attempts to identify a DNA chemical marker in nanoparticles. The preliminary study suggests that nanoparticles from human samples share spectroscopic characteristics with calcified bacteria that exist in freshwater lakes. However, studies could not confirm whether the nanoparticles are calcified bacteria or hydroxyapatite crystals that precipitated upon proteins present in the culture medium used to replicate the nanoparticles. Researchers did, however, identify chemical bonds between proteins and calcium in nanoparticles that were similar to those found in the bacteria that calcified in the environment. "Right now the results are inconclusive. In some of the segments we saw a characteristic signal that might suggest DNA, but in others we did not," Miller said.
Miller added that the tools and processes used in nanoparticle research have yet to be perfected. "We are still in the learning process of how to handle the material. It was disappointing that we did not find any consistent DNA information. We think the findings were inconclusive, in part, because of the inability to apply these techniques in conditions suitable to nanoparticles," she concluded.
Comment on this Article
Sniffers Show That Humans Can Track Scents, And That Two Nostrils Are Better Than One
December 20, 2006
University of California - Berkeley
University of California, Berkeley, graduate student Allen Liu last Friday donned coveralls, a blindfold, earplugs and gloves, then got down on all fours and sniffed out a 33-foot chocolate trail through the grass.
This was no fraternity initiation, but part of an experiment to find out whether mammals compare information coming from their two nostrils in order to aid scent-tracking performance, much like they compare information from their ears in order to locate a sound.
In a paper appearing this week in the advance online edition of Nature Neuroscience, UC Berkeley researchers report conclusive evidence from these experiments that humans do indeed gain a performance advantage from cross-nostril comparisons. They also found that humans can scent-track, and that, with training, they can improve their accuracy significantly while nearly doubling their speed along the scent trail.
In one experiment, the authors found that while volunteers with one nostril blocked could still track a scent - in this experiment, essence of chocolate - volunteers with two open nostrils tracked a scent quicker and with fewer deviations from the trail. "We were asking the question, 'Are two nostrils better than one"'" said lead author Jess Porter, a graduate student in biophysics at UC Berkeley. "The answer is yes."
Apparently, according to Porter and her colleagues, the mammalian brain compares smells between nostrils to tell where an odor is coming from in the same way that the brain compares the sounds entering a person's two ears to locate a source. Until now, many researchers thought this was unlikely because a mammal's nostrils, in a mouse, for example, are too close together to receive distinctly different smells.
"The human brain compares information from two 'noses' to turn smell information into spatial information," said Noam Sobel, associate professor of neuroscience and psychology and member of the program in biophysics at UC Berkeley.
Sobel hopes to use information from these experiments to design scent-tracking robots equipped with his eNose, an electronic nose that one day could detect odors such as that from an explosive mine.
To test Sobel and Porter's smell hypothesis, the UC Berkeley researchers soaked a 33-foot (10-meter) string in chocolate essence and laid it in the grass outside Barker Hall, located at the northwest corner of the UC Berkeley campus. They then garbed volunteers to block their senses of sight, hearing and touch, eliminating all clues other than smell to guide them along the trail. Sniffing like bloodhounds, two-thirds of 32 subjects were able to follow the chocolate scent to the end of the trail within three attempts. All volunteers zigzagged along the trail in the same way that tracking dogs follow a scent.
The researchers then trained four of these volunteers to see if they could improve. All were able to double their speed along the track within just a few days and deviated much less from the scent trail than on their first attempts. The researchers measured subjects' sniffs and noticed that the faster the subjects moved along the trail, the more rapid their sniffing - just as with dogs, though not as fast as the six sniffs per second rate exhibited by dogs.
The big question, however, was whether two nostrils allow scent localization in the same way that a human's two ears and eyes help locate sounds and sights.
To further test this, the researchers devised an ingenious nasal "prism" that mixed scents from the outside world and then presented this to both nostrils, so that there was no difference between what the nostrils smelled. The four subjects were half as accurate at tracking smells under these conditions.
Independent measurements showed that a human's two nostrils sample odors from distinct areas separated by approximately 1.5 inches (3.5 centimeters), more than enough distance to distinguish the edge of a scent plume.
All of these experiments put the lie to a common assumption that humans are lousy smellers compared to all other mammals. While it's true that humans are predominantly visual creatures, Sobel said, their olfactory sense can be compared to that of dogs and other mammals.
"Our sense of smell is less keen partly because we put less demand on it," Porter said. "But if people practice sniffing smells, they can get really good at it."
The work, which will be published in the journal's January 2007 issue, was supported by the Army Research Office and the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of California - Berkeley.
Comment on this Article
Mental Exercise Helps Maintain Some Seniors' Thinking Skills
December 20, 2006
NIH/National Institute on Aging
Certain mental exercises can offset some of the expected decline in older adults' thinking skills and show promise for maintaining cognitive abilities needed to do everyday tasks such as shopping, making meals and handling finances, according to a new study. The research, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in the Dec. 20, 2006, Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that some of the benefits of short-term cognitive training persisted for as long as five years.
The Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly, or ACTIVE, Study is the first randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate long-lasting, positive effects of brief cognitive training in older adults. However, testing indicated that the training did not improve the participants' ability to tackle everyday tasks, and more research is needed to translate the findings from the laboratory into interventions that prove effective at home.
The ACTIVE trial was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), both components of NIH. Sherry L. Willis, Ph.D., of Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pa., and co-authors report the findings on behalf of ACTIVE investigators at the study's six sites: Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Pennsylvania State University; University of Alabama at Birmingham; and University of Florida, Gainesville (in collaboration with Wayne State University, Detroit), and the data coordinating center at the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass.
"This large trial found that community-dwelling seniors who received cognitive training had less of a decline in certain thinking skills than their peers who did not have training. The study addresses a very important hypothesis--that interventions can be designed to maintain cognitive function," says NIA Director Richard J. Hodes, M.D. "The challenge now is to further examine these interventions and others to see how they can be employed in real-world settings."
"Cognitive decline is known to precede loss of functional ability in older adults. It affects everyday activities such as driving or following instructions on a medicine bottle," says NINR Director Patricia A. Grady, Ph.D., R.N. "Research to identify effective ways of delaying this decline is important because it may help individuals, and our aging citizenry, maintain greater independence as they grow older."
The ACTIVE Study included 2,802 adults aged 65 and older who were living independently and had normal cognitive and functional status at the beginning of the study. Participants were randomly assigned to four groups. Three groups took part in training that targeted a specific cognitive ability--memory, reasoning or speed of processing. The fourth group received no cognitive training.
People in the three intervention groups attended up to 10 training sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each, over a five- to six-week time period. The memory group learned strategies for remembering word lists and sequences of items, text, and story ideas and details. The reasoning group learned strategies for finding the pattern in a letter or word series and identifying the next item in a series. The speed-of-processing group learned ways to identify an object on a computer screen at increasingly brief exposures, while quickly noting where another object was located on the screen.
After the initial training, 60 percent of those who completed the initial training took part in 75-minute "booster" sessions designed to maintain improvements gained from the initial sessions.
The investigators tested the participants at baseline, after the intervention and annually over five years. They found:
Immediately after the initial training, 87 percent of the speed-training group, 74 percent of the reasoning group and 26 percent of the memory group showed improvement in the skills taught.
After five years, people in each group performed better on tests in their respective areas of training than did people in the control group. The reasoning-training and speed-training groups who received booster training had the greatest benefit.
"The improvements seen after the training roughly counteract the degree of decline in cognitive performance that we would expect to see over a seven- to 14-year period among older people without dementia," says Dr. Willis.
The researchers also looked at the training's effects on participants' everyday lives. After five years, all three intervention groups reported less difficulty than the control group in tasks such as preparing meals, managing money and doing housework. Only the effect of reasoning training on self-reported performance of daily tasks was statistically significant. Those who received speed-of-processing training and follow-up booster training scored better on how quickly and accurately they could find items on a pantry shelf, make change, read medicine dosing instructions, place telephone calls and react to road traffic signs.
"Beyond middle age, people worry about their mental sharpness getting 'rusty.' This study offers hope that cognitive training may be useful," notes Richard Suzman, Ph.D., director of the NIA's Behavioral and Social Research Program, which sponsored the work. "ACTIVE has shown that relatively brief targeted cognitive exercises can produce durable changes in the skills taught. I would now like to see studies aimed at producing more generalized changes, perhaps through more intensive and broader interventions."
Comment on this Article
History-hunting Geneticists Can Still Follow Familiar Trail
University of Florida
December 20, 2006
As the world's first explorers branched away from humanity's birthplace in east Africa some 65,000 years ago, distinct mutations accumulated in the DNA of each population, essentially providing a genetic trail for modern researchers to follow.
Recently some scientists have raised doubts about this classic genetic system to study ancient migrations of people and to estimate the populations of people or animals as they existed tens of thousands of years ago.
But University of Florida researchers writing this month in an online edition of Science validate the approach, which involves tracking sequences of mitochondrial DNA, also known as mtDNA.
"The study of mtDNA has helped to demonstrate the African origin of our species and the relationship between living humans and the Neanderthals," said Connie Mulligan, an associate professor of anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and an assistant director of the UF Genetics Institute. "MtDNA data have also been used to establish the time and route of major events in human history, such as the expansion of Neolithic farmers into Europe, and the settlement of the New World."
MtDNA has made headlines recently because of initiatives such as the National Genographic Project, a multimillion-dollar endeavor to reconstruct humanity's ancient migrations, and because of well-publicized efforts to track the ancestral roots of Oprah Winfrey and other personalities.
Located within the hundreds of energy-producing mitochondria that lie outside the nucleus of our cells, mtDNA is unlike the DNA inside the nucleus of a cell that contains genes from both of our parents -- in people and animals mtDNA is exclusively passed from mothers to their children.
For humans, this means that all of the mtDNA in our cells are copies of our mothers' mtDNA, which in turn were copies of their mothers' mtDNA. In this way, mtDNA progresses through the ages, springing from what many scientists believe was a common ancestral mother.
But over the eons, random mutations enter the genetic code of all species. By tracking similarities and differences of mtDNA, scientists gain insight about the size of groups and how they moved around the world.
"When you look at ancient migration, you're always asking the question, 'How big was the population, how many were there?'" said Michael Miyamoto, a professor and associate chairman of zoology in UF's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "The field has worked from the premise that the more mtDNA variation you saw, the larger the population was that carried that variation, just like there would be a greater diversity of T-shirts or shoes within a larger population than a smaller population."
However, the connection between mtDNA and population size was questioned this year when French scientists analyzed vast groups of gene sequences from more than 3,000 animal species. They speculated that an evolutionary tendency for species to keep helpful genes and sift out detrimental ones, called "natural selection," preferentially affects mitochondrial diversity, making mtDNA less useful for population size estimates.
"From a conservation perspective, when scientists look at census counts of animals and how the population size may be increasing or decreasing, the study of mtDNA tells us about the level of genetic diversity in a population, which is important in making conservation decisions on endangered species," Mulligan said. "If this approach were not credible, it could potentially have a bearing on future policy decisions, as well as affect literally hundreds of previous studies on humans and other mammals."
UF Genetics Institute scientists analyzed publicly available mtDNA datasets of 47 species of mammals -- a subset of the animals that were in the French study -- as well as associated data on protein diversity in the same species. A greater variety of proteins indicates more diverse DNA, because DNA contains a species' blueprints for manufacturing protein -- and the French scientists agreed that protein diversity did correlate with population size.
All that remained for UF researchers to do to reinstate mtDNA diversity as indicative of population size was to determine that protein diversity and mtDNA diversity were correlated.
"The researchers showed a correlation between mitochondrial DNA and genetic variation in a way that has never been done before," said Marc Allard, an associate professor of biology at George Washington University who was not involved in the study. "Population geneticists have used mitochondria for all kinds of work for 20 years, and to think that mtDNA didn't correlate with population size was clearly going against the dogma. This study shows the dogma is safe in mammals and probably in vertebrates, as well."
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Florida.
Comment on this Article
Top cancer scientist took secret payments from US chemicals company
Guardian
08/12/2006
A leading scientist who supposedly spent his career investigating the causes of cancer was regularly taking secret payments from an American chemicals company over a period of 20 years. Sir Richard Doll, a cancer expert, received money from Monsanto, a huge corporation that sells chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers which are sprayed onto foods that we eat every day. The company also develops and sells genetically modified crops, The reason why the payments were kept secret is obvious: there is a blatant conflict of interests. This is a blatant case of corporate bribery and corruption in a major global industry. It is also a classic example of American-style capitalism in action.
A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry, the Guardian can reveal.
Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist [epidemiology is the science of how diseases occur and spread] who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.
While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.
Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemicals and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride, used in plastics, of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer - a conclusion with which the World Health Organisation disagrees. Sir Richard's review was used by the manufacturers' trade association to defend the chemical for more than a decade.
The revelations will dismay scientists and other admirers of Sir Richard's pioneering work and fuel a rift between the majority who support his view that the evidence shows cancer is a product of modern lifestyles and those environmentalists who argue that chemicals and pollution must be to blame for soaring cancer rates.
Yesterday Sir Richard Peto, the Oxford-based epidemiologist who worked closely with him, said the allegations came from those who wanted to damage Sir Richard's reputation for their own reasons. Sir Richard had always been open about his links with industry and gave all his fees to Green College, Oxford, the postgraduate institution he founded, he said.
Professor John Toy, medical director of Cancer Research UK, which funded much of Sir Richard's work, said times had changed and the accusations must be put into context. "Richard Doll's lifelong service to public health has saved millions of lives. His pioneering work demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer and paved the way towards current efforts to reduce tobacco's death toll," he said. "In the days he was publishing it was not automatic for potential conflicts of interest to be declared in scientific papers."
But a Swedish professor who believes that some of Sir Richard's work has led to the underestimation of the role of chemicals in causing cancers said that transparency was all-important. "It's OK for any scientist to be a consultant to anybody, but then this should be reported in the papers that you publish," said Lennart Hardell of University Hospital, Orebro.
Sir Richard died last year. Among his papers in the Wellcome Foundation library archive is a contract he signed with Monsanto. Dated April 29 1986, it extends for a year the consulting agreement that began on May 10 1979 and offers improved terms. "During the one-year period of this extension your consulting fee shall be $1,500 per day," it says.
Monsanto said yesterday it did not know how much work Sir Richard did for the company, but said he was an expert witness for Solutia, a chemical business spun off from Monsanto, as recently as 2000.
Comment: Yay for the psychopaths!
Comment on this Article
Feeling stressed? You're not alone, new poll says
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 7:38 AM ET
CBC News
Stress, that tense feeling often connected to having too much to do, too many bills to pay and not enough time or money, appears to be a common emotion that knows few borders.
About three-fourths of people in Canada, the United States, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and the United Kingdom said they experience stress on a daily basis, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.
Those anxious feelings are even more intense during the holidays.
Just over three-fourths of the people in Canada, 76 per cent, said they feel stress in their daily lives frequently or sometimes. Canadians were most likely to name their jobs, 32 per cent, or their finances, 28 per cent, as the most important causes of that stress.
Spaniards, 61 per cent, were not as wound up as those in most other countries polled. And they could all take a lesson from Mexico, where more than half of Mexicans said they rarely or never experience stress in their daily lives.
But that is certainly not the experience for most people in the 10 countries polled - especially women.
When the word "stress" was mentioned to Heidi Zabit of Durham, Conn., recently, it seemed to touch a bundle of nerves.
"My life is just so stressful right now I'm exploding all over the place," said Zabit, a paralegal and single mother of three boys. "Financially, the stresses are putting me under the table. After a full day of work, we finish dinner and do homework. By 9 p.m., I'm fried.
"And it's magnified by the holidays," she said. "They emotionally string us all out, they string our kids out, as far as hopes and expectations."
Germans feel stress more intensely than those in other countries polled. People in the U.S. cite financial pressures as the top worry. About half the people in Britain said they frequently or sometimes felt life was beyond their control, the highest level in the 10 countries surveyed.
In most of those countries, men were more likely to say their lives were never out of control.
"The idea that we French lead the good life is totally utopian," said Pascale Mongay, a counsellor at a private Paris tutoring firm.
"We are as stressed as anyone," she said.
Comment on this Article
Painter prodigy says God showed her anything is possible
Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho She's just 12, but prodigy Akiane Kramarik (AH-key-ah-nuh KRAM-uh-rik) is already winning laurels for her work as a little painter and poet.
Akiane, who lives in Post Falls with her family, says her realistic images are inspired by spiritual dreams and prayer. She says God appeared to her when she was just four.
Her paintings depict animals, outer space, people, children, flowers and Jesus Christ.
She's been on the talk show circuit, astonishing hosts like Oprah Winfrey and Montel Williams with her paintings.
On Saturday, the homeschooled youngster attended her first show in Idaho outside her hometown on the Panhandle.
She says she wants to continue to paint _ but has bigger plans of helping poor and orphaned kids in Europe and Africa.
Comment on this Article
Rule Britannia
British corporations exploit world's poorest people for slave labor
Guardian
08/12/2006
An 80-hour week for 5p an hour: the real price of high-street fashion
Factories in Bangladesh are breaking pledges to workers made by big UK retailers
Some of Britain's best-known high street brands are selling "cheap chic" clothes at the expense of workers in Bangladesh who are paid 5p an hour despite pledges to protect basic labour rights, an investigation by War on Want will reveal today.
Employees in Bangladesh are forced to work excessive hours, refused access to trade unions and face abuse and sacking if they protest, says the report, Fashion Victims, based on interviews with 60 garment workers from six factories.
War on Want says that although Primark, Asda and Tesco have stated publicly they will limit the working week and pay a "living wage" overseas, these commitments are flouted in their suppliers' factories. The Guardian, which interviewed workers in Dhaka, confirmed the allegations of excessive hours and poor working conditions in the report. Employees making clothes for the three retailers said they had no choice but to work longer than the agreed 60 hours a week.
Nazmul, 24, whose job is to stick pins into shirts, said he regularly worked more than 80 hours a week, with only one day off a fortnight. With overtime he makes 2,400 taka (£17) a month. "If a big order comes in we have to work. [In Britain] you get three-for-two offers. It is we people who have to make the third shirt for you. There's no choice. We just get shouted at. There are others who will take my place if I do not work."
Women, who make up two-thirds of the workforce, are particularly vulnerable. Another worker, Veena, 23, said she was accused of stealing a piece of cloth and sacked after complaining of sexual harassment. "I did not steal but I refused to do what the manager asked me [to do]. There is no union. Who can I complain to? Who will get my job back?"
War on Want says bargains in Britain, such as jeans for £3 and cocktail dresses for £6, are possible only because retailers wrench lower prices from suppliers in Bangladesh who get clothes stitched at the lowest possible cost.
The country has the cheapest garment workers in the world, with wages halving in real terms in the past 10 years. Experts say a living wage in Bangladesh would be 3,000 taka, well above shopfloor salaries in an industry of 2 million employees, despite massive street protests in September. Factories disgorge thousands of workers into huge slums constructed of bamboo, tin and concrete above fetid inky-black lakes.
Salma, 21, lives with two other girls in a tiny room in Begun Bari slum. Her basic wage is 1,150 taka a month for 48 hours a week as a shopfloor assistant making Primark clothes. By working to 3am she can double that. A factory job is one of the few socially acceptable ways for a woman to earn a living in a conservative Muslim country. "It is a hard life. I am shouted at. I prefer this to the village where [women] are not allowed to work."
There are dangers, however. After garment factory collapses and fires in Bangladesh left nearly 100 workers dead this year, safety has become an issue. War on Want claims emergency exits are often locked. Louise Richards, the charity's chief executive, said UK prices were at "rock bottom" only because of exploitation. "The companies are not even living up to their own commitments."
Factory owners said the $8bn a year clothing export industry was under intense scrutiny by foreign buyers but there was no extra cash for "social improvements".
Mohammed Lutfor Rahman, vice president of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association, said western companies had imposed codes of conduct and sent inspectors to enforce the rules, counting fire exits and auditing overtime records. "I am asked about how many light bulbs we use in the factory and where is our toilet? But who pays for these things? The buyers' profits are going up. But if we ask for more money for improvements they say China is very cheap. It is a threat to move the work somewhere else."
Mr Rahman, whose factory sells mostly to German companies, took the Guardian on a tour of one of his units. On the third floor, rows of women stitched jackets under fans. "It is too cramped now. We are moving outside Dhaka."
Companies mentioned in the report said they had not seen it but took the issue seriously. Chris McCann, Asda's ethical standards manager, said he hoped the charity would share the findings so "we can do something about it". He said if he could identify the factories, there would be an audit of labour practices. "We have a clear policy and commitments. If these are violated we will investigate and expect the issues will be resolved. If people are being abused then frankly it is unacceptable."
A Tesco spokesperson said: "Tesco offers affordable clothing to UK customers - including many low-income families - but this is not achieved through poor working conditions in our suppliers' factories. All suppliers to Tesco must demonstrate that they meet our ethical standards on worker welfare, which are closely monitored. Our suppliers comply with local labour laws, and workers at all Bangladeshi suppliers to Tesco are paid above the national minimum wage."
Geoff Lancaster, head of public relations at Primark, said the company had been involved in trying to raise standards in Bangladesh and would investigate. It denied it was cutting costs so British shoppers benefited from cheap prices. "We use huge volumes, deal directly with suppliers cutting out the middlemen and do not advertise. That's how we get best value."
Comment on this Article
Blair was urged to plug BAe jet while in the Middle East
Sam Coates in Dubai and Philip WebsterThe Times December 20, 2006
Government officials urged Tony Blair to use the final leg of his Middle East peace tour to lobby on behalf of the British arms industry, The Times has learnt.
The Prime Minister flew to the United Arab Emirates yesterday, visiting Abu Dhabi and Dubai, saying that he wanted to promote reconciliation and democracy in the Arab world.
But it is understood that before he arrived Mr Blair was briefed that the UAE was seeking to "update its fleet of training aircraft". BAE Systems, Britain's largest arms company, was mentioned in the briefing document.
BAE said yesterday that it was waiting to learn whether the UAE would buy its Hawk advanced jet trainer. The head of the UAE Airforce has said that the BAE model was competing with a South Korean rival.
It emerged yesterday that Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, will face a legal challenge over the controversial decision last week to abandon an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into relations between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.
Lawyers for the Campaign against the Arms Trade have informed the Prime Minister, Lord Goldsmith and the Serious Fraud Office of their intention to seek a judicial review of the decision.
The Times can also reveal that the UAE had misgivings about Mr Blair's visit, his first to the country. The document said that there had been "much grumbling over the past year" as preparations for the visit were made, but added that it was now delighted to welcome him.
Although Mr Blair had made public appearances with the leaders of Turkey, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, he made no such appearance with the leaders of the UAE yesterday.
After flying from Israel, Mr Blair met Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid, the Prime Minister; Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, the President of the UAE; and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince, in Abu Dhabi.
Mr Blair then flew to Dubai for dinner with the Crown Prince, who has been heavily involved in choosing the new training aircraft. In June he visited South Korea for a demonstration of the T50 Golden Eagle trainer made by Korea Aircraft Industries.
Last night Mr Blair's spokesman said that he was "not aware" of the briefing or whether the Prime Minister had raised the matter. Asked about the grumbling, he replied: "The trip has been a huge success."
A spokesman for BAE Systems said: "There is a requirement in UAE for trainer aircraft and our Hawk is the most pre-eminent version. We are hopeful that we have a good chance for (a sale) to happen. However, at this time we have no information as to when decision might be made."
The decision is running behind schedule. In November last year, Major-General Khaled Al Bu-Ainain, head of the UAE Air Force and Air Defence, said that he had hoped to choose the new trainer jets by the middle of this year. "We are aiming at having our new advanced trainer enter service by 2010."
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP who was following the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE, said that the briefing illustrated the close links between BAe and Government. "Last week Tony Blair got BAE off the hook. This week he is being urged to act as their salesman. It demonstrates yet again the closeness of relationships between this company and the top of the Government, and the risks and potential conflict of interest that this involves."
The UAE visit came less than a week after Mr Blair ordered the Attorney-General to abandon the investigation into BAE Systems on national security grounds. Lord Goldsmith said that there was little chance of a prosecution in the case, which the head of the Serious Fraud Office has publicly disputed.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that Britain was likely to face questions from fellow members about the decision to drop the investigation.
£14.8bn: BAe's annual sales
Comment on this Article
UK report says robots will have rights
Financial Times
19/12/2006
The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day where it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.
Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.
Visions of the status of robots around 2056 have emerged from one of 270 forward-looking papers sponsored by Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientist. The paper covering robots' rights was written by a UK partnership of Outsights, the management consultancy, and Ipsos Mori, the opinion research organisation.
"If we make conscious robots they would want to have rights and they probably should," said Henrik Christensen, director of the Centre of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The idea will not surprise science fiction aficionados. It was widely explored by Dr Isaac Asimov, one of the foremost science fiction writers of the 20th century. He wrote of a society where robots were fully integrated and essential in day-to-day life.
In his system, the 'three laws of robotics' governed machine life. They decreed that robots could not injure humans, must obey orders and protect their own existence - in that order.
Robots and machines are now classed as inanimate objects without rights or duties but if artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous, the report argues, there may be calls for humans' rights to be extended to them.
It is also logical that such rights are meted out with citizens' duties, including voting, paying tax and compulsory military service.
Mr Christensen said: "Would it be acceptable to kick a robotic dog even though we shouldn't kick a normal one?
"There will be people who can't distinguish that so we need to have ethical rules to make sure we as humans interact with robots in an ethical manner so we do not move our boundaries of what is acceptable."
The Horizon Scan report argues that if 'correctly managed', this new world of robots' rights could lead to increased labour output and greater prosperity.
"If granted full rights, states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time," it says.
But it points out that the process has casualties and the first one may be the environment, especially in the areas of energy and waste.
Comment: Meaningful rights for all human beings, on the other hand, is still being considered.
Comment on this Article
Foreign AIDS
Libya court sentences six to death for spreading HIV
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 00:40:22
CAIRO, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- A Libyan court sentenced five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death on Tuesday for spreading HIV in a Libyan hospital, according to news reaching here from Tripoli.
The defendants, who had worked at the Al-Fateh hospital in Libya's Benghazi, were accused of infecting more than 400 children with HIV, 52 of whom had died at the hospital in the late 1990s.
Libyan Justice Minister Ali Omar Hassnaoui said the six may appeal to the supreme court and, if that went against them, to a superior body called the high council of justice.
The six denied the charges and their defense lawyers argued that the children had been infected with HIV due to bad hygiene at the Benghazi hospital before their clients began working at the hospital.
In the wake of the verdict, their lawyers said they planned to appeal against their latest conviction.
The medical workers, who had been detained for nearly seven years, had previously been sentenced to death by firing squad in 2004. But Libya's supreme court quashed the ruling and ordered a retrial following an appeal in December 2005.
Europe and the United States have called Libya to release the defendants, saying that the six were scapegoats for the poor hygiene conditions in the hospital. Bulgaria also contended that the children were infected by unhygienic practices at their Libyan hospital.
Families of the dead children have demanded 15 million dollars in compensation which was rejected by the Bulgarian government, which insists that its nationals are innocent.
Comment on this Article
Russia Says Libyan Verdict on Medics "Exceedingly Cruel"
Created: 20.12.2006 15:06 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:17 MSK, 2 hours 56 minutes ago
MosNews
Russia on Wednesday denounced as "exceedingly cruel" the death sentences passed by a Libyan court on six foreign medics convicted of deliberately infecting hundreds of Libyan children with the virus that causes AIDS, the Reuters news agency reported.
The court sentenced five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death on Tuesday, saying they deliberately infected 426 children with the HIV virus at a hospital in the late 1990s.
"The sentence ... raises some very serious questions and I agree with those who think it is exceedingly cruel," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a Moscow news conference.
Lavrov said he had already urged the Libyan leadership to show mercy, adding: "I do not know what scope there is in Libyan legislation for saving these people's lives but it goes without saying that I am calling precisely for that."
The medics deny infecting the children, more than 50 of whom have since died.
Bulgaria, the European Union and Amnesty International criticized the verdict on Tuesday. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she hoped the medics would be allowed to return home at the earliest possible date.
Comment on this Article
Traces of polonium found in Swedish tourist
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 07:37:09
STOCKHOLM, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- A Swede who stayed at the same hotel as the poisoned Russian former spy, Alexander Litvinenko, has been found to have increased levels of polonium in his body, Swedish news agency TT reported on Tuesday.
Following Litvinenko's death in London in November, three Swedes were tested to see if they too had traces of the substance in their bodies, according to TT.
The Russian appeared to have been poisoned with a high dose of polonium 210, but the circumstances surrounding his death have so far baffled British police.
The results of the tests on the Swedes show that one of them has slightly raised levels of polonium.
"In one case it has been possible to see a slight increase of polonium in the urine, but it's not at a level that poses a health risk," said Jonas Holst, a medic at the crisis management unit at the National Board of Health and Welfare.
The person with the increased level of polonium visited the barat the hotel in London where Litvinenko stayed. No treatment is required, said Holst.
Comment on this Article
COINTELPRO: John Lennon
Gimme some truth: John Lennon's FBI File
Paul MacInnes
Wednesday December 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The last of the classified documents compiled by the FBI on the behaviour and beliefs of John Lennon have finally been made public today.
For years the subject of speculation and official requests for their release, these 10 documents were withheld on the grounds that they could cause "Military retaliation against the United States". Now they are in the public domain, some are struggling to work out what all the fuss is about.
"The content of the files released today is an embarrassment to the U.S. government," Jon Wiener, the writer who has been campaigning for the papers to be made public since 1981, told the LA Times.
"I doubt that Tony Blair's government will launch a military strike on the U.S. in retaliation for the release of these documents.
Today, we can see that the national security claims that the FBI has been making for 25 years were absurd from the beginning."
The revelations contained within the documents (all of which can be seen here) are hardly on the level of the Da Vinci Code.
Compiled in 1972, they reveal that Lennon, a "former member of the Beatles singing group", had "encouraged the belief that he holds revolutionary views" and that some of the evidence for this behaviour can be found in "his songs and other publications".
By way of further evidence, the documents go on to record his meetings with Tariq Ali, then editor of a Marxist magazine - Red Mole - but observe that despite several attempts by Ali to elicit funds from Lennon to support a Marxist bookshop "no sum has been paid by Lennon for this purpose".
There is also reference to Lennon's drug use. A previous UK conviction for cannabis was at the centre of attempts to have Lennon deported from the United States where he was resident at the time. To add grist to the mill, one of the memos observe: "A second confidential source, who has furnished reliable information in the past, advised that Lennon continues to be a heavy consumer of narcotics".
Comment: Contrary to the claim made in this article that the documents are "hardly on the level of the Da Vinci Code", we think that there are very much on the same level as The De Vinci Code....
Comment on this Article
The FBI campaign against John Lennon
Jon Wiener
Tuesday December 19, 2006
The Guardian
The FBI campaign against John Lennon shows how far the state can go to deal with stars who refuse to toe the line
When the Dixie Chicks told an audience in London in 2003 that "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas", they set off a political storm in the US that echoed the treatment meted out to John Lennon 30 years earlier. They were talking about the Iraq war, while Lennon had been campaigning against the Vietnam war.
The Dixie Chicks got in trouble with rightwing talk radio. Boycotts followed, and lead singer Natalie Maines ended up publicly apologising to President Bush.
What happened to Lennon was of course worse. The turning point for the Beatles came with their 1966 US tour, when they first publicly criticised the war in Vietnam. As the decade wore on, Lennon was the target of increasingly aggressive media ridicule, especially when he began experimenting with new forms of political protest - such as declaring his honeymoon with Yoko Ono a "bed-in for peace".
In the next couple of years, establishment hostility turned nastier on both sides of the Atlantic, as the former Beatle embraced more serious radicalism, making common cause with Tariq Ali (then editor of the Marxist Red Mole). In 1971, Lennon joined a march in London against internment without trial in Northern Ireland and helped fund the republican cause. By the time he left for New York that autumn, the knives were out.
In the late 60s, Lennon had been busted for cannabis possession. He claimed it had been planted by the police, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour charge. Within months of his joining the US anti-war movement and publicly attacking President Nixon, the US administration responded with deportation proceedings. Nixon claimed that Lennon had been ineligible for admission to the US because of the cannabis conviction in London, but everybody understood the deportation order was an attempt to silence him as a critic of the Vietnam war and the president.
Lennon's case illuminates the price pop stars and other celebrities can pay for taking controversial political stands - particularly when they oppose American wars. Every pop star needs a cause, but it has to be one that doesn't offend the powers-that-be - landmines, or hunger, or Aids in Africa. Lennon's example is almost unique. Charlie Chaplin was driven out of the US after being charged with communist sympathies at the height of the McCarthy era, but such examples are rare.
What exactly had Lennon done? It wasn't just singing Give Peace a Chance - it was when and where he sang it; 1972 was an election year, Nixon was running for re-election and the Vietnam war was the key issue. Lennon was talking to anti-war leaders about doing a tour that would combine rock music with anti-war organising and voter registration. That was the key, because it was the first year 18-year-olds had been given the right to vote. Young voters were assumed to be anti-war, but also known to be the least likely of all age groups to vote. Lennon and his friends hoped to do something about that. Nixon found out about the former Beatle's plans, and the deportation order followed.
The threat was effective. Lennon's lawyers told him to cool it and the tour never took place. Nixon won in a landslide, and the war in Vietnam went on for three more blood-soaked years. Lennon spent the next couple of years facing a 60-day order to leave the country, which his lawyers kept getting postponed.
The striking fact is that Lennon could have avoided all of this. He didn't have to campaign against Nixon. It didn't sell records or help his career. But Lennon wanted to use his power as a superstar to do something worthwhile. And the great issue of the day was the unjust and disastrous war in Vietnam.
In some ways Lennon was naive. When he moved to New York, he thought he was coming to the land of the free. He had little idea of the power of the state to come down on those it regarded as enemies. His claim that the FBI had him under surveillance was rejected as the fantasy of an egomaniac, but 300 pages of FBI files, released under freedom of information after his murder, show he was right. The FBI is still withholding 10 documents - which we hope will finally be released today - on the grounds that they contain "national security information provided by a foreign government": almost certainly MI5 documents on Lennon's radical days in London.
Lennon never apologised to the president. He fought back in court to overturn the deportation order. But in the year after Nixon's re-election, Lennon's personal life fell apart and his music deteriorated. In the end, Nixon resigned in disgrace after Watergate, and Lennon stayed in the US.
For 30 years the idea of a tour combining rock music and voter registration languished - until 2004, when a group of activist musicians organised an election-year concert tour of battleground states with a strategy very much like Lennon's. Headlining the Vote for Change tour were the Dixie Chicks.
For young people in 1972, it was thrilling to see Lennon's courage in standing up to Nixon. That willingness to take risks with his career, and his life, is one reason why people still admire him today.
Comment: What happened to Lennon was far worse: he was murdered by the US government because he had the potential to free the minds of millions.
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