- Signs of the Times for Thu, 28 Dec 2006 -



Sections on today's Signs Page:



Signs Editorials


Editorial: Most Outrageous Right Wing Comments of 2006 - The offensive, the senseless, the bigoted, the inaccurate: a year in right-wing nuttery

Media Matters for America
December 28, 2006.

The top 11 (in chronological order):

William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [2/9/06]

Fox News host John Gibson: "Do your duty. Make more babies. That's a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days. First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call 'gabachos' -- white people -- are having fewer." [5/11/06]

Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the New York Times' decision to report on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program and a Treasury Department financial transaction tracking program: The Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs (Julius and Ethel) executed." [7/12/06]

Coulter responding to Hardball host Chris Matthews' question, "How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton's gay?": "I don't know if he's gay. But [former Vice President] Al Gore -- total fag." [7/27/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage: "That's why the department store dummy named Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He's probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King, who takes a close runner-up by the hair of a nose. The two of them together look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis." [8/7/06]

Coulter on Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., an African-American: "Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe 'soft' on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America." [8/9/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, blaming America's "obesity crisis" on "the left," "liberal government," and "food stamps": "Because we are sympathetic, we are compassionate people, we have responded by letting our government literally feed these people to the point of obesity. At least here in America, didn't teach them how to fish, we gave them the fish. Didn't teach them how to butcher a -- slaughter a cow to get the butter, we gave them the butter. The real bloat here, as we know, is in -- is in government." [8/29/06]

Coulter on Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.: "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." [8/30/06]

Conservative pundit and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: "Look, [Rep. Jim] Kolbe [R-Ariz.] is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. [Rep. Mark] Foley [R-Fla.] was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages [Jeff Trandahl] was gay. Foley's administrative assistant, Mr. [Kirk] Fordham, the New York Times tells us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others. What's going on here, Joe [Scarborough, MSNBC host], is basically these, this little mafia in there looked upon the pages, I guess, as their -- sort of their personal preserve. And it stinks to high heaven what was done. And it stinks to high heaven that it was not exposed and these types of people, thrown out by the Republican Party." [10/9/06]

CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck to Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn.: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " [11/14/06]

Right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel on Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian ... is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as president when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?" [12/18/06]

Honorable mentions (also in chronological order):

Beck: "Cindy Sheehan. That's a pretty big prostitute there, you know what I mean?" [1/10/06]

Republican strategist Mary Matalin: "I mean, you know, I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping constituency, they're keeping their neighborhoods and their African-American brothers enslaved, if you will, by continuing to let them think that they're -- or forced to think that they're victims, that the whole system is against them." [2/8/06]

Pat Robertson, host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club: "But it does seem that with the current makeup of the court, they still don't have as many judges as would be needed to overturn Roe [v. Wade]. They need one more, and I dare say before the end of this year there will be another vacancy on the court." [3/7/06]

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and host of the daily Christian radio show The Albert Mohler Program: "Well, I would have to say as a Christian that I believe any belief system, any world view, whether it's Zen Buddhism or Hinduism or dialectical materialism for that matter, Marxism, that keeps persons captive and keeps them from coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yes, is a demonstration of satanic power." [3/17/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz on Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-Ga.) hairstyle: "She looks like a ghetto slut. ... It looks like an explosion in a Brillo pad factory. ... She looks like Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence. ... She looks like a shih tzu!" [3/31/06]

Boortz on McKinney's hairstyle (again): "I saw Cynthia McKinney's hairdo yesterday -- saw it on TV. I don't blame that cop for stopping her. It looked like a welfare drag queen was trying to sneak into the Longworth House Office Building. That hairdo is ghetto trash. I don't blame them for stopping her." [3/31/06]

Limbaugh discussing a videotape released by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq: "[I]t sounds just like the DNC (Democratic National Committee) is writing his scripts now." [4/26/06]

Beck: "Blowing up Iran. I say we nuke the bastards. In fact, it doesn't have to be Iran, it can be everywhere, anyplace that disagrees with me." [5/11/06]

Jonathan Hoenig, managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto: "I think when it comes to Iran, the problem is we haven't been forceful enough. I mean if you -- frankly, if you want to see the Dow go up, let's get the bombers in the air and neutralize this Iranian threat." [6/5/06]

Fox host Geraldo Rivera: "I've known [Sen.] John Kerry [D-Mass.] for over 35 years. Unlike me, he is a combat veteran, so he gets some props. But in the last 35 years, I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry. And for a smart man like that in a political ploy to set a date certain only aids and abets the enemy, and the Democrats are at their own self-destructive behavior once again." [6/22/06]

Savage: "I don't know why we don't use a bunker-buster bomb when he comes to the U.N. and just take [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out with everyone in there." [7/21/06]

Boortz: "I want you to think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless, how -- that's right, I used those words -- how incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage? You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than the human wage. Uh -- human, the minimum wage." [8/3/06]

Syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas on businessman Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut's Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate: "It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing. ... [T]hey have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to 'kill' one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe." [8/10/06]

Fox News host Sean Hannity, two months before the November midterm elections: "This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.] doesn't become the [House] speaker." [8/29/06]

Beck: "The Middle East is being overrun by 10th-century barbarians. That's what I thought at 5 o'clock this morning, and I thought, 'Oh, geez, what -- what is this?' If they take over -- the barbarians storm the gate and take over the Middle East (this is what I'm thinking at 5 o'clock in the morning) -- we're going to have to nuke the whole place." [9/12/06]

Savage: "My fear is that if the Democrats win [in the November midterm elections], and I'm afraid that they might, you're going to see America melt down faster that you could ever imagine. It will happen overnight, and it could lead to the breakup of the United States of America, the way the Soviet Union broke up." [10/13/06]

Republican pollster Frank Luntz on Nancy Pelosi's appearance: "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' " [10/31/06]

Limbaugh on the Middle East: "Fine, just blow the place up." [11/27/06]

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly (on his radio show): "Do I care if the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other in Iraq? No. I don't care. Let's get our people out of there. Let them kill each other. Maybe they'll all kill each other, and then we can have a decent country in Iraq." [12/5/06]

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters on Iraq Study Group co-chairman James Baker: "The difference is that [Pontius] Pilate just wanted to wash his hands of an annoyance, while Baker would wash his hands in the blood of our troops." [12/7/06]

Conservative syndicated radio host Michael Medved on the animated movie "Happy Feet": The film contains "a whole subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality." [12/11/06]

Fox captions

Additionally, although these are not examples of specific conservative commentators making outrageous comments, we would be remiss if we did not mention that Fox News made a regular practice of attacking Democrats or repeating Republican talking points in on-screen text during its coverage of political issues. Some examples:

"All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?" [2/23/06]

"Attacking Capitalism: Have Dems Declared War on America?" [2/18/06]

"Dems Helping the Enemy?" [5/22/06]

"A Lamont Win, Bad News for Democracy in Mideast?"

"Have the Democrats Forgotten the Lessons of 9/11?"

"Is the Democratic Party Soft on Terror?" [8/8/06]

"The #1 President on Mideast Matters: George W Bush?" [8/14/06]

"Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?" [8/16/06]
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Bush, the Inept Marionette

By Curt Maynard
Al-Jazeerah
December 25, 2006

Yeah, whatever, the AP can write whatever they like, but the truth is al-Maliki "punked," Bush, which is modern vernacular meaning that Bush was intentionally disrespected publicly. To my knowledge nothing like this has ever happened before - as a rule Presidential advisors do everything they can to ensure that the President of the United States never gets embarrassed in such a manner. In any case, al-Maliki's absence spelled out something quite clearly - Bush has no influence in the Middle East any longer - zero.

Many Americans are beginning to realize the obvious, President Bush has completely wasted any capital that he may have once had. Foreign leaders are already aware of this, nobody takes him seriously, he is seen for what he is, a weak, inept marionette.

Recently we saw the new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki literally stand Bush up at an allegedly important meeting in Jordan - he literally left Bush standing alone waiting on his own subordinate, at least from Bush's perspective. The Associated Press did their best to mitigate what happened and to spin the implications, but it did a poor job at best.

According to the AP the meeting that Bush and al-Maliki were scheduled to meet at was scrubbed, not because al-Maliki "punked" Bush by not showing up, but for some other reason, but not before Bush was expecting al-Maliki as evidenced by the fact that when the meeting was scrubbed, he was already inside Raghadan Palace and had posed for photographs alone with the king.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that the delay was a snub by al-Maliki directed at Bush or was related to the leak of a memo written by White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley questioning the prime minister's capacity for controlling violence in Iraq."

Yeah, whatever, the AP can write whatever they like, but the truth is al-Maliki "punked," Bush, which is modern vernacular meaning that Bush was intentionally disrespected publicly. To my knowledge nothing like this has ever happened before - as a rule Presidential advisors do everything they can to ensure that the President of the United States never gets embarrassed in such a manner. In any case, al-Maliki's absence spelled out something quite clearly - Bush has no influence in the Middle East any longer - zero.

To further support this fact and to support something else the mainstream media would prefer that you don't know, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently admonished George Bush publicly too, he stated the obvious in response to a comment Bush made about him, when Bush said that Ahmadinejad was out of step with the rest of the world. Iran's President replied by saying that perhaps Georgie needs to step out of [his] glass palace and go to [his] people to see how isolated [he is], not only across the world but also in your own country." Ahmadinejad continued by saying "Mr. Bush can travel to one of the American states, inviting the people to a stadium to see how the people would treat him... I am sure that the American people would treat Mr. Bush as the Indonesian people treated him," he said referring to protests that greeted Bush on a visit to Indonesia last month. Yeah, fat chance that'll ever happen.

Ahmadinejad then stated what everyone but the most avid Fox News viewers are starting to conclude, and that is that Some so-called superpowers have gathered together and they think that they can control the whole world. I'm telling them: Open your eyes, today, the world no longer thinks your decisions have any value. "By God's grace, the enemies have not been able to do anything (against Iran) as yet and they will not be able to do anything in the future either," he said.

The above comments weren't made lightly, the Iranian President is well aware of the fact that the power elite in Washington DC cannot afford to allow him to make them look like monkeys, but nonetheless that is exactly what he has successfully done.

Another thing the Iranian leader has done that truly has exposed the so-called modern western democracies to the embarrassment they so desperately deserve is to hold the holocaust conference that he did a few weeks ago, and to do so under the provision that it was held because it could not be held in the west, which by the way is an empirical fact.

Despite the fact that President Ahmadinejad is the leader of a nation that according to our media suppresses freedom of speech, Ahmadinejad correctly pointed out that it is the west, not Iran, that throws its historians in prison for questioning certain aspects of the holocaust story, not as the media would have you believe, whether or not it occurred, but rather numbers and methods.

The fact is, not a single holocaust revisionist would state that the Nazis did not persecute Jews during the Second World War, but most of them question the idea that six million were killed or that any of them were gassed at Auschwitz.

By holding that conference and by emphasizing the undeniable fact that the so-called modern democracies in the west imprison skeptics, the Iranian President has further highlighted the fact that Bush is a "limp dick."

The media wants you to believe that anyone that would question any aspect of the official holocaust story is crazy and/or a "conspiracy theorist." The fact is, the reason some people question certain details associated with the holocaust is for exactly the same reason that many people question the "official version" of 9-11, because there are a tremendous amount of perfectly legitimate questions and no forthcoming answers.

The media would have you believe that only uneducated fools, anti-Semites and racists would question their version of what happened to Jewry during WWII, the mainstream media pumped out more than 1,000 articles about the holocaust conference in Iran, but not a single one of them ever mentioned that every scholar that appeared in Tehran to speak was a credentialed academic, meaning that they had at least a graduate degree.

Nope, the Mainstream Zionist media doesn't want you to know that.

They do however want you to know that David Duke appeared, so that they can cast aspersions on the entire conference by dredging up the fact that Duke was associated with the KKK some thirty years ago, but at the same time not a single one of those so-called "objective" articles mentioned the fact that Duke has a PhD in history or that he appeared, not to question the holocaust, but in order to authoritatively speak about how the mainstream western media spins and distorts the facts, as evidenced by their very coverage of Dr. David Duke and what he actually said. I highly encourage anyone and everyone to disregard what the media said took place in Tehran and what the speakers said, and to see for themselves what transpired there by reading the words of the revisionists that were there, and by reading what Dr David Duke actually said in regards to free speech and its suppression in the west, in his own words.

Was the holocaust conference a success?

You bet it was, not three weeks after its conclusion, Austria released David Irving from prison, no doubt as a result of the embarrassment brought upon it by way of the truths spoken at the conference. David Irving owes a large debt of gratitude to those that spoke out on his behalf in Tehran, now let's hope he recognizes that fact and reciprocates without succumbing to the pressures of political correctness that often bar those seeking fame in the modern era.

Bush has taken the world to the very edge, he has threatened the leaders of nations with absolute destruction, as he did with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, when he sent Zionist lackey Richard Armitage to Pakistan after 9-11 to tell the Pakistani leader that the United States would bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age," unless Musharraf cooperated with the United States in its war on terror. The fact that Pervez Musharraf even admitted this publicly as he did back in September also is a strong indicator that Bush's impotence is well known among Muslim leaders. None of them believe anything he says, which has led to the inevitable, a "broke dick" foreign policy approach by the President and his Zionist sponsors.

"Broke dick" is another term I learned while in the U.S. cavalry, it essentially means "irreparably broken," and better describes Bush's misadventures in the Mid east, than any other word that comes to mind.

It isn't just Middle Eastern leaders that have called Bush's bluff, the entire world sees the fool for exactly what he is, a "limp dick" with a "broke dick" administration. The only thing holding Bush up at this point is the Zionist media, who have been busily engaged in making him appear as if he weren't the moron that he in fact is - a tough job to be sure.

The Russians and the Chinese have absolutely no respect for Bush, no matter what he does they ignore him and move on with their own interests. Hugo Chavez the popular and democratically elected leader of Venezuela accurately labeled Bush the devil and did so before the entire UN assembly, in New York City no less, and stated something else that should wake up the American people, and that is that Bush's government [Democratic and Republican elite alike] are the first enemies," of the American people," and that the Zionist-American elite's empire is on its way down.

Chavez provided several examples as to why this eventuality is in fact inevitable, one of which was witnessed by the entire world, and that was when a United States veto at the United Nations allowed the Israelis with impunity to destroy Lebanon in front of us all as we stood there watching."

Americans must wake up, their government is ill, it has become a pathological liar, unable to tell the truth, because the truth will lead to its downfall.

Bush allegedly sent the US military to Iraq in order to bring "democracy" to the Mid east, but democracy isn't working out very well for Bush and company, because democratically elected leaders aren't siding with the Zionist warmongers that inhabit Washington DC and the western media - in fact - they are doing exactly what Bush and the Zionists least expected, they are standing up to their bullying tactics - they are no longer afraid, which leaves Bush in the unenviable position of having to do something about the world's lack of fear.

Unfortunately for Bush, he has no real options, he can go nuclear which will lead to his downfall and the collapse of the American government at best, and at worst, death to tens of millions of people worldwide, including most likely millions of Americans, which will also lead to his downfall and the collapse of the American government.

No, the truth is, Bush is completely impotent, there is no guarantee that the American people will fall for anymore lies or another staged attack - everyone knows Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and its subsequent disastrous occupation, everyone now knows that Bush, despite his rhetoric, supports the amnesty of twenty million illegal immigrants in this country, not because he gives a damn about them, but because his Zionist puppet masters want them there for a variety of reasons, to disenfranchise the American working man, to water down the voting power [if any still exists] of the majority, to force down wages, and most importantly to create disharmony and discord among the American people by way of disingenuous accusations of racism, which will distract Americans from what Bush does elsewhere - Machiavellian principles at their finest.

No, it's very difficult to tell whether or not another staged terror attack like 9-11 will have the desired effect, but that isn't to say Bush and his Zionist masters won't attempt one, in fact, I'd say it's inevitable, I don't think they see any other way out of the mess they created, they'll fabricate a new 9-11, not so much to provide an excuse to nuke Tehran, which will come later, but to impose Martial Law here in the United States - an attack can wait, but the growing dissent among Americans cannot - that spells imminent doom for the Zio-American entity.

The question that must be plaguing their minds though is whether or not Bush still has enough credibility to compel Law Enforcement and the National Guard to kill American citizens in the millions.

Personally I doubt it - the imposition of Martial law will prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the Zionist-led government in Washington. That doesn't mean I'll be around to see it, the Neo-Cons will follow to the letter the policies of their ideological predecessors and eliminate with extreme prejudice any opponents, but nonetheless I'll leave this world knowing that they'll soon follow.

Original
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Bush's Worst Lies of 2006 - A look back at some of the biggest falsehoods of 2006.

By Eleanor Clift
MSNBC
26 Dec 06

In the spirit of holding our political leaders accountable, this year-end review will tabulate the worst lies told by Bush and company, along with several stories that were underreported in the media. Much of what was generated got lost in the fog of war, but the long arm of history will retrieve these moments. As the president said in his news conference this week, if they're still writing about No. 1-George Washington-there's plenty of time before the historians can properly evaluate No. 43. Judging by the mess in Iraq, it could be 200 or 300 years - if ever - before Bush is vindicated.

Bush has shifted his rhetoric in deference to the grim and deteriorating reality on the ground in Iraq. Asked by a reporter on Oct. 25 if we are winning the war, Bush said, "Absolutely, we're winning." Offered the opportunity at his press conference to defend that statement, Bush has adopted a new formulation. He now says, "We're not winning, but we're not losing." That sounds like the definition of a quagmire.

Exploitation of the war gained Republicans seats in '02 and got Bush a second term in '04, but it wasn't enough in '06. Karl Rove decided the best way for Republicans to retain control of the House and Senate was to embrace the war in Iraq and run against the Democrats as "Defeatocrats" and "Cut and Runners." It might have worked, had not most Americans decided they did indeed want to cut and run. Not right away-the voters want an orderly exit-but they weren't buying Bush's big lie about the Democrats.

Bush campaigned this fall as though the Democrats were the real enemy, not the terrorists. "They [Democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again ... If you don't want your government listening in on terrorists, vote for the Democrats." Now that the Democrats have won, watch Bush try to off-load blame for the failure in Iraq. If the Democrats won't go along with whatever cockamamie scheme he comes up with, he can always accuse them of losing the war.

Days after giving Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a ringing endorsement, declaring he would be there until the end, Bush fired him. It was the most obvious lie of his presidency. And it tripped so easily off Bush's tongue. There was none of the stammering that usually accompanies his public utterances. It was as big a lie as Rove's assertion on National Public Radio that all the public polls pointing toward a rout for the GOP were wrong. "I have the math," Rove proclaimed. A lot of people believed Rove, but the voters didn't.

The administration had the media snookered much of the time. Stories that were underreported largely because they ran counter to administration spin include:

# A study that shows the death toll among Iraqis has reached as high as 655,000. Extensively researched by teams of doctors commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md., the study-and the controversy over its sampling methodology-was given scant attention by the media because it was so far out of line from the administration's projection of perhaps 50,000 civilian deaths. That's still a horrendous death toll of innocents in a country the size of Iraq. Now, 100 bodies routinely turn up every day in Baghdad's morgues, the victims of sectarian violence, and the report, published in October in The Lancet medical journal, seems to be closer to the truth than anything the Bush administration has acknowledged.

# Private contractors in Iraq. There are 100,000 government contractors in Iraq, a number that rivals the 140,000 U.S. soldiers in the country. It's dangerous work; some 650 contractors have died there. They do a lot of the jobs the military used to do, everything from providing security and interrogating prisoners to cooking meals for the soldiers. They work for military contractors like KBR and DynCorp International, which are helping train the Iraqi police force. This is the largest contingent of civilians ever operating in a battlefield environment, and there's been no congressional oversight or accountability. That should change with the Democrats taking over the investigative committees on Capitol Hill. The abuses may be just waiting to be uncovered.

# America's secret torture prisons, whose existence Bush acknowledged as part of his tough-guy campaigning this fall. Set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, the legality, morality and practicality of these so-called "black sites" have come under scrutiny. After a brief flurry about the use of torture tactics like "water boarding," where a prisoner is made to feel he's drowning, the story of these CIA-operated overseas prisons faded. Yet they contributed to the central tragedy of the Bush administration, the collapse of America's standing around the world.

Original
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Remembering Gerald Ford: US Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld Linked to "Murder of CIA Scientist"

by Gordon Thomas
20 August 02

Secret documents have revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are "linked to the murder" of a former senior CIA scientist.

In 1953 Frank Olson, who was a key member of the CIAs secret brainwashing programme MK-ULTRA, was sent plunging from a New York hotel window.

He had threatened to reveal the CIA involvement in "terminal experiments" in post-war Germany and in Korea during the Korean War.

For almost half a century his son, Eric, a psychologist, has insisted his father was murdered "on orders from the highest level".

Now a California history professor, Kathryn Olmstead, revealed she had discovered at the Gerald Ford library documents written by Cheney and Rumsfeld at the time of Frank Olson's death.

They show how far the White House went to conceal information about Olson's death - and his role in preparing anthrax and other biological weapons. Part of his work had been at Britain's Porton Down Chemical-Bio Research Centre.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were given the task of covering up the details of Frank Olson's death. At the time, Rumsfeld was White House Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford. Dick Cheney was a senior White House assistant.

The documents uncovered by Professor Olmstead include one that states "Dr Olson's job was so sensitive that it is highly unlikely that we would submit relevant evidence".

In another memo, Cheney acknowledges that "the Olson lawyers will seek to explore all the circumstances of Dr Olson's employment, as well as those concerning his death. In any trial, it may become apparent that we are concealing evidence for national security reasons and any settlement or judgement reached thereafter could be perceived as money paid to cover up the activities of the CIA".

Frank Olson's family received US $750,000 to settle their claims against the US government.

But Professor Olmstead's revelations will almost certainly bring further embarrassment to Rumsfeld and Cheney as the persistent fallout from the FBIs investigation into the anthrax mailings last year, which lead to five deaths in America, continues to escalate.

Both the offices of Rumsfeld and Cheney have declined comment on their role in the murder of Frank Olson.

But from his home outside Washington, Eric Olson said that the documents involving Rumsfeld and Cheney show they "have questions to answer".

He added: "The documents show the lengths to which the government was trying to cover up the truth. For decades there was a cover up. And then, under the guise of revealing everything, there was a new cover up."

But a CIA spokesman, Paul Nowack, insisted that the CIA had "fully cooperated in allowing the full truth to surface. Tens of thousands of documents were released".

Eric Olson has contended that his father was murdered to cover up his ultra-secret research in Korea and later in Europe and Britain.

"My father was among scientists studying the use of LSD and other drugs to enhance interrogations, as Cold War tensions ran high, and Americans feared that captured soldiers had been brainwashed in Korea. My father had gone to Europe, where he observed the interrogation of former Nazis and Soviet citizens at a secret US base", said Eric Olson.

He contends that in the final days of his life, his father became "morally distraught" over his work and decided to quit. Records show that CIA officials were concerned that he was a security risk. Eric Olson believes that the thought of Frank Olson quitting was a motive for the government to want him dead.

"In 1993, Eric Olson arranged for his father's body to be unearthed and examined by a forensic scientist, James Starrs. Starrs concluded that Frank Olson had probably been struck on the head and then thrown out of the hotel window," writes Frederick Tulsky in the Mercury News.

Starrs' conclusion is one of the tantalizing pieces that Eric Olson has gathered to support his belief that his father was murdered.

In late November 1953, Frank Olson, then 43, joined a group of government officials at a conference at Deep Creek Lodge in western Maryland. For days afterward, Olson was withdrawn. His son, Eric, says his father told his wife that he intended to quit his job.

But Frank Olson did not quit. And on November 23 he went to New York with another government official, where he twice visited Harold A Abramson, a doctor who was one of the first researchers to study the effects of LSD.

Olson returned to Washington, then went back to New York on November 28 and checked into the Statler Hotel. He was scheduled to enter a sanitarium the next day.

But early in the morning of November 29, Frank Olson went through the window of the hotel room he was sharing with a colleague, Robert Lashbrook. Lashbrook told police that he was awakened by the sound of breaking glass.

"The Olson family knew little else. But in 1975, a commission headed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller issued a report on CIA abuses, and an account in the Washington Post included a mention of an Army scientist who jumped from a New York hotel room days after being slipped LSD in 1953," writes Tulsky.

"We realized they were talking about my father," Eric Olson recalled. Family members talked to reporters about their outrage and said they would sue the government. Days later, the family was invited to the White House to meet President Ford. He assured them that they would be given all information about what happened to Frank Olson.

Soon after, family members were invited to lunch with CIA Director William Colby, who gave them a file of documents that amounted to the CIA investigation into Olson's death. But the documents left many questions unanswered about both his work and the circumstances of his death.

"The express understanding was that the government had promised to give us all information, which clearly meant information about his work relationship with the CIA," the Olsons' attorney, David Rudovsky of Philadelphia, said this week. "It now appears that was not the case."

Over the years Eric Olson turned up many clues, real or coincidental. There was, for example, the assassination manual that the CIA declassified in connection with its Guatemala activities. The manual, created in the early 1950s, identified "the contrived accident" as "the most effective technique" of secret assassination.

"The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface," the manual stated. "It was exactly what happened to my father," said Eric Olson.

Original
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Remembering Gerald Ford: The Kennedy Assassination

A SOTT Special Report

Giving Consent

We were slightly taken aback when we found this item yesterday. We asked ourselves: Do they really believe this type of manipulation can work?

Then we remembered the WMD in Iraq, 9/11, the 2000 elections. Of course it will work.

No JFK conspiracy, new analysis shows

October 28, 2003

The United States' ABC television network said today it conducted an exhaustive investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, complete with a computer-generated reconstruction, which irrefutably confirms that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

A two-hour special on the event is scheduled to air on ABC News in the United States on November 20, two days before the 40th anniversary Kennedy's killing.

"It leaves no room for doubt," said Tom Yellin, executive producer of the special, narrated by Peter Jennings.


He called the results of ABC's study "enormously powerful. It's irrefutable". The conclusion that Oswald alone shot Kennedy during a motorcade in Dallas mirrors that of the Warren Commission, the official government inquiry into the assassination.

Even today, public opinion surveys find that less than half of Americans don't agree with that conclusion, said Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

But that reservoir of doubt, largely fed by government secrecy and Oliver Stone's movie on the assassination, is important to address, Yellin said.

ABC News worked with an expert who created a computer-generated reconstruction of the shooting based on maps, blueprints, physical measurements, more than 500 photographs, films and autopsy reports, ABC said.

It enables a person to view the scene from any number of perspectives, including what Oswald saw from the sixth floor of the former Texas school book depository, Yellin said.

"When you do that, it's chillingly clear what happened," Yellin said.

He dismisses theories that there was another gunman.

Through interviews and other documentation, ABC News also concludes that Jack Ruby, who later killed Oswald, acted simply out of his love for Kennedy.

The computer-generated technology, only available for the past few years, is now frequently used in criminal investigations, Yellin said.

While Stone's movie raised doubt in many people's minds about the Warren Commission, it also led to the release of many government documents that had previously been kept hidden and fueled conspiracy theorists, Yellin said.

None of the documents offer significant evidence refuting the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, Yellin said.

Still, much of Americans' cynicism about their government can be traced to November 22, 1963, making further investigation important even 40 years later, he said.

"I think it's very hard for people to accept the fact that the most powerful man in the world can be murdered by a disaffected person whose life had been a series of failures up to that point," Yellin said.

Both Yellin and Mack admit that no matter what evidence ABC News lays out, it's not likely to quiet people who believe otherwise.

"The history of this subject is pretty clear," Mack said.

"No matter what information comes out, people are going to believe what they want."


So, based upon maps, blueprints, physical measurements, more than 500 photographs, films and autopsy reports, the good folks at ABC have made a computer-generated reconstruction of the shooting that leaves no doubt that Oswald acted alone. We have some excerpts from a book below that also used many of the same materials and arrived at the opposite conclusion: JFK was murdered by a powerful group of CIA operatives and politicians who were staunch "anti-communists." This work, The Taking Of America, 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague, also has a long chapter on how the main news producers in the US were involved in the cover-up by withholding these same documents from the public eye.

And that is the fundamental question: Will these documents be made public so that individuals can investigate them themselves and form their own opinions based upon the evidence? And if they are, will they be the real evidence, or will they be "computer reconstructions" of the original documents?

In his work, Sprague is looking at how assassinations were used to shape the outcome of elections from 1964 through 1976. He explains his outlook this way:

This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book about the process of control through the manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential election process. The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been hidden from the American public.

Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this control process. They have been important only in the sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together.


According to Sprague, Kennedy was killed, to be replaced by Johnson. Johnson was "convinced" not to run again in 1968 because he was too lenient with the Black population. Nixon was their man, and in order to ensure he got in, Robert Kennedy had to be eliminated.

Sprague had doubts about the Warren Report from the beginning. These doubts increased as he tried to verify the facts himself.

Now, the most important thing initially that happened in finding the photos was discovering a number of photographs- -films and still photos--that showed the sixth floor window empty with nobody in it. This is what originally convinced me that we had a different sort of conspiracy going than one involving Lee Harvey Oswald, because if he wasn't in the window--and nobody was in the window--then what happened?

Who fired the shots? And where from?


To do this, he constructed his own virtual model of the assassination scene, but without the help of a computer. Do you know that there are other films of the assassination? Wonder why we never hear about them? They have been bought up by the major news organizations and have been locked away from public scrutiny. But when Sprague was working, in the mid-sixties, much of this material was still available. It was only later, towards 1968-69, that the tide shifted and the material was sequestered.

Lest one doubt Sprague's capacities in computer analysis, he was a specialist and a pioneer in the field of electronic computers and a leading American authority on Electronic Funds Transfer Systems (EFTS). He co-founded the Computer Research Corporation of Hawthorne, California in 1950. In 1960, he became the Director of Computer Systems Consulting for Touche, Ross, Bailey, and Smart. He became a partner in that company in 1963, and started its Advanced Business Systems Department in 1964 where he stayed until 1968. In his book he discusses the way UPI used computer analysis to promote the lone gun theory.

Confirming that the films and photographs I was looking at were taken at the critical time the shots were fired, or immediately before or after that, involved a lot of work: work with plat maps, other photos, and other materials. I got hold of a map made by the surveyor for Dealey Plaza (I believe his name was Clarence West) which was drawn to scale, and Bob Cutler helped me draw onto it all of the various things that happened including all the vehicles that were moving through. And I managed to lay a set of films end-to-end starting with one rounding the turn onto Houston Street all the way through Dealey Plaza so I could track any vehicle that was in view eighteenth- of-a-second by eighteenth-of-a-second (Zapruder film speed) all the way through Dealey Plaza. This enabled me to determine where Kennedy was at all times and where anybody else was that showed up in any of the photos-- particularly moving pictures--at times Kennedy was at spot so-and-so or spot such-and-such.

By doing this, with some triangulation, I was able to pin down the exact timing of two particular sets of photos: a film--the Hughes film--the last frame of which shows the sixth floor window empty and ends 5.7 seconds ahead of the first shot--the first shot being fired/tied down at frame 189 of the Zapruder film; and two photos taken after the shots were fired by Dillard and, believe it or not, an intelligence man from Navy intelligence named Powell. Powell's and Dillard's photos were taken almost at the same time, 3.5 seconds after the fatal and last shot (Z-313).


Sprague wasn't using computer reproductions. He used his brain and the original photos and films.

So that total time span is less than 17 seconds--if you add up the 5.7 seconds after the end of the Hughes film, plus the 6-plus seconds while the shots were being fired, plus the 3.5 seconds before Dillard and Powell's photos were taken--of blank, non-coverage of that window and there's no way Oswald could have gotten into the window, aimed, fired three shots, and gotten out of the window so you that couldn't see him in 17 seconds.

But anyway there was another film taken by Beverly Oliver otherwise known as the Babushka lady that was confiscated by News Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy, and a still photograph taken by Norman Similas, confiscated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from "Liberty" magazine (which was going to publish the photo), who then turned the photo and its negative over to the FBI. I interviewed Similas and the "Liberty" magazine editor both of whom told me they had carefully examined the photograph and had seen no one in the photograph appearing in the eastern-most sixth floor window, which I calculated had been taken about half-way into the 17-second interval.

I made two attempts soon after the Freedom of Information Act "viewing room" in the FBI office in Washington, D.C. was created, to request to see the Similas photograph and Beverly Oliver film, but each time the FBI person assigned to me was not able to find these photographs. But the testimony of the people involved was good enough for me to conclude that there was nobody in that window ever. Once I got to that point I started looking for other evidence that would show where the shots did come from and I started finding all kinds of evidence of shots from the grassy knoll, and from the Dal Tex building, and from the roof or the seventh floor of the western end of the depository building--both photographs as well as witness testimony--and that lead me to decide that this was a powerful conspiracy which had involved at least four gunmen firing shots. This then lead me to decide that I should pursue the whole pattern of conspiracy including, eventually, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Bobby Kennedy assassination and the George Wallace attempt. And that led to the book.

Through all of this, I just know I never would have concluded that it was a powerful and well-planned conspiracy if I had not determined that Oswald wasn't in that window-- nobody was in that window. That was the first key.


Are we starting to get some sense of why this material was never made public?

There's one other thing I'd like to point out. The title of the book has more than just simple significance and it shows up in all the chapters that link all these assassinations and their cover-ups. Namely, our country has been taken from us. Us being the citizens of the United States as of 1963, and any time after that, by robbing us of our capability of electing a president we wanted for at least three, and more likely four, elections. One way of taking the country away, is to control the elections and that's really, at least part of the essence of the book. It's close to what Henry Gonzalez proposed in his original bill. He wanted the Congress to look into all four of the major assassinations--the fourth being the attempted assassination of George Wallace--and find the links between and among them, and the cover-ups, and particularly the links between the intelligence agencies and the cover-ups that he was sure were involved in all of them. And if we had had a committee which had done that, well then, we'd have been a lot further along than we are 13 years later. -- phone interview with the author, June 3, 1992


If you were not alive in the sixties, it is hard to understand the level of hatred that existed for the Kennedy's among right-wing groups such as the Minutemen. The myth that has come down is that he was beloved by everyone. Notice how ABC decides that Ruby killed Oswald because of his great love for Kennedy!

How could this manipulation of the public be carried out? Sprague gives five keys:

INGREDIENT 1. A PATRIOTIC ISSUE. A fundamental issue permeating nearly all conditions of life in the U.S. is needed, around which the rest of the fooling can be constructed. The perfect issue since 1947 has been "The Red Menace," or "Communism" or "The Radical Communist Left Conspiracy." No one is more adept at using this issue than Richard Nixon.

The people, to be fooled, have to really believe in the issue, from the heart, from the gut. In a democracy this is the most essential ingredient. In the U.S. many, many people believe it. Some believe it because they have never heard or read anything other than "The Communists are going to take over." Others believe it because they or their parents or relatives came from Europe and "know what it's like to live under Naziism or Communism." (They don't distinguish.)

Some believe because they are religious, and somehow religion is always linked to anti-communism. Others aren't sure, but they think "radical" groups might be Communist controlled. The flag waving, the national anthem, the American Legion, our prisoners of war, the draft of the past--all of these symbols are linked to the one big issue of "Communism." [...]

INGREDIENT 2. REACHING THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE. To fool a majority of the people all of the time it is necessary to reach into their minds over a relatively long period of time.

[...] Go back in time to 1935, if you are over 50, or go back to 1945, if you are over 40, or back to 1955, if you are over 30. Examine your general overall attitudes, beliefs and prejudices as developed over that period of time between then and now. You will discover that your political beliefs about the U.S., the Presidency, foreign policy, wage and price controls, and your own economic conditions, etc., have been strongly influenced by the various news media.

INGREDIENT 3. CONTROLLING THE NEWS MEDIA. In Chapter 9, the author proves that it has been possible for a very small group of people in power to control or fool nearly all of the major news media in the U.S. about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and subsequent investigations conducted by groups other than the sources of power (Warren Commission, FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Justice Department, the President).

According to polls taken between 1963 and 1970, 50% to 80% of the public at one time or another during this period believed there was a conspiracy. Nevertheless, the major news media took the opposite position. A poll conducted today would, no doubt, show about one-half of the people believing there was no conspiracy. How did this happen? Is it conceivable that the power sources of two succeeding administrations (Johnson and Nixon) fooled or controlled the news media to that extent?

The problem is not so difficult as it seems. Only sixteen media organizations are involved. These sixteen provide each of us with nearly all of the news we either read, see or hear. It is only necessary to control the sixteen men at the very top and that is exactly what happened. The proof contained in Chapter 9 contains specific facts about what happened inside of eleven of the sixteen organizations.

INGREDIENT 4. CONTROLLING THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Perhaps the most important long-range ingredient in fooling the people of America is the control and influence over the legal system. The U.S. in the post-war era has reached the stage where, in case of doubt on a major issue, the people will wait to see how it is resolved by the courts. The American people in general have always had tremendous faith in their own legal system.

With the exception of the South taking issue with the Warren court over black rights, the American people tend to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually right any wrongs. The faith goes much further than adjudication of crimes or disputes. People have come to rely on the legal system to tell them where the truth lies on a major issue when two sides differ completely on the facts. They believe that the adversary procedure and the perjury penalty system will ferret out the truth.

Thus, to fool the people, and make them believe lies, it is essential to control the legal system. The Nixon and Johnson administrations and the Invisible Government lying underneath or off to one side of both administrations became very adept at controlling the legal system. It can be done, and has been done in several ways. Nixon, of course, loaded the Supreme Court. That is important. The complete control of the Justice Department and the FBI is also obvious. Not so obvious is the need to control Federal judges throughout the land. Truth might leak out in a trial at a local level, so U.S. courts in each area must be controlled.

The Federal grand jury scheme worked out by Nixon, Mitchell and Robert Mardian is a beautiful way to guide, direct and control the legal system. It more than proved its worth in fooling the people in cases involving classified documents, the Black Panthers and other situations where the truth had to be obscured. [...]

INGREDIENT 5. PAID COLUMNISTS OR LACKEYS. Control of the news media includes controlling or hiring selected columnists, newsmen, commentators, and lackeys. Sometimes these people are called "spokesmen for the administration." Many of them are supposedly independent. Their importance in the process of fooling the people has increased as the number of independent news media organizations has decreased and the number of organizations relying on syndicated, national columnists or commentators has increased.


In looking over this list, it is clear that these elements continue to function in the US today. Look at the successful cover-up of 9/11, the way the courts were used to ensure Bush Jr. got into the White House, the media shills who whipped up anti-Saddam hysteria to justify the occupation of Iraq, the entire sequence wrapped up in patriotism and the belief that "It can't happen here." The Communist threat has been replaced by the Terrorist threat, and the well of anger and negative energy of the Cold War is being redirected to the endless war on terror.

And anyone who challenges the official version is accused of being a "conspiracy nut." But as Sprague says:

One of the favorite tricks of the media throughout the years has been to couple the words "conspiracy" and "theory" together; never once did the major media mention any of the hard evidence pointing to conspiracy in any of the four major cases.


Instead they sequestered it. Put it under lock and key.

Did you know that Oswald was an informant for the FBI?

That the shells found near Officer Tippett were from Oswald's gun, but that the bullets that killed him were not?

Many of the same individuals, including Richard Nixon, were involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the assassination of Kennedy, the blackmailing of Ted Kennedy at Chappiquiddick, and Watergate.

Read Sprague's book and decide for yourself. This is the chronology of events he gives relating to the take over of the US.

The evidence for the Power Control Group's and Ford/Nixon's strategy is as follows:

1. Nixon was White House action officer on Cuban invasion plans in 1960.

2. Nixon was in contact with Hunt and others during the Bay of Pigs planning.

3. Nixon lied to the American people by his own admission about the Bay of Pigs during his TV debates with Kennedy in 1960.

4. Nixon was financially linked to the Mafia and to Cuban casino operations before Castro took over.

5. Nixon was acquainted with Hunt, Baker, Martinez, Sturgis, Carlos Prio Socarras, and other Watergate people and anti-Castro people in Florida, and he was financially linked to Baker, Martinez and Socarras.

6. Hunt, Baker, Sturgis and Socarras were connected with the assassination group in the murder of JFK.

7. Nixon was in Dallas for three days, including the morning of the JFK assassination. He was trying to stir up trouble for Kennedy.

8. Nixon went to Dallas under false pretenses. There was no board meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company as he announced his law firm had had to attend.

9. Nixon did not admit being in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot and did not reveal the true reason for his trip. He held two press conferences on the two days before the assassination, attacking both Kennedy and Johnson and emphasizing the Democratic political problems in Texas.

10. Research indicates that Nixon either knew in advance about assassination plans, or learned about them soon after the assassination.

11. Nixon proposed to Lyndon Johnson that Gerald Ford serve on the Warren Commission.

12. Ford led the Commission cover-up by controlling the questioning of key witnesses and by several other means.

13. Ford helped firmly plant the idea that Oswald was the only assassin and that there was no conspiracy by publishing his own book, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait of the Assassin."

14. Ford purposefully covered up the conspiracy of the PCG in the JFK assassination and also covered up the fact that Oswald was a paid informer for the FBI. He did this by dismissing the subject in his book as worthless rumor and by keeping the executive sessions of the Commission (where Oswald's FBI informer status was discussed) classified Top Secret.

15. Ford continued the cover-up when he was questioned before being confirmed by the Senate as Vice President. He lied under oath twice to the Senate Committee. He stated that he had written his book about Oswald with no access to classified documents. He lied about this because his book used classified documents about Oswald's FBI informer status. He lied when he said that the book was entitled, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait of *an* Assassin." This was significant in 1973 because the public by then had become very skeptical about a lone assassin. By changing one word in the title, Ford made the book seem a little less like what it actually was--an effort to make Oswald the assassin.

16. Jaworski aided in the JFK cover-up by sitting on evidence of conspiracy accumulated by Waggoner Carr, Texas Attorney General, who he represented in liaison with the Warren Commission. He also stopped the critical testimony of Jack Ruby when he testified before the Warren Commission, and diverted attention away from Ruby's intent to reveal the conspiracy to kill both Kennedy and Oswald.

17. Nixon became president in 1968 only because Robert Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Nixon was well aware of the conspiracy whether or not he approved of it in advance.

18. John Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover joined Nixon and the lower level members of the PCG in covering up the RFK murder conspiracy. They classified the evidence "Top Secret" and murdered several witnesses, controlled the judge in the Sirhan trial and the district attorney and the chief of police in Los Angeles during and after the trial. They still control these people and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Clarence Kelly also became involved.

19. The plumbers group ordered the assassination of George Wallace in 1972 to insure Nixon's election by picking up Wallace's vote (about 18%, according to polls).

20. J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Helms were aware of who killed John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. They helped cover-up both conspiracies.

21. John Mitchell controlled the trial of Clay Shaw and the Garrison investigation and discredited Garrison by framing him in a New Orleans gambling case.

22. Nixon and Haldeman discussed the assassination of John Kennedy, the conspiracy, Hunt's involvement, the possibility that Hunt might talk, the cover-up, the Bay of Pigs relationship between Nixon, Hunt and the other PCG members, and the briefing Nixon might have had to give anyone running against him in 1972, on matters of "national security".

23. Nixon and Mitchell discussed the assassinations and the attempt to assassinate George Wallace. Mitchell executed orders to suppress the truth about these events.

24. Gerald Ford had possession of the most critical tapes on which assassinations and cover-ups were discussed.

25. Jaworski could be counted on to keep the assassination material under wraps even after his resignation. He was aware of the conspiracy evidence and cover-up in all three cases (JFK, RFK, George Wallace).

26. Hunt was taken care of and will keep silent. He had been out of jail and living on a beautiful $100,000 estate in Florida with plenty of money, across the street from his Bay of Pigs friend, Manuel Artime.

27. Clay Shaw was murdered by the PCG, undoubtedly to keep him from talking once the truth about his CIA position was revealed by Victor Marchetti. He was embalmed before the coroner could determine the cause of death. Evidence indicates he was killed somewhere and then brought back to his apartment.

28. Hale Boggs, a Warren, Commission member, was possibly killed by the PCG. Bogg's airplane disappeared in Alaska. No trace of it was ever found and no explanation of how the plane could have crashed has ever been given. Mrs. Boggs has expressed doubts about it being an accident.

29. Four of the seven Warren Commission members are dead: Warren, Dulles, Russell and Boggs. Of the remaining members, Ford was President, John McCloy is retired and living in Connecticut, and John Sherman Cooper was made ambassador to East Germany.

30. Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and Cooper believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Russell and Boggs both said so publicly.

31. Haldeman erased 18 1/2 minutes of a taped discussion with Nixon. This tape undoubtedly contained "national security" matters. The fact that Haldeman did the erasing can easily be determined by tracing the trail of possession of the tape from the day it was taken out of the vault to the day the gap was discovered. Haldeman had the tape with the recorder alone for nearly 48 hours. No one else had the tape alone long enough to do the erasing.

32. Ford and the PCG contemplated pardons for Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and possibly others who know the number one secret.

33. Ford's statements to the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee concerning his pardon of Nixon dodged the real issue. Only Elizabeth Holtzman asked questions coming close to the number one secret. When she asked about a prior agreement, Ford said, "I have made no deal, there was no deal, *since I became Vice President*." Those last few words were not reported by the press, but a large number of Americans watched and heard him say them. Of course he spoke truthfully because the "deal" was made *before* he became Vice President.


There is also this from Gerald Ford in 1997:

Ford jottings offer something new for JFK conspiracy theorists

By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press
07-02-1997

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

"My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. "My changes were only an attempt to be more precise."

But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

"This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report," said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.

JFK's Shirt from DallasThe effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, "raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins."

If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.

The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a "discontented" Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet, fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.

The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas; Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.

Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a second gunman must have been involved.

Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body "at the back of his neck" rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.

They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board, an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case. The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.

The staff of the commission had written: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine."

Ford suggested changing that to read: "A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine."

The final report said: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.


Sprague also recounts an interview between LBJ and Walter Cronkite in 1969 where the former president admitted the existence of a conspiracy.

CBS edited out one other important piece of TV film. In November 1969, Walter Cronkite conducted a three-part interview with Lyndon B. Johnson at his ranch in Texas. The series was broadcast in the spring of 1970 and on the first program an announcement was made that portions of the taped interview had been deleted at Lyndon Johnson's request, "for reasons of national security."

What actually happened and what Johnson had said six months earlier was made public due to a leak at CBS. The story appeared in newspapers all over the U.S. several days before the broadcast.

Johnson told Cronkite that there had been a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy, that Oswald was not a lone madman assassin, and that he, Johnson, had known it all along. Johnson reviewed the tapes a week or so before the program was to go on the air and then called up the CBS management, asking that his remarks be deleted.

Someone at CBS who was very disturbed by this called a member of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations and told him what had been deleted. This led to the story being printed in the newspapers.

Johnson's Wink
Rep. Albert Thomas of Houston winks at LBJ during his swearing in on Air Force One. What, one wonders, was there to wink about? Kennedy had spoken at a dinner to honor Thomas the night before...

During the final events on this list, George H.W. Bush was the director of the CIA. Sprague argues that Bush knew of this activity on the part of the "Power Control Group." How does he fit in here?

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

CHAPTER VIII-b - THE BAY OF PIGS AND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

[...] According to George Bush's official biography, he was during 1963 a well-to-do businessman residing in Houston, the busy president of Zapata Offshore and the chairman of the Harris County Republican Organization, supporting Barry Goldwater as the GOP's likely 1964 presidential candidate, while at the same time actively preparing his own 1964 bid for the US Senate. But during that same period of time, Bush may have shared some common acquaintances with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Between October, 1962 and April, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife Marina were in frequent contact with a Russian emigré couple living in Dallas: these were George de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne.

During the Warren Commission investigation of the Kennedy assassination, de Mohrenschildt was interviewed at length about his contacts with Oswald.

When, in the spring of 1977, the discrediting of the Warren Commission report as a blatant coverup had made public pressure for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination irresistible, the House Assassinations Committee planned to interview de Mohrenschildt once again. But in March, 1977, just before de Mohrenschildt was scheduled to be interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi of the House committee's staff, he was found dead in Palm Beach, Florida.

His death was quickly ruled a suicide. One of the last people to see him alive was Edward Jay Epstein, who was also interviewing de Mohrenschildt about the Kennedy assassination for an upcoming book. Epstein is one of the writers on the Kennedy assassination who enjoyed excellent relations with the late James Angleton of the CIA. If de Mohrenschildt were alive today, he might be able to enlighten us about his relations with George Bush, and perhaps afford us some insight into Bush's activities during this epoch.

Jeanne de Mohrenschildt rejected the finding of suicide in her husband's death. "He was eliminated before he got to that committee," the widow told a journalist in 1978, "because someone did not want him to get to it." She also maintained that George de Mohrenschildt had been surreptitiously injected with mind-altering drugs.

After de Mohrenschildt's death, his personal address book was located, and it contained this entry: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." There is of course the problem of dating this reference. George Bush had moved his office and home from Midland to Houston in 1959, when Zapata Offshore was constituted, so perhaps this reference goes back to some time before 1959. There is also the number: "4-6355." There are, of course, numerous other entries, including one W.F. Buckley of the Buckley brothers of New York City, William S. Paley of CBS, plus many oil men, stock brokers, and the like. [...]

It is established that between October, 1962 and late April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt was a very important figure in the life of Oswald and his Russian wife. Despite Oswald's lack of social graces, de Mohrenschildt introduced him into Dallas society, took him to parties, assisted him in finding employment, and much more.

It was through de Mohrenschildt that Oswald met a certain Volkmar Schmidt, a young German geologist who had studied with Professor Wilhelm Kuetemeyer, an expert in psychosomatic medicine and religious philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, who compiled a detailed psychological profile of Oswald.

Jeanne and George helped Marina move her belongings during one of her many estrangements from Oswald. According to some accounts, de Mohrenschildt's influence on Oswald was so great during this period that he could virtually dictate important decisions to the young ex-marine simply by making suggestions. Oswald was in awe of de Mohrenschildt, according to some.

[...] According to Mark Lane, "there is evidence that de Mohrenschildt served as a CIA control officer who directed Oswald's actions."

Much of the extensive published literature on de Mohrenschildt converges on the idea that he was a baby sitter, handler, case officer, or control agent for Oswald on behalf of some intelligence agency.

De Mohrenschildt's pedigree evokes haunting parallels to the typical figures of the PERMINDEX networks of Georges Mandel, Ferenc Nagy, Max Hagerman, Max Seligman, Carlo d'Amelio, Lewis Mortimer Bloomfield, and Clay Shaw, to which public attention was called during the investigations of New Orleans district attorney James Garrison.

It is therefore highly interesting that George Bush's name turned up in the personal address book of George de Mohrenschildt.

The Warren Commission went to absurd lengths to cover up the fact that George de Mohrenschildt was a denizen of the world of the intelligence agencies. This included ignoring the well-developed paper trial on de Mohrenschildt as Nazi and communist sympathizer, and later as a US asset abroad. The Warren Commission concluded:

The Commission's investigation has developed no signs of subversive or disloyal conduct on the part of either of the de Mohrenschildts. Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witnesses contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking the de Mohrenschildts to subversive or extremist organizations. Nor has there been any evidence linking them in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.

On the day of the Kennedy assassination, FBI records show George Bush as reporting a right-wing member of the Houston Young Republicans for making threatening comments about President Kennedy. According to FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act,

On November 22, 1963 Mr. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 5525 Briar, Houston, Texas, telephonically advised that he wanted to relate some hearsay that he had heard in recent weeks, date and source unknown. He advised that one JAMES PARROTT had been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in politics in the Houston area.

According to related FBI documentation, "a check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas revealed that agency had a report that PARROTT stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him."

Here Bush is described as "a reputable businessman." FBI agents were sent to interrogate Parrott's mother, and later James Milton Parrott himself.

Parrott had been discharged from the US Air Force for psychiatric reasons in 1959. Parrott had an alibi for the time of the Dallas shootings; he had been in the company of another Republican activist. According to press accounts, Parrott was a member of the right-wing faction of the Houston GOP which was oriented towards the John Birch Society and which opposed Bush's chairmanship.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, Bush's press office in August, 1988 first said that Bush had not made any such call, and challenged the authenticity of the FBI documents. Several days later Bush's spokesman said that the candidate "does not recall" placing the call.

One day later after he reported Parrott to the FBI, Bush received a highly sensitive, high-level briefing from the Bureau:

Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963 advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in US policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the US but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that those individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

William T. Forsyth, since deceased, was an official of the FBI's Washington headquarters; during the time he was attached to the Bureau's subversive control section, he ran the investigation of Rev. Martin Luther King. Was he also a part of the FBI's harassment of Dr. King? The efforts of journalists to locate Captain Edwards have not been successful.

This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."

When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush."

Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964.

For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush.

George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush.

Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say,

I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI.

Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum.

So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up.

It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb.


Texas and Florida. Funny how these two states play such an important role in the imposition of the Bush Reich, from the sixties until today.

Let's get this straight: It seems that George Herbert Walker Bush was a CIA operative in 1963 at the time of the assassination of a sitting president of the United States. Not only that, but he was friends with the handler of the "patsy" assassin. There was a paper trail leading to his name as popping up ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION - reporting a "plot to assassinate the president. Bush said that he had heard of this plot "in recent weeks." It's clear from the evidence that the CIA not only knew about, but was complicit in the assassination of JFK, which suggests that G.H.W. Bush also knew. He was not merely part of the cover-up, he was part of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. His call, just like the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11, was a "signature." I think I would call that hubris.

But this is all only the ravings of conspiracy nuts, right? Then what to make of the situation at the time Bush was appointed head of the CIA by Ford, the guy who altered the Warren Report?:

It will be seen that at the beginning of Bush's tenure at the CIA, the Congressional committees were on the offensive against the intelligence agencies. By the time that Bush departed Langley, the tables were turned, and it was the Congress which was the focus of scandals, including Koreagate. Soon thereafter, the Congress would undergo the assault of Abscam.

Preparation for what was to become the Halloween massacre began in the Ford White House during the summer of 1975. The Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan preserves a memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Ford dated July 10, 1975, which deals with an array of possible choices for CIA Director. Rumsfeld had polled a number of White House and administration officials and asked them to express preferences among "outsiders to the CIA."

Among the officials polled by Cheney was Henry Kissinger, who suggested C. Douglas Dillon, Howard Baker, Galvin, and Robert Roosa. Dick Cheney of the White House staff proposed Robert Bork, followed by Bush and Lee Iacocca. Nelson Rockefeller was also for C. Douglas Dillon, followed by Howard Baker, Conner, and James R. Schlesinger. Rumsfeld himself listed Bork, Dillon, Iacoca, Stanley Resor, and Walter Wriston, but not Bush. The only officials putting Bush on their "possible" lists other than Cheney were Jack O. Marsh, a White House counselor to Ford, and David Packard. When it came time for Rumsfeld to sum up the aggregate number of times each person was mentioned, minus one point for each time a person had been recommended against, the list was as follows:

Robert Bork [rejected in 1987 for the Supreme Court] White McGee Foster [John S. Foster of PFIAB, formerly of the Department of Defense] Dillon Resor Roosa Hauge

It will be seen that Bush was not among the leading candidates, perhaps because his networks were convinced that he was going to make another attempt for the vice-presidency and that therefore the Commerce Department or some similar post would be more suitable. The summary profile of Bush sent to Ford by Rumsfeld found that Bush had "experience in government and diplomacy" and was "generally familiar with components of the intelligence community and their missions" while having management experience." Under "Cons" Rumsfeld noted: "RNC post lends undesirable political cast."

As we have seen, the CIA post was finally offered by Ford to Edward Bennett Williams, perhaps with an eye on building a bipartisan bridge towards a powerful faction of the intelligence community. But Williams did not want the job. Bush, originally slated for the Department of Commerce, was given the CIA appointment.


Familiar names, no? Cheney and Rumsfeld? Part of the decision-making team for installing Bush at the CIA. And what did Bush Sr. do while he was Director? From Sprague:

Postscript

On April 27, 1976 "The New York Times" published a story on the Senate Intelligence Committee revelation that the CIA would be keeping twenty-five journalist agents within the news media.

The Committee disclosed that George Bush planned to keep these people in the media positions that they had occupied for a long time.

The significant point about the story was a statement by a Committee staff member that many of the individuals were in executive positions at American news organizations. Bush had directed that the CIA stop hiring correspondents "accredited" by American publications and other news organizations. The "Times" recognized that the pivotal word in Bush's directive was "accredited." "Executives who do not work as correspondents are apparently not covered by Mr. Bush's directive, nor are freelance writers who are not affiliated with a specific employer." The article also said that in most cases the media organization was not aware of the individual's CIA connection.

This was yet the best confirmation that the CIA had its Secret Team members planted at the top of the media. Only one executive is required at the top of a media organization to control it when needed. Since the CIA had twenty-five executives planted, that figure is more than enough to control the fifteen media organizations mentioned in this chapter.


Control the minds and you control the people. Control the media and you can control the minds. Look at the current state of the US public: dumbed down by decades of television, blockbuster movies, and music videos.

There is no population on the face of the planet better controlled than the US. The ABC special on JFK will put another nail into their coffin, presenting irrefutable proof through a medium they have integrated into every aspect of their lives, the computer simulation. The illusion is now "truth." I think we can say with some certainty that we have had two presidents of this country - and speculate on the others - who were directly involved in a conspiracy to assassinate a Sitting President of the United States.

America is only an illusion and the people have bought into it lock, stock, and barrel. It is almost as if, to go to the next level, to move beyond the forty year cycle that started on the day of Kennedy's assassination, the Power Control Group needs this little symbolic act. Bring down the curtain on the set-up and proceed to the endgame.

For forty years, the US public has bought into the lie: the assassinations of JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King. Malcolm X is dead. John Lennon is dead. Anyone who could provide a rallying point for dissent or questioning is no longer here; picked off one by one.

We are left with the lies of Georgie Jr, more outrageous than any Hitler ever told.

The future created by the choices made today. Do you buy into the lie or do you speak up for the truth? Where do you draw the line? Truth or the comfort of the lie? Defense of the truth permits the infusion of creative energy into the situation, something new and unpredictable that can completely change what appears to be an unchangeable and hopeless situation. But only truth permits this influx of new energy. Only facing the lie in the face, confronting it, refusing to believe it, and working to expose it will open this door.

Turning one's back and retreating into love and light, "positive" thinking, or the wishful creation of new states of illusion will not.

Each of us makes the choice, every day.
Comment on this Editorial


That Lobby


Stalin's Jews - We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

Sever Plocker
YNetNews
21 Dec 06

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.



Comment on this Article


'Corrie' canceled in Canada - Play has potential to offend Jewish community

By RICHARD OUZOUNIAN
Variety

It's curtains for "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" in Canada.

CanStage, the country's largest not-for-profit theater, has reversed its earlier decision and opted not to present the show as part of its 2007-08 season.

Play, about the 23-year-old American activist who died under the wheels of an Israeli bulldozer in 2003, was originally produced at London's Royal Court Theater in 2005.
James Nicola programmed it this year for the New York Theater Workshop, but that production was canceled after resistance from board members and subscribers. Show was eventually produced Off Broadway, where it ran for two months.

"It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.

But in a situation eerily similar to the one that faced Nicola, it appears that Bragg faced pressure from some of his board members not to alienate Toronto's Jewish community.

While admitting he has neither read nor seen the script, CanStage board member Jack Rose said, "My view was it would provoke a negative reaction in the Jewish community."

Philanthropist Bluma Appel, after whom CanStage's flagship theater is named, concurred. "I told them I would react very badly to a play that was offensive to Jews," she said.

Bragg denied he was lobbied by the board in any way and insisted, "I pick the plays. No one on our board has ever told me what we can and can't do."

CanStage posted a $700,000 loss in its most recent season and is facing a struggle as this year it produced 10 plays, none of which met with critical or audience approval.



Comment on this Article


Slime: Former AIPAC Director implies that Jimmy Carter has Nazi sympathies

OP-ED By Neal Sher
die jüdische
27 Dec 2006

Comment by Jeffrey Blankfort:

In this article, former AIPAC Director and Director of the Justice Dept. Office of Special Investigations, Neil Sher, implies that former president Jimmy Carter has Nazi sympathies. What people like Sher, the Jewish lobby and the US government need to be asked is why those "Special Investigations" only concerned lower level ex-Nazis (who were of no use to the US) and why Sher and the lobby have never said a word about the war criminals and terrorists from around the globe, apart from those who wore Israeli uniforms, who have been coddled and protected by the American government and whose crimes were arguably far worse and much more extensive than anyone ever investigated by the "Office of Special Investigations," including the SS officer referred to below, which was just another way in which the lobby used the American government and US taxpayers money to justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinian and the Lebanese peoples.-JB
NEW YORK, Dec. 26 - It was the spring of 1987 and the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department's Nazi prosecution unit, which I headed at the time, was in the midst of one of our most productive and historic periods.

On April 27, as a result of an in-depth OSI investigation and despite resistance at the State Department, Austrian President and former U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, who had served as an officer in the Nazi army, was barred from setting foot ever again on U.S. soil.

One week earlier, after eight years of bruising litigation, we deported to the Soviet Union one Karl Linnas, who had been chief of a Nazi concentration camp in Estonia. To do so, we had to outmaneuver concerted attempts to block the deportation by Patrick Buchanan, the Reagan White House's communications director, and my boss, U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese.

A month later, OSI announced the loss of citizenship and removal from the United States of a former Chicago resident. Martin Bartesch admitted to our office and the court that he had voluntarily joined the Waffen SS and had served in the notorious SS Death's Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where, at the hands of Bartesch and his cohorts, many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. He also confessed to having concealed his service at the infamous camp from U.S. immigration officials.

In Bartesch's case, OSI researchers uncovered iron-clad documentary evidence of his direct, hands-on role in the Nazi genocide. Among the SS documents captured by American forces when they liberated Mauthausen was what we described as the Unnatural Death Book, a register of prisoners killed, along with the identity of the SS guard responsible for the murder.

So powerful was this evidence that, in postwar trials conducted by the U.S. military, the book served as the basis for execution or long prison sentences for many identified SS guards.

An entry on Oct. 20, 1943, registers the shooting death of Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner. His murderer was also recorded: SS man Martin Bartesch. It was a most chilling document.

Bartesch's family and "supporters," seeking special relief, launched a campaign to discredit OSI while trying to garner political support. Indeed, OSI received numerous inquiries from members of Congress who had been approached.

After we explained the facts of the case, however, the matter inevitably was dropped; no one urged that Bartesch or his family be accorded any special treatment.
Well, there was one exception - Jimmy Carter.

In September 1987, after all of the gruesome details of the case had been made public and widely reported in the media, I received a letter sent by Bartesch's daughter to the former president. Citing groups that had been exposed for their anti-Semitism, it was an all-out assault against OSI as unfair, "un-American" and interested only in "vengeance" against innocent family members.

It's axiomatic that the families of every person prosecuted under the criminal or immigration laws are affected and subjected to hardship. It was obvious, I thought to myself, that no reasonable person could genuinely believe that the Bartesch case was worthy of special dispensation.

On the contrary, it would be a perversion of justice to accede to the family's demands and grant Bartesch relief to which no one else would be entitled. Not even the staunchest and most sincere devotee to humanitarian causes could legitimately claim that an SS murderer who deceived authorities to obtain a visa and citizenship was somehow deserving of exceptional treatment.

That's why I was so taken aback by the personal, handwritten note Jimmy Carter sent to me seeking "special consideration" for this Nazi SS murderer. There on the upper-right corner of Bartesch's daughter's letter was a note to me in the former president's handwriting, and with his signature, urging that "in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons."

Unlike members of Congress who inquired about the facts, Carter blindly accepted at face value the daughter's self-serving (and disingenuous) assertions.

As disturbing as I found Carter's plea, and although his attempted intervention has always gnawed at me, I chalked it up at the time to a certain naivete on the part of the former president. But now, in light of Carter's most recent writings and comments, I am left to wonder whether it was I who was naive simply to dismiss his knee-jerk appeal as the instinctive reaction of a well-meaning but misguided humanitarian.

His latest book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," and his subsequent defense of it, leaves no doubt that Carter has a problem with Israel and its American Jewish supporters. His blame-Israel approach through the distortion of easily verifiable facts; his whining about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby; and even the whiff of plagiarism have been exposed and are now spread upon the public record for all to see.

Kenneth Stein, who resigned his 23-year association with the Carter Center at Emory University, described it this way: Carter's book "is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

Some believe that there's a venal element at work. To be sure, Carter and his publisher and editor knew that, if nothing else, the intentionally provocative, misleading and insulting title would be good for sales.

Moreover, Carter and his center appear to care little about how they fill their coffers. After all, among the most generous contributors to the Carter Center - at least a million dollars each, according to the center's published accountings - are Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz, best known for having offered $10 million to New York City after the Sept. 11 attacks, an offer that was rejected by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani after the prince implied that the attacks may have been justified because of U.S. support for Israel; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the Saudi Fund for Development; and, most interestingly, the Bin Laden Group.

Make no mistake, these are not simply benevolent donors looking for a good cause; they expect something in return. And Carter gave them exactly what they paid for: an unequivocal stamp of approval from a former, if failed, U.S. president for their decades of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ramblings. It's a diplomatic and public-relations dividend that likely will far exceed their investment.

The exposure of Carter's views on Israel and the Jewish lobby has shed a clearer light on his attempt to influence me in the Bartesch case. We know from his own confession that he has had lust in his heart. Unfortunately, he has given us ample reason to wonder what else is lurking there.

Neal Sher, a New York attorney (see picture), previously served as Director of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations and is a former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.



Comment on this Article


I Witness the Israel Lobby in Action

By Philip Weiss
New York Observer
26 Dec 06

A few weeks back at Columbia, I watched with amazement as the former Israeli soldier Yehuda Shaul, who started the group Breaking the Silence, gave his presentation on the horrors of the occupation to about 75 students in a darkened hall. My amazement had to do with the fact that Shaul's visit was sponsored by a largely-Jewish group at Columbia - Pro-Israel Progressives - and was attended by members of the Hillel chapter at the school. Kudos to them.

After Shaul's speech, representing "my comrades and not just myself," he was bombarded by hostile questions from Israel supporters in the audience. Shaul handled them with strength and ease. (Q. "Do you know of a counterpart organization where Palestinians question their moral decisions?" A. "I really don't care-I am an Israeli who has to raise his children in Israel...")

Just as gripping to me was the discussion that took place after the event between Rachel Glaser, the campus coordinator of the rightwing Zionist Organization of America, and the students who had organized the event.

"What did this accomplish? What did it accomplish?" Glaser barked at the organizers.

"It achieved something important," one of the Jewish students said. "People perceive pro-Israel groups as monolithic. They think that we are not able to take responsibility for the bad things that happen."

Fine, Glaser said, but the students should have organized "a panel," in which Shaul was just one voice. "Have someone else," she said. (Just as the New York Theatre Workshop wanted to "contextualize" the Rachel Corrie play with pro-Israel voices.)

It was one thing to have Yehuda Shaul give a talk inside Israel, Glaser said. "Outside of Israel, you're playing with fire."

This chilling statement was a candid expression of the goals of the Israel lobby. A member of a Jewish organization was saying that it's OK to have a wide-open discussion of these issues in Israel, but it's dangerous to have such a discussion here. Why? Because America is the mainstay of support allowing Israel to continue its policies in the Occupied Territories. The Israel lobby fears that Americans, if left to their own devices, will abandon Israel, out of indifference, or antisemitism. So Americans must be influenced-in this case by having the information they get about Israel/Palestine vetted, and by pressuring Jews on campus to toe the party line.

I bring this up because Glaser's group, the Zionist Organization of America, is now trying to have the Jewish group that sponsored Shaul's tour, the Union of Progressive Zionists, kicked out of a consortium of campus groups that promote Israel's image on campuses. Why? Because (per the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) "Jewish money should not be spent on programming that provides fodder for Israel's most virulent critics."

This is shameful news. Jews are better than this, America is better than this...




Comment on this Article


Hillel Chapters Break New Ground by Hosting 'Breaking the Silence'

Philip Weiss
New York Observer
5 Dec 06

There's been an important, wonderful development on the Israel/Palestine front that typically has gotten no attention: Hillel societies at American universities have helped sponsor the tour of the Israeli army veterans' group, Breaking the Silence. I find this association as startling as that other great development of 2006: when the LRB published Walt and Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby.

What am I talking about? What is Breaking the Silence?
I met Yehuda Shaul last summer in Hebron. Raised Orthodox in Jerusalem, Shaul was a sergeant in the IDF serving in the Occupied Territories when he woke up one morning a couple of years ago and realized he did not recognize the person in the mirror. Everything he had been told was right and wrong as a boy had gotten blended into nothing. He had done hideous things that would make his parents and friends vomit if they knew about them, and he had curtained off these actions and been numbed to it all. He began talking to other soldiers and formed an organization, Breaking the Silence, to describe what Israeli society was forcing its youth to do for the occupation. He read history and came to the awareness that all military occupations become corrupt in exactly the ways that Israel's is: humiliating the occupied, depriving them of human rights, let alone civil and democratic freedoms.

Shaul is this week wrapping up a five-week tour of the U.S. notable for the unbelievable photos he shows, taken by IDF soldiers, that document abuses. For instance, pictures taken by Israeli soldiers of other soldiers treating handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainees as mannequins to do monkeyshines with.

The amazing development is that some of Shaul's college events have been sponsored by Hillel chapters, the on-campus Jewish organization. (This according to Tammy Shapiro, who heads the Union of Progressive Zionists, which also sponsored portions of Shaul's tour.) At some universities, the Hillel chapter declined to sponsor Shaul; and he was sponsored there by Palestinian groups. But (Shapiro notes,) at the U. of Wisconsin, the Hillel staff and leaders had a special meeting with Shaul, to hear what he had to say. At Columbia, a largely-Jewish group called Pro-Israel Progressives, which is related to the College Democrats, sponsored Shaul.

I find this amazing because it shows the discourse really is changing. And who is changing it? Youth. Shaul hasn't met with any congressmen; Lantos and Pelosi already know what to think of the occupation-no problem-so they won't meet with him. But these American campus organizations are tired of their role as cheerleaders for Israel. They understand that there is truth in the progressive understanding that occupation is crushing Israel's soul. Can American Jewish youth break the logjam on the Israel lobby? Well they can help.

Israeli progressives will lead us, as they feel greater freedom to discuss these matters. Here I would point to the comments of two other members of Breaking the Silence who visited the U.S. a year ago. "My commanding officer told me that public opinion in the U.S. is the most powerful weapon that Israel has," said Noam Chayut. "Public opinion here enables us to do many things that in my opinion are bringing us to our social destruction." To which his friend Avichai Sharon chimed in: "It's about time you know what you are enabling."

Their insight recalls a statement by the black South African poet Dennis Brutus. When he was in prison under apartheid, a jailer said to him, "The African National Congress will never win, you know why-because the U.S. is on our side." (Thanks to James North, author of Freedom Rising, for that.) The Israelis have placed a similar wager on our endless support for their injustices. They have been enabled so far by a stiffnecked, fearful and obedient Jewish leadership here. What a beautiful thing if it is idealistic Jewish youth that at last brings down this moral house of cards.




Comment on this Article


UK: Sixty years on, we finally pay for the war - # £45m is the last instalment to US

Philip Webster, Political Editor and Elizabeth Judge
The Times, London
27 Dec 06

Britain will this week pay off the last instalment of the multibillion-dollar loans that were secured from the United States and Canada more than sixty years ago to help fund the war effort.

On Friday this country will make its final repayment on the US$4.33 billion loan given by the United States in 1945. Canada will also receive the last payment on its Can$1.25 billion loan.

The payments - $83.25 million (£43 million) to the US Government and $22.7 million to Canada - are the last of fifty instalments that have been paid since 1950, totalling $7.5 billion to the United States and $2 billion to Canada, including 2 per cent annual interest on the initial loans.
Britain agreed the loan with the United States in 1945 in the form of a direct line of credit worth $3.75 billion and a lend-lease facility worth $585 million. It was intended as a final settlement for the financial claims of each country against the other for costs arising out of the Second World War, and provided the essential capital to fund Britain's postwar construction. Canada followed suit with a direct line of credit of $1.25 billion agreed in 1946.

Ed Balls, the City minister, told The Times last night that it was a historic moment. "This week we finally honour in full our commitments to the US and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago. It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period. We honour our commitments to them now as they honoured their commitments to us all those years ago."

Under the arrangement, the US handed a financial lifeline to Britain, allowing it to secure oil, food, arms and other military equipment on credit to help the war effort. Though other countries also benefited under the programme - a $48 billion project - Britain received the largest chunk of aid.

When the war finished, the economist Maynard Keynes - by then the government adviser Lord Keynes - led a delegation to the U.S to agree repayment for those materials for which it had been charged and to secure a loan of $4 billion. He warned that Britain had been left facing a "financial Dunkirk".

In 1950, Britain's national debt stood at about 200 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Today the comparable figure is 36.8 per cent.

The loans have been repaid on the same principle as a home mortgage. Repayments cover both the capital sum borrowed and the interest due on the loan. In the 1950s and 1960s, payments were geared mainly to paying off the interest, while in latter years, the repayment of capital has increased.

Under the terms of the agreement, this country was allowed to defer up to six annual instalments and did so in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976, on the grounds that international exchange rate conditions and the UK's foreign currency reserves made payments in those years impractical.

The loans were taken out under two facilities - a line of credit of $3.8 billion and a lend-lease loan facility of $586 million (about £145 million at 1945 exchange rates) which represented the settlement with the US for lend-lease. With interest added Britain's total bill was $7 billion.

The conditions of the loan included that the pound should be convertible into the dollar within 12 months.

The payments will be made by a simple electronic transfer of funds, and are timed for December 29 simply because it is the last working day of the year. the British Government has never in the duration of the loans lobbied to have them reduced or cancelled, and has always insisted it is right to meet the commitments it made in return for the financial support given by the United States and Canada both before and after the war.

While Friday's payments will close the book on the UK's Second World War debts, Britain still owes and is owed billions of pounds in relation to loans made and costs incurred during the First World War. However, since a moratorium on all war debts agreed at the height of the Great Depression, no debt repayments have been made to or received from other nations since 1934.

On demand

#Under the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, the US provided Britain, the Soviet Union, China, France and other allies with war supplies

#$50.1bn of supplies were shipped out during the Second World War, $31.4bn of it to Britain

#Washington terminated lend-lease on September 2, 1945, suddenly with goods still in transit

# These were sold to Britain for 10 cents on the dollar with payment stretched out for 50 years at 2 per cent interest

#The $4.34bn was to be paid back over 50 years, beginning in 1950

# Britain deferred payments for six years because of economic pressures

# The last payment is £43m



Comment on this Article


Egypt Sends Weapons to Abbas Through Israel

By AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press
December 28, 2006

JERUSALEM - Egypt has sent a large shipment of weapons through Israeli territory to shore up forces loyal to the embattled Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli security officials said Thursday - an extraordinary show of support by both countries for his efforts to renew peacemaking with Israel.

Israel approved the transfer of 2,000 automatic rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips and 2 million bullets on Wednesday, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the shipment had not been officially confirmed by Israel, the Palestinians or Egypt.
Abbas, locked in a power struggle with anti-Israel Hamas militants, has long sought to strengthen the arsenal available to security services under his control.

Israel initially balked at letting additional weapons through, for fear they would be used against Israelis.

But a recent warming of contacts between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israel's desire to see Abbas prevail against anti-Israel Hamas militants, who control the Palestinian parliament and Cabinet, apparently have overridden those concerns.

The Israeli Haaretz daily said Olmert and Abbas settled the details of the shipment at their first summit, held in Jerusalem on Saturday.

Saeb Erekat, a spokesman for Abbas, declined comment, as did Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin and the Israeli Defense Ministry. Egyptian officials were not immediately available for comment.

But Cabinet minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer appeared to confirm the deal, telling Army Radio the weapons transfer was designed to give Abbas "the capability to hold his own against those organizations that are trying to spoil everything.''

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Abbas, issued a statement denying any arms deal. However, at midday Thursday, witnesses saw a truck belonging to the pro-Fatah National Security force carrying what appeared to be sealed boxes of weapons.

When the truck attempted to make a quick detour, one box fell onto the ground, scattering a pile of automatic guns on the road, the witnesses said. Security men in the truck quickly got out and collected the weapons.

Hamas and Fatah have been tussling for power since the Islamic militant group defeated Fatah in legislative elections last January. Recurrent clashes between the two groups turned exceptionally violent earlier this month after Abbas abandoned efforts to form a coalition with Hamas and announced plans to call early elections.

Seventeen people have died in this month's fighting, which included an assassination attempt on Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

On Thursday, Haniyeh left Gaza to resume a trip to Gulf states that had been cut short by the violence, which has since subsided. He was headed first to Saudi Arabia, then to Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan, where he and Abbas have been invited for talks by King Abdullah II.

Some 5,000 Hamas militiamen, some on foot, others in jeeps, lined the roads as Haniyeh traveled from his base in Gaza City to the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Haniyeh's convoy came under fire at Rafah on Dec. 14 when he came back from his suspended trip, and the heavy security showed concerns about his safety remained high.

Haniyeh and Abbas have both agreed to meet with Abdullah, but nothing concrete has been scheduled. Asked before he set off for Saudi Arabia whether the meeting would take place on the last leg of his trip, Haniyeh told reporters that preparations were "still under way,'' but gave no additional details.



Comment on this Article


Killing Saddam - Or Someone Who Looks Him


Bush's support for death penalty for Saddam opens rift with UK

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."
Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.

The outgoing UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has expressed opposition to imposing the death penalty on Saddam on principle.

But the deputy White House press secretary, Scott Stanzel, struck a different note. "Today marks an important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law," he told reporters aboard Air Force One. "Saddam Hussein has received due process and legal rights that he denied the Iraqi people for so long."




Comment on this Article


Iraq prepares for rapid Saddam execution

AFP
27 Dec 06

Iraq was preparing for the rapid execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein, with the US-backed government eager to bring his chapter in the country's bloody history to an end.

As another deadly car bomb hit Baghdad Wednesday and the shooting of a Shiite politician triggered anti-American protests, the fate of the ousted tyrant threatened to deepen still further the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.

Justice Minister Hashem al-Shibli said Saddam's death sentence for crimes against humanity -- upheld by an Iraqi appeal court on Tuesday -- would be rubber stamped by the presidency and the prison service would hang him.
In a defiant open letter to his former subjects, the man who ruled Iraq with an iron first from 1979 until the 2003 US-led invasion said he would go to the gallows as a "sacrifice" and urged Iraqis to unite against their enemies.

"I sacrifice myself. If God wills it, He will place me among the true men and martyrs," wrote Saddam in the letter, which his lawyer said was penned last month for release if his death sentence was upheld.

Judges have ordered that Saddam die within 30 days but, while Shibli said the execution process will get underway rapidly, it could be delayed by the onset of the four-day Eid al-Adha holiday, due to start at the end of the week.

Saddam and two regime cohorts were convicted of crimes against humanity on November 5, after a court heard they ordered the deaths of 148 Shiite men from the village of Dujail in an act of collective punishment.

Shiite politicians welcomed Saddam's imminent demise as a blow to his remaining supporters that could take the heat out of the Sunni-led insurgency.

Shiite lawmaker Baha al-Araji from radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc called for Saddam to be hanged this week as an "Eid present for Iraqis".

But Sheikh Khalaf al-Ilayan, whose National Dialogue Council is part of the main Sunni alliance in parliament, accused Iran and the United States of putting pressure on the court and predicted more bloodshed.

Saddam's disbanded Baath Party also threatened to attack US interests and "retaliate by any means, anywhere in the world, if the US administration undertakes its crime" of dispatching the 68-year-old to the gallows.

In Iraq, eight civilians were killed and 10 more wounded in a car bomb attack near a restaurant in mainly Shiite northeastern Baghdad. Three Iraqi soldiers died in a roadside bombing south of the capital.

Tension was boiling up further south in the holy city of Najaf after an American soldier killed a senior ally of Sadr during a raid on his house.

Sadr supporters and local police told AFP that US and Iraqi soldiers had stormed the family home of Sahib al-Ameri, the president of a pro-Sadr political foundation in the holy city of Najaf, and shot him dead.

The US military confirmed one of its troops had shot Ameri in an overnight raid by Iraqi forces, backed up by coalition military advisers.

A statement said Ameri was implicated in recent bomb attacks on US and Iraqi forces, and was shot by an adviser after he fled to the roof of his house and aimed an assault rifle at an Iraqi soldier.

Hundreds of mourners marched from Sadr's office in Najaf to the revered shrine of Imam Ali chanting anti-American slogans and denouncing Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as a traitor for working with US officials.

Caldwell also confirmed that US forces are holding two Iranians detained last week in the Iraqi capital on suspicion of weapons smuggling, in a move set to exacerbate tensions in the delicate balance of Iranian-Iraqi-US relations.

Ten people were arrested and "documents, maps, photographs and videos" seized in the raid, which linked them to "illegal activities", he said. After interrogation it was discovered that two of them were Iranians, he added.

Iraqi leaders cited by the New York Times, which broke the story last week, said the Iranians were detained at the compound of powerful Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who met US President Bush at the White House this month.

A spokesman for Hakim denied that the raid took place at his compound, but the site of the arrests marked on a map handed out by the US military was consistent with being in or near the fortified compound.

US commanders in Iraq regularly accuse Iran of fomenting unrest in its troubled neighbour, but the Shiite-led Baghdad government has insisted on pursuing a policy of closer security ties with Tehran.

If US authorities produce evidence against the detainees it could be the first proof of their longstanding charge that Iranian agents are stirring violence in Iraq by arming and training illegal militias.

The commander of British troops in Iraq, the second biggest foreign force in the country, said that his soldiers needed more support and resources from home, stressing that currently he can only offer a "60 percent solution".

In the latest criticism of resources for troops based around the southern city of Basra, Major General Richard Shirreff singled out key issues including training, infrastructure and accommodation for soldiers on duty.



Comment on this Article


Saddam Hussein's Baath party threatens to retaliate if their leader is executed

AP
27 Dec 06

AMMAN, Jordan: Saddam Hussein's Baath Party threatened Wednesday to retaliate if the ousted Iraqi leader is executed, warning in an Internet posting it would target U.S. interests anywhere.

The statement appeared on a Web site known to represent the Baath, which was disbanded after U.S.-led forces overthrew Saddam in 2003. The site is believed to be run from Yemen, where a number of exiled members of the party are based.

On Tuesday, Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam's appeal against a conviction and death sentence for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate in Dujail, northern Iraq, in 1982. The court said the former president should be hanged within 30 days.

"Our party warns again of the consequences of executing Mr. President and his comrades," the statement said.

"The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate, with all means and everywhere, to harm America and its interests if it commits this crime," the statement added, referring to Baath fighters as "the resistance."
"The American Administration will be held responsible for any harm inflicted on the president because the United States is the decision-maker (in Iraq) and not the puppet Iraqi government."

The statement said that if the execution takes place, it would be impossible for the Baath to take part in any prospective negotiations with U.S. and Iraqi officials to reduce the violence in Iraq.

Saddam's defense lawyers, who are based in Amman, called on Arab governments and the United Nations to intervene to stop the execution.

"Otherwise, all may be participating in what is going on, either actually or due to their silence in face of the crimes, which are being committed in Iraq in the name of democracy," the lawyers said in a statement in English that was e-mailed to The Associated Press bureau.

The statement, signed by "the Defense Committee for President Saddam Hussein," said the court's rejection of Saddam's appeal was part of the "continued shedding of pure Iraqi blood by the current regime in Iraq, which (is) directly connected with the American occupation."

One of Saddam's counsel, Najib al-Nueimi, a former justice minister in the Gulf state of Qatar, said it was now time for Saddam's family to appeal to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"The defense team has exhausted all the legal channels to appeal this decision, so it is up to the president's family to present an appeal for clemency to the current president, asking him not to sign the execution papers," al-Nueimi said, speaking in a phone interview from Qatar.

Saddam's wife, Sajda, lives in Qatar, and his daughter Raghad, who has supervised his defense team, lives in Amman.

Asked whether the family would appeal to Talabani, al-Nueimi would only say: "It's up to them."

Later in the day, the lawyer of the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz condemned the verdict saying it was a flagrant violation of the regulations of the court. He believes that court regulations require that an execution occur after 30 days - not within this period, as the court announced.

Badee Izzat Aref told the AP in a telephone call from Dubai that he met Saddam and Aziz last week in Baghdad and understood from them that Aziz will testify in court for the benefit of Saddam in his ongoing trial. Saddam is currently on trial for the military campaign, codenamed Operation Anfal, that took place during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the campaign.

"He has very important issues to reveal during the trial," Aref said. "He will uncover the involvement of many important foreign and local personalities."

"The Iraqi government wants to accelerate the execution process to avoid the testimony of Tariq Aziz," Aref said.

Noting that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani he was against the death penalty, whether against Saddam or anybody else, Aref said, "If he gives authority to his vice president to sign the execution order, he will face great embarrassment before his party and the Kurdish people."



Comment on this Article


Saddam Letter Urges Iraqis Not to Hate

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA
Associated Press
27 Dec 06

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis not to hate the U.S.-led forces that invaded Iraq in 2003 in a farewell letter posted on a Web site Wednesday, a day after an appeals court upheld the former dictator's death sentence and ordered him to be hanged within one month.

One of Saddam's attorneys, Issam Ghazzawi, confirmed to The Associated Press in Jordan that the letter was authentic, saying it was written by Saddam on Nov. 5 _ the day he was convicted by an Iraqi tribunal for ordering the killings of scores of Shiite Muslims in the city of Dujail in 1982.

"I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking," the letter said.
Ghazzawi said the letter was released on Tuesday and published on Saddam's former Baath Party's Web site on Wednesday.

The deposed leader said he was writing the letter because his lawyers had told him the Iraqi High Tribunal which tried his case would give him an opportunity to say a final word.

"But that court and its chief judge did not give us the chance to say a word, and issued its verdict without explanation and read out the sentence _ dictated by the invaders _ without presenting the evidence," Saddam wrote.

"Dear faithful people," Saddam added, "I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint any honest believer."

The letter was released as Saddam's last legal means of avoiding execution came under question. A spokesman for President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday the appeals court order upholding the death sentence might not require Talabani's approval to carry out the execution.

Iraqi officials had said such a decision must be ratified by Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents. But presidential spokesman Hiwa Osman said that was not necessarily the case.

"Some people believe there is no need for his approval," Osman said. "We still have to hear from the court as to how the procedure can be carried out."

Meanwhile, some Saddam loyalists threatened to retaliate if the ousted Iraqi leader is executed, warning in a posting on the same Baath Party Web site that carried Saddam's letter they would target U.S. interests anywhere.

"The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate, with all means and everywhere, to harm America and its interests if it commits this crime," the statement said, referring to Baath fighters as "the resistance."

The Baath Party was disbanded after U.S.-led forces overthrew Saddam in 2003. The Web site is believed to be run from Yemen, where a number of exiled members of the party are based.

In its ruling Tuesday, the appeals court said Saddam must be hanged within 30 days for his role in the Dujail killings. The appeals court also affirmed death sentences for two of Saddam's co-defendants, including his half brother. It ruled that life imprisonment for a third was too lenient and demanded he too be sentenced to death.

Some Iraqis said Saddam should be hanged immediately, but others feared Iraq's bloodletting could escalate if the former dictator is executed at a time when sectarian attacks are already on the rise.

"Executing him now is dangerous. The situation is very bad. Things need to be calmer," said Saadia Mohamed Majed, a 60-year-old Shiite in Baghdad who wants the penalty to be postponed for at least three years. Shiites endured persecution under Saddam and his fellow Sunni Arab leaders, and many are eager to remove a symbol of the old regime.

The court's decision came on a particularly bloody day in Baghdad, when at least 54 Iraqis died in bombings and police discovered 49 apparent victims of sectarian reprisal killings.

Many Baghdad neighborhoods were jittery on Wednesday amid fears that Sunni Arab insurgents would target Shiite areas in revenge attacks. There was a heavy police presence in the downtown area of Karrada, and parents picked up their children from a school after reports of a car bomb in the area.

Violence appeared to be relatively minimal, though, with one car bomb explosion killing eight civilians and wounding 10 near an Iraqi army checkpoint in the capital, police said.

Two Latvian soldiers were also killed and three were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded under their Humvee, the Latvian Defense Ministry said. Latvia has about 130 troops serving with a Polish contingent in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

Saddam's defense lawyers, who are based in Amman, Jordan, urged Arab governments and the United Nations to intervene to stop the execution.

"Otherwise, all may be participating in what is going on, either actually or due to their silence in face of the crimes, which are being committed in Iraq in the name of democracy," the lawyers said in an e-mail statement to The Associated Press.

The statement signed by "the Defense Committee for President Saddam Hussein" said the court's rejection of Saddam's appeal was part of the "continued shedding of pure Iraqi blood by the current regime in Iraq, which (is) directly connected with the American occupation."

An expert on war crimes speculated the sentence might be carried out very quickly.

"I won't be surprised if there's just an announcement in several days saying the sentence has been carried out. The ruling says the sentence has to be carried out within 30 days, but it doesn't say you need to wait," said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Human Rights Watch, which opposes the execution, said the law creating the Iraqi High Tribunal mandates that death sentences can never be commuted. However, international law says that when a death sentence is given, there must be an opportunity for it to be commuted, the group said.

"There's some real confusion as to who has the authority to ratify the death sentence," said Richard Dicker, director of the group's International Justice Program.

The legal maneuvering in Baghdad was of little concern in the northern Kurdish city of Irbil, where people who suffered under Saddam's brutal rule celebrated the decision upholding his death sentence.

Saddam is currently in the midst of another trial, charged with genocide and other crimes during a 1987-88 military crackdown on Kurds in northern Iraq. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the operation. That trial was adjourned until Jan. 8, but experts have said the trial of Saddam's co-defendants is likely to continue even if he is executed.

Saddam is being held at Camp Cropper, an American military prison close to Baghdad's airport. U.S. military officials did not say whether the former dictator will now be turned over to the Iraqis in anticipation of his execution.

Saddam was captured while hiding in a hole in the ground near his home village north of Baghdad in December 2003, eight months after he fled the capital ahead of advancing American troops.



Comment on this Article


The trials of occupation - Executing Saddam will not bring peace to Iraq. That can only come when US forces leave

Burhan al-Chalabi
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

The imminent execution of Saddam Hussein is nothing but a smokescreen - a diversion in a series of diversions that will do nothing to address the price of the occupation of Iraq. If the Bush administration truly wanted to curb the cycle of bloodshed, it would come clean and share with the US public, the Iraqi people, and the international community the real goals of this disastrous neoconservative adventure.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was an act of US imperialism, marketed as a war of liberation. Iraq was chosen ahead of Iran or Syria because it had been weakened by 13 years of sanctions. It provided the opportunity to station US bases in the Middle East, and a vantage point to monitor Iran. Control of the massive oil reserves was not to be sniffed at, either. It was assumed that Iraqis' distaste for Saddam would somehow make occupation acceptable.
It has, of course, proved to be anything but acceptable. It has proven unacceptable to the people of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world over. Today, a country is occupied and its sovereignty violated. The UN's legal and moral authority has been undermined. Iraq's cultural heritage is in tatters, its natural resources squandered, its infrastructure destroyed.

Safety, security and the rule of law are nonexistent. Terrorism is on the rise. This is borne out even in Washington's own reports. More than 3 million Iraqis have fled their homes. More than 600,000 civilians have been killed.

Officials of the former regime are judged and punished - sometimes with death sentences as in Saddam Hussein's case. Regardless of the nature of the crimes, it is only right that allegations should be tested by a properly constituted court of law that meets the basic requirements of justice, fairness and independence. These qualities could not be found in the court in Iraq, established by US viceroy Paul Bremer, who appointed its judges in direct contravention of international law.

This death sentence lacks the legality that might make it worthy of respect. It also makes it less likely that those who still support Saddam Hussein will participate in the political process being called for by the US president and the Iraqi prime minister. So it is not surprising that few Iraqis believe such an illegitimate execution will help heal wounds.

The US presents the Iraqi people with this phoney act of accountability, but no one has been held accountable for invading and occupying Iraq or the mass human rights abuses carried out in the process. If this generation of Iraqis is not able to get justice, future generations will make sure they do. They will look to the established system of international justice to recognise these atrocities and hold people accountable retrospectively.

The occupying forces continue to peddle the nonsense that they cannot withdraw immediately - that this would only spark civil war. I am convinced that the opposite is true: when the occupiers leave, the prevailing civil war will subside. Ordinary Iraqis will have to choose between killing each other or rebuilding the country - which they can only do in an independent, sovereign Iraq.

The US and its allies should apologise to the Iraqi people for the suffering the war has caused. It should offer compensation based on criteria used in Kuwait after the first Gulf war. Under the auspices of the UN, it must end the occupation and hand over power to a sovereign Iraqi government mandated to respect human rights.

- Dr Burhan al-Chalabi is a former chairman of the British Iraqi Foundation and a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs bmcltd@aol.com



Comment on this Article


Cardinal Condemns Saddam's Sentence

Associated Press
December 28, 2006

ROME - A top Vatican official condemned the death sentence against Saddam Hussein in a newspaper interview published Thursday, acknowledging the crimes of the ousted Iraqi leader but reiterating that capital punishment goes against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI's top prelate for justice issues and a former Vatican envoy to the United Nations, said that Saddam's execution would punish "a crime with another crime'' and expressed hope that the sentence would not be carried out.

In the interview with Rome daily La Repubblica, Martino reiterated the Vatican's staunch opposition to the death penalty, saying that life must be safeguarded from its beginning to its "natural'' end.

"The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the State,'' he said.

On Tuesday, Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam's appeal against a conviction and death sentence for the killing of 148 people in Dujail, in northern Iraq, in 1982. The court said the former president should be hanged within 30 days.




Comment on this Article


Saddam Says Farewell; 23 Die in Baghdad - "Executing Saddam now is dangerous"

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA
Associated Press
December 28, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a farewell letter to the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein urged his countrymen not to hate the people of the nations that toppled his regime nearly four years ago and said he was offering "my soul to God as a sacrifice.''

The letter was posted on a Web site Wednesday, a day after Iraq's highest court upheld his death sentence and ordered him hanged within 30 days.

A top government official, meanwhile, said Saddam's execution could proceed without the approval of Iraq's president, meaning there were no more legal obstacles to sending the deposed dictator to the gallows.
One of Saddam's attorneys, Issam Ghazzawi, confirmed to The Associated Press in Jordan that the Internet letter was authentic, saying it was written by Saddam on Nov. 5 - the day he was convicted by an Iraqi tribunal for ordering the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite Muslims in Dujail.

"I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking,'' said the letter, which was written in Arabic and translated by the AP.

"I also call on you not to hate the people of the other countries that attacked us,'' it added, referring to the invasion that toppled his regime.

Despite his calls for conciliation among Iraqis, Saddam's legacy is brutal. He put suspected foes to death without trial, oppressed Kurds and Shiites, waged war on Iran and twice fought U.S.-led armies. He left an impoverished nation now gripped by sectarian bloodshed and an insurgency against the U.S. presence.

On Thursday, three bombs killed 23 Iraqis in Baghdad, and the U.S. military announced the deaths of three American soldiers.

Against the backdrop of sectarian killings that have dragged Sunni Arabs and Shiite Muslims into civil warfare over the past year, Saddam urged his countrymen to "remember that God has enabled you to become an example of love, forgiveness and brotherly coexistence.''

But he also voiced support for the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency, saying: "Long live jihad and the mujahedeen.'' He urged Iraqis to be patient and rely on God's help in fighting "against the unjust nations.''

Saddam said he was giving his life for his country as part of that struggle. "Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if he wants, he will send it to heaven with the martyrs,'' he said.

An official from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said that "the government wants Saddam executed as soon as possible.''

Another official close to al-Maliki, who also refused to be quoted by name, said the execution would take place before the end of the 30-day period.

Ghazzawi, the defense lawyer, said the letter by Saddam was released Tuesday and published Wednesday on the Web site of Saddam's former Baath Party.

Some Saddam loyalists threatened to retaliate if he is executed, warning in a posting on the same Web site that they would target U.S. interests.

"The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate, with all means and everywhere, to harm America and its interests if it commits this crime,'' the statement said, referring to Baath fighters as "the resistance.''

The Baath Party was disbanded after U.S.-led forces overthrew Saddam in 2003. The Web site is believed to be run from Yemen, where a number of exiled members of the party are based.

Some Iraqis said Saddam should be hanged immediately, but others feared Iraq's bloodletting could escalate if the former dictator is executed at a time when sectarian attacks are already on the rise.

"Executing him now is dangerous. The situation is very bad. Things need to be calmer,'' said Saadia Mohamed Majed, a 60-year-old Shiite in Baghdad who wants the penalty to be postponed for at least three years.

Saddam is in the midst of another trial, charged with genocide and other crimes during a 1987-88 military crackdown on Kurds in northern Iraq. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the operation. That trial was adjourned until Jan. 8, but experts have said the trial of Saddam's co-defendants is likely to continue even if he is executed.



Comment on this Article


The meaningless execution of a tyrant

Adrian Hamilton
UK Independent
28 Dec 06

There won't be many people who mourn Saddam Hussein's imminent death - if he hasn't been executed already - any more than there were many who mourned the death of Slobodan Milosevic this year. They were both tyrants of the worst sort, ruling by fear and the word of the informant. Both were responsible for war on their neighbours as well as oppression of their own people.

The Serbian dictator managed at least to cheat the judge of the international court in The Hague by passing away from natural courses. Saddam Hussein hasn't managed that. But, like Milosevic, he has been able to turn what was meant to be a grand cathartic ceremony of closure and reconciliation into a desultory almost meaningless damp squib of a trial. His hanging, when it comes, discreetly and without ceremony, will produce neither a sense of universal relief nor outrage. It will simply happen, to be announced after the event, an event out of time and even place.
The occupying powers were always wrong, of course, to see the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein and his closest creatures as some kind of replay of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, just as the international community was wrong to see Milosevic's extradition to the international court in The Hague as some huge triumph of global justice.

It's an historical misreading for a start. Nuremberg was always victor's judgment dressed up as judicial decency. It was right that the accused were made to face the consequences of their actions. No one should doubt that. And Nuremberg at least had the pragmatic benefit of drawing a line under the number of Nazis to be punished for their misdeeds so the work of reconstruction could go on.

But the trials never really acted as a process of truth and reconciliation in the manner that South Africa has sought. Effectively they allowed the Germans to get on with the next phases with the feeling, however unsubstantiated, that Nazism was now over and done with. If the object of the Milosevic trial was to make the Serbs come to terms with their recent history, then it should never have been held outside the country. The fact that the international community - the victors of the Nato bombings and the intervention in Kosovo - felt it better to hold it abroad was as much an indication of their nervousness at Serbian popular feeling as an enthusiasm for international justice.

And so it has proved. There has been no purging of the past in the former Yugoslavia, or any of its parts. Perhaps there can't be unless the justice is summary and unjust in the manner of the Romanians who simply shot Nicolai Ceaucescu and his wife in 1989, much in the manner of the Italian partisans who shot Mussolini and his mistress and then hung their bodies upside down in Milan, leaving the parish priest to climb a ladder and tie down Clara Petrucci's dress, to preserve some modesty.

Certainly Winston Churchill seems to have thought that it would be better, should Adolf Hitler have been caught alive, to execute him summarily, preferably by electrocution. And he may well have been right. Victor's justice is better seen as just that, an act of immediate punishment so that society can proceed ahead regardless.

Had the US troops done the same with Saddam Hussein, and shot him on sight, or in keeping with the man, thrown him to the relatives of his victims to do their worst, it would not only have saved the hangman his task, it would also have avoided the whole drawn-out charade of a trial that was neither fair nor purgative.

They didn't because they didn't want Saddam to become a martyr of the Baathist cause and because they wanted his trial to act as means to destroy the old order and welcome in a new one. Both ideas reflected a total misunderstanding of the Iraqi dictator's personal position and power. Saddam Hussein was never personally popular, any more than Milosevic. He had made too many enemies, taken a life from too many families and tribes, for that. If he still has any resonance in the country, it is only because the insurgency has grown to a point when any nationalist symbol will be used to help their cause.

Saddam Hussein held power because he had the security apparatus to do so, because the West and the Arab world preferred him there to the anarchy they feared would follow his demise, and because the UN sanctions debilitated his nation and increased his direct power through his control over the oil-for-food regime. When he fell the regime fell because there was nothing very much left behind it. But equally there was nothing to replace it because a decade of sanctions and three decades of his rule had hollowed out the structure of political society.

The idea that Saddam's fall would be a great act of decapitation, the step that would automatically lead to a better society and a more cohesive country was always fanciful. Almost all the experts knew this and said so, on the few occasions that they were allowed to, so why did not the occupants of the White House and No 10?

The answer is that President Bush and Tony Blair chose to take Saddam Hussein at his own evaluation. As a symbol of militaristic Iraq, he could be demonised and his fall greeted as an historic achievement for the force of Western arms. The point was not primarily to help the Iraqis but to make a demonstration that would change the face of the Middle East.

The fall of the regime, the trial of a tyrant, the imposition of a new order were all part of a vision that was never grounded in the facts of Iraq, because the facts on the ground were secondary to the purpose. Had it been otherwise, there would have been a proper post-invasion plan.

Instead we have the results of the latest opinion polls, so beloved of those who cheered on the invasion. According to a survey by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies in November, 89.9 per cent of respondents felt that Iraq was worse today than when Saddam Hussein was in power. Just over 50 per cent wanted the multinational forces to leave immediately, with a further 20 per cent declaring that they wanted them to start to leave now on a set timetable.

To those who still claim that the invasion was right, because it removed a tyrant, one has this simple question: "Did we do it to make ourselves feel better or to make things better for the Iraqis?" For, if we ever thought they were one and the same thing, then we have been cruelly deceiving ourselves and even more cruelly deceiving them.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: LA Times: Bring back Saddam Hussein - Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?

Jonathan Chait
LA Times
November 26, 2006

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.
Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.

Nobody seems to foresee the possibility of restoring order to Iraq. Here is the basic dilemma: The government is run by Shiites, and the security agencies have been overrun by militias and death squads. The government is strong enough to terrorize the Sunnis into rebellion but not strong enough to crush this rebellion.

Meanwhile, we have admirably directed our efforts into training a professional and nonsectarian Iraqi police force and encouraging reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. But we haven't succeeded. We may be strong enough to stop large-scale warfare or genocide, but we're not strong enough to stop pervasive chaos.

Hussein, however, has a proven record in that department. It may well be possible to reconstitute the Iraqi army and state bureaucracy we disbanded, and if so, that may be the only force capable of imposing order in Iraq.

Chaos and order each have a powerful self-sustaining logic. When people perceive a lack of order, they act in ways that further the disorder. If a Sunni believes that he is in danger of being killed by Shiites, he will throw his support to Sunni insurgents who he sees as the only force that can protect him. The Sunni insurgents, in turn, will scare Shiites into supporting their own anti-Sunni militias.



And it's not just Iraqis who act this way. You could find a smaller-scale version of this dynamic in an urban riot here in the United States. But when there's an expectation of social order, people will act in a civilized fashion.

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein - a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear - would do the trick.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.



Comment on this Article


The Six Year Reich


The GOP's $3 Billion Propaganda Organ

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
consortiumnews.com
December 27, 2006

The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon on a daily propaganda organ, the Washington Times, according to a 21-year veteran of the newspaper.

George Archibald, who describes himself "as the first reporter hired at the Washington Times outside the founding group" and author of a commemorative book on the Times' first two decades, has now joined a long line of disillusioned conservative writers who departed and warned the public about extremism within the newspaper.
In an Internet essay on recent turmoil inside the Times, Archibald also confirmed claims by some former Moon insiders that the cult leader has continued to pour in $100 million a year or more to keep the newspaper afloat. Archibald put the price tag for the newspaper's first 24 years at "more than $3 billion of cash."

At the newspaper's tenth anniversary, Moon announced that he had spent $1 billion on the Times - or $100 million a year - but newspaper officials and some Moon followers have since tried to low-ball Moon's subsidies in public comments by claiming they had declined to about $35 million a year.

The figure from Archibald and other defectors from Moon's operation is about three times higher than the $35 million annual figure.

The apparent goal of downplaying Moon's subsidy has been to quiet concerns that Moon was funneling vast sums of illicit money into the United States to influence the American political process in ways favorable to right-wing leaders - and possibly criminal cartels - around the world.

Though best known as the founder of the Unification Church, Moon, now 86, has long worked with right-wing political forces linked to organized crime and international drug smuggling, including the Japanese yakuza gangs and South American cocaine traffickers.

Moon insiders, including his former daughter-in-law Nansook Hong, also have described Moon's system for laundering cash into the United States and then funneling much of it into his businesses and influence-buying apparatus, led by the Washington Times.

The Times, in turn, has targeted American politicians of the center and left with journalistic attacks - sometimes questioning their sanity, as happened with Democratic presidential nominees Michael Dukakis and Al Gore. Those themes then resonate through the broader right-wing echo chamber and into the mainstream media.

Washington Times articles are routinely cited by C-SPAN, for instance, without explanations to viewers that the newspaper is financed by an ultra-right religious cult leader, a convicted tax fraud and a publicly identified money-launderer. Most American listeners just think they're getting straightforward news.

The Times also has led attacks on investigators who threatened to expose crimes committed by Republican and right-wing operatives. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Times targeted Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who recounted in his memoir Firewall the importance of the Times in protecting the Reagan-Bush administration's legal flanks.

When journalistic and congressional investigations began uncovering evidence of drug trafficking by the Nicaraguan contra rebels, the Washington Times counter-attacked, too, although in that case the Moon organization may have had a direct interest in containing the probes that could have exposed its relationship with South American drug lords.

Buying Influence

Besides the estimated $3 billion-plus invested in the Washington Times, Moon has spread money around to influential right-wingers, often coming to their rescue when they are facing financial ruin as happened with Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell in the mid-1990s. [See below.]

Moon also has paid lucrative speaking fees to political figures, such as former President George H.W. Bush who has appeared at Moon-organized functions in the United States, Asia and South America. At the launch of Moon's South American newspaper in 1996, Bush hailed Moon as "the man with the vision."

Moon has key defenders, too, in the U.S. Congress, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2004, Moon was given space in the Senate's Dirksen building for a coronation of himself as "savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." [See The Hill, June 22, 2004]

Though primarily allied with the Republican Right, Moon has tossed money to some African-American ministers to gain favor with a key Democratic constituency.

Moon's multi-billion-dollar political investments, in turn, have shielded him from sustained scrutiny since 1978 when he was identified by the congressional "Koreagate" investigation as part of a covert Korean influence-buying scheme. As a result of those findings about his finances, he was convicted in 1982 of tax fraud.

Ironically, however, as Moon implemented the influence-buying blueprint exposed by the "Koreagate" probe - investing in U.S. media, politicians and academia - he became an untouchable. He founded the Washington Times in 1982 and quickly put it into the service of Republican power.

President Ronald Reagan hailed Moon's publication as his "favorite newspaper"; it even helped raise money for the Nicaraguan contras; and President George H.W. Bush invited its editor Wesley Pruden to the White House in 1991 "just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day."

Washington Times defenders argue that the newspaper is independent of Moon's religion and doesn't proselytize for his faith.

But the argument misses the point because Moon's organization is only a religious entity on one level. More substantively, it is an international conglomerate with investments in fishing, restaurants, gun manufacturing, tourism, banks, real estate and media.

Since its finances often operate on the shady side of the law, Moon's organization requires, most of all, political influence for protection.

Similarly, Moon's operation is not really "conservative" in the normal sense of the word. While it has worked with everyone from right-of-center Republicans to neo-fascist organizations, it also has joined forces with the reclusive communist leaders of North Korea when that was to Moon's advantage. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Moon, North Korea & the Bushes."]

Power Struggle

Veteran Washington Times journalist Archibald as well as other Times employees who recently spoke to The Nation magazine have described a bitter internal struggle at the newspaper.

Times president "Douglas" Dong Moon Joo is standing by Pruden and other right-wing editors who have run the Times for years, while other influential Moon operatives believe it's time to abandon the newspaper's hard-right positions.

"A nasty succession battle is now heating up at the paper, punctuated by allegations of racism, sexism and unprofessional conduct, that have implications far beyond its fractious newsroom," wrote Max Blumenthal in The Nation.

"According to several reliable inside sources, Preston Moon, the youngest son of Korean Unification Church leader and Times financier Sun Myung Moon, has initiated a search committee to find a replacement for editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden - a replacement who is not Pruden's handpicked successor, managing editor Francis Coombs.

"Preston Moon wants to wrest control of the paper from Pruden and Coombs, according to a Times senior staffer, in order to shift the paper away from their brand of conservatism, which is characterized by extreme racial animus and connections to nativist and neo-Confederate organizations. A Harvard MBA, Preston Moon is said to be seeking to install an editorial regime with more widely palatable politics."

Archibald's essay describes Pruden as "an unreconstructed Confederate from Little Rock, Arkansas, who still believes the South and slavery were right and Lincoln was wrong in saving the Union."

Pruden's father, Wesley Pruden Sr., was a Baptist minister and chaplain to Little Rock's segregationist Capital Citizens Council, which spearheaded the opposition to President Dwight Eisenhower's order in 1957 to integrate the city's Central High School.

In the 1990s, Pruden's Washington Times continued to tap into those old segregationist ties, such as "Justice" Jim Johnson, to get salacious allegations about President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary. The mainstream press soon followed, setting the stage for the Republican congressional sweep in 1994 and Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

In 2000, the Washington Times again was at the center of the assault on Al Gore's candidacy - highlighting apocryphal quotes by Gore and using them to depict him as either dishonest or delusional. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Al Gore vs. the Media."]

By then, however, the Washington Times had the help of a rapidly expanding right-wing media as well as mainstream journalists from the New York Times and the Washington Post who had come to realize the career advantage of tilting their reporting to the right.

Arguably one of the measures of the Washington Times' success was how the major U.S. news organizations increasingly seemed to march to the same drummer, even when not under direct pressure to do so.

Over the past half dozen years, it has often been hard to distinguish between the fawning coverage of George W. Bush from the Washington Times and from the Washington Post. Both major Washington dailies bought into Bush's false claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction with almost no skepticism.

Currently, the Washington Times seems inclined to continue serving as a leading defender of Republican power and thus of President Bush. Calling itself "America's Newspaper," the Moon-financed Times also has championed the cause of anti-immigration activists, another hot-button issue on the Right.

But the Times and other right-wing news outlets risk a credibility crisis as more and more Americans turn away from the Bush presidency and are turned off by the right-wing rhetoric demonizing citizens who have objected to Bush's policies.

Nevertheless, history will surely record that Moon's $3 billion-plus investment succeeded in buying a remarkable degree of Washington influence - and legal protection - for his dubious political/business/religious empire.

The extraordinary rise of Sun Myung Moon also tells a cynical story about how "respectability" is just one more Washington commodity that can be purchased with enough money.

Known for crowning himself at lavish ceremonies and ranting for hours in Korean about the proper use of sex organs, Sun Myung Moon may have the distinction of being the most unusual person ever to gain substantial influence in the U.S. capital. He has proved that in Washington, money talks.

When Moon became a major benefactor of the American conservative movement starting in the latter half of the 1970s, it was a time when the conservatives desperately needed money to build what they called their counter-establishment.

From a mysterious and seemingly bottomless slush fund, Moon ladled out cash to sponsor lavish conferences, to finance political interest groups and to publish the Washington Times.

Despite his strange goals - including the need to replace democracy and individuality with his own personal theocratic rule over the most intimate details of every person's life - Moon lured into his circle some of the most prominent political figures of the modern era, including George H.W. Bush who grasped Moon's value as a deep pocket for the conservative movement and for the Bush family.

Moon began building his political influence in Washington at a time when he was best known to Americans as the leader of the Unification Church, called the "Moonies." Moon was blamed by thousands of American parents for brain-washing their children and transforming them into automatons who gave up their previous lives to devote nearly every waking hour in the service of Rev. Moon.

Gradually, however, Moon's money gained him access to the nation's ruling elite. The worst of the negative press coverage subsided. But few Americans, even those who took his money, knew much about his life and his true allegiances.

Who Is Moon?

Moon was born on Jan. 6, 1920, in a rural, northwestern corner of Korea, a rugged Asian peninsula then occupied by Japan, an occupation that would continue through the first 25 years of Moon's life. Allied forces liberated the peninsula from the Japanese in 1945 and then divided Korea into two sections, the south controlled by the United States and the north occupied by Soviet troops.

In this post-war period, Moon, who had been raised within a Christian sect, moved to southern Korea and joined a mystical religious group called Israel Suo-won. The group preached the imminent arrival of a Korean Messiah and practiced a strange sexual ritual called "pikarume," in which ministers purified women through sexual intercourse, the so-called "blessing of the womb."

As he developed his own theology, Moon returned to the North, to communist-ruled North Korea, where he soon ran into legal troubles. North Korean authorities arrested him twice, apparently on morals charges connected to his sexual rites with young women. Moon's supporters, however, have tried to portray Moon as the victim of communist repression, claiming that he was arrested not for sex charges but for espionage.

Whatever the real story about his detention in North Korea, Moon's luck soon changed. On Oct. 14, 1950, with war raging on the Korean peninsula, United Nations troops overran the prison where Moon was held, freeing Moon and all the other inmates. According to Unification Church histories, Moon then trekked south, carrying on his back an injured prisoner named Pak Chung Hwa.

For years, church officials even published a photograph purportedly showing Pak piggy-backing on Moon across a river. But much of that story appears to be propaganda. Several church sources have since admitted that the photo was a hoax, that Moon is not the man in the picture and the location is not where Moon was.

Moon's southward journey ended in the South Korean port of Pusan, where he resumed his missionary work. He later moved to Seoul, South Korea's capital, where he founded his own church in May 1954. He called it T'ong-il Kyo, or Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. It became known as the Unification Church.

At the center of Moon's theology was a new twist to the Old Testament story about the Fall of Man. Instead of biting into a forbidden apple, Eve copulated with Satan and then passed on the sin by having sex with Adam.

Thousands of years later, God sent Jesus to restore man to his original purity, Moon taught. But Jesus failed because he was betrayed by the Jews and died before he could father any sinless children.

Sex, therefore, remained at the center of Moon's theology, the need for a Messiah to purify the human race through the reversal of the contamination caused by Satan's seduction of Eve.

Moon taught that the failure of Jesus to begin this purification process by fathering children forced God to send a second Messiah, who turned out to be Moon himself. Moon saw his task as starting this sexual purification process and thus establishing God's Kingdom on Earth.

The ultimate goal would be a worldwide theocracy ruled by Moon and his followers cleansed of Satan's influence. Political power and religious authority went together, Moon lectured. "We cannot separate the political field from the religious," Moon said.

But in South Korea, Moon found that government continued to be an obstacle to his religious plans. When he began to concentrate his religious recruitment on young idealistic college students, especially from an all-girls Christian school, Moon landed in legal hot water again.

The South Korean government arrested Moon in 1955 for allegedly conducting more sexual "purification" rites, according to several U.S. intelligence reports which are now public. Moon was freed three months later because none of the young women would testify for fear of public humiliation, according to an undated FBI summary, released under a Freedom of Information Act request.

"During the next two years in the national news media of South Korea, Rev. Moon was the butt of scandalist humor," the FBI report said.

Six Marys

Church officials repeatedly have denied the reports of Moon's sexual rituals. But the charges received new attention in 1993 with the Japanese publication of The Tragedy of the Six Marys -- a book by the early Moon disciple, Pak Chung Hwa, whom Moon supposedly carried to South Korea.

According to Pak's book, Moon taught that Jesus was intended to save mankind by having sex with six already-married women who would then have sex with other men who would pass on the purification to other women until, eventually, all mankind would have pure blood.

Pak contended that Moon took on this personal duty as the second Messiah and began having sex with the "six Marys." But Pak alleged that Moon began to abuse the practice by turning the "six Marys" into a kind of rotating sex club.

Pak wrote that Moon's first wife divorced him after catching him in a sex ritual. In all, Pak estimated that there were at least 60 "Marys," many of whom ended up destitute after Moon discarded them.

According to the testimony of one "Mary," named Yu Shin Hee, she met Moon in the early 1950s and became a follower along with her husband. Devoted to the church, her husband abandoned her and her five children, whom she then put into an orphanage. She, in turn, agreed to become one of Moon's "six Marys."

But Yu Shin Hee claimed that Moon tired of her after just one "blood exchange," a phrase referring to sexual intercourse. Still, she was required to have sex with other men. Seven years later, a broken woman with no money, she tried to return to her children, but they also rejected her.

When Moon impregnated another one of the women, Moon sent her to Japan where she gave birth to a baby boy, according to Pak's account. Moon later admitted fathering the child, who died in a train crash at the age of 13. But Pak wrote that Moon refused to admit responsibility for other illegitimate children born to the women.

"By forwarding this teaching, he violated mothers, their daughters, their sisters," Pak wrote. (After The Tragedy of the Six Marys was published, the Unification Church denounced the allegations as spurious. Under intense pressure, the aging Pak Chung Hwa agreed to recant. However, his book's accounts tracked closely with U.S. intelligence reports of the same period and interviews with former church leaders.)

Moon's history of sexual liaisons out of wedlock also was corroborated by Nansook Hong, one of Moon's daughters-in-law who broke with the so-called True Family in 1995 over abuse she suffered at the hands of Moon's eldest son, Hyo Jin Moon, during their 14-year marriage.

Nansook Hong reported in her 1998 book, In the Shadow of the Moons, that family members, including Moon himself, acknowledged that he had "providential" sex with women in his role as the Messiah. Nansook Hong said she learned about Moon's sexual affairs when her husband, Hyo Jin, began justifying his affairs as mandated by God, as his father claimed his affairs were.

"I went directly to Mrs. Moon with Hyo Jin's claims," Nansook Hong wrote. "She was both furious and tearful. She had hoped that such pain would end with her, that it would not be passed on to the next generation, she told me.
"No one knows the pain of a straying husband like True Mother, she assured me. I was stunned. We had all heard rumors for years about Sun Myung Moon's affairs and the children he sired out of wedlock, but here was True Mother, confirming the truth of these stories.

"I told her that Hyo Jin said his sleeping around was 'providential' and inspired by God, just as Father's affairs were. 'No, Father is the Messiah, not Hyo Jin. What Father did was in God's plan.'" Later, in a discussion about the extramarital sex, Moon himself told Nansook Hong that "what happened in his past was 'providential,'" she wrote.

As for the sexual purification rituals, Nansook Hong said the rumors had followed the church for decades, despite the official denials.

"In the early days of the Unification Church, members met in a small house with two rooms," Nansook Hong wrote. "It was known as the House of the Three Doors. It was rumored that at the first door one was made to take off one's jacket, at the second door one's outer clothing, and at the third one's undergarments in preparation for sex."

As for Chung Hwa Pak's Tragedy of the Six Marys, Nansook Hong said Moon succeeded in persuading his old associate to rejoin the church and then got him to disavow the memoirs. "I've always wondered what the price was of that retraction," Nansook Hong wrote.

Madeleine Pretorious, a Unification Church member from South Africa, also had worked closely with Moon's temperamental son, Hyo Jin, and had learned from him that the long-denied accounts of Moon's sexual rites with female initiates were true.

"When Hyo Jin found out about his father's 'purification' rituals, that took a lot out of wind out of his sails," Pretorious told me in an interview after she left the church in the mid-1990s.

In late 1994, during conversations in Hyo Jin's suite at the New Yorker Hotel, "he confided a lot of things to me," Pretorious said. Hyo Jin also had discovered that the Reverend Moon fathered a child out of wedlock in the early 1970s. Moon arranged for the child to be raised by his longtime lieutenant Bo Hi Pak, Pretorious said.

The boy - now a young man - had confronted Hyo Jin, seeking recognition as Hyo Jin's half-brother. Pretorious said she later corroborated the story with other church members.

Intelligence Ties

The alleged sexual rituals, which involved passing around women, would become a point of embarrassment later, but the practices apparently helped the Unification Church in recruiting men in the early days.

By the late 1950s, Moon had managed to build a small cadre of loyal followers and was reaching out beyond Korea. By the early 1960s, the church also was pulling in better educated young men, including some with connections to South Korea's intelligence services.

Kim Jong-Pil and three other young English-speaking army officers became closely associated with Moon's church during this transitional phase as the institution evolved from an obscure Korean sect into a powerful international organization.

Beyond his association with Moon's sect, Kim Jong-Pil was a rising star in South Korea's intelligence community. In 1961, he founded the KCIA, which centralized Seoul's internal and external intelligence activities. Another one of the promising young KCIA officers was Colonel Bo Hi Pak, also a Moon disciple.

With these KCIA officers, however, it was never clear whether the benefits of the religion were paramount or if they simply recognized the potential that an international church held as a cover for intelligence operations.

In many countries, especially the United States, churches are granted broad protections against government interference. With missionaries traveling around the world and with church members attending international religious conferences, a church also provided an effective cover for spying, money-laundering or passing on messages to agents.

In 1962, KCIA founder Kim Jong-Pil traveled to San Francisco where he met with Unification Church members. According to an account later published by a congressional investigation, Kim Jong-Pil promised discreet support for Moon's church.

At the same time of his contacts with associates from the Unification Church, Kim Jong-Pil was in charge of another sensitive negotiation: talks to improve bilateral relations with Japan, Korea's historic enemy.

Those talks put Kim Jong-Pil in touch with two other important figures in the Far East, Japanese rightists Yoshio Kodama and Ryoichi Sasakawa, who once hailed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as "the perfect fascist."

Kodama and Sasakawa were jailed as fascist war criminals at the end of World War II, but a few years later, both Kodama and Sasakawa were freed by U.S. military intelligence officials.

The U.S. government turned to Kodama and Sasakawa for help in combating communist labor unions and student strikes, much as the CIA protected German Nazi war criminals who supplied intelligence and performed other services in the intensifying Cold War battles with European communists.

Kodama and Sasakawa obliged U.S. intelligence by dispatching right-wing goon squads to break up demonstrations, according to the authoritative book, Yakuza, by David E. Kaplan and Alec Dubro.

Kodama and Sasakawa also allegedly grew rich from their association with the yakuza, a shadowy organized crime syndicate that profited off drug smuggling, gambling and prostitution in Japan and Korea. Behind the scenes, Kodama and Sasakawa became power-brokers in Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Kim Jong-Pil's contacts with these right-wing leaders proved invaluable to the Unification Church, which had made only a few converts in Japan by the early 1960s. Immediately after Kim Jong-Pil opened the door to Kodama and Sasakawa in late 1962, 50 leaders of an ultra-nationalist Japanese Buddhist sect converted en masse to the Unification Church, according to Kaplan and Dubro.

"Sasakawa became an advisor to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Japanese branch of the Unification Church" and collaborated with Moon in building far-right anti-communist organizations in Asia, Kaplan and Dubro wrote.

The church's growth spurt did not escape the notice of U.S. intelligence officers in the field. One CIA report, dated Feb. 26, 1963, stated that "Kim Jong-Pil organized the Unification Church while he was director of the ROK [Republic of Korea] Central Intelligence Agency, and has been using the church, which had a membership of 27,000, as a political tool."

Though Moon's church had existed since the mid-1950s, the report appeared correct in noting Kim Jong-Pil's key role in transforming the church from a minor Korean sect into a potent international organization.

New Worlds

With alliances in place in Tokyo and Seoul, the Unification Church next took aim at Washington.

In 1964, Bo Hi Pak, who was emerging as one of Moon's most able lieutenants, moved to America and started the Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation, a front that performed the dual purpose of helping Moon meet important Americans, while assisting the KCIA in its international operations.

Bo Hi Pak named KCIA founder Kim Jong-Pil to be the foundation's "honorary chairman." The foundation also sponsored the KCIA's anti-communist propaganda outlets, such as Radio of Free Asia, according to the congressional report on the "Koreagate" scandal.

Moon's church also was active in the Asian People's Anti-Communist League, a fiercely right-wing group founded by the governments of South Korea and Taiwan. In 1966, the group expanded into the World Anti-Communist League, an international alliance that brought together traditional conservatives with former Nazis, overt racialists and Latin American "death squad" operatives.

Retired U.S. Army Gen. John K. Singlaub, a former WACL president, told me that "the Japanese [WACL] chapter was taken over almost entirely by Moonies."

By the 1970s, the U.S. public was aware of Moon and his church, but much of the attention was negative. Parents complained that the church brainwashed their children and pressured them to cut off contacts with their families, while proclaiming Moon their "True Father."

The totalitarian nature of Moon's church stood out in his staging of mass marriages, or "blessings," in which he would pair up husbands and wives who had never met. Moon also regulated the sexual behavior of even his married followers, a practice that replaced the more personal method of "blessing the womb" that allegedly had prevailed in the church's early days.

In 1973, amid American reversals in Indochina, alarm began to spread within Seoul's right-wing dictatorship about the strength of the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea in case of aggression from the communist North. Those fears led the KCIA, long known for its gross human rights violations, to begin plotting how to bolster its friends in the United States and undermine its enemies.

Lee Jai Hyon, the chief cultural and information attaché at the South Korean embassy in Washington, later testified before the U.S. Congress that he sat in on a series of meetings chaired by the KCIA's station chief, involving senior embassy officials.

Lee Jai Hyon described six sessions over a five-week period in spring 1973 at which a conspiracy was outlined to "manipulate," "coerce," "threaten," "co-opt," "seduce," and "buy off" political and other leaders of the United States. Lee Jai Hyon said one of the South Koreans participating in the operation was Moon's top aide Bo Hi Pak.

At the time, Moon was raising concerns among U.S. immigration authorities for bringing hundreds of foreign followers to the United States on tourist visas and then assigning them to mobile fund-raising teams.

But Moon, who owned property outside New York City while maintaining a residence in South Korea, somehow managed to secure a "green card" from the Nixon administration on April 30, 1973. The permit making Moon a "lawful permanent resident" also granted him more legal rights than would be available to a foreign visitor.

"The advantages of using the First Amendment were seen early," wrote Robert Boettcher, the former staff director of the House Subcommittee on International Relations, in his 1980 book, Gifts of Deceit. "Before Moon moved to the United States in 1971, he and his small band of followers realized the operation would have the most flexibility if it was called a church. Businesses, political activities, and tax-exempt status could be protected."

As Moon stepped up his activities, however, the FBI soon began to suspect that Moon's activities had a political motive. The FBI summary of its evidence about Moon's church was marked by a number indicating that the Unification Church was under a counter-intelligence investigation in the 1970s.

Although blacked-out portions obscured who was stating some of the conclusions - an individual source or the FBI - the report described the church as "an absolutely totalitarian organization" which was part of an international "conspiracy" that functioned by its own rules.

"One of the central doctrines of the Moon relig[i]ous aspects is what they call heavenly deception," the FBI report said. "It basically says that to take from Satan what rightfully belongs to God, you may do most anything. You may lie, cheat, steal or kill."

Making Friends

Despite the FBI's concerns, Moon began making friends in Washington the old-fashioned way: by spreading around lots of money. Moon also had his followers cozy up to government officials.

According to the FBI summary, Moon designated "300 pretty girls" to lobby members of Congress. "They were trying to influence United States senators and congressmen on behalf of South Korea," the FBI document read.

"Moon had laid the foundation for political work in this country prior to 1973 [though] his followers became more openly involved in political activities in that and subsequent years," a congressional investigative report on the "Koreagate" influence-buying scandal stated in 1978.

The report added that Moon's organization used his followers' travels to smuggle large sums of money into the United States in apparent violation of federal currency laws.

Moon organized rallies in support of the Vietnam War and in defense of President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. Moon sponsored a National Prayer and Fast Committee, using the slogan: "forgive, love, unite." The public rallies earned Moon a face-to-face "thank you" from the embattled President on Feb. 1, 1974.

Intercepted Message

In late 1975, the CIA intercepted a secret South Korean document entitled "1976 Plan for Operations in the United States." In the name of "strengthening the execution of the U.S. security commitment to the ROK [South Korea]," it called for influencing U.S. public opinion by penetrating American media, government and academia.

Thousands of dollars were earmarked for "special manipulation" of congressmen; their staffs were to be infiltrated with paid "collaborators"; an "intelligence network" was to be put into the White House; money was targeted for "manipulation" of officials at the Pentagon, State Department and CIA; some U.S. journalists were to be spied on, while others would be paid; a "black newspaper" would be started in New York; contacts with American scholars would be coordinated "with Psychological Warfare Bureau"; and "an organizational network of anti-communist fronts" would be created.

Several months later, in summer 1976, Moon returned to the United States and delivered a flattering pro-U.S. speech at a red-white-and-blue flag-draped rally at the Washington Monument.

"The United States of America, transcending race and nationality, is already a model of the unified world," Moon declared on Sept. 18, 1976. Calling America "the chosen nation of God," Moon said, "I not only respect America, but truly love this nation."

While professing his love for America in public, Moon shared with his followers a very different sentiment in private. He despised American concepts of individuality and democracy, believing that he was destined to rule through a one-world theocracy that would eradicate all personal freedoms.

"Here's a man [Moon] who says he wants to take over the world, where all religions will be abolished except Unificationism, all languages will be abolished except Korean, all governments will be abolished except his one-world theocracy," Steve Hassan, a former church leader, told me. "Yet he's wined and dined very powerful people and convinced them that he's benign."

In 1976, Moon's search for growing influence in the United States seemed to be following the KCIA script.

Moon started a small-circulation newspaper in New York City that featured a column by civil rights leader Jesse Jackson. Moon promoted the anti-communist cause through front groups which held lavish conferences and paid speaking fees to academics, journalists and political leaders.

In 1976, Moon, Bo Hi Pak and other church members deepened their investments in the U.S. capital, buying stock in the Washington-based Diplomat National Bank. Simultaneously, South Korean agent Tongsun Park was investing heavily in the same bank.

But the South Korean scheme backfired in the late 1970s with the explosion of the "Koreagate" scandal. Rep.Donald Fraser, a Democrat from Minnesota, led a congressional probe which tracked Tongsun Park's influence-buying campaign and exposed the KCIA links to the Unification Church.

The "Koreagate" investigation revealed a sophisticated intelligence project run out of Seoul that used the urbane Park as well as the mystical Moon to cultivate U.S. politicians as influential friends of South Korea - and conversely to undermine politicians who were viewed as enemies.

Though it's clear the church did collaborate with the KCIA during the 1960s and 1970s, it's less clear whether Moon was using the KCIA or it was using him. Most likely, the relationship was symbiotic, each using the other to advance their overlapping but different interests.

The alliance with the KCIA gave Moon political protection and business opportunities, while the KCIA got a cover for promoting South Korean interests inside the United States, the country responsible for South Korea's defense.

The "Koreagate" investigation traced the church's chief sources of money to bank accounts in Japan, but could follow the cash no further. In the years since, the sources of Moon's money have remained cloaked in secrecy.

In the mid-1990s when I inquired about the vast fortune that the Unification Church has poured into its American operations, the church's chief spokesman refused to divulge dollar amounts for any of Moon's activities.

"Each year the church retains an independent accounting firm to do a national audit and produce an annual financial statement," wrote the church's legal representative Peter D. Ross. "While this statement is used in routine financial transactions by the church, [it] is not my policy to make it otherwise available."

In 1978, Fraser got a taste of the negative side of Moon's propaganda clout as the South Korean religious leader's new U.S. conservative allies mounted a strong defense against the "Koreagate" allegations.

In pro-Moon publications, Fraser and his staff were pilloried as leftists. Anti-Moon witnesses were assailed as unstable liars. Minor bookkeeping problems inside the investigation, such as Fraser's salary advances to some staff members, were seized upon to justify demands for an ethics probe of the congressman.

One of those letters, dated June 30, 1978, was written by John T. "Terry" Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). Dolan's group was pioneering the strategy of "independent" TV attack ads against liberal Democrats. In turn, Moon's CAUSA International helped Dolan by contributing $500,000 to a Dolan group, known as the Conservative Alliance or CALL. [Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1984]

With support from Dolan and other conservatives, Moon weathered the "Koreagate" political storm. Facing questions about his patriotism, Fraser lost a Senate bid in 1978 and left Congress.

Though Moon had helped defeat his chief congressional critic, the evidence unearthed by Fraser became the foundation of a tax-fraud conviction of Moon in 1982 and his sentencing to two years in federal prison.

A Media Empire


Despite his felony conviction, Moon pressed ahead with his boldest bid for political influence. In 1982, Moon launched the Washington Times.

The Times was just what the Reagan administration wanted, a reliable voice for its version of events that would push the message into the public debate.

Though Moon would have to subsidize his publications with hundreds of millions of dollars from his seemingly bottomless pool of cash, the newspaper - over the next two decades - would change the parameters of how the U.S. press corps works and affect the course of U.S. presidential campaigns.

Where all that money came from, however, would remain one of Washington's least examined secrets.

Authors Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson wrote in their 1986 book, Inside the League, that Sun Myung Moon was one of five indispensable Asian leaders who made the World Anti-Communist League possible.

The five were Taiwan's dictator Chiang Kai-shek, South Korea's dictator Park Chung Hee, yakuza gangsters Ryoichi Sasakawa and Yoshio Kodama, and Moon, "an evangelist who planned to take over the world through the doctrine of 'Heavenly Deception,'" the Andersons wrote.

WACL became a well-financed worldwide organization after a secret meeting between Sasakawa and Moon, along with two Kodama representatives, on a lake in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. The purpose of the meeting was to create an anti-communist organization that "would further Moon's global crusade and lend the Japanese yakuza leaders a respectable new façade," the Andersons wrote.

Mixing organized crime and political extremism, of course, has a long tradition throughout the world. Violent political movements often have blended with criminal operations as a way to arrange covert funding, move operatives or acquire weapons.

Drug smuggling has proven to be a particularly effective way to fill the coffers of extremist movements, especially those that find ways to insinuate themselves within more legitimate operations of sympathetic governments or intelligence services.

In the quarter century after World War II, remnants of fascist movements managed to do just that. Shattered by the major Allies - the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union - the surviving fascists got a new lease on political life with the start of the Cold War, helping both Western democracies and right-wing dictatorships battle international communism.

Some Nazi leaders faced war-crimes tribunals after World War II, but others managed to make their escapes along "rat lines" to Spain or South America or they finagled intelligence relationships with the victorious powers, especially the United States.

Argentina became a natural haven given the pre-war alliance that existed between the European fascists and prominent Argentine military leaders, such as Juan Peron. The fleeing Nazis also found like-minded right-wing politicians and military officers across Latin America who already used repression to keep down the indigenous populations and the legions of the poor.

In the post-World War II years, some Nazi war criminals chose reclusive lives, but others, such as former SS officer Klaus Barbie, sold their intelligence skills to less-sophisticated security services in countries like Bolivia or Paraguay.

Other Nazis on the lam trafficked in narcotics. Often the lines crossed between intelligence operations and criminal conspiracies.

Auguste Ricord, a French war criminal who had collaborated with the Gestapo, set up shop in Paraguay and opened up the French Connection heroin channels to American Mafia drug kingpin Santo Trafficante Jr., who controlled much of the heroin traffic into the United States. Columns by Jack Anderson identified Ricord's accomplices as some of Paraguay's highest-ranking military officers.

Another French Connection mobster, Christian David, relied on protection of Argentine authorities. While trafficking in heroin, David also "took on assignments for Argentina's terrorist organization, the Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance," Henrik Kruger wrote in The Great Heroin Coup.

During President Nixon's "war on drugs," U.S. authorities smashed the famous French Connection and won extraditions of Ricord and David in 1972 to face justice in the United States.

By the time the French Connection was severed, however, powerful Mafia drug lords had forged strong ties to South America's military leaders. An infrastructure for the multi-billion-dollar drug trade, servicing the insatiable U.S. market, was in place.

Trafficante-connected groups also recruited displaced anti-Castro Cubans, who had ended up in Miami, needed work, and possessed some useful intelligence skills gained from the CIA's training for the Bay of Pigs and other clandestine operations. Heroin from the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia soon filled the void left by the broken French Connection and its mostly Middle Eastern heroin supply routes.

Enter Rev. Moon


During this time of transition, Sun Myung Moon brought his evangelical message to South America. His first visit to Argentina had occurred in 1965 when he blessed a square behind the presidential Pink House in Buenos Aires. But he returned a decade later to make more lasting friendships.

Moon first sank down roots in Uruguay during the 12-year reign of right-wing military dictators who seized power in 1973. He also cultivated close relations with military dictators in Argentina, Paraguay and Chile, reportedly ingratiating himself with the juntas by helping the military regimes arrange arms purchases and by channeling money to allied right-wing organizations.

"Relationships nurtured with right-wing Latin Americans in the [World Anti-Communist] League led to acceptance of the [Unification] Church's political and propaganda operations throughout Latin America," the Andersons wrote in Inside the League.

"As an international money laundry, ... the Church tapped into the capital flight havens of Latin America. Escaping the scrutiny of American and European investigators, the Church could now funnel money into banks in Honduras, Uruguay and Brazil, where official oversight was lax or nonexistent."

In 1980, Moon made more friends in South America when a right-wing alliance of Bolivia military officers and drug dealers organized what became known as the Cocaine Coup. WACL associates, such as Alfred Candia, coordinated the arrival of some of the paramilitary operatives who assisted in the violent putsch.

Right-wing Argentine intelligence officers mixed with a contingent of young European neo-fascists collaborating with Nazi war criminal Barbie in carrying out the bloody coup that overthrew the elected left-of-center government.

The victory put into power a right-wing military dictatorship indebted to the drug lords. Bolivia became South America's first narco-state.

One of the first well-wishers arriving in La Paz to congratulate the new government was Moon's top lieutenant, Bo Hi Pak. The Moon organization published a photo of Pak meeting with the new strongman, General Garcia Meza.

After the visit to the mountainous capital, Pak declared, "I have erected a throne for Father Moon in the world's highest city."

According to later Bolivian government and newspaper reports, a Moon representative invested about $4 million in preparations for the coup. Bolivia's WACL representatives also played key roles, and CAUSA, one of Moon's anti-communist organizations, listed as members nearly all the leading Bolivian coup-makers.

Soon, Colonel Luis Arce-Gomez, a coup organizer and the cousin of cocaine kingpin Roberto Suarez, went into partnership with big narco-traffickers, including Trafficante's Cuban-American smugglers. Nazi war criminal Barbie and his young neo-fascist followers found new work protecting Bolivia's major cocaine barons and transporting drugs to the border.

"The paramilitary units - conceived by Barbie as a new type of SS - sold themselves to the cocaine barons," German journalist Kai Hermann wrote. "The attraction of fast money in the cocaine trade was stronger than the idea of a national socialist revolution in Latin America." [An English translation of Hermann's article was published in Covert Action Information Bulletin, Winter 1986]

A month after the coup, General Garcia Meza participated in the Fourth Congress of the Latin American Anti-Communist Confederation, an arm of the World Anti-Communist League. Also attending that Fourth Congress was WACL president Woo Jae Sung, a leading Moon disciple.

As the drug lords consolidated their power in Bolivia, the Moon organization expanded its presence, too. Hermann reported that in early 1981, war criminal Barbie and Moon leader Thomas Ward were seen together in apparent prayer.

On May 31, 1981, Moon representatives sponsored a CAUSA reception at the Sheraton Hotel's Hall of Freedom in La Paz. Moon's lieutenant Bo Hi Pak and Bolivian strongman Garcia Meza led a prayer for President Reagan's recovery from an assassination attempt.

In his speech, Bo Hi Pak declared, "God had chosen the Bolivian people in the heart of South America as the ones to conquer communism." According to a later Bolivian intelligence report, the Moon organization sought to recruit an "armed church" of Bolivians, with about 7,000 Bolivians receiving some paramilitary training.

But by late 1981, the cocaine taint of Bolivia's military junta was so deep and the corruption so staggering that U.S.-Bolivian relations were stretched to the breaking point.

"The Moon sect disappeared overnight from Bolivia as clandestinely as they had arrived," Hermann reported.

The Cocaine Coup leaders soon found themselves on the run, too. Interior Minister Arce-Gomez was eventually extradited to Miami and was sentenced to 30 years in prison for drug trafficking. Drug lord Roberto Suarez got a 15-year prison term. General Garcia Meza became a fugitive from a 30-year sentence imposed on him in Bolivia for abuse of power, corruption and murder. Barbie was returned to France to face a life sentence for war crimes. He died in 1992.

But Moon's organization suffered few negative repercussions from the Cocaine Coup. By the early 1980s, flush with seemingly unlimited funds, Moon had moved on to promoting himself with the new Republican administration in Washington. An invited guest to the Reagan-Bush Inauguration, Moon made his organization useful to President Reagan, Vice President Bush and other leading Republicans.

Domestic Spying

An early concern of the Reagan administration was the possibility that a popular movement - similar to the anti-Vietnam War protests - would undermine the hard-line policies that the new U.S. government considered indispensable for stopping the spread of Soviet influence in Central America.

Staunch anticommunists in the administration also suspected that some groups opposed to U.S. intervention in the region could be discredited for holding suspect political loyalties. Though Moon's organization itself had been exposed by the "Koreagate" investigation as a foreign intelligence operation, the administration still turned to it to help probe the loyalty of Americans.

Starting in 1981, the FBI cooperated with one of Moon's front groups during a five-year nationwide investigation of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), a domestic organization critical of Reagan's policies in Central America.

According to FBI documents obtained by Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, the FBI collected reports from Moon's Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (CARP), which was spying on CISPES supporters. The reports came from CARP members at 10 university campuses around the United States and included commentaries on the purported political beliefs of Reagan's critics. [Boston Globe, April 20, 1988]

One CARP report called a CISPES supporter "well-educated in Marxism" while other CARP reports attached "clippings culled from communist-inspired front groups." The Globe investigation reported that Frank Varelli, who worked for the FBI from 1981 to 1984 coordinating the CISPES probe, said an FBI agent paid members of the Moon organization at Southern Methodist University while the Moon activists were raiding and disrupting CISPES rallies.

"Every week, an agent I worked with used to go to SMU to pay the Moonies," Varelli said in an interview. Because of the CARP harassment, CISPES closed its SMU chapter.

While Moon's organization was helping to spy on American citizens, the case against Moon as a suspected intelligence agent for South Korea was petering out. It's still not clear why.

"I don't think there was any doubt that the Moon newspaper took a virulently pro-South Korea position," Oliver "Buck" Revell, then a senior FBI official in the national security area, told me. "But whether there was something illegal about it..." His voice trailed off. As for the internal security investigation of Moon, Revell added only: "It led its full life."

Mysterious Money

Where Moon gets his cash has been a long-time mystery that few American conservatives have been eager to solve.

"Some Moonie-watchers even believe that some of the business enterprises are actually covers for drug trafficking," wrote Scott and Jon Lee Anderson. "Others feel that, despite the disclosures of Koreagate, the Church has simply continued to do the Korean government's international bidding and is receiving official funds to do so."

While Moon's representatives have refused to detail how they've sustained their far-flung activities - including many businesses that insiders say lose money - Moon's spokesmen have angrily denied recurring allegations about profiteering off illegal trafficking in weapons and drugs.

In a typical response to a gun-running question by the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, Moon's representative Ricardo DeSena responded, "I deny categorically these accusations and also the barbarities that are said about drugs and brainwashing. Our movement responds to the harmony of the races, nations and religions and proclaims that the family is the school of love." [Clarin, July 7, 1996]

Without doubt, however, Moon's organization has had a long record of association with organized crime figures, including ones implicated in the drug trade. Besides collaborating with Sasakawa and other leaders of the Japanese yakuza and the Cocaine Coup government of Bolivia, Moon's organization developed close ties with the Honduran military and the Nicaraguan contras who were permeated with drug smugglers.

Moon's organization also used its political clout in Washington to intimidate or discredit government officials and journalists who tried to investigate those criminal activities. In the mid-1980s, for instance, when journalists and congressional investigators began probing the evidence of contra-connected drug trafficking, they came under attacks from Moon's Washington Times.

An Associated Press story that I co-wrote with Brian Barger about a Miami-based federal probe into gun- and drug-running by the contras was denigrated in an April 11, 1986, front-page Washington Times article with the headline: "Story on [contra] drug smuggling denounced as political ploy."

When Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, conducted a Senate probe and uncovered additional evidence of contra drug trafficking, the Washington Times denounced him, too. The newspaper first published articles depicting Kerry's probe as a wasteful political witch hunt. "Kerry's anti-contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," announced the headline of one Times article on Aug. 13, 1986.

But when Kerry exposed more contra wrongdoing, the Washington Times shifted tactics. In 1987 in front-page articles, it began accusing Kerry's staff of obstructing justice because their investigation was supposedly interfering with Reagan-Bush administration efforts to get at the truth.

"Kerry staffers damaged FBI probe," said one Times article that opened with the assertion: "Congressional investigators for Sen. John Kerry severely damaged a federal drug investigation last summer by interfering with a witness while pursuing allegations of drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan resistance, federal law enforcement officials said." [Washington Times, Jan. 21, 1987]

Despite the attacks, Kerry's contra-drug investigation eventually concluded that a number of contra units - both in Costa Rica and Honduras - were implicated in the cocaine trade.

"It is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers," Kerry's investigation stated in a report issued April 13, 1989. "In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring or immediately thereafter."

Kerry's investigation also found that Honduras had become an important way station for cocaine shipments heading north during the contra war.

"Elements of the Honduran military were involved ... in the protection of drug traffickers from 1980 on," the report said. "These activities were reported to appropriate U.S. government officials throughout the period. Instead of moving decisively to close down the drug trafficking by stepping up the DEA presence in the country and using the foreign assistance the United States was extending to the Hondurans as a lever, the United States closed the DEA office in Tegucigalpa and appears to have ignored the issue." [Drug, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy - the Kerry Report - December 1988]

The Kerry investigation represented an indirect challenge to Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had been named by President Reagan to head the South Florida Task Force for interdicting the flow of drugs into the United States and was later put in charge of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System.

In short, Bush was the lead official in the U.S. government to cope with the drug trade, which he himself had dubbed a national security threat.

If the American voters came to believe that Bush had compromised his anti-drug responsibilities to protect the image of the Nicaraguan contras and other rightists in Central America, that judgment could have threatened the political future of Bush and his politically ambitious family.

By publicly challenging press and congressional investigations of this touchy subject, the Washington Times helped keep an unfavorable media spotlight from swinging in the direction of the Vice President.

Drug Evidence


The evidence shows that there was much more to the contra drug issue than either the Reagan-Bush administration or Moon's organization wanted the American people to know in the 1980s.

The evidence - assembled over the years by investigators at the CIA, the Justice Department and other federal agencies - indicates that Bolivia's Cocaine Coup operatives were only the first in a line of clever drug smugglers that tried to squeeze under the protective umbrella of Reagan's favorite covert operation, the contra war. [For details, see Robert Parry, Lost History, or for a summary of the contra-drug evidence, see Consortiumnews.com's "Gary Webb's Death: American Tragedy."]

Other cocaine smugglers soon followed, cozying up to the contras and sharing some of the profits, as a way to minimize investigative interest by the Reagan-Bush law enforcement agencies.

The contra-connected smugglers included the Medellin cartel, the Panamanian government of Manuel Noriega, the Honduran military, the Honduran-Mexican smuggling ring of Ramon Matta Ballesteros, and the Miami-based anti-Castro Cubans with their connections to Mafia operations throughout the United States.

The drug traffickers' strategy also worked. In some cases, U.S. intelligence officials bent over backwards not to take timely notice of contra-connected drug trafficking out of fear that fuller investigations would embarrass the contras and their patrons in the Reagan-Bush administration.

For instance, on Oct. 22, 1982, a cable written by the CIA's Directorate of Operations stated, "There are indications of links between [a U.S. religious organization] and two Nicaraguan counter-revolutionary groups. These links involve an exchange in [the United States] of narcotics for arms."

The cable added that the participants were planning a meeting in Costa Rica for such a deal. When the cable arrived, senior CIA officials were concerned. On Oct. 27, CIA headquarters asked for more information from a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The law enforcement agency expanded on its report by telling the CIA that representatives of the contra FDN and another contra force, the UDN, would be meeting with several unidentified U.S. citizens. But then, the CIA reversed itself, deciding that it wanted no more information on the grounds that U.S. citizens were involved.

"In light of the apparent participation of U.S. persons throughout, agree you should not pursue the matter further," CIA headquarters wrote on Nov. 3, 1982. Two weeks later, after discouraging additional investigation, CIA headquarters suggested it might be necessary to knock down the allegations of a guns-for-drugs deal as "misinformation."

The CIA's Latin American Division, however, responded on Nov. 18, 1982, that several contra officials had gone to San Francisco for the meetings with supporters, presumably as part of the same guns-for-drugs deal. But the CIA inspector general found no additional information about that deal in CIA files.

Also, by keeping the names censored when the documents were released in 1998, the CIA prevented outside investigators from examining whether the "U.S. religious organization" had any affiliation with Moon's network of quasi-religious groups, which were assisting the contras at that time.

Red Flags


As Moon continued to expand his influence in American politics, some Republicans began to raise red flags.

In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered "an alliance of expediency" with Moon's church. Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefiting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.

Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well." Leach's news conference was disrupted when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying. (Norquist is now a prominent conservative leader in Washington with close ties to the highest levels of George W. Bush's administration.)

Despite periodic fretting over Moon's influence, American conservatives continued to accept his deep-pocket assistance. When White House aide Oliver North was scratching for support for the Nicaraguan contras, for instance, the Washington Times established a contra fund-raising operation.

By the mid-1980s, Moon's Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American Right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that "without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father [Moon]."

Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was destroying the U.S. Constitution and America's democratic form of government.

"History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him," Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. "That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."

In September 1987, conservative columnist Andrew Ferguson cited some of Moon's anti-American sentiments as cause for concern, despite his appealing anticommunism.

"There is little else in Unificationism that American conservatives will find compelling," except, of course, the money, Ferguson wrote in the American Spectator. "They're the best in town as far as putting their money with their mouth is," Ferguson quoted one Washington-based conservative as saying.

Though Moon's money sources remained shrouded in secrecy, his cash undeniably gave the Right an edge over its political adversaries.

After the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in fall 1986, the Washington Times and other Moon-related organizations rushed to the battlements to defend Reagan's White House and Oliver North.

Ronald S. Godwin, who was a link between Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Moon's Washington Times, raised funds



Comment on this Article


Helen Thomas: Will Bush Explain Why War Continues?

Helen Thomas
Hearst White House columnist
20 Dec 06

President George W. Bush has alerted the American people that the war in Iraq will go on for a long time -- easily into the next presidency.

Bush's 2003 "cakewalk" invasion of Iraq to bring about a "regime change" has expanded into what he told a news conference Wednesday is "the beginning stages of an ideological battle."

According to the official White House line, Bush is pondering his options for a "new way forward" in Iraq, with his decision to be announced next month.

But the president indicated Wednesday that he has already made his choice, hinting to reporters at his year-end news conference that he will send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

It doesn't seem to occur to him that some of the escalating violence in Iraq stems from opposition to the U.S. military occupation there. So it's up to the American people and the Democratic-controlled Congress to play a role in these crucial decisions while there is still time.

Bush has engaged in a lot of theatrics in his high-profile consultations with administration officials and past policymakers. He also is awaiting a report from new Defense Secretary Robert Gates who made a quick visit to Iraq.

Some of the military commanders are opposed to an injection of more troops around Baghdad and believe the move would compound the folly. Some powerful members on Capitol Hill also are calling for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

In a noticeably good mood, the president has hosted a series of yuletide parties and has displayed none of the signs of soul-searching about war that marked Lyndon B. Johnson's agony over Vietnam.

But he told reporters "my heart breaks every night" for those who have died in Iraq. He also said that "the next president" may have to deal with the "radicals and extremists" in the region.

"They can't run us out of the Middle East," he declared.

The drive for more troops in Iraq is being supported by key Republican senators.

For example, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wants as many as 35,000 more troops. For a presidential candidate, he is out of step with the American mainstream.

But former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- who also served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- said he is not certain more U.S. forces could turn the tide in Iraq.

Bush has given short shrift to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., especially the suggestion that he start a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, starting next year.

Sometime early in January, the president plans to lay it all out. Maybe then he will finally tell us why he invaded a Third World country under false pretenses. He may even explain why U.S. forces continue to be there.

The nearly four-year war has already lasted longer than World War II.

The president is obviously frustrated that most Americans no longer see it his way. He has been quoted as saying he may be dead before Americans "get it."

These days Bush is likening himself to President Harry S Truman, who left Washington under a cloud as a result of scandals involving members of his administration and the stalemate in the Korean War. His popularity polls were down to 23 percent when he went home to Independence, Mo., in 1952.

But historians have resurrected Truman's place in the presidential panoply for his great contributions to collective security treaties in the aftermath of World War II.

Bush has a long way to go to catch up with Truman.

(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address hthomas(at)hearstdc.com).)



Comment on this Article


Bush is bracing for new scrutiny - White House hiring lawyers in expectation of Democratic probes

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis
Sun reporter
December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.

Bush is moving quickly to fill vacancies within his stable of lawyers, though White House officials say there are no plans to drastically expand the legal staff to deal with a flood of oversight.

"No, at this point, no," Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said recently. "We'll have to see what happens."
Snow rebutted the notion that Bush is casting about for legal advice in the wake of his party's loss of control of the Congress.

"We don't have a war room set up where we're ... dialing the 800 numbers of law firms," he said.

Still, in the days after the elections, the White House announced that Bush had hired two replacements to plug holes in his counsel's office, including one lawyer, Christopher G. Oprison, who is a specialist in handling white-collar investigations. A third hire was securities law specialist Paul R. Eckert, whose duties include dealing with the Office of the Special Counsel. Bush is in the process of hiring a fourth associate counsel, said Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman.

"Obviously, if we do have investigations, we'll have to make sure we have enough people to be prepared to answer questions that come our way," Lawrimore said. "As of right now, I wouldn't say it's anything special."

Republicans close to Bush say any such moves would not come until the White House sees how aggressive Democrats are in trying to pry the lid off the inner workings of the administration.

"They just think it's inevitable that there will be some investigations that will tie up some time and attention," said Charles Black, a strategist with close ties to the White House. But there's no panic in the ranks of Bush's team, he added. "They don't think they have anything to hide."

Bush still must do what he can now -- before Democrats take over the majority in Congress next month -- to prepare, legal specialists say.

"At a time like this, the experienced people in the White House view themselves as in a race they hope to win, of organizing and coordinating their defenses to have them in place in time to slow down or resist oversight before the oversight can get organized," said Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School, a former House counsel and veteran of congressional investigations.

People familiar with the counsel's office caution against reading too much into the new additions, saying that Bush has yet to go on a hiring spree akin to President Bill Clinton's when he faced impeachment. But White House officials know of the potential challenges, they said.

"It's certainly not lost on them that there will be more investigative requests and more things for them to respond to, but I don't think that you're going to see any dramatic changes," said Reginald Brown, a former associate in Bush's White House counsel's office who is now in private practice.

Democrats' stated intention to conduct more rigorous oversight of the Bush administration "simply will mean that [White House officials] need a few more people to manage the paper flow," Brown said.

Veterans of investigative battles between the White House and Congress predict that Bush ultimately will need to add staff members -- or at least borrow some from government agencies -- to contend with Democrats with subpoena power on Capitol Hill.

"Like any White House that has to deal with a Congress run by the other party, this White House has to bulk up its staff to deal with the inevitable flood of subpoenas. They're also going to have to coordinate with lots of friends and supporters," said Mark Corallo, a former top Republican aide to the House committee that issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to the Clinton camp.

Corallo and Barbara Comstock, another Republican public-relations executive with broad experience in Hill investigations, are launching a crisis-communications firm to serve officials and corporations who, Corallo said, could end up as "drive-by victims" in a new round of probes.

Snow said the firm is "certainly independent of the White House."

Republican lobbyist David M. Carmen has added an oversight practice to his firm's menu of services, tapping Frank Silbey, a veteran of congressional investigations, to minister to companies and public figures caught in the web of expected probes.

Democrats are reluctant to reveal their investigative plans, but they have made it plain that they want to conduct more oversight of the Bush administration.

It is clear, though, that Democrats will be beefing up their staffs. With control of Congress comes twice as much funding, which will allow Democrats to double their staffs, including hiring new lawyers and investigators to face off with the Bush administration.

Bush will need "people who have experience in responding to subpoenas, overseeing document production and preparing witnesses," said Amy R. Sabrin, who defended several Clinton administration officials during the investigations of the 1990s.

The president might want to launch internal investigations of his own, legal experts and analysts say, to turn up anything untoward before Democrats do. Some suggested that the administration was doing that last month when the Justice Department announced that it would look into the use of information gleaned from the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program, an investigation that Bush thwarted earlier by refusing to grant security clearances.

"It's quite common that a White House, anticipating congressional investigations, will prefer to let previously blocked internal administrative investigations go ahead as a preferred alternative way of trying to deprive the upcoming congressional investigation of exciting things to discover," Tiefer said.

An example from recent history was the Reagan administration's Tower Commission, set up to "steal the thunder" of the congressional probe into the Iran-contra scandal, Tiefer added.

White House adviser Black noted that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been careful to guard executive secrecy, a stance that is unlikely to change in the face of new congressional zeal for information.

"That means if a committee wants to investigate a Cabinet agency, they cooperate. If they're asking to get information about who the president and the vice president are getting advice from and meeting with, the answer is no," he said.

None of which will make life easier for White House lawyers who will be fielding Democrats' requests.

Fulfilling congressional oversight requests is always tedious and time-consuming. When the investigations become partisan, it can be even worse.

"The oversight work was among the most stressful and least-rewarding work in the office," said Bradford A. Berenson, a former counsel in Bush's White House. "When you're playing defense against investigations that are, to one degree or another, politically motivated in an environment where there are very few rules and very little prospect of judicial relief, it can be very frustrating."



Comment on this Article


Forget the President: Impeach Cheney

by Marc Romano

As late as September 1973, it was almost impossible to imagine that within a year the Nixon administration would be no more than a bad memory. By November 1973, however, Vice President Spiro Agnew-Nixon's pugnacious and seemingly unassailable bulldog-had resigned in the face of incontrovertible evidence that that he had committed income tax fraud during his tenure as Maryland's governor. A chink had appeared in the administration's armor for the first time, which paved the way for the Senate's Watergate hearings in May 1974. Three months after those began, Nixon too was gone.
By any measure-secrecy, arrogance, venality, contempt for the Constitutional process-the administration of George W. Bush is far worse than that of Richard M. Nixon. It is natural that its opponents should wish to seek remedy by impeaching the president, especially now that he no longer enjoys the cover offered by a pliable Republican congress. Should not, many Democrats ask, we take this opportunity, at last, to show future chief executives that there are limits to the power any president can co-opt?

Yet 2007 is different from 1974 because the political arena has become so much more ideologically divided. Bill Clinton was impeached simply because a Republican House wanted to test its newfound power. That event was a travesty on its face; worse, it also ensured that the next Republican president could never be impeached, since it would be easy to convince a distracted public that any attempt to do so was nothing more than cheap political payback. The Clinton impeachment effectively inoculated Bush against the consequences of any misconduct he wished to engage in.

Vice presidents, however, do not have the political gravitas of chief executives. They serve at the pleasure of the president, not of the people, and are consequently more vulnerable in the court of public opinion. This is especially true in the case of Dick Cheney, who is unarguably the least admired vice president in the nation's history. It is probably true that his approval ratings are so low even among supporters of the administration because he represents the sort of political being who is most distrusted by Americans: the shifty, cunning power behind the throne. Dick Cheney is not the sort of person-straight-talking, no-nonsense, but nonetheless engaging and friendly-who embodies the ideal American politician.

There is, of course, no lack of charges to be brought against Dick Cheney, from outing a covert CIA agent for political purposes to manipulating intelligence about WMD programs in Iraq. On the other hand, Cheney has consciously arrogated to himself as vice president all of the protections inherent in presidential privilege. It is immaterial whether, constitutionally speaking, he can make this claim. As the Libby case shows, the mere assertion of privilege by anyone in the West Wing can effectively stymie an investigation, or at least drag it out for so long that its political effects are minimized. And all matters of privilege aside, Cheney and his associates have woven such a tangled skein around their activities (the energy commission, for instance) that any investigation into them will be so laboriously involved as to eventually confuse and bore the American electorate.

As the investigation of Spiro Agnew showed, however, American politicians, even cunning ones, are most vulnerable to charges of low crimes and misdemeanors. This is Cheney's Achilles heel: His close association with Halliburton and the great financial gains he has made from it during his two terms in office can easily be shown to be criminal. Even a short congressional investigation can uncover damning documentary evidence proving that the vice president's office was instrumental in awarding vast no-bid contracts to Halliburton in both Iraq and the Gulf Coast. Why Cheney benefits is equally easy to prove (and equally damning): The company's stock has tripled in value since he took office. Cheney and his lawyers will attempt to cloud the issue, but charges of straightforward graft proffered on the floor of either the House or the Senate are likely to stick, at least politically, to a figure who is so widely reviled. (And charges can be brought in the Senate against Cheney in his capacity as a de facto member of that body-a simple majority is all that is required to do so.)

Impeaching and convicting Cheney on charges of graft would at the least force him out of the West Wing. All other eventualities-a presidential pardon chief among them-are secondary. Absent the protection of his office, Cheney cannot assert privilege in future civil suits brought against him; nor can he afford to ever leave the country, since any number of foreign powers would be likely to seize him and bring him to trial for war crimes or violations of human rights. And the Bush administration would be fatally contaminated-and so politically neutered for the next two years-by mere association.

Whatever else he might be is unimportant; the vice president is demonstrably a crook. With luck, his resignation or impeachment might lead to graver consequences for him, but at the very least it will ensure that future presidents choose their seconds in command more judiciously. A sure outcome is that no Republican in 2009 will be able to accuse Democrats of playing partisan football with Dick Cheney, because no one cares enough about the vice president to make that charge plausibly stick



Comment on this Article


Five Years of Infamy: Close Guantanamo!

By Colonel Ann Wright, Retired
t r u t h o u t
23 December 2006

On January 11, 2002, the first detainees from Afghanistan arrived at the prison in the US Naval Base, Guantanamo, Cuba. In the succeeding five years, Guantanamo has symbolized to the world the Bush administration's abandonment of international and domestic law, and the development of a policy of inhumane treatment and use of torture. These claims have been linked to military and CIA operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and in an unknown number of secret prisons.
More than 775 detainees have been held in Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. After five years, no Guantanamo detainee has been convicted of a criminal offense. According to an American Forces Information Service News article dated October 17, 2006, "Bush Says Military Commissions Act Will Bring Justice," the majority of the detainees held in Guantanamo will not face military commissions. "Only detainees who will be charged with law-of-war violations and other grave offenses - about 75 detainees, officials estimated - will be subject to the commissions."

So what has happened to the other 700 detainees during these five years - those who will not be prosecuted by military commissions?

Finally, after more than two years of detention, between August 2004 and March 2005, Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), composed of three US military officers, reviewed the cases of 558 detainees. However, the detainees had no access to lawyers or to secret evidence used by the CSRT. The CSRT could use coerced evidence. The CSRTs judged 520 detainees to be "enemy combatants."

What is an enemy combatant? The general definition of an enemy combatant is "a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict." But a September 5, 2006, Department of Defense directive on the Detainee Program added another sentence to the definition of unlawful combatant: "For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term Unlawful Enemy Combatant is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

According to Amnesty International, in an analysis of 500 detainees, a remarkably low number, only 5 percent, or about 25 detainees, were captured by US forces. Eighty-six percent, or about 430 detainees, were arrested by Pakistani forces or the Afghan Northern Alliance and turned over to US custody - often for a reward of thousands of dollars. The other 9 percent are not discussed in the Amnesty report. Many were sold to the United States to even scores or just for the money. Anyone living in Afghanistan - young or old - was fair game for sale to US forces. The oldest detainee shipped to Guantanamo was 75 and the youngest 10.

It is an understatement to say that the majority of those sent to Guantanamo were sent due to poor interrogation and investigation by US forces and the CIA during their detention in Afghanistan. Once at Guantanamo, they remained for years because of pressure for interrogation "results" from the civilian political leadership at the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House.

As of December 18, 2006, almost half - about 379 of the 775 detainees - have been released after years in prison. They were sent home without being charged with a crime or being told why they had been detained. About 396 detainees from 35 countries are still held at Guantanamo; this includes 14 detainees who were transferred there in September 2006 after being held incommunicado in secret CIA prisons for up to four and a half years. (When President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) into law, he said that the MCA authorizes the CIA secret-prison program to continue. He also said that the 14 cannot reveal to their lawyers or the International Committee of the Red Cross the location of the detention facilities, conditions of confinement, and interrogation techniques.)

Sixteen detainees from Saudi Arabia were released on December 14, 2006, after King Abdullah summoned Vice President Cheney to Saudi Arabia and took him to the woodshed over the plight of Sunnis if the United States withdraws from Iraq. Another 75 Saudis remain in Guantanamo. More detainees were released on December 17, according to a Department of Defense news release with the same date: Seven detainees were transferred to Afghanistan; six were returned to Yemen; three went to Kazakhstan; one went to Libya, and one to Bangladesh. This resulted in thirty-four detainees being released in three days. The news release said that 114 detainees have been released in 2006 and 85 detainees, whom the US government has determined are eligible for transfer or release, are still being held at Guantanamo.

Seventeen detainees were under 18 years old when they were taken to Guantanamo. The youngest were 10, 12, and 13 when they were "captured." At the end of 2006, four of these juveniles still are detained. They have spent one-fourth of their lives in Guantanamo. There was a fifth, but he was one of three detainees who committed suicide in June 2006. More than 40 detainees have attempted suicide, and up to 200 detainees have staged hunger strikes to protest the conditions of detention.

Incredibly, at the end of five years of being in the world's human-rights doghouse, the US Congress in October 2006 again trusted and complied with President Bush's wishes and passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). The MCA denies detainees habeas corpus (the right to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of detention); denies the presumption of innocence; denies the right to trial within a reasonable time; denies the right to a lawyer of choice, and denies the right to challenge and present evidence. The MCA allows the admission of evidence coerced by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

While co-authoring memos on torture, presidential legal advisor Alberto Gonzales, now attorney general, advised President Bush in January 2002 that a benefit of not applying the Geneva Conventions to detainees coming from Afghanistan, and imprisoning the detainees outside the United States, would be to make it more difficult to prosecute US personnel under the US War Crimes Act. The administration's "gloves off" attitude toward interrogations resulted in inhumane treatment in Bagram, Kandahar, and other prisons in Afghanistan, and later in Guantanamo. That abusive environment led to painful incidents at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, as Guantanamo prison commander Major General Geoffrey Miller went to Iraq to teach more-aggressive techniques to the interrogators. Gonzalez continued to make it harder to prosecute US personnel for prisoner abuse under the War Crimes Act by convincing Congress - through the Military Commissions Act - to provide a free pass for criminal acts dealing with detainees if the acts were committed before December 31, 2005.

As a retired US Army colonel with 29 years of service on active duty and in the US Army Reserves, and as a US diplomat for 16 years, I firmly believe that there must be accountability and responsibility for criminal actions that we know have occurred - whether the perpetrators are in the Pentagon, the CIA, the Justice Department, or the White House. Speaking as a military officer, I believe our military is not served well by escaping responsibility for criminal acts. Our soldiers and officers are taught what behavior is legal and what is not. I would think that the same distinction also is taught to CIA personnel. When the Bush administration and Congress retroactively protect those who knowing commit criminal acts, they undermine the "order and discipline" of the military and of the CIA. Ultimately this undercuts the foundations of our rule of law.

I firmly believe that to regain some respect in the international community, for the sake of our national spirit and soul, and for the integrity of the US military, the prison in Guantanamo must be closed. The US military must be removed from adjudicating "enemy combatants" cases. Instead, I believe the federal courts must administer the laws of the United States against persons charged with "terrorist" crimes, as the courts have done in the past. For the United States to ever hope to salvage some modicum of its stature in the area of human rights, the legal process for those accused of criminal terrorist acts must be transparent and fair. The "Guantanamo process" is neither. I call on the new Congress to acknowledge the capabilities and history of our civilian legal system, to abolish the Military Commissions Act, to designate the federal courts to hear the cases, and to close Guantanamo.

On January 11, 2007, the fifth year that detainees from Afghanistan have been in Guantanamo, organizations all over the world will call for Guantanamo to be closed. For the sake of our integrity and conscience, each one of us must take action: Organize vigils, show the movie "The Road to Guantanamo" or have readings of "Guantanamo: Honor Bound to Defend Freedom" (www.bordc.org).

Act on January 11 to end torture, stop violations of international law, and CLOSE GUANTANAMO! (Check www.witnesstorture.org for events.)

Colonel Ann Wright, retired, spent 29 years in the Army and Army Reserves and 16 years as a US diplomat serving in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.



Comment on this Article


US tries to assure allies that extraordinary renditions are over

By Guy Dinmore in Washington
December 27 2006

The US is telling its overseas allies that it has stopped "extraordinary renditions" and needs their help to empty Guantánamo's prison cells. But human rights groups dispute this assertion and a question mark hangs over 200 "war on terror" detainees who could be held indefinitely without trial.

European diplomats say Washington is reacting to pressure from parliamentary investigations, lawsuits from former prisoners, and calls by friendly governments, including the UK, to close Guantánamo, the prison camp at a US naval base in Cuba.

However, the administration's response is seen as confused and inadequate.
Analysts attribute this to internal divisions over how far to roll back controversial counter-terrorism practices - including torture, secret prisons, detention without trial, and renditions - as the price for rekindling transatlantic relations.

Washington was particularly stung by a report last month by a committee of the European parliament that condemned the alleged complicity of governments in the CIA's illegal detention and transportation of prisoners.

It concluded that there were at least 1,245 overflights or stopovers by CIA aircraft in Europe, and that some probably involved prisoner transfers. Several highly publicised cases were documented.

Delegations from Europe visiting Washington since then have been assured that "extraordinary renditions" ended, or mostly ended, in 2003. US officials note that the lawsuits brought against the US by former detainees relate to events in 2003 or earlier, when even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, has admitted that "mistakes" happened.

The European committee defined "extraordinary rendition" as an "extra-judicial practice whereby an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted, arrested and/or transferred into the custody of US officials and/or transported to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases, involves incommunicado detention and torture".

Visiting Europeans have been told that the US reserves the right to carry out renditions, but - as Ms Rice declared in a major statement a year ago - it would respect the sovereignty of other countries and would not send detainees to countries where the US believed they might be tortured.

John Sifton, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, strongly disputes the assertion that extraordinary renditions stopped in 2003. He said there had been people arrested in 2006 who were still unaccounted for, and others transported by the US from Pakistan, outside all judicial process, to the Middle East.

Human rights groups believe there are large numbers of prisoners in US custody who are unaccounted for and were not included in the 14 transferred to Guantánamo when President George W. Bush acknowledged for the first time in September the existence of secret CIA detention facilities, which he then ordered to be closed.

The US had also crafted a concept of "constructive custody" or "proxy detention", Mr Sifton said. This involved allies, such as Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco, holding detainees at the request of the US and allowing the US free access to them.

Andrew Tyrie, a British opposition MP who recently visited Washington, said the Bush administration was engaged in a fierce debate over the impact of more controversial US practices in the wake of the September 2001 attacks by al-Qaeda. "It is vital we send a message to moderate Muslims that these practices are no longer in our armoury against terrorism," he said, adding the US was also keen to revive the strong transatlantic bonds that existed before the invasion of Iraq.

Mr Bush says he wants to close Guantánamo, which will be five years old next month. But it is far from clear how or when this will happen.

Low-risk prisoners are being sent to other countries, following complex negotiations over conditions of their release or continued detention. According to the Pentagon, about 380 prisoners have left the prison since 2002. About 395 remain, of whom some 85 are now eligible for transfer or release.

The Military Commissions Act, signed by Mr Bush in October, was intended to speed the process of putting on trial Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and other prominent militants before special tribunals. Experts believe, however, that constitutional challenges will set this back a very long time.

Believing that only some 50 detainees would be tried, allies are concerned that 200 other prisoners, designated as high-risk, would be detained indefinitely without trial and barred from challenging their detention in the federal courts. Complicating the process is Washington's fear that releasing more detainees will lead to a flood of legal cases against the US.

Diplomats say Ms Rice has been influential in advocating change to detention policies she sees as damaging relations with allies, while Dick Cheney, vice-president, and David Addington, his chief of staff, are seen as obstacles. The removal of Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary this month may have undermined the hardliners, however.

"We have no desire to be the world's jailer and do not hold detainees for any longer than necessary," said Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

But he also said there was a "significant amount of evidence" to justify holding "unlawful enemy combatants" and prevent their return to the battlefield.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006



Comment on this Article


Throw the Bums Out and Change Direction

By Jim Hightower
Hightower Lowdown
December 28, 2006

At an October fundraiser in Topeka, the Republican faithful lined up to shake hands with the headliner, Dick Cheney. But before getting to the Veep, they had to get past the wife of the local Congress critter. She was standing adjacent to Cheney, holding a big bottle of Purell, a hand sanitizer that claims to kill "99.99% of most common germs." Each person waiting to get their grip-and-grin with the honoree first had to accept a squirt of the goop from this lady to purify their hands! After the meet-and-greet was over, Cheney ducked backstage and rubbed a generous dollop of the antiseptic onto his own hands, cleansing him of the human contact he had just endured.
On November 7, however, it was voters doing the cleansing, washing their hands of the Bush-Cheney regime. Yes, I know that Bush & Gang are still there, and they'll be trying to do all the damage they can in their remaining two years. But by losing the House and Senate majority, they have hit a serious speed bump.

Toward the end of the campaign, the White House insisted that Republicans would retain control of Congress because voters were focused on local issues and candidates, not on Bush or his policies. "We have succeeded in making these races choices between two local candidates," bragged Karl Rove. And when a reporter suggested that Bush's disastrous war in Iraq was dragging down GOP congressional candidates, Cheney chimed in with his two cents' worth of political insight: "We're not running for office."

Wrong, Karl. Wrong, Dick. In its exit polls, The New York Times found that Bush's war, Bush's economy, and Bush himself were foremost on voters' minds as they entered the voting booths to toss out the Republican Congress.

68 percent said that the Iraq war was either "very" important or "extremely" important in how they voted (only 10 percent said it was "not at all" important).

83 percent said the economy was very or extremely important in how they voted (and 68 percent said that their family was either falling behind financially or barely staying even).

In fact, George has become so unpopular that only the GOP candidates in the reddest of red spots asked him to campaign with them. The cruelest blow came on the campaign's last day. Bush was to appear in Pensacola, Florida, at a Republican rally featuring the party's gubernatorial hopeful, Charlie Crist. Ten thousand partisans turned out for Bush but one person who decided at the last minute not to come was...Charlie. Seeing Bush's poll numbers in Florida below 40 percent, Charlie suddenly remembered that he needed to be over in Palm Beach that day. Jilted, poor George had to call in Brother Jeb to do the introduction.

Spin it as they will, this election was a resounding rejection of the Bushites' agenda. As an independent voter in New Jersey said as she headed into her polling place, "I don't care if I vote for Happy the Clown, just so it's not who's there now." She added that she was voting "against the powers that put us in this situation" in Iraq.

Progressive surge


The establishment media pundits, clueless as ever, have tried their damndest to contort the Democratic sweep into a victory for conservatives! They claim that the Dems who won in red areas were victorious only because they adopted Republican-like positions on guns, abortion, or religion.

Your average rutabaga has a sharper analytical ability than that. If these pundits would venture out and talk with anyone besides themselves, they'd find that people aren't one-dimensional stick figures. Being a hunter and a defender of gun rights in a so-called red state, for example, doesn't turn you into Dick Cheney.

Take Jon Tester, the new senator from Montana. He's a big burly guy, with the boots, belly, and buzzcut that makes him appear to be a rural conservative caricature. To add to the stereotype, he's pro-gun and antigay marriage.

But let's fill in this stickman drawing of Tester. He's an organic farmer. He took time off in the heat of the campaign to go home to harvest his crops. He's a working guy who's missing three fingers from a tangle he had with a meat grinder. He's been a teacher, soil-conservation leader, and president of the state senate (where he established a solidly progressive record of siding with common folks against the corporate interests).

Jon defeated three-term incumbent and corporate favorite Conrad Burns by running a flatout populist campaign that took these stands: raise the minimum wage to a livable level, provide health care for all, fight the drug giants for lower prescription prices, stop big interests from selling off or locking up our public lands, halt the use of the Patriot Act to invade the lives of innocent Americans, oppose NAFTA-like trade scams, ban lobbyist-paid gifts and travel, make college affordable, promote renewable energy and conservation, save Social Security from the privatizers, battle railroad monopolies that hold rural communities captive, focus tax relief on the middle class instead of on millionaires, and--a big one--give military control of Iraq to the Iraqis, bring our troops home, and fully fund veterans' health care.

Conservative? On the kitchentable issues that matter to people (issues that require a political leader to side with ordinary folks against the corporate and governmental elites), Jon Tester is the kind of populist progressive that America needs.

The good news is that voters not only took out Bush's rubber- stamp congressional majority, but they also brought in a crop of real progressives who'll add badly needed energy and more of an "outsider" attitude to what has been a lackluster, tired, corporate-coddling Democratic party. In addition to Tester, the Senate will feel the progressive surge that will come from Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), and Bernie Sanders (Vermont)--all of whom ran campaigns centered on economic populism.

Likewise, the House majority will be invigorated by a new class of Democrats who campaigned on a core progressive agenda, including minimum wage, health care, Social Security, and Bush's Iraq war. Meet a few of them.

Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire is a teacher, social worker, and staunch war opponent. Short on money but strong in volunteer support, she had to battle her own party's establishment to win the nomination. Then her shoe-leather, issue-oriented, no-nonsense, populist approach upset the GOP's entrenched incumbent, making her the first New Hampshire woman in history to go to Congress.

Tim Walz is a high-school teacher, football coach, 24-year member of the Army National Guard...and passionate defender of liberty and justice for all. In 2004, he escorted two of his students to a Bush rally in his hometown of Mankato, Minnesota. At the checkpoint, however, George W's security thugs barred them from entering because one of the students had a Kerry-Edwards sticker on his wallet. "This is not how America is supposed to be," Tim said. So he has now paid Bush back by running a populist campaign that upset a six-term incumbent who was a Bush apologist and servant of special interests. John Hall is a rock musician (founder of the band Orleans) and longtime environmental activist who lives in New York's Hudson Valley. In 2004 the Bushites lifted one of his tunes, "Still the One," as their presidential campaign song, not bothering to get permission. Hall protested their thievery and forced them to stop. This year -- with the enthusiastic backing of labor, environmental, and antiwar groups -- John lifted the Republican incumbent from Congress.

Jerry McNerney is a California alternative-energy entrepreneur, an engineer ... and now a giant killer. With strong grassroots support from environmentalists and other progressives, McNerney had a stunning victory over Richard Pombo, the arrogant, corporate-hugging, antigovernment absolutist who was chair of the natural resources committee.

Vigorous antiestablishment campaigns like these have brought renewed progressive strength to Washington. More importantly, though, this year's campaigns have greatly strengthened our grassroots power, even in areas where our candidates didn't make it. We've added more and better-trained campaign activists, gained experience, spread the populist message where it has long been unheard, attracted new voters (including many who had dropped out or had considered themselves conservative), and created frameworks to sustain a continuing movement.

Seizing the initiative


While this was a "throw the bums out" year, it was just as clearly a "change America's direction" year, with the majority finally rising up to throw off the rightwing plutocracy, autocracy, theocracy, and kleptocracy that Bush & Company have hung around America's neck.

One sign of this fed-up sentiment was the total repudiation of a bit of corporate-backed ugliness called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Known as TABOR, it's more like a Bill of Wrongs, for it's essentially another ploy by the antitax, hate-government elites to defund even essential public services from education to public safety. It's the creature of the ultranutty Grover Norquist and receives its main financing from a multimillionaire New York developer named (you won't believe this!) Howie Rich.

TABOR was put forth as ballot initiatives in nine states this year, but six states stripped it from their ballots because of fraud and assorted wrongdoings by the initiative's pusher.Then, by convincing margins, the voters of Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon said no to TABOR's ideological malevolence.

Meanwhile, there was widespread positive news on the initiative front. The most resounding victories came in all six states which had initiatives to increase the minimum wage. Voters said "yes" in Arizona (66 percent approval), Colorado (53 percent), Missouri (76 percent), Montana (73 percent), Nevada (69 percent), and Ohio (56 percent). In all the states but Nevada, the initiatives also required that the minimum wage be adjusted annually for inflation. Voters in Arizona and Nebraska (supposedly antitax, bright-red states) approved initiatives to increase funding for early childhood education. Washington State voted to require that big utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Oregon expanded access to a prescriptiondrug program for the uninsured, and Missouri okayed funding for stemcell research.

Secretaries of state


Amazingly, America still can't seem to get this democracy thing down. People are actively discouraged from voting, and votes aren't counted as the voter intended. There were no total meltdowns this year (à la Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004), but serious problems persisted. Outrageous electronic voting "glitches," disgraceful voter intimidation and suppression, and crass purges of voter rolls continue to be a plague on our country's democratic pretensions.

Some of the problems turned comical. In Ohio, Republican Congress critter Steve Chabot was turned away from voting because the address on his ID differed from the one on his registration card; the top election official in Missouri was asked three times to show a photo ID in order to vote, even though state law does not require one; and Gov. Mark Sanford was sent away from his South Carolina polling place because he showed up without his registration card.

Then there's the ghost of Katherine Harris. As Florida's secretary of state in 2000, she infamously rigged the vote count for George W. She then went to Congress, and this year she ran for (and lost) a U.S. Senate seat. But her bad mojo reached out and touched the election to replace her in the House. Touch-screen voting machines which she had championed as secretary of state appear to have malfunctioned on November 7 in her old congressional district, erasing the votes of some 18,000 people. Only 373 votes separated the two candidates, so a recount is underway. However, since there's no paper trail to these machines, it'll be hard to prove that all those people didn't just fail to vote in this particular race. This sort of ridiculous stuff is why the little-known office of the secretary of state is key to getting a grip on our democracy -- and why progressives ran for these offices in seven states this fall, winning in Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio. In Minnesota, my old friend Mark Ritchie ousted an eight-year incumbent who had turned the office into an electioneering wing of the Republican party. Crisscrossing the state, Mark tapped into a deep well of anger about the lack of fairness and integrity in the voting system and will now do the work needed to restore people's faith.

What now?


On the plus side, some good people are going to be in positions to do good things in Congress. Speaker-tobe Nancy Pelosi has come out with a "First Hundred Hours" agenda that ranges from passing a new minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to breaking the corruption ties between lobbyists and legislation. And nearly everyone except "Slow Joe" Lieberman seems to realize that Bush's war is wrong and we must get out of it--pronto.

Also, there are some promising changes in who runs Congress's committees, such as John Conyers (Judiciary), David Obey (Appropriations), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), Henry Waxman (Government Reform), Nydia Velázquez (Small Business), Bennie Thompson (Homeland Security), Bob Filner (Veterans' Affairs), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).

On the down side, there are still too many go-slow, don't-rock-theboat, weak-kneed, money-grubbing, corporatized Democrats who won't break their habits of bedding down with the lobbyists and even the Bushites. They will push hard from inside the Democratic Caucus (while the White House, the money interests and the establishment media pushes from outside) for the majority to "be nice," move to the corporate right, and agree from the start to surrender half of what they want (and then compromise down from there).

Now is the time for progressives to be more vigilant than ever -- focus on what the Democrats are doing and not doing, make loud and clear demands that they do more, and keep organizing at the grassroots level. Just a few months ago, George W. declared, "I'm the decider." No, he's not. Neither are the Democrats. You are.

From "The Hightower Lowdown," edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, December 2006. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."



Comment on this Article


From Foley to Frey: The Year in U.S. Scandals

By Martha Rosenberg
AlterNet
December 28, 2006

One Congressman drives to Capitol Hill for a vote at 2:45AM and crashes his car.

Another sends sexually explicit emails to congressional pages.

The senior pastor of a 14,000 member church and president of the National Association of Evangelicals is fired for a relationship with a drug dealing male prostitute.

The nation's leading radio talk show host is detained at customs for mislabeled Viagra on the heels of other drug troubles.

And of course there was Mel.

Clearly 2006 was a year of bad behavior in high places. Bad behavior, that is, of evil twins -- since none of the accused took responsibility.
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy's evil twin took Ambien, a sleeping pill, and a nausea pill before driving to Capitol Hill in a blackout in the middle of the night "for a vote" in May and crashing his Ford Mustang.

"I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police or being cited for three driving infractions," said the Rhode Island Democrat though he did remember, "I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident." Whew!

Ambien, it turns out, also had an evil twin that made people sleep walk, sleep drive, sleep eat and apparently sleep vote with no recall and Sanofi-Aventis was forced to run ads reminding people to only take it if they were going to bed and staying there. (Or you'll break out in handcuffs, as the joke goes.)

Disgraced former Florida congressman Mark Foley -- the only Republican to get a mandate after the last election quipped Leno -- wasted no time in blaming his salacious emails to underage pages on an evil twin who was an alcoholic and abused by a priest.

And the accused priest, Rev. Anthony Mercieca, wasted no time in blaming his evil twin for the alleged abuse. "I had a nervous breakdown and was taking some pills and alcohol and maybe I did something that he didn't like."

Even convicted Enron financial officer Andrew Fastow had an evil twin who was hooked on tranquilizers to "cope with the implosion of his company, the imprisonment of his wife and his prosecution," reported the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. And come up with names like Raptors and Chewco you can't help but wonder?

The former Rev.Ted Haggard did not blame an evil gay twin for the services and drugs he admits buying from massage therapist Mike Jones. That's because he was already blaming gay people for unwholesome lifestyles before he got caught.

Nor did talk show giant Rush Limbaugh blame his evil twin who abused pain pills and went to rehab in 2003 for his Viagra airport contretemps on his way back from the Dominican Republic. No, he said his luggage must have been switched with Bob Dole. (see: Dying is easy; comedy is hard.)

Of course the 2006 Hall of Shamers benefit from the Oprah dividend -- the public's desire to seek reasons to reprieve bad behavior.

You may have been able to preach, appraise legislation, invent off the book partnerships or address a radio audience, goes the logic, but you weren't really responsible because of addiction and/or childhood abuse.

And while the forgiven get another chance by this reasoning and forgivers get to think they're Oliver Wendell Holmes, no one brings up the fact that almost everyone behind bars suffered childhood abuse and substance addiction. That's practically the definition of a criminal.

Even Richard Speck was in a drug and alcohol blackout when he killed eight nurses and when told, allegedly said, "If you say I did it, I did it."

Still, as 2006 ends, it seems like everyone is blaming an evil twin for bad behavior. Everyone, that is, except factually challenged author of "A Million Little Pieces" James Frey who is looking for some actual bad behavior to blame.



Comment on this Article


Washington gets ready to gossip as DC sex blog goes to court

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian


The Washington Post described Jessica Cutler as "our blog slut". The National Enquirer opined that she was "beautiful, untalented and morally corrupted".

Now the blogger who wrote about her attempts to juggle affairs with six men while keeping a job as an aide to a senator has a new role: as the star defendant in a case that could help define what can and cannot be published in a blog.

Writing under the pseudonym Washingtonienne, Cutler described in detail the sexual intricacies of her life on the Hill. The blog, which Cutler claimed was intended to keep her friends up to date on her social life in Washington DC, achieved notoriety, and its author fame and a book contract, after it was brought to a wider public by another blog, Wonkette.
Almost immediately, Washingtonienne shut down, but not before millions had read about "X = Married man who pays me for sex", "K = A sugar daddy" and "YZ = The current favourite". But YZ - aka Robert Steinbuch, a legal counsel working for the same senator - objected to the revelations about his private life.

While Cutler lost her job with Republican senator Mike DeWine, Mr Steinbuch moved to a teaching post in Arkansas and filed a lawsuit alleging invasion of privacy and seeking $20m (£10.1m) in damages.

The case dating from the 2004 blog is expected to go to trial soon. In establishing whether people who keep online journals are obliged to respect the privacy of those they interact with offline, the case could have a profound effect on the content of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

"Anybody who wants to reveal their own private life has a right to do that," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre. "It's a different question when you reveal someone else's private life."

Mr Steinbuch's attorney, Jonathan Rosen, told a judge in a pre-trial hearing that his client, who teaches in Arkansas, wants to restore his good name. "It's not funny and it's damaging," Mr Rosen said. "It's horrible, absolutely horrible."

Cutler's attorney, Matthew Billips, had a different view: "I have no idea what he wants," he said. "He's never said, 'This is what I think should be done.'"

The judge, too, seemed bemused by the case. "I don't know why we're here in federal court to begin with," Judge Paul Friedman told attorneys in April. "I don't know why this guy thought it was smart to file a lawsuit and lay out all of his private, intimate details."

While legal scholars relish the setting of case law, Washington's gossip community is looking forward to hearing all the lurid details of the spanking, handcuffs and lunch-hour prostitution that made Washingtonienne a hit first time round.



Comment on this Article


Iraqi Freedom


What has long been a catastrophic tragedy is also now a horrific farce

Roy Hattersley
Wednesday December 27, 2006
The Guardian

Iraq - which for years has been an unmitigated tragedy - has turned into Grand Guignol, and, true to the traditions of that genre, horror and farce combine in equal measure. No doubt we should rejoice that al-Jamiat police station in Basra has been destroyed and its prisoners taken to the relative security of a compound in which detainees are hopefully not routinely tortured. But if a sick satire on an obscure television channel included a sketch about British troops attacking a unit of the police that they established and with whom they had been theoretically working for nearly four years, the outcry would not have been limited to complaints about undermining the morale of our troops under fire. We would have been told that the whole idea was too fantastical to sustain the lampoon.
But that is what really happened on Monday, and although the sound of the exploding bar-mines should presumably be music to the ears of everyone who supports the rule of law, a number of important questions lie unanswered in the rubble of what was, until Christmas morning, the headquarters of the Basra serious crimes unit. A witty military press officer suggested that the name related to what the 400 associated police officers did rather than what they prevented. But he did not make clear how long the British authorities have known that, among their regular activities, they crushed prisoners' hands and feet, electrocuted them and burned them with cigarettes. You will recall that one of the reasons given to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the obligation to save the people from that sort of atrocity. It now appears that, at least in al-Jamiat police station, the arrival of what is bravely described as democracy has not made much difference.

According to the official statement, the army had "clear directions" from Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, and Muhammad al-Waeli, Basra's governor, to "dissolve the unit". That, at least, is a relief. But what about General Muhammad al-Musawi, Basra's chief of police? He was reported to be "furious" at what he described as "an attempt to stir up trouble". Are we to continue working with this man? If he knew what was going on at al-Jamiat police station, he is too corrupt to head the Basra police force. If he did not know, he is too incompetent to hold down the job any longer. His importance lies in his status as physical embodiment of all that is wrong with the Iraq occupation. The place is unmanageable in part because nobody can be sure who is on whose side. The confusion of loyalties highlights the cause of the continuing horror. Most Iraqis did not want US and British troops there in the first place. Many of those who did changed their minds when they discovered that the number of murders had gone drastically up and the supply of water and electricity down since the liberators arrived.

The nature of the dilemma - faced by the coalition because of the boneheaded stupidity of the Washington neocons who dreamed up the invasion - is made clear by the proud boast that Basra's governor is on the side of the occupying coalition. Six months ago he supported the serious crimes unit at al-Jamiat, but Iraq is a nation of shifting alliances and the governor (a member of the Fadhila party) has been persuaded to change his ways by the Shia-led national government. I do not suggest that he will necessarily change back again halfway through 2007, but no one can have any doubt that the crosscurrents of inter-communal and religious disputes will continue to make the behaviour of Iraqi politicians unpredictable. It is all a very long way from the anticipated scenario of streets lined with grateful Iraqis waving stars and stripes and brandishing pictures of President Bush. Nor do pointless barbarities such as the planned execution of Saddam Hussein have any prospect of winning the occupation the popularity that has always eluded it.

Yet only last week one of those Washington free-enterprise "thinktanks" - which usually spend their time explaining that global warming is a myth and that widening the disparities of wealth is the best way to help the poor - suggested that America could solve the Iraq crisis by sending in another 200,000 troops. Putting aside the logistical problems that such a deployment would involve, one thing has to be said in favour of the strategy. All pretence at liberation has finally been abandoned. The sort of people who guided the coalition into the quagmire have decided that the only way to get out is to impose the will of the western powers by force on a reluctant - or downright hostile - people.

Of course, the new plan has no better prospects of success than the old. Everything that happens in Iraq confirms that we should not have gone there in the first place. That message was underlined by the unfortunate press officer who explained - or tried to justify - the delay in ending the torture and organisation of terror groups and assassination squads that was common practice at al-Jamiat police station. "First", he said, "we had to be sure of the police."

Nearly four years after US-led forces invaded and President Bush declared victory, the British headquarters in Basra could still not be sure where the police's loyalty lay. And General Ali Ibrahim, an Iraq army commander in the area, denounced the decision to clear out the serious crimes unit as illegal. Do we still believe that an orderly transition of power to a genuinely democratic Iraq is possible within the foreseeable future? The gloomy answer to that question is why, although the demolition of al-Jamiat police station is, in itself, a matter of rejoicing, the news also increases the general despair we should all feel about the catastrophe of Iraq. Thanks to George Bush and Tony Blair we are actors in a tragedy that seems to have no foreseeable conclusion. To pull out is to leave the people to the mercies of a hundred other serious crimes units. To remain is to intensify the hatred and bitterness of much of the law-abiding population. The worst diplomatic blunder since Suez? By comparison, Suez had a happy ending.



Comment on this Article


American Deaths In Iraq Surpass American Deaths On 9-11 and President Bush Wants To Escalate Again

by Brent Budowsky
December 26, 2006

The decision by President Bush to launch a preemptive invasion of Iraq was the biggest military misjudgment in the history of the American Presidency.

The decision by President Bush to show contempt for his commanders in not using enough troops was the single most catastrophic military decision by any commander in chief in the history of the Republic.

The decision by President Bush to not supply our troops with adequate body armor, protected vehicles, bandages and helmets and other essential equipment led to more preventable casualties among our troops than any other President in the history of the Republic.
The decision by President Bush to justify the use of torture and try to cover it up, was the single most morally mistaken action by any leader of the free world.

The decision by President Bush to put partisan Republican operatives in key positions of the Iraq Reconstruction was the most incompetent action in the history of the American programs.

The decision by President Bush to allow more than $10 billion of Iraq Reconstruction money to be stolen, lost, robbed, and wasted made this financially the single most corrupted program in the history of American Presidents.

The decision by President Bush to surround this war with unprecedented claims of unilateral presidential power to overrule or ignore laws, statutes, provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was the single worst abuse of the idea of faithfully executing the law in the history of the American presidency.

The decisions by President Bush from the beginning of this war to this day, have done more preventable damage to the structure, readiness, deterrence and stability of the American military than any previous president in American history.

The decision of President Bush to treat Congress as a virtual vassal and not a co-equal branch of government in the conduct of this war was one of the most constitutionally disastrous decisions in the history of wartime Presidents.

The decision of President Bush to use this war as a partisan political attack strategy did more damage than every other American president combined in corrupting both the integrity of our democratic process, and the national unity, that previous presidents have sought to maintain, and this President deliberately sought to destroy.

He calls himself the Decider, as though he sits on a regal perch, above the rest of our people, our laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our allies, our Congress, our Courts and our commanders who he has disrespected more than any previous President in the history of the presidency.

He organizes his Party to attack war heroes because they warned against his policies, to demean generals because they warned against his war plan, to attack our NATO allies who were demeaned as Old Europe, even to blame the American people suggesting we are traumatized by the result of his catastrophe.

The President's decision to be the only American President since 1948 not to lead a genuine search for Middle East peace was catastrophic and allowed the Iraq conflagration to spread further and further across the entire region.

Middle East peace is a hard mission, but the decision of President Bush to refuse to even make the effort, has allowed the arc of chaos and death to widen without any American effort to appeal to the aspirations of the generation of young people in the Middle East and around the world.

The contempt for different opinion, the torture policies that led to Abu Ghraib and detention policies that led to Guantanamo, the arrogance of power and ignorance of foreign culture, the corruption of Reconstruction, the defamation of political opponents, the monarchical claim of unilateral power, these wrongs and more have led to the creation of more terrorists, more insurgents, more antagonism towards America than any other President in our history.

And now the President, having looked at the landscape of this disaster, has decided: keep doing the same things, only do more of them, and escalate. In his world our allies are wrong; our people are wrong; our Joints Chiefs of Staff are wrong; our elections were wrong; the Baker Hamilton bipartisan group was wrong; everyone is wrong except those who have been so wrong for four deadly years of this war.

It is imperative for the Democratic Congress to remember that the voters voted for wholesale change in our policy towards Iraq; they did not vote to escalate this war and repeat these mistakes.

It is imperative for Democratic candidates for President and leaders in Congress to emerge who will return American to our traditional role of leadership and renew the hard search for a broader peace in the Middle East. Why not begin today by calling on former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton to spearhead a truly American seach for Middle East peace?

It is imperative to know how deadly things have gone wrong, and how urgently we must change to set things right.

More Americans have now died in Iraq, than on 9-11.

This is not a policy we want to double up.

This is a policy we want to end.



Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil

Ed Vuillamy in Washington
Sunday April 20, 2003
The Observer

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.

It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001.
Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast.

The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz .

The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

'The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project - albeit with a lot of building to do.'

The editor-in-chief of the Middle East Economic Review , Walid Khadduri, says in the current issue of Jane's Foreign Report that 'there's not a metre of it left, at least in Arab territory'.

To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed - according to Western diplomatic sources - with the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker favoured by the Pentagon for a powerful role in the war's aftermath.

Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be 'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel.

The pipeline would also require permission from Jordan. Paritzky's Ministry is believed to have approached officials in Amman on 9 April this year. Sources told Ha'aretz that the talks left Israel 'optimistic'.

James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and one of America's leading Arabists, said: 'There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for Israel from those using what would be the Haifa terminal.

'After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.'

Akins was ambassador to Saudi Arabia before he was fired after a series of conflicts with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, father of the vision to pipe oil west from Iraq. In 1975, Kissinger signed what forms the basis for the Haifa project: a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the US would guarantee Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis.

Kissinger was also master of the American plan in the mid-Eighties - when Saddam Hussein was a key US ally - to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba in Jordan, opposite the Israeli port of Eilat.

The plan was promoted by the now Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the pipeline was to be built by the Bechtel company, which the Bush administration last week awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years, with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion (£1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers.

This bill would be slashed by a new pipeline, which would have the added advantage of giving the US reliable access to Gulf oil other than from Saudi Arabia.



Comment on this Article


Biden vows to fight any Iraq troop boost

By Anne Flaherty
Associated Press
December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

Biden also announced he has summoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before his committee next month to discuss the administration's new plan for Iraq as soon as it is made public.

The Delaware Democrat took advantage of a quiet holiday week to draw attention to his own proposal for Iraq, which includes beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces and finding a political settlement among the various ethnic factions there.
Biden has spoken candidly of his desire to run for president and has made repeated visits in the past year to early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. But he is trying to find room on a crowded stage of Democratic contenders that includes Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Biden warned that congressional Republicans - not Democrats - would suffer in the 2008 elections if they do not join him in speaking out against Bush and opposing troop increases in Iraq.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position,'' he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.

If the violence continues two years from now, "every one of those Republican senators - and there's 21 of them up for re- election - knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom,'' Biden said.

Bush has not announced whether he plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq, but administration officials say that option is among several being considered. Also, Bush last week said he wants to expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the strain on ground forces.

The move was seen by many military experts as laying the groundwork to announce early next month a planned surge in forces in Iraq.

Military experts and some ground commanders are skeptical that a surge in ground forces could work to settle the violence in Iraq. Those concerns were expressed in a new bipartisan report on Iraq.

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation,'' the Iraq Study Group concluded.

But others, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., - another possible presidential contender - and experts at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, say a surge in forces could hold off the insurgency long enough to build up the Iraqi security forces and form a political settlement.

Biden, who will head the Foreign Relations Committee when Democrats take control of Congress next month, said he wants to hear from Rice on Jan. 9. The senator said she has agreed to testify, but only after Bush announces his plan on Iraq.

The president is expected to deliver a speech on Iraq sometime before his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.

Biden said he hopes the hearings will generate bipartisan consensus in Congress that will pressure the president to abandon talk of increasing troop levels in Iraq. There are currently an estimated 140,000 troops in the country.

"Even with the surge of troops, in a city of 6 million people you're talking about a ratio that would still be roughly above one to 100,'' Biden said of Baghdad. "It's bound to draw down support that we need in other parts of Iraq, including Anbar province.''

Biden also said he believes Democrats' political vulnerability on Iraq is limited.

"I think we'll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent,'' he said.

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: "Mr. President, this is your war.''



Comment on this Article


U.S. soldiers' death toll climbs in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER
Associated Press
26 Dec 06

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A string of car bombs and other blasts killed at least 54 Iraqis on Tuesday, including 17 outside Baghdad's most venerated Sunni mosque, while U.S. troops battled Shiite militiamen in Baghdad.

Seven more American soldiers died, the U.S. military said, pushing the December death toll to 90 in one of the bloodiest months for the American troops in
Iraq this year. Some 105 troops were killed in October.

President Bush is weighing whether to send thousands more troops to Iraq, but a senior Democratic senator, Joseph Biden, said Tuesday he would fight such a move.
In the most lethal incident Tuesday, three parked cars exploded one after another in western Baghdad, police and Iraqi media reported. The blasts killed 25 people and wounded 55, one physician said by telephone, as he watched the victims being carried into Yarmouk hospital.

The doctor, who has provided information in the past, spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.

Perhaps the most politically significant attack came in Azamiyah, a Sunni enclave of Iraq's capital, where a car bomb exploded near the Abu Hanifa mosque, according to Iraqi media.

That blast killed 17 and wounded 35, said a physician at the nearby Nuaman Hospital, who has provided information to the Associated Press in the past. He also asked to remain anonymous out of concern for his safety.

The explosion tore through a busy square at the start of the evening rush hour, when merchants were selling clothing and kebabs. The mosque itself was not damaged, witnesses said.

The mosque is Sunni Islam's holiest shrine in Baghdad, and a regular target of Shiite mortar teams. One person was killed in shelling there last month.

Abu Hanifa, who lived in the 8th century, was one of Islam's most important scholars and founded the Hanafi school of Islamic law, embraced by many Muslim cultures.

The mosque has long been associated with Sunni activism. U.S. Marines fought a fierce battle there on April 10, 2003, the day after the iconic
Saddam Hussein statue fell in central Baghdad. Saddam and one of his sons were believed to be hiding nearby.

U.S. troops, meanwhile, exchanged fire with Shiite militiamen in east Baghdad, near Sadr City, the stronghold of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

An AP reporter embedded with the soldiers watched the Americans set up roadblocks, occupy homes and engage in gun battles with militia fighters across the border of Sadr City.

U.S. troops crouched on rooftops, hiding behind laundry hanging on a clothesline. Bursts of gunfire ricocheted off rudimentary cement houses.

The gunbattles waned as darkness fell. At least six mortars fell on a U.S. military base nearby, but caused no injuries.

Sadr City is believed to be the chief base of operations for al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army.

Pressured by Iraqi politicians in late October, American soldiers dismantled barbed-wire barricades that controlled traffic in and out of the area. Since then they have rarely ventured into the district.

The latest U.S. deaths brought the number of members of the U.S. military killed since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 to at least 2,978 - five more than the number killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Bush has said the Iraq war is part of the United States' post-Sept. 11 approach to threats abroad. Going on the offense against enemies before they could harm Americans meant removing the Taliban from power in
Afghanistan, pursuing members of al-Qaida and seeking Saddam's ouster in Iraq, Bush has said.

There has been no direct evidence of links between Saddam's regime and the Sept. 11 attacks. Democratic leaders have said the Bush administration has gotten the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, detracting from efforts against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

The AP count of members of the U.S. military killed in Iraq includes at least seven military civilians. Prior to the deaths announced Tuesday, the AP count was 15 higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday.

At least 2,377 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

Stanzel, the White House spokesman, said Bush grieves for each member of the armed forces who has died. "We will be fighting violent jihadists for the peace and security of the civilized world for many years to come," he said.

While officials say Bush is considering all options in his hunt for a new strategy, the U.S. president is thought to favor a surge of up to 30,000 more American troops .

Biden, the incoming chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday called that option "the absolute wrong strategy," especially when it came to stabilizing Baghdad.

"Even with the surge of troops, in a city of 6 million people you're talking about a ratio that would still be roughly above one to 100," Biden said.

In another Baghdad attack Tuesday, a bomb hidden in a CD player exploded in a busy market district after a man dropped it off at an electronics repair shop. The bomb killed five people and wounded 14 others, police said.

In Kirkuk, 180 miles north of the Iraqi capital, a roadside bomb killed three civilians - including an 8-year-old girl - and wounded six others, police said.

Police found 49 bodies bearing signs of torture dumped across the country, mostly in Baghdad.

Elsewhere, Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit said Tuesday that a former Iraqi Cabinet minister who escaped from a Baghdad prison this month had arrived in Jordan on a U.S. plane.

Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.

Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie's escape "in any way."



Comment on this Article


Reservist Due for Iraq Is Killed in Standoff With Police

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post
December 27, 2006

Army Reservist James E. Dean had already served 18 months in Afghanistan when he was notified three weeks ago that he would be deployed to Iraq later this month. The prospect of returning to war sent the St. Mary's County resident into a spiral of depression, a neighbor said.

Despondent about his orders, Dean barricaded himself inside his father's home with several weapons on Christmas, threatening to kill himself. After a 14-hour standoff with authorities, Dean was killed yesterday by a police officer after he aimed a gun at another officer, police said.
Wanda Matthews, who lives next door to Dean's father and said she thought of the younger man as a son, described him as a "very good boy."

"His dad told me that he didn't want to go to war," Matthews said. "He had already been out there and didn't want to go again."

Dean, 29, was shot once after a confrontation with officers that began when a member of Dean's family asked police to check on him about 10 p.m. Monday, police said. Dean stated his intention to kill himself several times late that night and yesterday morning and had fired at officers multiple times, St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron said. A handful of bullets hit police cars, but no officers were injured.

Cameron said special law enforcement units spent the night trying to negotiate with Dean to come out of the house.

"He was asked to come out and refused repeatedly," Cameron said. "We threw a phone in the window and he threw it back out."

About noon, tactical teams from the Maryland State Police and St. Mary's, Calvert and Charles county sheriffs' offices began pumping tear gas into the home to force Dean out, Cameron said.

Police said Dean stepped outside his front door and pointed a firearm at an officer. Another officer on the scene, believing his colleague was in danger, shot Dean in the chest, they said.

Cameron did not reveal the department affiliation of the officer who shot Dean. The St. Mary's County Bureau of Criminal Investigations, which comprises officers from the sheriff's office and state police, will investigate the shooting, he said.

Dean's father, Joseph L. Dean Jr., was not home during the standoff, authorities said, and his phone number had been disconnected yesterday afternoon. Neighbors were evacuated from the surrounding homes when police responded to the scene.

Matthews said Dean enjoyed hunting and fishing but had lost much of his enthusiasm for life when he found out that he was being deployed to Iraq. She said that she had not spoken to him since he was notified but that his father was extremely worried about Dean. "He was a good country boy," she said.



Comment on this Article


Stealing You Blind


Euro notes cash in to overtake dollar

By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt
Financial Times
December 27 2006

The US dollar bill's standing as the world's favourite form of cash is being usurped by the five-year-old euro.

The value of euro notes in circulation is this month likely to exceed the value of circulating dollar notes, according to calculations by the Financial Times. Converted at Wednesday's exchange rates, the euro took the lead in October.
The figures highlight the remarkable growth in euro notes since their launch on January 1 2002, three years after the start of Europe's monetary union, which in January welcomes its 13th member - Slovenia, the former Yugoslav republic.

"After the launch, we expected growth to stabilise - but it has continued over five years," Antti Heinonen, head of the European Central Bank's bank notes directorate, told the Financial Times.

Although the ECB does not deliberately promote the international use of the euro, it has become popular in official foreign exchange reserves - even if it is far from challenging the dollar's lead as the most popular reserve currency.

News that euro notes are challenging the dollar may cheer eurozone politicians - even if it partly reflects the currency's strength - but it may have a dark side too. Fast growth in the highest denomination notes, especially the €500 note, has raised suspicions that they are popular among criminals, although the ECB plays down this factor.

By the end of October the $759bn-worth of US dollar notes in circulation was only a fraction ahead of the value of euro notes, converted at exchange rates at that time.

But since October the euro has risen strongly against the dollar and this month the value of euro notes has risen to more than €610bn, or in excess of $800bn at the latest exchange rates. That level is unlikely to have been beaten by the greenback.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006



Comment on this Article


A coming of age for the European currency

By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt
Financial Times
December 27 2006

On January 1, 2007, Europe celebrates the fifth anniversary of the launch of euro notes and coins by welcoming a thirteenth member of the eurozone - Slovenia, the tiny former Yugoslav republic. But the eurozone's geographical expansion is modest in comparison with the rapid growth in euro notes in circulation within the region and beyond.

Earlier this month, the value of euro notes pushed through the €600bn (£402bn; $787bn) level - roughly double the value of the then-national currencies in circulation at the end of 2001. The signs are that in December the currency came of age by overtaking the US dollar in terms of the value of notes in circulation. The figures used for the comparison by the Financial Times include notes held in the vaults of commercial banks but exclude reserves of notes held by central banks.
Slovenia's small size - its population is just 2m - means that the impact of its entry will be hard to separate from the usual spike in demand for cash around Christmas and New Year, according to Antti Heinonen, head of the European central bank's bank notes directorate. So what has driven rapid growth in euro notes?

After the 2002 launch, the rate of increase slowed, but has remained at or above 10 per cent a year. The exact reasons are unclear; even central banks do not know where their notes are or for what purposes they are used.

Mr Heinonen suggests several explanations. Within the eurozone, citizens may still be adjusting to the new currency. In terms of population, the eurozone, with 315m inhabitants, is larger than the US. Low interest and inflation rates have "reduced the opportunity cost of holding cash, rather than putting your money in a bank account", he says.

Eurozone citizens anyway like to hoard some cash, perhaps more than their US counterparts, especially if they have difficulty getting to an automated cash dispenser. Electronic payment systems remain far from universal.

Robust eurozone growth, which has matched that in the US in recent quarters, could have added to demand.

Other clues come from the popularity of different euro notes. In volume terms, €500 notes have seen the fastest growth; their number in circulation was rising at an annual rate of almost 14 per cent in November. The volume of low-denomination dollar notes means that in terms of individual notes in circulation, the dollar leads the euro, and the dollar has retained its title as "cash most used outside of its borders", says Mr Heinonen.

The popularity of high-value euro notes might result from their use by criminals, although the ECB does not put too much weight on such factors. "Clearly cash is used by criminals because it is an anonymous instrument," adds Mr Heinonen. "But to say that it would be more difficult to commit a crime if we didn't have high denomination notes would be to confuse cause and effect. If we didn't have the higher denominations, criminals would use the lower denominations - or other global currencies, such as the US dollar or Swiss franc."

The overseas demand for euro notes is clearer to see. Tourists travelling outside the eurozone are likely to have taken euro notes with them and not brought so many back. The notes have also become popular in European Union member states that hope to one day to join the eurozone. Kosovo and Montenegro have adopted the euro as their national currency, even though they are not yet EU members. In countries such as Russia and beyond, euros have gained acceptance.

And at least when it comes to overseas use, the ECB has some indications about the scale of demand. Using statistics on the net the value of euros shipped by financial institutions, the ECB estimates that the stock held outside the eurozone must be worth at least €55bn, and that is almost certainly too low an estimate given the net outflow accounted for by tourists.

The ECB estimates that between 10 and 20 per cent of the €600bn euro notes in circulation are held outside the eurozone.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006



Comment on this Article


Dollar hit by news of central bank selling

AFP
27 Dec 06

The dollar fell amid news that the United Arab Emirates was diversifying its reserves, but recovered somewhat after better-than-expected data on the US housing market.

At 2200 GMT, the euro fetched 1.3116 dollars, from 1.3097 dollars late Tuesday in New York.

The dollar fell to 118.83 yen from 119.12 yen late Tuesday.

Patrick Fearon at AG Edwards said the greenback was hurt by a report that the UAE plans to convert eight percent of its foreign-exchange reserves from dollars to euros by late 2007.
While the UAE's foreign-exchange reserves are relatively small at 24.9 billion dollars, "the statement follows a report late last week that Venezuelan energy minister Rafael Ramirez expressed interest in demanding euros instead of dollars for more of Venezuela's exported petroleum," he said.

"The statements are apparently reviving fears that the dollar is losing its appeal as an international currency."

The greenback pared its losses after official data showed that sales of new US homes rose 3.4 percent in November from October, while the backlog of unsold homes fell for a fourth straight month.

The figures raised hopes that a recent slump in the US housing market could be coming to an end, and might dissuade the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates.

Kathy Lien at Forex Capital Management said the report on new home sales was positive for the dollar but that the market will pay close attention to Thursday's report on the much bigger market of existing home sales.

"However, with mortgage applications dropping to a five-month low last week and existing home sales being more of a lagging indicator, we remain skeptical of (the dollar's) potential strength," she said.

An analyst at Capital Spreads, Simon Denham, said that major currencies had fluctuated within narrow bands since early December and this was not about to change coming up to the end of year.

"We are still in the trading range of the last week or so, and although the dollar is slightly weaker this morning, we have in reality been drifting from the peaks seen in early December, when the death of the greenback was headline material," he said.

The yen stayed under pressure on Wednesday after comments from the Bank of Japan suggested inflation was not currently high enough to warrant a hike in interest rates in the short term.

In late New York trade, the dollar stood at 1.2258 Swiss francs from 1.2231 Tuesday.

The pound was being traded at 1.9562 dollars after 1.9536 late Tuesday.



Comment on this Article


Dollar Slides; U.A.E. Says Selling U.S. Currency, Buying Euros

By Kabir Chibber
Bloomberg
27 Dec 06

The dollar dropped the most in a week against the euro as the United Arab Emirates said it will convert some of its reserves of U.S. assets into the European currency.

The dollar also had its biggest decline versus the yen this month before a U.S. report that may show consumer confidence fell for a third straight month, fueling bets the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates next year. The U.S. currency has slipped 9.9 percent versus the euro this year, its first slide since 2004.

"The U.A.E.'s decision to relocate its reserves is part of a theme that means that U.S. dollar holdings in global currency reserves are decreasing,'' said Hans Guenter Redeker, head of currency strategy in London at BNP Paribas SA. "The dollar is going to lose support as we see Fed rate cuts next year.''
The dollar fell to 118.63 yen at 7:17 a.m. in New York, from 119.15 late yesterday. The currency slid to $1.3158 versus the euro, from $1.3098. The euro traded at 156.09 yen, from 156.04, after touching a record 156.43 on Dec. 21. The dollar has risen 0.8 percent against the Japanese currency this year.

The U.A.E. will switch 8 percent of its reserves from dollars into euros before September, Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said in a Dec. 24 interview in Abu Dhabi. The U.A.E. has started "in a limited way'' to sell its dollar reserves, he said.

The Gulf state is among oil exporters including Iran, Venezuela and Indonesia that are looking to shift their currency reserves into euros or price their oil products in the 12-nation currency.

U.S. Slowdown

The U.S. Conference Board's index of sentiment due tomorrow will probably drop to 102 this month from 102.9 in November, according to the median forecast of 48 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. MasterCard Advisors also said holiday retail sales this year grew at a slower pace this year than in 2005.

"The data are likely to add to an economic slowdown scenario that may prompt a rate cut in the first quarter,'' said Masashi Kurabe, a currency manager in Tokyo at Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., a unit of Japan's largest lender by assets. "The bias is to sell the dollar.''

The Fed has left borrowing costs at 5.25 percent for the past four policy meetings, after a two-year cycle of rate increases. The European Central Bank has raised rates six times in a year, to 3.5 percent. The Bank of Japan lifted its benchmark in July for the first time in almost six years, to 0.25 percent.

Interest-rate futures show traders see a 28 percent chance the Fed will lower its overnight target lending rate between banks by a quarter point to 5 percent in March, up from a 17 percent likelihood a week ago.

Japanese Rates

The yen's gains accelerated against the dollar after a Jiji Press report suggested the BOJ will push rates higher at its January meeting because of better-than-expected data yesterday.

Japan's government bonds fell the most in three weeks after the Jiji article. Reports yesterday showed an unexpected fall in the unemployment rate and a smaller-than-expected decline in household spending.

"The Jiji report is spurring yen buying,'' said Nobuo Ibaraki, deputy general manager of foreign exchange at Nomura Trust & Banking Co. Ltd., a unit of Japan's largest brokerage. "Expectations for an interest-rate hike had receded. So the Jiji report will have a big impact on the yen.'' Japan's currency may strengthen to 118 per dollar today, he said.

Jiji correctly predicted 10 days before the BOJ's meeting last week that policy makers would keep rates unchanged. The central bank will consider lifting the benchmark to 0.5 percent from 0.25 percent when it announces its next decision on Jan. 18, Jiji Press reported, citing unnamed sources.

Retail Sales

Governor Toshihiko Fukui told business leaders on Dec. 25 that the central bank will adjust policy if prices and the economy perform in line with forecasts.

Gains in the yen may be limited after a government report showed retail sales rose less than expected last month.

The currency is set for a second straight annual decline as interest rates in Japan, which are the lowest among major economies, prompt investors to seek higher returns offshore.

Traders have still cut bets that the Japanese central bank will raise borrowing costs in January. The household spending report showed an 11th month of declines and gains in consumer prices failed to beat forecasts.

"It's hard to find a reason to buy the yen,'' said Stephen Halmarick, co-head of economic and market analysis at Citigroup Australia in Sydney. "This is yet another set of disappointing numbers out of Japan.''

The dollar may extend declines after MasterCard Advisors said retail sales in the holiday season rose 3 percent, a slower pace than last year's 5.2 percent increase, as a cooling housing market and higher energy costs cut into spending.

The National Association of Manufacturers in the U.S. predicts slower economic growth will prompt the Fed to lower rates by a half-percentage point by the middle of 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday on its Web site, citing the Associated Press.

To contact the reporters on this story: Kabir Chibber in London at kchibber@bloomberg.net .



Comment on this Article


Abuse could push Katrina costs to $2 billion

MSNBC
25 Dec 06

WASHINGTON - The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded without little competition.

Federal investigators have already determined the Bush administration squandered $1 billion on fraudulent disaster aid to individuals after the 2005 storm. Now they are shifting their attention to the multimillion dollar contracts to politically connected firms that critics have long said are a prime area for abuse.
In January, investigators will release the first of several audits examining more than $12 billion in Katrina contracts (PDF). The charges range from political favoritism to limited opportunities for small and minority-owned firms, which initially got only 1.5 percent of the total work.

"Based on their track record, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw another billion more in waste," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general from 2003-2004. "I don't think sufficient progress has been made."

He called it inexcusable that the Bush administration would still have so many no-bid contracts. Under pressure last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency director David Paulison pledged to rebid many of the agreements, only to backtrack months later and reopen only a portion.

'Laziness, ineptitude ... nefarious'
Investigators are now examining whether some of the agreements - which in some cases were extended without warning rather than rebid - are still unfairly benefiting large firms.

"It's a combination of laziness, ineptitude and it may well be nefarious," Ervin said.

FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said the agency was working to fix its mistakes by awarding contracts for future disasters through competitive bidding. Paulison has said he welcomes additional oversight but cautioned against investigations that aren't based on "new evidence and allegations."

"As always, FEMA will work with Congress in all aspects to ensure that we are carrying out the agency's responsibilities," McIntyre said.

The Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane swept ashore in southern Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, leveling homes and businesses along the Gulf Coast. Its storm surge breached levees in New Orleans, unleashing a flood that left more than 1,300 people dead, hundreds of thousands homeless and tens of billions of dollars worth of damage.

A series of government investigations in the storm's wake faulted the Bush administration for underestimating the threat and failing to prepare by pre-negotiating contracts for basic supplies in what has become the nation's costliest disaster.

$1B estimate 'likely understated'
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office said its initial estimate of $1 billion in disaster aid waste was "likely understated," citing continuing problems in which FEMA doled out tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent housing assistance.

Democrats in Congress called for more accountability. When they take over in January, at least seven committees plan hearings or other oversight - from housing to disaster loans - on how the $88 billion approved for Katrina relief is being spent.

Among the current investigations:

* The propriety of four no-bid contracts together worth $400 million to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Group Inc., CH2M Hill Companies Ltd., and Fluor Corp. that were awarded without competition.

The contracts drew immediate criticism because of the companies' extensive political and government ties, prompting a promise last year from Paulison to rebid them. Instead, FEMA rebid only a portion and then extended their contracts once, if not twice - to $3.4 billion total - so the firms could finish their remaining Katrina work.

The four companies, which have denied that connections played a factor, were among six that also won new contracts after open bidding in August. The latest contracts are worth up to $250 million each for future disaster work.

* The propriety of 36 trailer contract awards designated for small and local businesses as part of Paulison's promise to rebid large contracts.

Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner is reviewing whether some small and local businesses were unfairly shut out in favor of winners such as joint venture PRI-DJI. DJI stands for Del-Jen Inc., a subsidiary of Fluor, which has donated more than $930,000 to mostly Republican candidates since 2000.

'It's who you know'
"It's not what you know, what your expertise is. I don't even believe it's got much to do with price. It's who you know," contends Ken Edmonds, owner of River Parish RV Inc. in Louisiana, a company of 9 people whose application was rejected.

PRI, a minority-owned firm based in San Diego, said it is the "majority partner" with Del-Jen as part of a federal mentoring program offered by the Small Business Administration. The joint venture received four Katrina contracts worth up to $100 million each based on price and "knowledge of work with the federal government," president Frank Loscavio said.

* Whether small and minority-owned businesses were unfairly hurt after the Bush administration initially waived competition requirements.

For many weeks after the storm, minority firms received 1.5 percent of the total work - less than one-third of the 5 percent normally required - because they weren't allowed to bid for many of the emergency contracts.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce called the figure appalling because of the disproportionate number of poor, black people in the stricken Gulf Coast, prompting Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., to request GAO to investigate.

FEMA has since restored many of its competition rules, and the number of contracts given to minority firms is now about 8.8 percent, according to the agency.
© 2006 The Associated Press.



Comment on this Article


Killing Their Own


Russia fingers Israeli fugitive in radiation poison probe

AFP
28 Dec 06

Moscow says an anti-Kremlin businessman living in Israel could be behind the radiation poisoning of Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, but the allegation only further complicates a spectacularly bizarre murder case.

The prosecutor general said late Wednesday it had found links between the fatal poisoning of Litvinenko in November and Leonid Nevzlin, a former executive in the Yukos oil company who fled criminal charges in Russia and is now an Israeli citizen.
Without providing details, or explanation, the prosecutor general said that traces of mercury had been found in Moscow and London and that this indicated a link to Nevzlin, who has been accused of using mercury in an alleged 2001 murder attempt against his business partner.

"We are checking out a version in which those who ordered this crime could be the same people who are now on international arrest warrants..., one of whom is deputy Yukos chairman Leonid Nevzlin," the prosecutor said in a statement.

The accusation introduces another colourful and controversial character to a murder enquiry already featuring ex-KGB men, exiled critics of President Vladimir Putin, a mysterious Italian security consultant, and allegedly the world's first use of nuclear material as a murder weapon.

But whether the addition of Nevzlin to the list helps solve the mystery behind Litvinenko's agonising death in a London hospital on November 23 -- a killing that Litvinenko and his friends blame on the Kremlin -- is another question.

Nevzlin, who has been accused of links to several murders in Russia, was one of the key figures in the Yukos oil firm headed by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, formerly Russia's richest man and now serving an eight-year sentence in Siberia for financial crimes.

Israel has refused to extradite Nevzlin to Russia and Nevzlin, like Khodorkovsky himself, claims he is being persecuted for having challenged Putin's increasingly dominating grip on power in Russia.

According to Russian press reports, an attempt is currently underway to extradite Nevzlin from the United States, where he had gone on holiday with his family. Interfax news agency reported he was briefly detained for questioning, but released.

But Alex Goldfarb, an associate of exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky who was Litvinenko's friend and spokesman, told AFP that the allegation was "total nonsense."

"Accusing Nevzlin, the Kremlin is just trying to cover up," he said. The accusation "just raises the suspicion that the government is trying to hide its responsibility."

So far the Litvinenko investigation has focused on the roles of ex-KGB officer Andrei Lugovoi and former Soviet army officer Dmitry Kovtun.

They met with Litvinenko, a former security services agent who won asylum in Britain, at a London hotel on the day police believe he was poisoned with the deadly radioactive substance polonium-210.

British detectives spent two weeks in Moscow this month trying to unravel the complex web of evidence, which includes traces of polonium in Moscow, Germany, as well as at several locations in London.

Further muddying the waters, Lugovoi and Kovtun have not been seen in public for weeks and are themselves, according to Russian reports, undergoing checks or treatment for radiation poisoning.

Russia's prosecutors classify Kovtun as victim of an attempted murder involving polonium-210, while police in Germany suspect he may have been transporting the deadly material.

The Vremya Novostei newspaper described the linking of Nevzlin to the Litvinenko case as "rather extravagant."



Comment on this Article


Scaramella Arrested in Naples

Moscow Times
27 Dec 06

ROME -- Police have arrested an Italian man who met with Alexander Litvinenko in London the day the former Federal Security Service agent fell ill from poisoning, the Italian man's father said.

Mario Scaramella was arrested Sunday in Naples after returning from London. Prosecutors in Rome have accused him of arms trafficking and slander, and he was being taken to the Italian capital, said his father, Amedeo Scaramella.




Comment on this Article


Litvinenko - By Way Of Deception

Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
24/11/2006

How easily our logic fails us in the face of the all-knowing mainstream media. ex-Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko has succumbed to the effects of a radioactive isotope polonium 210, one of the rarest substances on the planet and one few could obtain according to Dr Andrea Sella, lecturer in chemistry at University College London, which he may or may not have ingested at a sushi bar in London.

More




Comment on this Article


Litvinenko - By Way Of Deception - Part 2

Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
27/11/2006

One of the many strange things surrounding the murder of Alexander Litvinenko is the fact that it is being discussed at all. The exact details of the method used to assassinate him, his 3 week hospitalization, with pictures supplied by Lord Bell (more about him below) and Litvinenko's ultimate death have all been publicized to the greatest extent possible. This, it has to be said, is somewhat surprising given that covert intelligence matters (even those involving intelligence agencies of other nations) are usually kept covert.

More




Comment on this Article


Litvinenko And The Apartheid State Of Israel

Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
29/11/2006

The polonium allegedly used to kill Alexander "Sasha" Litvinenko has now been traced not only to the dead mans' own home and that of Russian Oligarch in exile Berezovsky, but also to the headquarters of "security and risk management company", Erinys International. "Security and risk management company" is simply a politically correct name to describe those companies that hire and then rent out ruthless mercenaries to carry out the US government's dirty work in Iraq - the murder of any Iraqi who gets in the way of the US corporate looting of Iraq's wealth.

More




Comment on this Article


Star and Stripes 4Ever


Border Fence Firm Snared for Hiring Illegal Workers

Scott Horsley
All Things Considered, December 14, 2006

A fence-building company in Southern California agrees to pay nearly $5 million in fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Two executives from the company may also serve jail time. The Golden State Fence Company's work includes some of the border fence between San Diego and Mexico.
After an immigration check in 1999 found undocumented workers on its payroll, Golden State promised to clean house. But when followup checks were made in 2004 and 2005, some of those same illegal workers were still on the job. In fact, U-S Attorney Carol Lam says as many as a third of the company's 750 workers may have been in the country illegally.

Golden State Fence built millions of dollars' worth of fencing around homes, offices, and military bases. Its president and one of its Southern California managers will pay fines totaling $300,000. The government is also recommending jail time for Melvin Kay and Michael McLaughlin, probably about six months.

It is exceptionally rare for those who employ illegal immigrants to face any kind of criminal prosecution, let alone jail time. Earlier this week, for example, immigration raids on six meat-packing plants netted almost 1,300 suspected illegal workers. But no charges were leveled against the company that runs the plants: Swift.

Golden State Fence's attorney, Richard Hirsch, admits his client broke the law. But he says the case proves that construction companies need a guest-worker program.



Comment on this Article


Murders Are Up in New York, Other Cities

By KAREN MATTHEWS
AP
27 Dec 06

NEW YORK - After many years of decline, the number of murders climbed this year in New York and many other major U.S. cities, reaching their highest levels in a decade in some places. Among the reasons given: gangs, the easy availability of illegal guns, a disturbing tendency among young people to pull guns when they do not get the respect they demand, and, in Houston at least, an influx of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

In New York, where the city reported 579 homicides through Dec. 24 - a nearly 10 percent increase from the year before - the spike is mostly the result of an unusually large number of "reclassified homicides," or those involving victims who were shot or stabbed years ago but did not die until this year. Thirty-five such deaths have been added to this year's toll, compared with an annual average of about a dozen.
At the same time, Police Department spokesman Paul Browne noted that this year's total is only slightly higher than last year's 539 homicides - the city's lowest death toll in more than 40 years.

Browne blamed the rise in part on the availability of guns, particularly weapons from out of state. The city this year sued dozens of out-of-state gun shops that it says are responsible for many of the illegal weapons on the streets of New York.

In Chicago, homicides through the first 11 months of the year were up 3.3 percent compared with the same period in 2005, reversing a four-year decline. A police spokeswoman said gang violence has been a contributing factor.

In New Haven, Conn., there were 23 homicides as of Tuesday, compared with 15 in 2004 and in 2005. Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said that about half of this year's killings involve young people settling disputes with guns instead of fists.

"They're all struggling with this thing about respect and pride," Ortiz said. "It's about respect. It's about revenge. It's about having a reputation. It's about turf and it's about girls."

Houston police attribute the 15 percent increase in the homicide count to the influx of Katrina evacuees from the Gulf Coast.

"So we expect that to settle," Lt. Murray Smith said. "We're hoping it will go down."

New Orleans, with its post-Katrina exodus, is the only major U.S. city that saw a sharp decline in the number of homicides. There were 154 in New Orleans this year as of Monday, said police spokesman Sgt. Jeffrey Johnson, down from 210 in 2005. But the city was largely empty during the fall and winter of 2005-06, and even now has only about half of its pre-Katrina population of 455,000.

Some cities, like Cincinnati - which has had 83 homicides so far, up from 79 in 2005 - posted their highest numbers ever. Others saw their highest death tolls in years.

Oakland, Calif., had 148 homicides as of Wednesday, up 57 percent from last year and the highest in more than a decade. Philadelphia's 2006 homicide total was 403 as of Wednesday, the first time the number has topped 400 in nearly a decade. There were 380 killings in all of 2005.

Philadelphia officials have struggled all year to reduce the violence. In July, Mayor John F. Street gave a televised address in which pleaded with young people: "Lay down your weapons. Do it now. Choose education over violence."

A few cities reported slight decreases in murders. Los Angeles' total was down about 4 percent to 464 homicides through Dec. 23. San Francisco's fell about 15 percent. San Francisco Police Sgt. Steve Mannina said the drop is partly due to increased patrols in violence-prone areas and more overtime approved by the police chief.

The FBI does not release its national crime statistics until several months after the end of the year. The bureau's statistics for the first six months of 2006 showed an increase of 1.4 percent in the number of murders in the first half of 2006 compared with the first six months of 2005.

Andrew Karmen, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York, said that while there are various theories for the drop in murders in New York and other cities in the 1990s, no one knows for sure why it happened. And if they are going up again, no one knows the reason for that, either, he said.

He noted that police departments tend to take credit when the murder rate goes down. "When crime goes up it will be interesting to see whether they will accept responsibility," Karmen said.



Comment on this Article


FBI Says Files In Leak Cases Are 'Missing'

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 27, 2006

The FBI is missing nearly a quarter of its files relating to investigations of recent leaks of classified information, according to a court filing the bureau made last week.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the FBI said it identified 94 leak investigations since 2001, but that the investigative files in 22 of those cases "are missing" and cannot be located. "There is no physical slip of paper on the shelf which indicates that the file has been charged out to a particular FBI employee, so therefore there is no way of knowing where the file may actually be," an official in the bureau's records division, Peggy Bellando, wrote in a December 22 declaration.
"That's an amazing number," an academic who has studied the FBI's record-keeping procedures, Athan Theoharis of Marquette University, said in an interview yesterday. "These are very sensitive investigations. ... They could be called to account for whether they are monitoring reporters. These are records that should be handled very well."

Over the past decade, the FBI has waged an epic struggle to computerize and automate its records systems. The agency abandoned a $170 million "Virtual Case File" project last year after years of Congressional hearings and critical evaluations led to the conclusion that the system would never be implemented successfully.

One frequent critic of government database programs, Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that record makes it understandable that a substantial proportion of the leak files would be mislaid.



Comment on this Article


Dozens Of Pieces Of Lost Luggage Dumped In Trash - FBI, Local Houston Police Investigate

EyeWitnessNews
December 27, 2006

HOUSTON -- Authorities are trying to figure out how dozens of pieces of luggage belonging to international air travelers ended up in a trash bin behind a Houston pet store.

FBI Special Agent Rolando Munoz said 68 pieces of luggage from various international flights were discovered. He said the luggage was turned over to Continental Airlines to sort out.

Harris County sheriff's deputies said the luggage belonged to people who flew internationally on Continental, Lufthansa, British Airways and US Airways, Houston TV station KPRC reported.
Sgt. Dana Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the Harris County Sheriff's Office, which first responded to the luggage report, said tags on the bags showed some of the travelers were going to or from London and Dubai.

Continental spokeswoman Mary Clark didn't know if the contents of the bags were stolen. She said the airline would investigate along with law enforcement authorities.

Investigators said some of the luggage had been opened and had valuables removed, according to KPRC.

Authorities said the bags belonged to travelers at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

One of the bags belonged to a woman from Mexico City who said she lost a computer and a camcorder in her luggage. She said she is trying to figure out how her luggage ended up in Houston when she never traveled through the city. She started in Portland and had layovers in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Some travelers were worried about what could happen to their lost luggage.

"I have all my Christmas presents in there," traveler Elaine Mogabgab said.

KPRC reported that officials with Continental Airlines said they have the luggage and are trying to reunite it with their owners.

The owners of a Pet City store found the luggage.



Comment on this Article


You Are What You Eat


Why Kellogg's saw red over labelling scheme

Felicity Lawrence
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

Early last year Kellogg's flew a handful of journalists in a private jet to its Old Trafford cornflakes factory. The plant, opposite the famous cricket ground, is the company's largest manufacturing centre in Europe. In the strategic planning department reporters were given a first glimpse of the game plan that has culminated in 21 food manufacturers coordinating a marketing campaign for the new year. The campaign will ignore Food Standards Agency recommendations and instead promote a rival industry food labelling scheme. It is a game plan that has set the food industry and the regulator on a collision course.
The apparent reason for the plane trip was that Kellogg's was launching Kashi, a brand of mixed grain puffed cereal free of all additives, in the UK. Criticism of the food industry for selling products high in fat, salt and sugar had reached a crescendo and cereal manufacturers, who prided themselves on their health associations, were receiving unwelcome attention. The Kashi brand was a crucial part of Kellogg's long term plan to protect its portfolio - but a wider strategy had also formed.

Before touring the factory with its vast steel pressure cookers, miles of pipes carrying vitamins and flavourings, stainless steel rollers and high temperature toasting ovens, reporters were ushered past a giant Tony the Tiger cutout in the entrance lobby and up into the nerve centre of planning for a presentation on nutrition policy and labelling.

Perhaps it was also in the strategic planning department that Kellogg's carried out an audit of its products, an audit that all food manufacturers must have undertaken when the Food Standards Agency published its criteria for defining how different foods would be rated. The results would determine how food would be rated under both the FSA's red, amber and green traffic light labelling and the nutrient profiling that will determine which products broadcasting regulator Ofcom will ban from being advertised on television to children from next month.

A similar but informal audit of products taken by Ofcom had thrown up some startling results. The watchdog had wanted to see how much television advertising would be vulnerable if it applied a ban on promoting products which the FSA defined as high in fat, salt, and/or sugar before the watershed.

How many red spot foods appeared on TV before 9pm in 2005? What became clear was that about £70m worth of adverts from cereal manufacturers a year would be banned. The sector spent £84m on ads that year: under the new rules the vast majority of its marketing effort would be wiped out. Kellogg's, the largest seller of cereals in the UK, spent the most on advertising in 2005 - nearly £50m. Cereal Partners, which markets the Nestle brands in Britain, was the second highest spender with £20m in the same year.

The next most vulnerable category would be yoghurts and fromage frais - similarly sold largely on a health ticket. At least £39m of TV ads a year would have to go because they were for products the FSA model would deem junk.

Health claims

The stakes for the food industry could not be higher. The British and Irish are the biggest eaters of puffed, flaked, flavoured, shaped, sugared, salted and extruded cereals in the world. We munch an average 6.7kg of the dehydrated stuff a person a year in the UK, and 8.4kg each in Ireland, according to figures from Datamonitor. The UK's breakfast habit is the child of advertising. The market for the cereal boxes which find their way into more than 90% of households here, worth £1.27bn in 2005, has been created and maintained by advertising characterised by health claims since the early 20th century.

With red labels on the packets, we might start questioning these health claims. Without the advertising to promote them, we might never know that we need processed cereal and revert to porridge or bread instead.

The cereal industry is adamant that its products are being unfairly demonised. "It can't be right that a whole category is taken out that way. Breakfast cereals are important for children, many of whom would otherwise skip breakfast altogether," Kellogg's communications director, Chris Wermann, says. Kellogg's has by its own admission led the drive to bring in an alternative form of labelling the industry can live with. The cereal manufacturer has also been at the heart of a lobbying campaign against the proposals from Ofcom and FSA that senior regulatory officials have described as "the most ferocious we've ever experienced".

In May, the consumer watchdog Which? published a survey which shed further light on why the industry was so worried about traffic light labelling. It analysed 275 big name breakfast cereals from leading manufacturers on sale in UK supermarkets. Despite industry claims to have reformulated their recipes to make their products healthier, Which? found 75% of them still had high levels of sugar, and almost a fifth had high levels of salt, according to FSA criteria. That 75% would all receive red labels.

Nearly 90% of those targeted at children were high in sugar, 13% high in salt, and 10% high in saturated fat. Several cereals making claims to be good for you received red lights too. All Bran was high in salt when surveyed, although Kellogg's says it has reduced levels since then. Special K gets a red light for sugar and salt.

Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition at King's College London, who acts as a consultant to the cereal manufacturers, believes traffic light labels "unfairly misclassify breakfast cereals", because they do not take into account portion sizes nor the fact that they are being measured on dry weight while they are mostly eaten with milk. "Breakfast cereals served with semi-skimmed milk are low energy meals that provide about one fifth of the micronutrient requirements of children and should be encouraged," he said in a briefing for the industry's breakfast cereal information service.

Back in the Kellogg's strategic planning department in April 2005, company nutritionist Alyson Greenhalgh was explaining its policy on health to the small gathering of journalists.

The company had decided to take a lead and promote a new kind of labelling to help "mum" make healthier choices, she explained. Rather than using the traffic light coding the Food Standards Agency was researching, Kellogg's and other leading food manufacturers had decided to go live with a system of labels, which have been rejected by the FSA, based on guideline daily amounts (GDAs). These would avoid identifying foods as good or bad with red, amber and green, and instead give figures for how much fat, salt, and sugar a portion of the product contains as a proportion of a guideline amount you should eat each day of those nutrients. In response to pressure from the FSA, the Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers had already reduced salt by a quarter in five years, she said.

Blind tests

Cornflakes were even "tastier than before" in blind tests because you could taste the corn more, and salt levels had dropped from the equivalent of 12% of the guideline daily allowance in 1998 to 9% in 2005, she said.

But why was there so much salt in the cereal in the first place?

The managing director of Kellogg's Europe, Tony Palmer, said that "if we'd known you could take out 25% of the salt and make cornflakes taste better, we would have done it earlier. But it's also about the interaction with the sugar - as you take the salt out, you've got to reduce the sugar because it starts to taste sweeter."

But sugar helps keep the flakes crispy and is part of the bulk, so going further is difficult. "And the risk is, if you take the salt out you might be better off eating the cardboard carton for taste," he said.

As well as educating journalists, Kellogg's has been lobbying MPs, ministers and regulators. The PR agency Hill and Knowlton boasts on its website how it managed to change government and Whitehall thinking on Kellogg's behalf.

"A series of meetings with No 10, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency, the health select committee, one-to-one briefings with key individuals and an event for parliamentarians" enabled them to disseminate Kellogg's messages. "The campaign resulted in a significant shift in attitudes among core government stakeholders," the agency says. Kellogg's had met the public health minister, Caroline Flint, on December 14 2005, together with the chair and deputy chair of the FSA. It submitted a detailed response to Ofcom's proposals, arguing that breakfast cereals should be considered a special case and that the FSA's nutritional profiling model was scientifically flawed.

Lobbying

The event for MPs - a breakfast at the House of Commons - took place on January 18 this year. At it, Kellogg's European president, Tim Mobsby, reminded MPs that Kellogg's was a large employer in the UK and recalled the company's credentials: "W Kellogg started selling breakfast cereals to patients in a sanatorium in order to provide healthy and nutritious meals for his patients." Cereals, he said, are fortified with vitamins and minerals and if eaten with milk provide significant intakes of calcium and iron.

At the political party conferences in autumn this year, officials from the regulators wanting to explain their proposals to Whitehall, government, and opposition figures, found "Kellogg's nearly always seemed to have been a few hours ahead of us lobbying for GDAs. They muddied the waters for us. Frontbench spokespeople told us they'd never experienced anything like it in terms of lobbying," said one senior insider.

The FSA is in little doubt that the concerted attempt by industry to derail its traffic light labelling by actively promoting its own rival scheme marks the beginning of a new phase in the long battle to improve the UK diet.

For the industry, it is a fight in which they have everything to lose.

Comment: Indeed, it is a fight in which the industry has everything to lose. But if the industry wins, the public loses.

Comment on this Article


How constipation and masturbation cure became huge breakfast cereal business

Felicity Lawrence
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

Processed breakfast cereals were invented by the temperance movement in the 19th century in the United States.

The Reverend Sylvester Graham first preached the virtues of a vegetarian diet and the importance of wholemeal flour. Granula was developed from his "Graham flour" by one of his followers. It was a baked lump of wheat and water that had to be soaked overnight to be edible. It was sold at 10 times the cost of its ingredients.


Breakfast cereals today remain what economic analysts call a "high margin-to-cost business". One of the biggest costs is the marketing, which is typically 20-25% of the sales value, according to analysts JP Morgan. Gross profit margins on processed cereals are 40-45%.

Seventh Day Adventists took up the mission begun by Graham in a small town called Battle Creek in Michigan.

One of them, John Harvey Kellogg, set about devising cures for what he believed were the common ills of the day - constipation and masturbation. In Kellogg's mind the two were closely linked, the common cause being a lack of fibre, both dietary and moral.

Kellogg, his wife, and his brother William experimented in their sanatorium kitchen and came up with their own highly profitable version of Granula. The experiments continued, Kellogg's fame grew, and the first version of cornflakes was created - though they did not sell well.

Then Charles Post, a chronically dyspeptic entrepreneur who had been one of Kellogg's patients, developed his own precooked cereals. His genius was to harness the power of marketing. "The sunshine that makes a business plant grow is advertising," he said. He distributed tracts with his products with such encouraging titles as The Road to Wellville and cheerfully invented diseases they could cure. By 1903 he was making over a million dollars a year and Battle Creek had turned into a cereal Klondike. At one point there were more than 100 cereal factories operating in the town to satisfy the new craze.

John Harvey Kellogg was more interested in his crusade against sexual sins and bad eating than making money, but his brother William felt differently. Eventually W Kellogg persuaded his brother to set up a new company to manufacture cornflakes for the mass market. The two disagreed over whether to make their cereals palatable by adding sugar - anathema to John, needed to stop the products tasting like "horse-food" by William - and over who owned the cereal name.

In the end William succeeded in gaining control. The legacy of the cereal goldrush is still there in Battle Creek today, though the factories have mostly gone. In their place is Kellogg's Cereal City, a museum testament to the power of marketing.

The collection of early cereal boxes show that from the first they sold not just a meal but a way of life: Power, Vim, Vigor, Korn-Kinks and Climax are among the early brand names. Early packets also carried health claims that anticipate today's. "Will correct stomach troubles!" "Makes red blood redder!"

Crackley soundtracks from some of the first radio programmes in the 1920s record the sponsorship deals that helped the new medium and the cereal business grow: "Kellogg's cornflakes announces another thrilling new adventure ..."

Kellogg's also sponsored the singing Lady programme for children. In 1931 artist Vernon Grant created drawings depicting the characters Snap, Crackle and Pop, and cartoon merchandising was born. Giveaway toys were used too to attract children's loyalty.

Cereal advertising also helped shape early television. A chance meeting on a train in 1949 between the then chairman of Kellogg's and advertising man Leo Burnett led to a relationship that transformed the cereal market and TV ads. Burnett used "motivational research" to work out how to appeal to women and children, changing packaging colours to attract different audiences subliminally. With his help, Kellogg's broadcast the first colour TV programmes and commercials for children.

The Battle Creek Museum also states Kellogg's vision for the future. Under a section on "global expansion" it notes that 90% of the world's breakfast cereal is consumed in just a handful of countries: "The company has rededicated itself to reaching 1.5 billion new cereal customers around the world in the next decade ... and bringing about a fundamental change in eating habits."



Comment on this Article


Just add milk ... among other things

Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

The process

The technology used today is essentially the same as that developed from kitchen experiments by American religious reformers in late 19th century, although the sugar, salt and flavourings were generally added later.

Flakes

Cornflakes are made by breaking corn kernels into smaller grits which are steam-cooked under pressure. The nutritious germ with essential fats is removed because it goes rancid over time. Flavourings, vitamins to replace those lost, and sugar may be added to the mixture. The corn grits are rolled by giant rollers into flakes, baked at high temperatures, and dried. Other flaked cereals are made in a similar way. Frosted versions have syrup sprayed on later. Vitamins may be sprayed on. Economy versions of cornflakes are made from "finings", the dust left after corn milling. A giveaway sign that finings have been used rather than more expensive grits is flakes that are uniform in size and shape.
Steamed wheat biscuits

Shredded wheat is made from whole wheat grains which are pressure cooked with water and then passed between rollers to squeeze them into strands and build them up into layers, which are then cut into squares and baked until dry. Weetabix-type cereals are similarly steam cooked whole grains with salt and sugar, rolled very thinly and then pressed into biscuits. These processes begin the breakdown of the raw starches in the cereals, so they are absorbed more quickly in the body - they typically have glycaemic index scores of around 75, compared with 45/46 for unprocessed grains such as porridge or mueslis without sugar.

Puffed cereals

Puffed cereals were invented by Alexander Anderson for the Quaker Oat Company at his laboratory in Chicago. He began with rice heated in a sealed test tube which exploded. Several detonations later, he and his engineer adapted a breach loading recoiling cannon to mass produce puffed or exploded grains. Today's adaptations of the technology are giant sealed cylinders that heat the grains to high temperatures. When they are unsealed the steam pressure in each grain causes it to expand, and they are dried before they collapse. As with corn, rice has its essential oils removed during milling to make long life processed cereal.

Extruded cereals

Cereals shapes are made from flours that have been finely milled. They are mixed with water and heated then extruded though holes so that they expand into their final shape. The heating and mechanical working of the cereals breaks down the starch cell structure, so they tend to have higher GI values. Vitamins destroyed in the heat process are added to the mixtures along with sugar, salt and flavourings, or sprayed on. Wholegrain cereal shapes can be made from whole grains milled to a powder or from recombined fractions of flour milled to white.

Acrylamide

Cereal processing involves heating cereals to high temperatures. In 2002, a survey by the Food Standards Agency found a compound called acrylamide, known to cause cancer in animals and a probable human carcinogen, was formed in some starchy processed foods, particularly during the toasting process. Wheat-based cereals tend to have higher levels of acrylamide. The industry has been trying to reduce levels without much impact, according to reports. The FSA advice is that exposure to acrylamide should be kept as low as possible.

Fortification


Vitamins were first added to breakfast cereals in the early 1930s, first the "sunshine vitamin" D, and later fragile, heat-sensitive B vitamins, and vitamin C and iron. A new wave of fortification is coming. Inulin, known to the food industry until recently as a bulking agent, is now added as a "prebiotic", and companies are looking at adding omega-3 fatty acids such as DHA. There are technical difficulties - the long chain molecules in DHA can be damaged by high temperatures and pressure processes. Firms have worked out how to take a dairy protein and carbohydrate to form a slurry with tuna oil, which is spray dried to encapsulate DHA.



Comment on this Article


Food agency takes on industry over junk labels

Felicity Lawrence
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

Consumers are to be presented with two rival new year advertising campaigns as the Food Standards Agency goes public in its battle with the industry over the labelling of unhealthy foods.

The Guardian has learned that the FSA will launch a series of 10-second television adverts in January telling shoppers how to follow a red, amber and green traffic light labelling system on the front of food packs, which is designed to tackle Britain's obesity epidemic.
The campaign is a direct response to a concerted attempt by leading food manufacturers and retailers, including Kellogg's and Tesco, to derail the system. The industry fears that traffic lights would demonise entire categories of foods and could seriously damage the market for those that are fatty, salty or high in sugar.

The UK market for breakfast cereals is worth £1.27bn a year and the manufacturers fear it will be severely dented if red light labels are put on packaging drawing attention to the fact that the majority are high in salt and/or sugar.

The industry is planning a major marketing campaign for a competing labelling system which avoids colour-coding in favour of information about the percentage of "guideline daily amounts" (GDAs) of fat, salt and sugar contained in their products.

The battle for the nation's diet comes as new rules on television advertising come into force in January which will bar adverts for unhealthy foods from commercial breaks during programmes aimed at children. Sources at the TV regulators are braced for a legal challenge from the industry and have described the lobbying efforts to block any new ad ban or colour-coded labelling as "the most ferocious we've ever experienced".

Ofcom's chief executive, Ed Richards, said: "We are prepared to face up to any legal action from the industry, but we very much hope it will not be necessary." The FSA said it was expecting an onslaught from the industry in January. Senior FSA officials said the manufacturers' efforts to undermine its proposals on labelling could threaten the agency's credibility.

Terrence Collis, FSA director of communications, dismissed claims that the proposals were not based on science. "We have some of the most respected scientists in Europe, both within the FSA and in our independent advisory committees. It is unjustified and nonsensical to attack the FSA's scientific reputation and to try to undermine its credibility."

The FSA is understood to have briefed its ad agency, United, before Christmas, and will aim to air ads that are "non-confrontational, humorous and factual" as a counterweight to industry's efforts about the same time. The agency, however, will have a tiny fraction of the budget available to the industry.

Gavin Neath, chairman of Unilever UK and president of the Food and Drink Federation, has said that the industry has made enormous progress but could not accept red "stop" signs on its food.

Alastair Sykes, chief executive of Nestlé UK, said that under the FSA proposals all his company's confectionery and most of its cereals would score a red. "Are we saying people shouldn't eat confectionery? We're driven by consumers and what they want, and much of what we do has been to make our products healthier," he said.

Chris Wermann, director of communications at Kellogg's, said: "In principle we could never accept traffic light labelling."

The rival labelling scheme introduced by Kellogg's, Danone, Unilever, Nestlé, Kraft and Tesco and now favoured by 21 manufacturers, uses an industry-devised system based on identifying GDAs of key nutrients. Tesco says it has tested both traffic lights and GDA labels in its stores and that the latter increased sales of healthier foods.

But the FSA said it could not live with this GDA system alone because it was "not scientific" or easy for shoppers to understand at a glance.



Comment on this Article


Around the Neighborhood


Castro Outlives Another American President

by Alexander Zaitchik
December 27, 2006

Admire him or despise him, it's tempting to think Fidel Castro keeps a piece of polished Cuban Mahogany in his office with, as of yesterday, six marks on it -- one for each American president he has defied and survived, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower. Every president starting with Ike has presided over plots of various levels of nefariousness against Castro's Cuba, the most notorious being the Kennedy era's botched invasions, exploding clam plots and beard-melting conspiracies. But even the more benign U.S. administrations have maintained the embargo and participated in various other forms of economic subterfuge against the hemisphere's only socialist isle.
It has long been a parlor game guessing how many of his American nemeses Castro will bury before finally going to that great sugar-cane farm in the sky. Unless Jimmy Carter chokes on a peanut or Bill Clinton gets in bed with an athletic 22-year-old, the final number looks like it is going to be six.

As he nears his own death, one wonders if the newly God-fearing Castro doesn't find less satisfaction than he used to in the passing of an American President, especially this one. Gerald Ford once called Castro an "international outlaw" and threatened "appropriate action" against Cuban troops in foreign countries, but it was also Ford who forbade government-sponsored assassinations in a landmark 1976 presidential directive. True, it was applied under enormous public and Congressional pressure led by Senator Frank Church. But it was still Ford's signature that removed the large CIA-sponsored bulls-eye from the center of Castro's forehead. The flurry of restrictions on black-ops and oversight rules signed by Ford didn't mean we stopped assisting rogue anti-Castro elements in Miami-Dade, but officially we weren't in the assassination business anymore. That was something. It was a big something, actually, and for a long time.

Alas, not anymore. The current administration was the first to turn its back on Ford's executive orders banning state-sponsored assassinations and establishing intelligence oversight, and it's worth remembering that Ford's most important legacy died a violent death several years before he did. With at least two more years of Bush-Cheney lawlessness to go, we can at least be thankful for that other major Ford legacy: The rehab clinic.



Comment on this Article


Argentinians granted rights to lost savings

James Sturcke
Thursday December 28, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The supreme court in Argentina has ordered that bank savings frozen during the country's economic meltdown five years ago should be repaid in full.

The court's landmark decision is aimed at ending the angry, and often violent, protests from savers - who lost two-thirds of their deposits - which have become a regular occurrence in the country's larger towns and cities.

The ruling means an estimated 300,000 Argentinian savers can now expect to receive the dollar value of their deposits before the economy collapsed at the end of 2001. However, the court ruled the banks should repay the money in pesos rather than dollars, and that the forcible conversion of savers' dollars to pesos in 2002 had been legal.
"The justices debated at length over this question ... the aim of the ruling is to find social peace and show that a consensus is possible over difficult questions affecting the community," the court said in a statement.

The decision follows a test case involving Juan Massa who sued the government and the BankBoston after his US$184,475 (£94,041) savings were frozen in 2002, La Nación newspaper reported. According to the supreme court's calculations, Mr Massa will receive 3.08 pesos for every US dollar invested, roughly equal to the current exchange rate.

In December five years ago, Argentinians angry with years of economic problems took to the streets and forced the resignation of the president, Fernando de la Rua. Three more presidents came to power and were ousted in less than two weeks.

During the chaos, the government untied the Argentinian peso from the US dollar to which it had been pegged on a one-to-one basis. The peso's value plummeted as foreign investors fled the mayhem and authorities froze bank accounts in an attempt to stem the exodus of funds. The peso finally stabilised at the rate of around three pesos to one dollar, meaning savers' pesos are only worth a third of their pre-crisis value.

Since then it has been a regular event for aggrieved lower and middle income savers to march through the financial centre of Buenos Aires and other cities moving from bank to bank banging hammers and empty pots on the shuttered doors and windows. Their anger has been further heightened by stories of trucks loaded with dollars leaving the country in the days before the asset restrictions came into effect as the more prescient - or those with government contacts - removed their money from the country.

La Nación said the country's justice system has been inundated by more than 300,000 savers who have lodged cases, 60,000 of which have reached the high court.

Among the banks most affected during the crisis were Argentina's Banco Galicia and Banco Rio, the local unit of Spanish banking group Santander, as well as BankBoston and Citibank.

One saver outside the courthouse celebrated the ruling, but bemoaned the long legal struggle to protect her assets.

"In real terms, I think this is pretty close to giving us our savings back," she told Reuters TV. "But the issue is what comes next, if they will compensate us for the pain and suffering that not having access to our savings for five years has caused," she added.



Comment on this Article


The Big Question: Has Jacques Chirac's presidency been a complete disaster for France?

By John Lichfield, Paris Correspondent
UK Independent
28 December 2006

Why are we asking this question now?

On New Year's Eve, Jacques Chirac will almost certainly address the nation as president for the last time. Barring some national calamity or crisis before the elections in April and May, this will be the final chance for M. Chirac to speak to his "chers compatriotes" on live television and try to make some sense of the muddle of his 40 years in politics and the calamities of his nearly 12 years in the Elysée Palace.

Will he finally admit that, at 74 years old, and with absurdly low poll ratings, he has no chance of winning another term in office? Will he finally endorse the candidacy of his detested, former protégé Nicolas Sarkozy? Probably not. Not yet, anyway.

President Chirac is said to cling to a desperate belief that the French bourgeoisie might still turn to him to save France from Ségolène Royal, who is not only a socialist but (choc, horreur) a woman. In truth, if President Chirac decides to run again, it will mostly be to spite Sarkozy. A Chirac-Sarkozy civil war on the moderate right would turn the possibility of a President(e) Royal into a near certainty.
How will Chirac be remembered in France?

Chirac was elected, at his third attempt, in 1995. France was then a fractiously divided nation, with high unemployment and no consensus on how to adapt to the new global economy, while preserving what was most successful, and most French, about France. There was an alarming contempt for mainstream politicians and institutions and a drift to the demagogic and blindly nationalist extremes of right and left. Chirac promised to heal the "social fracture" of the nation.

Eleven years and seven months later, France is exactly where it was in 1995. If anything, the country's democratic health has declined. Cynicism and the attraction of the blind alleys of far right and far left have grown.

Domestically, the Chirac years will go down as 12 years of wasted time. A couple of attempts at timid economic and social reform were interrupted by a co-habitation with a Socialist government, whose monument is the shorter, 35-hour working week (something detested by the centre-right). The suburban riots last year showed that little has been done to heal the "social fracture" of France.

It would be unfair to say that Chirac fiddled while France burned. He dithered while France drifted.

And what is Chirac's record abroad?

Jacques Chirac will always be remembered abroad for having had the guts and foresight to resist the American-British invasion of Iraq in March 2003. He was monstered in the American and British press at the time for being a) a bad ally b) in financial hock to Saddam Hussein c) anti-American.

Let us recall what Chirac actually said. There is no urgent need to topple Saddam. Occupation of Iraq will be a nightmare. We should concentrate on the struggle against Bin-Ladenism. Real friends and allies do not blindly follow but point out possibly calamitous errors.

Americans especially might care to consider who was the more valuable (though ignored) ally in 2003, Jacques Chirac or Tony Blair. That being said, the rest of Chiraquian foreign policy, and especially European policy, has been incoherent.

President Chirac has failed to advance the "multi-polar" world - ie a world not dominated by American interests and values - which he preached in 2003. He even contributed to a significant defeat for "multi-polarism", the crippling of the European Union. Chirac pushed for a European constitution and then lost interest. He called a referendum on the constitution in France and failed to sell the idea to his "chers compatriotes". The referendum "Non" vote in May 2005 was a devastating blow to the EU and, de facto, the end of Chirac's influence at home and abroad.

Is there anything positive to say?


Yes. President Chirac, with one or two, mild electorally-driven lapses, has always been a fierce enemy or racism and the extreme right. He was the first French president to admit that the apparatus of the French state was complicit in the Holocaust during the collaborationist, Vichy regime of 1940-44.

Anything else?

He has personally saved the lives of over 9,000 French people. President Jacques Chirac decided to make road safety one of the pet issues of his second term of office in 2002. Since then French road safety laws, especially the speeding rules, have been properly enforced for the first time. The impact on road deaths has been dramatic. By the end of this year, the number of lives saved since 2002 will be well over 9,000.

Does Chirac face the prospect of jail when he leaves office?

Hardly. He may face prosecution for alleged illegal political fund-raising (on a heroic scale) when he was Mayor of Paris from 1974-1995. During his term in the Elysée, he has been protected by his presidential immunity. Several former confidantes in the town hall, including the former prime minister, Alain Juppé, have been convicted of organising, or being aware of, various scams to divert Paris tax-payers' money into the coffers of Chirac's neo-Gaullist party (now defunct), the Rassemblement pour la Républiqe (RPR). None of those convicted has been sent to jail. If a prosecution is brought against Chirac, it will probably limp along for years and end, at most, in a suspended sentence and fine.

Is there a Chirac legacy? Will he have monument?


Presidents De Gaulle, Giscard, Mitterrand, in their different ways, left their fingerprints on France. Chirac's lasting influence will be negligible. He managed to unite almost all the squabbling factions of the centre-right within one party, the Union Pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), but that party was almost immediately stolen from him by Nicolas Sarkozy. Four years after the UMP was created as a vehicle for Chirac, the party is a Sarkozian glee club. Its slogan is "Imagine France afterwards". After whom? one might ask.

De Gaulle has an airport and a square. Pompidou has his modern arts centre and a fast road beside the Seine. Mitterrand has a library and a short section of Seine quay beside the Louvre. What will Paris name after Jacques Chirac?

The city might consider renaming the Rue Vaugirard on the Left Bank. The street is one of the oldest in Paris. It rambles on forever, twists and turns in various directions and then ends nowhere in particular. Perfect for a Rue Jacques Chirac.

What can be said for and against Jacques Chirac's record in office?

For...

* He stood up to George Bush and Tony Blair at the United Nations on Iraq, for reasons that have proved correct

* He saved thousands of French lives by seeing that the road safety laws were properly enforced for the first time

* He has a sound record on resisting racism and extremism

Against...

* His presidency has failed to grapple with France's economic and social problems

* He weakened the EU by pushing for a constitition, calling a referendum in France and then losing it

* His presidency had reinforced cynicism about politicians in France




Comment on this Article


Russian Jet Forced to Land in Prague After Attempted Hijacking - Hijacker Detained

By NADIA RYBAROVA
Associated Press
December 28, 2006 1:01 PM


PRAGUE, Czech Republic - A Russian Aeroflot airliner made an unscheduled landing at Prague's international airport on Thursday after an apparent hijacking attempt, and a passenger was detained, police said.

The Airbus A320 flying from Moscow to Geneva, landed at Ruzyne airport shortly before 11 a.m., airport spokeswoman Pavlina Hajkova said.

Police spokesman Pavel Hantak said that the alleged hijacker was "pacified on board the plane'' and the man, a Russian citizen, was taken into custody by Czech police.

Pantak said the man been threatening the crew of the plane but did not elaborate.

Deputy director of Aeroflot, Lev Koshlyakov, told Rossiya television, "One of the passengers said he had an explosive device.''

Hantak said it was not immediately clear when the plane could resume its flight to Switzerland.




Comment on this Article


Blair - Stayin' Alive


Blairs' runaway jet drama - Cost for Holiday Flight: $40,000.00

DailyMail
28 Dec 06

Tony Blair and his family suffered a holiday scare as their jumbo jet overshot a runway in the United States, it emerged today.

The Prime Minister, wife Cherie and their children were embroiled in the airport drama after flying to Florida to stay with Bee Gee Robin Gibb.

The Blairs' British Airways flight from London ran into trouble on landing at Miami International Airport.
The Boeing 747-400, packed with 343 passengers, slid off the runway as it missed its turn after touching down. It crushed runway lights and engineers had to turn it around so it could taxi safely to the airport gate for passengers to disembark.

There was confusion as police and rescue vehicles rushed towards the plane, lights flashing, while it sat on an isolated part of the runway for 45 minutes. Most of the frightened passengers had no idea the Blairs were on board and the emergency rescue was ordered by the American Secret Service, which looks after the Prime Minister-whenever he is in the US. The Blairs, flying first-class, were the first to be evacuated at the airport terminal.

The family is staying with millionaire pop star Gibb, 57, at his £5million home in Miami Beach, it emerged today. The Bee Gee's co-manager John
Campbell said: "It's a private holiday and it's a private arrangement. They are friends." Gibb had joined Mr Blair at a Labour party rally in Yorkshire on the eve of the last general election. At the event Mr Blair said: "I was completely star-struck tonight. I met one of my heroes - Robin Gibb."

For previous New Years Mr Blair has holidayed in Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt, but it is understood he did not want to present the country with a terror target this year at a time of heightened tension in the Middle East.

British passenger Karen Queen said there was "alarm" on the plane at the end of the eight-hour flight: "There were lots of police. We actually thought there was somebody on board that shouldn't be on board."

Agent Kim Bruce of the US Secret Service said: "Last night Prime Minister Blair was on a British Airways flight that overshot the runway at Miami. There were no injuries."

Laura Brown, spokeswoman for the US Federal Aviation Administration, said: "The plane took out a couple of runway lights. The taxiway it missed was the last one at the end of the runway. It was on a safety area, a buffer zone at the end of the runway capable of handling the weight of the aircraft."

Ms Brown said it was not clear why the plane had overshot, adding that it had not been decided whether to carry out an investigation.

A BA spokesman said BA flight 209 had landed at Miami International Airport at 6.17pm local time. "They are doing resurfacing work on part of the runway and the captain came to a stop because he couldn't see the proper turnoff point to the taxiway."

The Prime Minister's first-class tickets would have cost him more than £7,500 each. The flight bill for all his party would be almost £40,000 - but to pay for a week at a beachfront property similar to Gibb's would have cost about the same.

Shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling said: "Another year, another celebrity holiday. Next thing we know he'll be in Beverly Hills next to the Beckhams. Why can't he pay for his holidays in the normal way like the rest of us?"

When Mr Blair has stayed at holiday homes of other stars, he has insisted he makes a payment to charity.



Comment on this Article


Shameless: Blair's freebie holiday at Bee Gee mansion

ThisIsLondon
28 Dec 06

Tony Blair was accused of cheapening the office of Prime Minister and grabbing yet another freebie holiday after he embarked on a £60,000 break in Florida with one of the Bee Gees.

The Prime Minister, his wife Cherie and three of their children are relaxing in the £5.2million seafront mansion owned by Robin Gibb, one of the two surviving members of the 1970s pop group.
Downing Street insisted that the Blairs were paying for the Miami Beach holiday, but Mr Gibb's wife Dwina said the couple had neither asked for nor accepted money from the Blairs.

'It's just a friendly thing,' she said.

MPs demanded that the Prime Minister come clean about exactly what he is paying and whether taxpayers' money is being used to foot the bill.

Mr Blair was also facing claims of a conflict of interest because Mr Gibb has been lobbying the Government to change its policy towards pop musicians.

Like Sir Cliff Richard, whose Caribbean villa the Blairs used for their summer break, Mr Gibb has put pressure on Ministers to change the copyright laws to allow performing artists to cash in for longer on their hits.

Critics questioned whether the invitation was a reward for Mr Blair, who last year helped highlight the copyright campaign.

Mr Blair has described Mr Gibb, behind such hits as Saturday Night Fever and Tragedy, as one of his great musical heroes.

After Mr Gibb, a longstanding Labour supporter, introduced the Prime Minister at a Labour election rally in 2005, Mr Blair admitted: 'I was completely starstruck tonight. I met one of my heroes - Robin Gibb.'

The Prime Minister has been repeatedly criticised for accepting free trips to stay in the Tuscan haunts of Italian nobleman Prince Girolamo Strozzi and former Treasury minister Geoffrey Robinson, the Barbados mansions of Sir Cliff and JCB boss Sir Anthony Bamford, as well as homes in the South of France owned by high court judge Sir David Keene and French tobacco tycoon Alain-Dominique Perrin.

His latest holiday home has a colourful past, playing host to John F Kennedy with his mistress Marilyn Monroe. The Gibbs, who boast of enjoying an open marriage, are keeping up the tradition by hosting decadent parties.

Florida estate agents said that a member of the public would expect to pay between £25,000 and £40,000 a week for a property like the elegant Gibb mansion with its ten bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Downing Street's attempt to claim the holiday was not yet another 'freebie' began to unravel almost as soon as it was issued.

A spokesman insisted that the Prime Minister paid for both his accommodation and the family's first class British Airways flights to Miami, which would have cost £23,000 at market rates.

The spokesman said: 'They paid for their flights and they paid for their accommodation in the normal way.'

Asked if, as he has done in the past, Mr Blair would make a donation to charity in lieu of costs, she said: 'No. It's a standard commercial agreement. I'm not confirming where he's staying. It was a normal private payment.'

Mr Blair would have to declare any hospitality in the Commons register of members' interests. By saying that he has paid for the holiday he could avoid public scrutiny.

But asked if the family had accepted money from the Blairs, Dwina Murphy- Gibb, Robin's wife of 21 years, told the Daily Mail: 'No, we are, they are, just friends. It's just a friendly thing.

'They have their own staff who come over, of course. They are just friends and we are heading out there to be with them. It's a friendly arrangement.'

Senior Government sources insisted the Blairs would make a donation but it would be up to the Gibb family to decide what to do with it.

Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons Culture Committee, said: 'The public have a right to know how much Mr Blair paid. People can decide for themselves if he has paid the full rate. If he has, he should have nothing to hide.

'It's no wonder he doesn't want to give up as Prime Minister. He doesn't want to give up the perks of the job.

He's done so much to bring the office of the Prime Minister into disrepute, he couldn't blame anyone for thinking the worst of him or the worst of the motives of the people offering him a place to stay. He has brought it upon himself.'

Henry Bellingham, Tory MP for Norfolk North West, added: 'This is another example of the Prime Minister's obsession with very rich people, an obsession which has already lead to the cash for peerages scandal.

'This is yet another freebie holiday and I fear it cheapens the whole office. This is not something Prime Ministers should be doing.'

The spectacle of a Labour Prime Minister enjoying a £60,000 break while ordinary families are stretched to the limit at Christmas will also be repellent to many in the Labour Party.

The holiday has already had its drama. The jumbo jet carrying Mr Blair, his wife and their younger children Nicky, 20, Kathryn, 18, and six-year- old Leo, overshot its runway in Miami, hitting landing lights, when it landed on Boxing Day evening.

There were no injuries but the 343 passengers and crew had to wait 45 minutes while engineers tugged the plane back on to the taxiway.

Fellow passengers, who during the flight had been able to watch the recent film 'The Queen' in which Michael Sheen plays Mr Blair, were then forced to wait even longer while the Blairs left the plane first.

They were whisked to the Gibb mansion by U.S. secret service agents who will protect them during their holiday.

The Blairs are expected to stay for between a week and ten days. Friends of the Gibbs said Mr Blair is likely to have a 'jamming' session with Mr Gibb and his brother Barry, the other surviving Bee Gee, who lives in another mansion three doors away.

The Blairs and the Bee Gees are expected to see the New Year in together, with Robin Gibb leading a rousing Auld Lang Syne around a white grand piano in the so- called Miami Room as midnight chimes.

During his stay, Mr Blair is also likely to attend the funeral of former President Gerald Ford, who has died aged 93.

Mrs Murphy-Gibb explained last night that she is friendly with the Prime Minister's wife. 'I work at some charities, one charity in particular is Rights In Humanity which Cherie often talks at,' she said.

'She often hosts a number of events to do with the charity. Robin has also always had a friendship with Tony.'

More controversially, Mr Gibb has lobbied MPs and members of the European Union to increase the copyright protection for musicians. In Britain, copyright and royalty payments lapse after 50 years for singers and 70 years for composers, compared with 95 years in the U.S.

Mrs Murphy- Gibb said: 'Robin's friendship with Tony has nothing to do with politics - it is pure friendship. Tony's relationship with Cliff is just one of friendship too.

'You know, Tony has always been interested in music and is a great fan of Cliff and the Bee Gees too, and he's a great friend. That's just the way it is.

'They don't really discuss things like royalties - it's more family things they discuss. Our friendship with Tony and Cherie is beyond politics. Robin would not be interested in getting close to Tony to try to influence the royalties issue. Our friendship goes beyond all those kind of things.'

But Tory MP John Whittingdale, who co-hosted a meeting in Parliament at the end of October at which Mr Gibb lobbied for more help, said: 'I'm sure Robin Gibb might say after dinner: "What about this copyright business?"'

Mr Blair's absence means that John Prescott, who is recovering from kidney stones which hospitalised him on Christmas Day, is now running the country.



Comment on this Article


Revealed: TB & Bee Gee on the QT - Runway drama blows his cover on Florida trip

Richard Luscombe in Miami and Tania Branigan
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

After the annual ritual of controversy surrounding his choice of summer holiday accommodation, Tony Blair was hoping to keep his plans for some winter sun with the family quiet. Unfortunately the prime minister had not planned on their British Airways jet overshooting the runway at Miami International airport early yesterday, crushing some landing lights and sending hordes of journalists rushing to the scene.

All 343 passengers got off the plane unharmed, but the Blairs' secret was out: they were heading for the splendid waterfront home of the former Bee Gees singer Robin Gibb.
It has become something of a Blair family tradition to holiday in the properties of their rich and famous friends. They have paid several visits to Sir Cliff Richard's Barbados villa since 2003, and have been regular guests at a 16th-century Tuscan palace owned by Prince Girolamo Strozzi. In 2004, the Blairs stayed with Silvio Berlusconi, his Italian counterpart at the time, at Villa Certosa, his 73-room estate in Sardinia.

Their accommodation on this trip will be similarly opulent. From the moment the Blairs' limousine swept up the palm tree-lined driveway, past the courtyard fountain and through the giant double doors, tastefully decorated with Christmas wreaths, they would have entered a pop star's world.

Behind huge cast iron gates and protected by a swarm of security guards, the $11.4m (£5.8m) mansion in Miami Beach will afford plenty of privacy. With its own swimming pool and boat dock on to Biscayne Bay, the 10-bedroom, nine-bathroom home provides almost every facility the Blairs could want for their holiday as "snowbirds" - the name given by locals to visitors flocking to Florida for a warmer winter.

The three-storey house, built in 1948 and bought by Gibb in 1983 for just $950,000, sits on one of Miami's "millionaires rows". Two doors away, another of the Gibb brothers, Barry, has a $16m residence, complete with tennis court, while other neighbours include the singer Ricky Martin, the Hollywood star Matt Damon and, until recently, the actor Jennifer Lopez. Other British musicians with a passion for Miami include the Rolling Stones frontman, Mick Jagger, and Simply Red's Mick Hucknall.

Robin Gibb is said to be a long-term Labour supporter, even introducing Mr Blair at a 2005 general election rally in glamorous Huddersfield. The prime minister told supporters Mr Gibb was one of his heroes, adding: "This morning it was TB/GB [Gordon Brown]; this evening it's TB/Bee Gee."

David Whitaker, vice-president of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the Blairs were following a path to South Florida well-worn by politicians. "Richard Nixon started it by buying a winter home here, and the Clintons are regular visitors," he said.

"You can enjoy an anonymous, tranquil experience here. One of the reasons the movie stars and music figures come here is to get away from the spotlight."

But as with his previous holidays, Mr Blair's choice of holiday host will be closely scrutinised. The Gibb brothers have been leading voices of the British Academy of Composers & Songwriters' call to the government to tighten copyright protection for artists. According to the organisation's website, its duties involve: "Regularly talking to UK and EU politicians ... and campaigning to protect the value of copyright."

The Treasury has snubbed appeals to extend the copyright on sound recordings, despite the intervention of Sir Cliff and others, but the music industry has pledged to lobby the European commission for a change.

"Another year, another celebrity holiday and yet more questions about Tony Blair's judgement," said Chris Grayling, a Conservative frontbencher. "The trouble is that he doesn't seem to realise that when he does things like this it just causes more damage to the reputation of politicians as a whole."

Downing St declined to comment on Mr Blair's whereabouts for security reasons, but stressed he was not enjoying a freebie: "[His holiday] is a commercial arrangement," a spokesman said.

If the Blairs are paying market rates for their holiday, it has not come cheap. A similar nine-bedroom villa on Miami Beach with pool and a water frontage, close to the Gibb estate, is available at a monthly rental of $60,000.

Mr Blair is not the only Bee Gees admirer in the New Labour hierarchy. Alastair Campbell, the former No 10 director of communications, claims to listen to their Live in Las Vegas album while running, and the education secretary, Alan Johnson, covered their songs as a young musician.

But whether Mr Blair will have a chance to jam with his idol during his Christmas break is not clear. "It's a private holiday and it's a private arrangement," said John Campbell, Robin Gibb's manager.

The getaways


Where: Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson's 10-acre Tuscan estate near San Gimignano, boasting a 45ft swimming pool and tennis court

When: 1997

Highlights :
The breakfast croissants - observers accused Mr Blair of piling on pounds due to lavish meals. The prime minister insisted he had lost weight by swimming, tennis and climbing a hill. The paymaster general's resignation over the Peter Mandelson home loan affair put an end to such breaks

Where: Villa del Gombo, Pisa, loaned by Tuscan president Vannino Chiti

When: 1999

Highlights: It emerged that the Tuscan government had spent £500,000 refurbishing the villa for the Blairs' visit. Italian media dubbed Mr Blair Lo Scroccone (the scrounger) after it emerged that he had donated just £3,000 to charity in lieu of rent

Where:
Prince Girolamo Strozzi's 16th century Tuscan palace in the hills of Chianti, the 50-room Villa Cusona

When:
1998, 2000, 2006

Highlights: The professor and his wife moved into the stables to give the Blairs more room. Prosciutto and wine from the estate's pigs and vineyard

Where: A 15th century chateau in Lot, southwest France, which belongs to tycoon Alain Dominique Perrin

When:
2002

Highlights: Escaping rainsoaked Cumbria. The Blairs tried to prove their patriotic credentials with a break in foot-and-mouth hit rural Britain before leaving for the more luxurious surroundings of Mr Perrin's home

Where: Silvio Berlusconi's 73-room Sardinian estate, Villa Certosa

When: 2004

Highlights: The low-key visit concluded with a concert and fireworks display, which ended with the words "Viva Tony" across the sky

Where: Cliff Richard's £3m colonial-style mansion in Barbados

When: 2003, 2005, 2006

Highlights: No 10's media blackout for security reasons, blown by Mr Blair when he attended a VJ day service. The prime minister's ukelele recital.



Comment on this Article


Bad Skating


Big Quake Cuts Communications in Taiwan

By PETER ENAV and PETER SVENSSON
AP
27 Dec 06

TAIPEI, Taiwan - Undersea fiber-optic cables were damaged by a powerful earthquake off the southern tip of Taiwan, causing the largest outage of telephone and Internet service in years and demonstrating the vulnerability of the global telecommunications network.

Two residents were killed and more than 40 injured in the magnitude-6.7 tremor that hit offshore, near the southern Taiwanese town of Hengchun late Tuesday.

Up to a dozen fiber-optic cables cross the ocean floor south of Taiwan, carrying traffic between China, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia, the U.S. and the island itself. Chunghwa Telecom Co., Taiwan's largest phone company, said the quake damaged several of them, and repairs could take two to three weeks.
Taiwan lost almost all of its telephone capacity to Japan and mainland China. Service to the United States also was hard hit, with 60 percent of capacity lost.

Later, Chunghwa said connections to the U.S., China and Canada were mostly restored, but 70 percent of the capacity to Japan was still down, along with 90 percent of the capacity to Southeast Asia.

Stephan Beckert, an analyst with the Washington-based research firm TeleGeography, said it was the largest telecommunications failure in years.

"The magnitude of the break is surprising because Taiwan is otherwise a very well connected system," Beckert said. He noted that cables get cut and disrupted all the time, but there's usually enough backup capacity on other lines to keep traffic flowing without customers noticing an interruption.

But with multiple cables broken in one blow, Internet traffic around the Pacific was disrupted. Hong Kong telephone company PCCW Ltd. (PCW), which also provides Internet service, said the quake cut its data capacity in half. Internet access was cut or severely slowed in Beijing, said an official from China Netcom, China's No. 2 phone company.

The official, who would not give his name, said the cause was thought to be the earthquake, but he had no further details.

The Internet Traffic Report Web site, which monitors Internet connectivity in several countries, showed that packet loss, or the percentage of data that doesn't reach its destination, spiked sharply in Asia at the time of the earthquake, rising from about 10 percent to more than 40 percent.

On Wednesday afternoon U.S. time, the Web site showed limited connectivity to China, Singapore and Indonesia, while Japan and Taiwan were apparently back to normal.

KDDI Corp., Japan's major carrier for international calls, said its fixed-line telephone service was affected by the quake. Company spokesman Haruhiko Maeda said customers were having trouble calling India and the Middle East, which usually use the cables near Taiwan. Maeda said the company was rerouting calls through the U.S. and Europe.

South Korea's largest telecom company, KT, said that the lines it uses were damaged, affecting dozens of companies and institutions, including South Korea's Foreign Ministry.

In the U.S., Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO)'s Linksys unit warned that customer support call centers for its home networking gear were affected by the outage, but other companies with overseas call centers reported few problems.

Molly Faust, a spokeswoman for American Express Co., the global travel and payment card company headquartered in New York, said the company "wasn't experiencing any customer service issues in Asia."

She said that there were "some interruptions" of the company's computer systems in Taiwan, but added: "It didn't impact customers because we could use backup systems and manual processes."

Tyco International Ltd. (TYC) said it has a Taiwan-based cable-laying ship heading to the area for repairs.

"Pretty much everything south of Taiwan has been reported at fault," said Frank Cuccio, vice president of marine services at Morristown, N.J.-based Tyco Telecommunications.

Cuccio expects the ship to be in position in a few days. It then takes three to five days to repair each cable, but mudslides set off by the earthquake can complicate matters by covering the cables, making them harder to retrieve from the bottom.

Cuccio said the ruptures are more than 10,800 feet below sea level, too deep for the remote-controlled submersibles that otherwise would find the cables. Instead, the ship will drag grapnels along the bottom to find them.

The cables on the deep ocean floor are just two-thirds of an inch, a testament both to the immense data capacity of optical fiber and the fragility of the links that form the global telecommunications network.



Comment on this Article


Ice on Israeli roads causes delay in school day for northeners

By ELLIOTT CAPPELL, REBECCA A. STOIL AND JPOST STAFF
Jerusalem Post
27 Dec 06

Classes in schools in northern Israel were postponed on Thursday morning as a result of ice on the roads which could prove dangerous for drivers.

Extreme weather conditions continued to sweep across Israel on Wednesday, causing havoc throughout the country.

Following snowstorms in the Golan Heights, the Galilee and Hebron the previous night, on Wednesday morning snow fell in the Negev desert and later reached the central hills and Jerusalem.
Due to the snowy conditions in southern Israel, Route 40 was blocked between Sde Boker and the Nifta prison, Route 31 was blocked between Mishmar Hanegev and Lehavim and Route 204 was blocked between Yeroham and Sde Boker.

Also in the South, hundreds of Beduins were injured when several tents collapsed near the Lehavim Junction due to the stormy weather.

Meanwhile, one person was killed and three others injured in a car accident on the Coastal Highway, when a bus collided with a car on the section of the road between Fureidis and Kibbutz Ma'agan Michael.

The casualties were evacuated to Hillel Yaffe Hospital in Hadera.

In one of the most dramatic rescues of the day, police officers ferried a woman about to give birth to safety, after the tent in which she lived collapsed in a Beduin encampment between Rahat and Lehavim. MDA teams were scrambled after receiving a report that members of a family from the Al-Marni Beduin had been injured when their tent collapsed as a result of wind and rain. MDA ambulances were called to the scene, but the difficult road conditions prevented them from reaching the stricken family.

Instead, said assistant subdistrict commander Asst.-Cmdr. Peretz Amar, police vehicles brought the woman and three children to the main road where they were met by the MDA ambulances.

After the rescue, police feared that the worsening weather conditions would cause more tents in the encampment to collapse and decided to evacuate 110 other residents of the encampment to a sturdier building for the duration of the storm. With assistance from the Fire Department and the Rahat Local Council, the residents were all taken to the Abu Sineh School in Rahat until the stormy weather passed.

In other incidents, a man was swept away in his car by floods near Beit Zayit and, in Acre, a eucalyptus tree fell on an elderly woman who was evacuated to hospital with light injuries.

In Tel Aviv ten vehicles were damaged from falling trees and 22 houses were flooded, mainly in the southern part of the city.

On Abba Eban Street in Herzliya, one of the eastbound lanes collapsed on the stretch of the road between Wingate Street and Yehoshua Ben Nun Street. No injuries were reported as a result of the collapse, which police blamed on the weather conditions.

Major roadways throughout the country were closed in places due to flash floods in low-lying areas and snowfall in higher areas, as motorists tried to make their way home while conditions worsened throughout the day.

While snow, ice and floods carry their downside, the sudden heavy rainfall was "excellent" for the country, said Uri Shore, spokesman for Israel's Water Commission, "but it might not be enough."

"Underground water reserves, the source of two-thirds of Israel's water supply, are 1.8 meters below last year's levels," Shore said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. He said Israel needed this rain "badly," after parts of the country had gone 38 days without it.

The Kinneret, which Shore said was about 47 cm. lower than it was this time last year, saw 20 mm. of rain Tuesday night, according to the IMS.

Magen David Adom has ambulances and 4x4 vehicles on standby across the country in advance of the snowfall to ensure a quick response to emergency calls.

In light of the expected freeze, the Jerusalem Municipality rented hotel rooms for the city's homeless to at least give them a roof over their heads.



Comment on this Article


Storms wreak havoc across Israel

By ELLIOTT CAPPELL, REBECCA A. STOIL
Jerusalem Post
Dec. 27, 2006

Extreme weather conditions continued to sweep across Israel on Wednesday, causing havoc throughout the country.

Following snowstorms in the Golan Heights, the Galilee and Hebron the previous night, on Wednesday morning snow fell in the Negev desert and later reached the central hills and Jerusalem.

Due to the snowy conditions in southern Israel, Route 40 was blocked between Sde Boker and the Nifta prison, Route 31 was blocked between Mishmar Hanegev and Lehavim and Route 204 was blocked between Yeroham and Sde Boker.

Also in the South, hundreds of Beduins were injured when several tents collapsed near the Lehavim Junction due to the stormy weather.
Meanwhile, one person was killed and three others injured in a car accident on the Coastal Highway, when a bus collided with a car on the section of the road between Fureidis and Kibbutz Ma'agan Michael.

The casualties were evacuated to Hillel Yaffe Hospital in Hadera.

In other incidents, a man was swept away in his car by floods near Beit Zayit and, in Acre, a eucalyptus tree fell on an elderly woman who was evacuated to hospital with light injuries.

In Tel Aviv ten vehicles were damaged from falling trees and 22 houses were flooded, mainly in the southern part of the city.

The Israel Metrological Service (IMS) reported that Beit Dagan saw a record of over 50 mm. of rainfall Tuesday night and Jerusalem saw 30 mm. of rainfall.

Strong winds also swept through the country Tuesday night, reaching 70 kilometers per hour. The sea was stormy, with waves reaching three meters and expected to reach five meters on Wednesday.

In one of the most dramatic rescues of the day, police officers ferried a woman about to give birth to safety, after the tent in which she lived collapsed in a Beduin encampment between Rahat and Lehavim. MDA teams were scrambled after receiving a report that members of a family from the Al-Marni Beduin jhad been injured when their tent collapsed as a result of wind and rain. MDA ambulances were called to the scene, but the difficult road conditions prevented them from reaching the stricken family.

Instead, said assistant subdistrict commander Asst.-Cmdr. Peretz Amar, police vehicles brought the woman and three children to the main road where they were met by the MDA ambulances.

After the rescue, police feared that the worsening weather conditions would cause more tents in the encampment to collapse and decided to evacuate 110 other residents of the encampment to a sturdier building for the duration of the storm. With assistance from the Fire Department and the Rahat Local Council, the residents were all taken to the Abu Sineh School in Rahat until the stormy weather passes.

In Nahariya, rescue teams had to extricate a woman who was trapped under a tree that fell as a result of gusting winds and wet ground and on Rehov Abba Eban in Herzliya, a one of the eastbound lanes collapsed on the stretch of the road between Rehov Windgate and Rehov Yehoshua Ben Nun. No injuries were reported as a result of the collapse, which police blamed on the weather
conditions.

Major roadways throughout the country were closed in places due to flash floods in lowlying areas and snowfall in higher areas, as motorists tried to make their way home while conditions worsened throughout the day.

The wintry weather had already taken its toll on houses in southern Tel Aviv, which were flooded Tuesday, and local authorities and hospitals will be on standby throughout the day.

Although schools remained open, information on possible closures is available by calling 1-212-222-666.

While snow, ice and floods carry their downside, the sudden heavy rainfall was "excellent" for the country, said Uri Shore, spokesman for Israel's Water Commission, "but it might not be enough."

"Underground water reserves, the source of two-thirds of Israel's water supply, are 1.8 meters below last year's levels," Shore said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. He said Israel needed this rain "badly," after parts of the country had gone 38 days without it.

The Kinneret, which Shore said was about 47 cm. lower than it was this time last year, saw 20 mm. of rain Tuesday night, according to the IMS.

Neither Dan nor Egged bus services are expecting any service interruptions. Customers can reach Egged at (03) 694-8888 or *2800, and Dan at (03) 639-4444 for the latest updates, or simply 144 for local information.

As the Post reported Tuesday, municipal authorities in Jerusalem are readying a fleet of snowplows and the municipality's emergency hot line, 106, will be beefed up.

Magen David Adom has ambulances and 4x4 vehicles on standby across the country in advance of the snowfall to ensure a quick response to emergency calls.

In light of the expected freeze, the Jerusalem Municipality rented hotel rooms for the city's homeless to at least give them a roof over their heads.

The IMS Web site cautions that low areas in the Negev should beware of flooding on Wednesday, but Batz disagreed: "If we were looking at 100 mm., there would be a serious risk. But the earth is very dry right now, so I don't think there is much risk of floods. This rain is very good for the South, considering how dry the season has been so far."

Residents in Haifa, on the other hand, should be prepared to face flooding. Local authorities met there on Tuesday morning in a collaborative effort to prepare the city for the three-and-a-half meter waves, 60 km. per hour winds and 35 mm. of rainfall they expect from Tuesday to Wednesday night.

In particular, they are ready for evacuations in case of flooding, and the removal of hazardous objects, such as trees and traffic lights, that might be blown onto the roads by wind.

In Mitzpe Ramon, residents should be cautious while driving if temperatures fall below freezing. About 10 mm. of rain are expected, and if forecasters are right, residents will wake up to icy roads Wednesday and Thursday morning.

In addition, Magen David Adom urged care with heaters. Those using gas and kerosene heaters producing carbon monoxide must ventilate rooms. CO is poisonous but has no color or scent. Signs of CO poisoning include nausea and vomiting, dizziness, tiredness and weakness. If such symptoms appear in people exposed to gas or kerosene heating, call MDA at 101. Keep the bodies of infants, old people and patients confined to their beds warm and snug, using layers of light clothing that allow movement. If a person is unusually sleepy, confused and has no appetite for food or drink, call MDA.



Comment on this Article


Pick Your Poison


Reporting genocide isn't easy - The new generation of citizen journalists are a mixed blessing for humanitarianism.

Conor Foley
UK Independent
28 Dec 06

Three years ago a group of US college students recorded a documentary about children in Northern Uganda forced to flee their homes every night to escape abduction by rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army.

The film, Invisible Children, has been shown in US colleges, schools and churches and has led to the development of a mass movement to raise funds and influence US policy towards the region. The film-makers formed their own non-governmental organization (NGO), touring college campuses to organize solidarity activities.

I met some of them when I was working in Northern Uganda.
They came across as nice and sincere people. But it was noticeable that they remained quite distinct from the staff of the more established humanitarian agencies, some of whom were rather dismissive of the amateur nature of their work.

The people behind Invisible Children are part of a new generation of US activists becoming engaged in international solidarity. Some of these groups are linked to American religious groups, while others are formed by the same type of people that support the work of Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Stop Genocide Now, for example, sent a couple of "citizen journalists" to spend their Christmas holidays in Darfur.

SGN claim that "we have entered an age of knowledge which empowers us to protect". But there is actually a long tradition to this type of bearing witness. Their trip to Darfur was preceded by a very similar delegation from Amnesty International.

The use of technology, well-designed websites, video-feeds and talk-boards, does, however, give a new feel to this work. There is also some glamour in young volunteers heading off to war zones to bring back stories that the rest of the media are too afraid to cover. Just as blogging is challenging the mainstream media, on-line interactive activism has opened campaigning to a new generation.

Yet there are some causes for concern. The SGN's claim to "replace statistics with names, faces and stories", while not exactly new, does reflect an understanding that people, faced with information over-load, want their stories simple, direct and moving. Real life, unfortunately, is often just not like that and there are problems with trying to reduce every conflict to a story of good and evil.

Humanitarian and human rights organisations have sometimes been accused of exaggerating crises, for fund-raising purposes. We have tried to become more professional in the last few years and others now complain that we behave more like a commercial business. The new groups may bring humanitarian aid back to its voluntarist ethic, but they need to learn the lessons from our mistakes.

Truth is the first casualty in conflict. In both Iraq and Kosovo international military interventions were justified by claims which turned out not to be true. This clearly raises the stakes for those, like me, who support humanitarian interventions in certain cases and increases our responsibility to get our facts right.

Larger organisations, such as Amnesty International, have developed elaborate cross-checking procedures to verify allegations, which mirror the editorial procedures of the mainstream media. Bloggers and citizen journalists are, by definition, subject to fewer constraints.

Bloggers made their mark during last summer's war in the Lebanon, exposing the "enhancing" of a photograph showing smoke above Beiruit and alleging that the story of an Israeli military attack on Red Cross ambulances was a hoax. This second claim was rejected by the International Committee of the Red Cross and mainstream media outlets, including the Guardian, and ably rebutted by other bloggers.

Such reports have an impact though and there is a danger when they are being produced by people who are approaching the issue primarily from an ideologically committed stand-point. One blogger even produced her own YouTube video clip to "prove" Islamic terrorists regularly use UN and Red Cross ambulances to transport weapons. In a context where humanitarian organisations are coming under increasing attack by all sides, in conflicts ranging from Sri Lanka to Afghanistan, this seems to have been almost deliberately murderous in its intent.

None of this is to knock initiatives such as those taken by SGN and Invisible Children. From what I have seen of the SGN website, they are taking their task seriously and avoiding sensationalism. It is unfortunate that their name itself suggests they have some pre-determined view about what is happening in Darfur; if their trip helps them to become better informed then that alone probably makes it worthwhile.

It can only be a good thing that people are motivated to want to stop suffering in other countries. But it is also worth remembering the humanitarian dictum: first of all, do no harm.



Comment on this Article


Tuscan church reveals answer to mystery of Medici deaths - Poisoned!

John Hooper in Rome
Thursday December 28, 2006
The Guardian

Picking through centuries-old rubbish, masonry and discarded body parts beneath an abandoned Tuscan church, an Italian historian believes she has solved one of history's great crime mysteries.

For more than four centuries, researchers have puzzled over the fact that Francesco I Medici, the son of the first Grand Duke, Cosimo, died within hours of his wife in October 1587. Legend had it they were poisoned by his brother and successor, a cardinal.
Modern historians have tended to settle for the more down-to-earth explanation that they died of malaria. But Donatella Lippi, an associate professor at the University of Florence, told the Guardian yesterday that she and other researchers had established beyond doubt that Francesco was poisoned and that evidence from "mountains of debris" underneath the deconsecrated church strongly suggested his wife was too.

Prof Lippi said that when she came across the remains that were to yield the vital clues "I very nearly had a heart attack".

The details of the investigation have been published in the BMJ.

Prof Lippi is historical adviser to a project in which the bodies of numerous members of the Medici dynasty, including Francesco, have been dug up in search of new evidence on their lives and deaths.

She said a document she found while researching for the project had indicated that a postmortem had been carried out on the embalmed bodies of the Grand Duke and his wife, a Florentine noblewoman, Bianca Cappello.

The document, from the diocesan archives of the city of Pistoia, showed that the organs extracted during the autopsy had been put into terracotta jars and placed under the church of Santa Maria a Buonistallo, near the villa where they had died.

The church, though no longer used for worship, still belonged to the ecclesiastical authorities and Prof Lippi was able to get permission to go into the basement with a team of building workers.

"What we found was not a room but a kind of tunnel full of debris. I decided to go through it with my bare hands so I could actually feel the difference between the stones and dust and any organic matter we might find. It was a terrible job," Prof Lippi said.

Her search yielded part of a human liver "the size of a hazelnut" and two other body parts that have defied identification. Tests showed the liver was that of a man and its DNA matched that taken from remains in Francesco's tomb. The other body parts belonged to a woman and, like the fragment of liver, they revealed high concentrations of arsenic.

Francesco's brother, Cardinal Ferdinando, had been in danger of being excluded from the succession. In his letters to the papal court, he put the Grand Duke's illness down to his eating habits and said Bianca was sick with grief because of her husband's condition.



Comment on this Article


One Year Ago: 2005


2005: A Ten-Step Program

Jane Smiley
Sat Dec 17,2005

Is Bush in a bubble? Is Bush a dry drunk? Is Bush a drunk drunk? Is Bush a narcissist? Is Bush an idiot? Is Bush a madman? Does Bush have an 'Authority Problem'? Theories abound about why Bush does the things he does, but most of them assume that he is making mistakes that he could or would correct if he understood how misguided he was.
On Monday, there was an editorial in the New York Times lamenting the apparent indifference of the Bush administration to the rebuilding of New Orleans, the levees in particular. On Tuesday, there was another editorial, excoriating the shameful behavior of the Bush negotiators at the Montreal conference on global warming. The gist of both editorials was that without national leadership, two chances are about to be lost--the chance to rebuild the city of New Orleans and the chance to mitigate the effects of global warming. Then at the end of the week, we learned that Bush has been wiretapping the phones of his own citizens--an impeachable offense. The Times writes as if it is possible still to alter the direction of Bush administration policy, but obviously it is not.

The Bushies have a pattern and they stick to it in spite of every apparent reason to change course. it's not as if we don't know what pattern it is, and it's not as if they haven't advertised what the pattern will be--it is to break down the government so completely that it can't be put back together again. Let's take a look at the 'mistakes' the Bush administration is said to have made, and, instead, ask ourselves if they are actually realized intentions:

1. Hobbling the government with debt by combining an expensive, prolonged war with perennial rounds of tax cuts.

2. Destroying the bureaucracy by making it impossible for neutral, expert, or objective bureaucrats to keep their jobs, replacing them with incompetents.

3. Destroying the integrity of the election system, state by state, beginning with Florida and Ohio.

4: Defanging the media by paying fake reporters, co-opting members of the MSM (why did the New York Times refrain from publishing stories unfavorable to the Bush administration before the 2004 election?) and allowing (or encouraging) huge mergers and the buying up of independent media operations by known conservative media conglomerates.

5. Destroying the middle class by changing the bankruptcy laws and the tax laws.

6. Destroying the National Guard and the Army by deploying them over and over in a futile war, while at the same time failing to provide them with armor and equipment.

7. Precipitating Iraq into a civil war by invading it.

8. Accelerating the effects of global warming by putting roadblocks in the way of mitigating it's effects.

9. Denying healthcare and prescription medication to an increasing number of Americans, most specifically by ramming the prescription drug legislation through Congress, but also by manipulating Medicare and Medicaid so that fewer and fewer citizens are covered.

10. Encouraging the people in the rest of the world to associate the US with torture, military incursion, and fear, by a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation, by vociferously maintaining the right of the US to do whatever it wants whenever it wants, and by refusing to accept international laws.

Or, to put it another way, the Bush administration apparently wishes for and is working toward a chaotic Iraq, a corrupt American election structure with openly corrupt influence-peddlers like Delay and Abramoff in charge of policy, a world in which people suffer and die from weather-related catastrophes, a two-tiered economic structure in the US (with most people in the lower tier), and the isolation of the US as a rogue state from the other nations of the world.

How else are we going to interpret the satisfaction the President continually expresses in the results of his policies so far? As an example, when Bush said, 'Heckuva job, Brownie', outsiders generally assumed he was making a mistake--that he didnt know what a bad job Brownie was doing. But let's say that he knew perfectly well that Brownie had abandoned New Orleans to the forces of nature, and that THAT was the essence of the heckuva job he was doing.

In the same way, many people assume that the administration is embarrassed that the extent of the American rendition gulag or the techniques of torture used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have gotten into the news along with the use of white phosphorus in Falluja, as if torture and rendition and white phosphorus were something that Bush does not want to do. But let's say that torture and rendition are something that the Bush administration is happy to do, and doesn't mind others knowing about. Likewise, many observers, let's say Jack Murtha, for one, assume that the president does not want to destroy the army. But if the army is destroyed, then the services that the army provides at a relatively moderate expense to the taxpayer can be farmed out to companies like Halliburton. Lets say that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush have cast their lot not with the draft, or even the volunteer army, but with the mercenary army, which is more profitable, less subject to Congressional and public oversight, and, really, the appropriate army for a rogue state. And, with a mercenary army, there is no problem when a fallen soldier is sent home as a piece of freight. It is only citizen-soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice out of patriotism. When we get rid of citizen soldiers, then we don't have to respect them.

When Grover Norquist said he wanted to strangle the shrunken government in the bathtub, he was not kidding. He meant that the taxpayers and and voters would not be able to look to the government for any services what'soever, but also that they would not have any control over the government does. The drowned and strangled government, having ceased to exist, would not only offer no benefit's to citizens, it would offer no obstacle to those who wished to break the laws (for example against internal spying), because there would be no law to break. It is for this reason that the Bush administration pays absolutely no attention to the polls--they have already discounted the preferences of the citizens. When the government has been shrunk to nothing and drowned in the bathtub, the citizenry will be entirely powerless--that is the real goal, not an unintended consequence. Norquist and his fellow theorists understand perfectly that in a modern democracy, there are two competing modes of voting: there is 'one person, one vote' and there is 'one dollar, one vote'. They not only prefer 'one dollar, one vote', they want to entirely get rid of 'one person, one vote'.

The outcome of such policies will be a dictatorship or a tyranny. Such policies cannot be reconciled with the US as we know it, or with the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is true that rogue elements have stolen elections before, as the slave interest stole the election in Kansas in 1856 by openly ferrying fraudulent voters across the river from Missouri, and then bullying the Congress into certifying the election in spite of plenty of evidence that the election was corrupt. It is also true that the public has been fed lies in the past so that they would support a questionable war (remember the Maine!). Corrupt administrations probably outnumber clean ones in US history.

But the ten "successes" I cite above come together to present, I think, the greatest threat to the US since the Civil War. The US is not like much of the rest of the world: France has always been France, and England has been England for many centuries, and Russia defined it'self during the reign of Ivan the Terrible as Russia in contrast to the Tartars and Europe. Chinese history is, supposedly, the longest continual history of any people in the world, but the US is based on an abstraction--a certain set of ideas that divide up and share out power so that it does not become concentrated in the hands of a single tyrannical entity, either party or person. We are expected to participate as citizens in our government at the local, state, and national level, and our government has been expected, from the beginning, to be a shared enterprise, not an engine of power and wealth for a single oligarchic group. Our government was devised as a set of ideas about how to avoid kings, aristocracies, and tyrannies. If it fails at that, or is manipulated into producing tyranny, then we are no longer living in the US, we are living in a no man's land, without an actual identity. This set of ideas, political techniques, and beliefs that holds together immigrants from every continent and every culture.

I began considering the possibility that what we see around us might indeed constitute success, as far as the Bushies are concerned, when I read in a post by Karen Kwiatkowski that three witnesses had confirmed that Bush referred to the Constitution as a "just a god damned piece of paper." Then there was the article in The Guardian in which six American pundit's were invited to reflect upon the meaning of the last five years of the Bush administration. Two commentators said interesting things. Howell Raines pointed out that four generations of Bushes and Walkers (since 1850) have shown a willingness to do anything for money and power, but no interest of any kind in the common good. R. Emmett Tyrell implied more than he stated when he maintained that the anger that people like me feel toward Bush is mere psychological projection, expressing "the need of the passing Old Order to have enemies." What was striking in Tyrell's section is his assumption that the Old Order (legal elections, citizen soldiers, healthy middle class, commonly agreed upon morality, laws, and regulations, useful beaurocracy) IS passing.

He must know something I don't know, because I had been thinking the country we used to have was still salvageable. In addition to these signs, though, we have several others, among them the fact that Bush and Cheney attempt to communicate only with their base (and remember, in 'Farenheit 911', Bush told a group of wealthy contributors that they WERE his base). Their base is fairly small and getting smaller, but they seem to have no desire, even when campaigning, to enlarge their base. it's as if they know that the voters don't matter, and, of course, according to the president of the Diebold Company, the voters don't matter (see Avi Rubin's post about voting machine certifcation).

In the face of the administrations successes, it seems that it is the responsibility of the Democrats to save the republic, and to prevent the government from being shrunken and drowned, but they have been very lax about stepping up to the plate. With the nation beginning to wake up to the injustice and futility of bringing chaos to the Middle East, the most prominent Democrats choose to distance themselves from the citizens and to link themselves more tightly to the administration. Hillary Clinton, for example, refuses to denounce the war and takes up the issue of flag burning! John Kerry refuses to confront the probability that his honor was besmirched and his own election was stolen. The DNC takes the time to denounce the peace movement, even though the peace movement was right about the futility of the war. Bill Clinton seems to be of two minds. He's willing to speak out about global warming, which is a plus, but every time he takes a stand about any other issue, he soon backpedals. How to understand this? Democrats outside of Washington widely infer that Democrats in Washington are simply cowardly or deluded, but it is also a possibility that they are in on the shift from what Tyrell calls the "Old Order" (democracy) to the "New Order" (what shall we call that?).

We normally think of American political thought running along a single continuum, from right to left, from, let's say from the Ku Klux Klan to the American Communist Party. Most Americans fall in the middle. Moderate Republicans live next door to moderate Democrats, and the way moderation expresses it'self shifts, and is expected to shift, from region to region. In an ethnically diverse country where ideas, and ideology, are important, Americans generally understand, almost without realizing it, that moderation is what holds things together. But American political thought runs along another continuum, too, not a continuum of ideas but a continuum of power. What differentiates various groups on this continuum from one another is their embrace or rejection of power as a goal in it'self. Essentially ideological thought seeks power in order to achieve certain ideas; power-oriented groups use ideas in order to achieve power.

In the conservative movement today, this split is evident--old-line conservatives distrust the Bush administration because small government, low debt, and isolationism are about circumscribing the power of government. Bush is about enhancing the power of--well, I almost said government. But any government is essentially a smoothly-operating bureaucracy. Bush is about enhancing the power of himself and his cronies and dismantling any countervailing entity. The Bushies are not shy about acting on their craving for power (as in the K Street Project) or about talking about it-- "Permanent Republican control of the three branches of government." In addition, Bush himself tends to express his desire for power when he's joking about how it's easier to be a dictator than a president, or how the Chinese sure know how to treat journalists. The only reason the Bushies are called "conservative", as many conservatives will themselves tell you, is that the theorists of Bushism managed to graft themselves onto the Republican Party in the 1970s and 80s, when the Republican party was the party of disgruntled racists, fundamentalists, workers, and farmers left behind by Civil Rights, feminism, the sexual revolution, the end of the manufacturing sector, and the abandonment of a rural way of life. Many of the neo-cons are former leftist student radicals because when they were student radicals, power was what they wanted. They needed to be converted from one ideology (Marxism) to another (capitalism), but the essential goal--gaining power--remained the same.

If we add the power continuum, then, the American political scene starts looking like a coordinate plane. There is the x-axis, from left to right, and the y-axis, from bottom (power dispersing) to top (power consolidating). Institutions and entities that are power dispersing would be the Libertarian Party, the Novel, the blogosphere, and democracy it'self. If we plot the Bush administration point, it would be at the top of the y-axis, but not necessarily very far right, in terms of small government, low debt, and isolationism. In fact, it is this apparent moderation in expressed Bush ideas that makes him seem relatively harmless to many Americans. But the ruthless drive for power of Bush and his cronies is really not about ideas, and in fact views ideas as a kind of trash, even, according to witnesses, the ideas expressed in the Constitution. the reason I never support any Bush policy, no matter how 'moderate' on the surface is that every Bush policy is designed to enhance thepower of Bush and his cronies. The grab for absolute power must be resisted absolutely. No doubt the Democrats who are in sympathy with the Bush crowd are high on the power axis, too, at least in their own minds.

My point is not to psychoanalyze Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. How they came to think as they do, and how things look to them are not actually very interesting. What is important is that average Americans come to comprehend how dangerous they are, and how destructive their plans are. Do they actually plan to disenfranchise everyone but their reliable base? Well, yes they do. Can they? If they have control of the electronic voting machines, they can. Do they actually plan for their associates and cronies to skim off vast quantities of the taxpayers' money? Well, yes they do. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Ag, and the major war industries already are doing so, and they have taken plenty from the Indian tribes and foreigners, too Do they actually plan to let New Orleans, that blue spot in a red state, slip away? Looks like it. Do they actually plan to destroy the middle class? They are making good progress--poverty was up twelve percent last year, and the 'booming economy' is strangely low on job growth, at least for Americans.

The catalogue of their 'successes', or, as average Americans might term it, their 'failures', is pretty long. Given the sympathy the Democrats afford them, we can stop them in only a few ways, it seems--by constantly bearing witness to their crimes, and prosecuting them if and when we can, by never underestimating the ruthlessness of their motives and the enormity of their goal, by being immune to their habitual public relations tools: fear, accusations of betrayal, false patriotism, appeals to populist and religious resentments, use of political red herrings like gay marriage. Most important, we must make every effort to oversee and guarantee the credibility of our elections.

I also have a philosophical bulletin for the Bush crowd--the 'Thousand Year Reich' doesn't exist, and neither does 'permanent Republican control of all three branches of government', especially if that control is based on stealing elections. Power is the most ephemeral possession of them all because retaining power means exerting ever more control. Control, of course, operates according to the law of diminishing returns. When you threaten and then torture that first guy, it's shocking and intimidating, not only to the guy himself but to everyone who hears about it. To maintain that level of intimidation, however, requires ever more threats and ever more torture, and pretty soon you have threatened and tortured, and even killed, hundreds (what's the count on Iraqis who have died in American custody--121?) or thousands of people, and you are actually losing power because the very thing you thought you could toss out the window in your quest for power, namely morality, comes back to haunt you in the form of disgust (the disgust that others feel toward you) and common decency (that quality that others have retained and you have lost). The US has lasted this long, and survived and thrived because of power dispersal, not power consolidation. Which is not to say that the Bushies can't do a lot of damage--they have and they can.

The loss of our moral compass is devastating. The scattering of beaurocratic talent is a huge hidden cost of the Bush plan, as is the destruction of the volunteer army both as a military entity and as a population of young people who have been required to be ruthless themselves and to be ruthlessly preyed upon by the Iraqi insurgency. Our debts to the Chinese are a price we do not yet know the cost of, and our resistance to the idea of global warming might doom us all. Arousing the foot soldiers of the religious right, whipping them up with ideas of 'the Rapture', then arming them with weapons of mass destruction seems on the face of it to be a first class folly. And all for what? Life is short. Reputations are long.



Comment on this Article


2005: Scandals: Six 'conspiratorial' and six not

By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 28, 2005

Six of the scandals about the US government that are currently making the rounds of the Internet are simply breathtaking. No one has ever heard of a democratic government being so bold in harming its own people, and thus there is an automatic reluctance (or refusal) to accept these.
Here's a list of horrible things that 'they' are doing to us:

1. They damage the environment, virtually for the fun of it, by causing earthquakes, hurricanes, and forest fires.

2. They instill fear and panic by actually carrying out a terrorist incident, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks.

3. They kill off potential leaders such as Sen. Paul Wellstone who died in a plane crash (Note: bumping someone off used to mean shooting them or arranging a car accident, nowadays it can include giving them cancer, heart attack, or infections).

4. They deliberately destabilize society, both by planting drugs among young people and by imprisoning millions, which breaks up families.

5. They outright attack us with biological or chemical weapons for example, it is said that about 50 percent of the American soldiers who went to the Gulf in 1991 are very ill from an intentionally harmful vaccination that was supposedly to protect them against anthrax.

6. They disrupt normal communication and thought via a barrage of lies, hoaxes, and disinformation.

Six Old-Fashioned Types of Scandals

I shall analyze the above conspiracy-type scandals in a moment, but for now please look at a different sort of six scandals. These old-fashioned ones have been considered normal over many generations and are unlikely to make us feel overwhelmed. Three of the most common kinds of scandal in democratic nations are related to voting, money, and sex. Another three involve aggrieved citizens (rather than naughty politicians) given that the strong arm of the state can be cruel, and the benefits of the state can be handed out inequitably. Thus:

1. Elections are rigged whether by miscounts, by concealed funding, or by last minute smearing of one's opponent.

2. With huge resources just waiting to be abused, financial scandals tend to take the form of bribes, hush money, and padded expense accounts.

3. In the old days, marital infidelity was itself sufficient enough to bring down a leader; today, something more imaginative may be required.

4. Brutality is often reported where police or prison guards assault or humiliate those in their custody.

5. Medical experiments may be carried out on a captive group, such as mentally retarded children or ghetto dwellers.

6. Since favoritism is not allowed in meritocracies, nepotism is the subject of many scandals. One person receiving an undeserved favor means another is overlooked.

A glance through newspapers over the years will show that these six types of scandal are ever recurring, and by now they barely evoke a yawn. Human nature assures us that there will always be competition for office, desire for money and sex, and an urge to mistreat underlings when there are no observers present. And which of us hasn't tried to get a summer job for a nephew?

A New Analysis of the Conspiratorial Scandals

By contrast, the six conspiratorial-type scandals evoke much more than a yawn. In those people who are receptive to the ideas at all, they induce shock. In most, of course, they induce disbelief. Can the head of our own armed forces have played a game in the air to let skyscrapers topple over on the people of New York? "Of course not!" "Don't be absurd!" Reviewing the six conspiratorial scandals again, note that human nature cannot be the explanation. Human nature does not predict that an elected government would wreck the human habitat, terrorize the population, kill off potential leaders, destabilize society by furnishing drugs and dislocating families, spread disease, and disrupt rational thought.

But wait! I think I do detect human nature at work here. Those six things are ones that a nation does to its enemies, and it does so without shame or inhibition. After all, when you're out to defeat the other population, you may as well go about it in a comprehensive manner. I'll grant that international law forbids it, but it is nevertheless standard practice on the part of certain nations, including our own. For example, we used the scorched earth policy in Vietnam (having tried it out earlier in Guatemala); we boasted of our terrorizing intent via the 'shock and awe' display in Baghdad; and we have 'dispatched' many leaders such as Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile, and we are openly contemplating the fate of Chavez in Venezuela.

With the other three items, also, British examples will show that human nature does predict certain behaviors when we deal with enemies. The British used opium in China to ruin that society during the Opium Wars; it gave disease-ridden blankets to indigenous people during the French and Indian War in Canada, and during WWII it beamed radio programs into Germany (in the German language, natürlich) laced with disinformation. None of us in the Anglo-American world fell into a state of disbelief upon hearing these things. We are hard-wired to feel no sympathy for the enemy and indeed rarely credit the enemy with being human. We are also hard-wired to rejoice with our fellow warriors when we have 'bloodied the bastards to bits.'

Excuse Me, Who's the Enemy Here?

So then, if it is perfectly believable to envision a group harming its enemy, do we Americans today need to merely to relabel the people of the United States as an enemy in the eyes of their government? Would that solve the problem of the unbelievability of the six conspiratorial scandals? Indeed it would.

Say what? American people as the enemy of the US government? Isn't that so patently false that we must discard it without further consideration? Not necessarily. The hidden clue could lie in the fact that members of the US government may owe their allegiance to a nation other than the USA. And what might that nation be? I'm not thinking of a particular territorial state, such as Israel (although the US government is too obeisant to Israel). I am thinking of that supra-nation called Globalia or Club Med or whatever we name the hangout of the high-class people. Many of the members of this supra-nation happen to be American; many are not.

So as not to name names, let's call any three of these persons A, B, and C. Now why would A, B, and C want to disrupt American society, terrorize the people, or harm the habitat? As noted above, when you're out to defeat an enemy, you might as well do it comprehensively. But why in the world would A, B, and C have an interest in defeating the American people? I believe the answer is simply because we are their competitors. They want their will to prevail, but so long as we citizens have rights and ambitions, they cannot be assured of smooth sailing.

But isn't it absolutely wild to propose that they might do horrible things to us when in the course of a week or a month they deal with us as neighbors, alumni, or even friends? My answer is that the human brain is so able to switch off its altruism when it encounters 'enemy people' that it should be no problem. My guess is that they are able to do horrible things.

Of the six conspiratorial scandals mentioned at the beginning, it is perfectly believable that our government is guilty of two of them: it disrupts normal communication via a barrage of lies and it destabilizes families and society through many of its policies. Does it also do the other four? If it does, then I claim that my human nature analysis must be taken seriously. We must acknowledge that the US government has adopted the position of 'enemy of the American people' and is acting accordingly. The four scandals that you would have to accept as real are government participation in 9/11; the killing of Paul Wellstone; the deliberate use of a harmful anthrax vaccine on soldiers; and environmental devastation.

Mary Maxwell, Ph.D. P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 48106, is a political scientist. She can be emailed as 'mary' at her website: marymaxwell.us She hereby permits anyone to copy or distribute this article as long as it remains unaltered and contains this notice.



Comment on this Article


2005: Checks and No Balance: The story is Bush's spying, not the story's messenger

by Sydney H. Schanberg
December 27th, 2005
The Village Voice

The domestic spying controversy is a story of immense importance. President Bush, by secret directive a few months after 9-11, allowed the National Security Agency, restricted by law to monitoring only foreign communications, to carry out a domestic spying program as well. This directive, now uncovered, is the latest clear confirmation that the president has been conferring more power on himself-without any checks or balances by Congress or the judicial system.
While previous presidents have at various times claimed the legal right to authorize searches and electronic surveillance without court warrants so as to gather foreign intelligence, those decisions have undergone scrutiny by either courts or congressional hearings.

It's fair to say that Bush had no intention of allowing public scrutiny of his act, since he personally summoned the top executives of The New York Times to a private meeting on December 6 and pressured them not to run the story about the domestic spying. The paper had held the story for a year at the administration's pleading but decided, after second thoughts and more reporting, that its importance required publication. It appeared on the Times' front page on Friday, December 16.

Some Bush supporters have attacked the Times for running the piece. On the other hand, some journalists have attacked theTimes for holding it for a year. From where I stand (I'm a Times alumnus), the paper should get credit for digging it out and publishing it. But whatever one's journalistic point of view, the Times' decision-making is not the central story here. The president's secret directive is.

The president and others in his White House said the leak of his decision to bypass existing law was a serious national security matter and hinted at an investigation. They argued that the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires court warrants and does not allow domestic spying by the National Security Agency, was not designed for an era of terrorism.

Since 9-11, Bush and his inner circle have insisted vehemently that all of the administration's anti-terrorism acts at home and overseas have been done in accordance with U.S. law and the Constitution.

But listen carefully to the president's own earlier statements, keeping in mind that the domestic spying operation has been in effect since early 2002.

On April 19, 2004, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, Bush said, speaking of anti-terrorism wiretapping: " . . . Everything you hear about [wiretapping] requires [a] court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example." Of note: A member of the FISA court just resigned from the 11-member federal panel in protest against Bush's secret domestic-spying program. The Washington Post reported that U.S. District Judge James Robertson sent his resignation letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on December 19.

On April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York, Bush said: "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order." He added: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

On December 16, 2005, the day the Times story appeared, the president-interviewed on Jim Lehrer's NewsHour-would not discuss his domestic-spying directive ("We . . . don't talk about ongoing intelligence operations"). "But," he said, "it's important for the American people to understand that we will do-or I will use my powers to protect us, and I will do so under the law."

All the president's above statements about observing the court-order requirement and thus acting "under the law" would appear to be false.

They are false by the same measure that showed his weapons-of-mass-destruction claims to be false-after he misled the nation into war. And what about the misdirections and untruths the White House has promulgated about secret CIA prisons on foreign soil, or about violations of the Geneva Conventions against torture of prisoners, or about an operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, or about blaming the press for alerting Osama bin Laden to U.S. electronic surveillance techniques when the information has been in the public domain for years?

The lies-after all, that's what they really are-have become so numerous that reasonable people are beginning to hear echoes of the Nixon presidency and impeachment. Think about all those rosy "trust me" speeches Bush has been delivering.

As for his drumbeat claims that he is honoring the Constitution and the nation's laws, then why did a FISA judge resign, and why are his colleagues now demanding intelligence briefings on the president's secret sidestepping of their jurisdiction? Why are moderate Republicans leaving Bush's side over these issues-all of which have their origin in the president's self-expansion of power as he devised the invasion and ongoing war in Iraq?

George Bush and his ultra-conservative Republicans didn't invent the art of presidential spinning and hiding of truths and the "modified limited hang-out." We've been lied to before. But this presidency has lifted these arts to new and scary heights. It has effectively sneered at the Founders' basic principle of checks and balances. A few days ago, Vice President Dick Cheney explained the rationale behind the secret domestic spying by saying that Watergate and Vietnam significantly eroded presidential powers and the Bush regime is merely trying to restore them. He actually said that.

The words and deeds of these White House residents point to other conclusions. They seem to be reaching for virtually unchecked power-power even to override laws at will in a nation founded on the rule of law.

This president promised to restore "honor and integrity" to the White House. And when he was elected to a second term, he said happily and boldly to a press conference: "You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital-and now I intend to spend it."

His bypassing the law, was that what he meant by those promises? Could the president actually have forgotten that in this country, the monarchy was abolished-and any autocracy forbidden-more than two centuries ago?



Comment on this Article


2005: Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say

by Jason Leopold
27 Dec 2005

President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.

The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.
A spokeswoman at the White House who refused to give her name also would not comment, and pointed to a March 3, 2003 press briefing by former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer when questions about U.N. spying were first raised.

"As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence," Fleischer said. "So I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

Disclosure of the wiretaps and the monitoring of U.N. members' email came on the eve of the Iraq war in the British-based Observer. The leak -- which the paper acquired in the form of an email via a British translator -- came amid a U.S. push urging U.N. members to vote in favor of a resolution that said Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441, asserting that it had failed to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction.

News of the NSA spying on the U.N. received scant coverage in U.S. newspapers at the time. But with the explosive domestic spying report published in the New York Times last week, a closer examination of pre-war spying may shed light on whether the Bush administration has used the NSA for its own political purposes, as opposed to tracking down communications regarding potential terrorist threats against the U.S.

The leaked NSA email detailing the agency's spy tactics against the U.N. was written Jan. 31, 2003 by Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza. In the email, Koza asked an undisclosed number of NSA and British intelligence officials to "pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms (home and office telephones) for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations."

One intelligence source who spoke to RAW STORY said top White House officials and some Republican members of Congress had debated in December 2002 whether to step up the surveillance of U.N. officials to include eavesdropping on home telephone and personal email accounts. Some feared that in the event it was discovered, it would further erode relations between the U.S. and the U.N.

The source added that U.S. spying on the U.N. isn't new.

"It's part of the job," the intelligence source said. "Everyone knows it's being done."

Eavesdropping on U.N. diplomats is authorized under the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Services Act. However, it's still considered a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says that "The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable."

According to one former official, "The administration pushed the envelope by tapping their home phones."

Koza's email, a copy of which is included at the end of this report, says the "Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc."

"The whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters."

The email was sent out just four days after Blix filed his Iraq weapons report with the U.N. through a top secret surveillance network set up by the NSA, the British Government Communication Headquarters and similar intelligence agencies based in Australia, New Zealand and Canada known as Echelon.

It was leaked to a handful of media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. by Katharine Tersea Gun, a former translator for British intelligence. Gun was arrested in November 2003 and charged with violating her country's Official Secrets Act. She said she felt compelled to leak the memo because she believed the U.S. and Britain were about to launch an illegal war.

"Any disclosures that may have been made were justified on the following grounds: because they exposed serious illegality and wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. Government who attempted to subvert our own security services and, to prevent wide-scale death and casualties among ordinary Iraqi people and UK forces in the course of an illegal war," she said in a statement at the time.

In his book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward, deputy managing editor of the Washington Post, said the administration was also spying on Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector sent to Iraq to look for WMDs.

"One of the things that's gone unnoticed is national intelligence assets spying on Hans Blix," Woodward told the Council on Foreign Relations on June 9, 2004 "And Bush was getting these reports and felt that there was incongruity between what Blix was saying publicly and what he was actually doing. It makes it very clear we were wiretapping Hans Blix."

In an article for Counterpunch, media critic Norman Solomon noted that the U.S. media barely covered the U.N. spying.

"Nearly 96 hours after the Observer had reported it, I called Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale and asked why not," Solomon writes. "'We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting,' Smale replied. She added that 'we could get no confirmation or comment.' In other words, U.S. intelligence officials refused to confirm or discuss the memo -- so the Times did not see fit to report on it."

The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to U.N," while the Los Angeles Times emphasized from the outset that U.S. spy activities at the United Nations are "long-standing," Solomon wrote.

Solomon says his research turned up only one story which took the spying seriously -- a Mar. 4, 2003 piece in the Baltimore Sun.

The leaked NSA email which revealed the spying follows.

To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional Targets)
CIV/NSA
Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH
Top Secret//COMINT//X1
All,
As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.
Thanks for your help


www.jasonleopold.com

Jason Leopold is the author of the explosive memoir, News Junkie, to be released in the spring of 2006 by Process/Feral House Books. Visit Leopold's website at www.jasonleopold.com for updates.



Comment on this Article


2005: Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

Richard Drayton
Wednesday December 28, 2005
The Guardian

The tragic irony of the 21st century is that just as faith in technology collapsed on the world's stock markets in 2000, it came to power in the White House and Pentagon. For the Project for a New American Century's ambition of "full-spectrum dominance" - in which its country could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major-theatre wars" - was a monster borne up by the high tide of techno euphoria of the 1990s.
Ex-hippies talked of a wired age of Aquarius. The fall of the Berlin wall and the rise of the internet, we were told, had ushered in Adam Smith's dream of overflowing abundance, expanding liberty and perpetual peace. Fukuyama speculated that history was over, leaving us just to hoard and spend. Technology meant a new paradigm of constant growth without inflation or recession.

But darker dreams surfaced in America's military universities. The theorists of the "revolution in military affairs" predicted that technology would lead to easy and perpetual US dominance of the world. Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters advised on "future warfare" at the Army War College - prophesying in 1997 a coming "age of constant conflict". Thomas Barnett at the Naval War College assisted Vice-Admiral Cebrowski in developing "network-centric warfare". General John Jumper of the air force predicted a planet easily mastered from air and space. American forces would win everywhere because they enjoyed what was unashamedly called the "God's-eye" view of satellites and GPS: the "global information grid". This hegemony would be welcomed as the cutting edge of human progress. Or at worst, the military geeks candidly explained, US power would simply terrify others into submitting to the stars and stripes.

Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance - a key strategic document published in 1996 - aimed to understand how to destroy the "will to resist before, during and after battle". For Harlan Ullman of the National Defence University, its main author, the perfect example was the atom bomb at Hiroshima. But with or without such a weapon, one could create an illusion of unending strength and ruthlessness. Or one could deprive an enemy of the ability to communicate, observe and interact - a macro version of the sensory deprivation used on individuals - so as to create a "feeling of impotence". And one must always inflict brutal reprisals against those who resist. An alternative was the "decay and default" model, whereby a nation's will to resist collapsed through the "imposition of social breakdown".

All of this came to be applied in Iraq in 2003, and not merely in the March bombardment called "shock and awe". It has been usual to explain the chaos and looting in Baghdad, the destruction of infrastructure, ministries, museums and the national library and archives, as caused by a failure of Rumsfeld's planning. But the evidence is this was at least in part a mask for the destruction of the collective memory and modern state of a key Arab nation, and the manufacture of disorder to create a hunger for the occupier's supervision. As the Suddeutsche Zeitung reported in May 2003, US troops broke the locks of museums, ministries and universities and told looters: "Go in Ali Baba, it's all yours!"

For the American imperial strategists invested deeply in the belief that through spreading terror they could take power. Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the recently indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, learned from Leo Strauss that a strong and wise minority of humans had to rule over the weak majority through deception and fear, rather than persuasion or compromise. They read Le Bon and Freud on the relationship of crowds to authority. But most of all they loved Hobbes's Leviathan. While Hobbes saw authority as free men's chosen solution to the imperfections of anarchy, his 21st century heirs seek to create the fear that led to submission. And technology would make it possible and beautiful.

On the logo of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, the motto is Scientia est potentia - knowledge is power . The IAO promised "total information awareness", an all-seeing eye spilling out a death-ray gaze over Eurasia. Congressional pressure led the IAO to close, but technospeak, half-digested political theory and megalomania still riddle US thinking. Barnett, in The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action, calls for a "systems administrator" force to be dispatched with the military, to "process" conquered countries. The G8 and a few others are the "Kantian core", writes Barnett, warming over the former Blair adviser Robert Cooper's poisonous guff from 2002; their job is to export their economy and politics by force to the unlucky "Hobbesian gap". Imperialism is imagined as an industrial technique to remake societies and cultures, with technology giving sanction to those who intervene.

The Afghanistan war of 2001 taught the wrong lessons. The US assumed this was the model of how a small, special forces-dominated campaign, using local proxies and calling in gunships or airstrikes, would sweep away opposition. But all Afghanistan showed was how an outside power could intervene in a finely balanced civil war. The one-eyed Mullah Omar's great escape on his motorbike was a warning that the God's-eye view can miss the human detail.

The problem for the US today is that Leviathan has shot his wad. Iraq revealed the hubris of the imperial geostrategy. One small nation can tie down a superpower. Air and space supremacy do not give command on the ground. People can't be terrorised into identification with America. The US has proved able to destroy massively - but not create, or even control. Afghanistan and Iraq lie in ruins, yet the occupiers cower behind concrete mountains.

The spin machine is on full tilt to represent Iraq as a success. Peters, in New Glory: Expanding America's Supremacy, asserts: "Our country is a force for good without precedent"; and Barnett, in Blueprint, says: "The US military is a force for global good that ... has no equal." Both offer ambitious plans for how the US is going to remake the third world in its image. There is a violent hysteria to the boasts. The narcissism of a decade earlier has given way to an extrovert rage at those who have resisted America's will since 2001. Both urge utter ruthlessness in crushing resistance. In November 2004, Peters told Fox News that in Falluja "the best outcome, frankly, is if they're all killed".

But he directs his real fury at France and Germany: "A haggard Circe, Europe dulled our senses and fooled us into believing in her attractions. But the dugs are dry in Germany and France. They deluded us into prolonging the affair long after our attentions should have turned to ... India, South Africa, Brazil."

While a good Kleinian therapist may be able to help Peters work through his weaning trauma, only America can cure its post 9/11 mixture of paranoia and megalomania. But Britain - and other allied states - can help. The US needs to discover, like a child that does not know its limits, that there is a world outside its body and desires, beyond even the reach of its toys, that suffers too.

Dr Richard Drayton, a senior lecturer in history at Cambridge University, is the author of Nature's Government, a study of science, technology and imperialism



Comment on this Article


2005: Israel and the Neocons, The Libby Affair and the Internal War

By James Petras
27 Dec 2005
ICH

The national debate, which the indictment of Irving Lewis Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice has aroused in the mass media, has failed to address the most basic questions concerning the deep structural context, which influenced his felonious behavior.

The most superficial explanation was that Libby, by exposing Valerie Plame (a CIA employee), acted out of revenge to punish her husband Wilson for exposing the lies put forth by Bush about Iraq's "importation" of uranium from Niger.

Other journalists claim that Libby acted to cover up the fabrications to go to war. The assertion however raises a deeper question -- who were the fabricators of war propaganda, who was Libby protecting? And not only the "fabricators of war", but the strategic planners, speech-makers and architects of war who acted hand in hand with the propagandists and the journalists who disseminated the propaganda?

What is the link between all these high- level functionaries, propagandists and journalists?
Equally important given the positions of power which this cabal occupied, and the influence they exercised in the mass media as well as in designing strategic policy, what forces were engaged in bringing criminal charges against a key operative of the cabal?

Libby's rise to power was part and parcel of the ascendancy of the neo-conservatives to the summits of US policymaking. Libby was a student, protégé, and collaborator with Paul Wolfowitz for over 25 years. Libby along with Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Kagan, Cohen, Rubin, Pollack, Chertoff, Fleisher, Kristol, Marc Grossman, Shumsky and a host of other political operators were long term believers and aggressive proponents of a virulently militaristic tendency of Zionism linked with the rightwing Likud Party of Israel. Early in the 1980's, Wolfowitz and Feith were charged with passing confidential documents to Israel, the latter temporarily losing his security clearance.

The ideologues begin their "Long March" through the institutions of the state. In some cases, advisers to rightwing pro-Israel congressmen, others in the lower levels of the Pentagon and State Department, in other cases as academics or leaders of conservative think tanks in Washington during the Reagan and Bush senior regimes. With the election of Bush in 2001, they moved into major strategic positions in the government, and as the principal ideologues and propagandists for a sequence of wars against Arab adversaries of the Israeli State. Leading neocons, like Libby, drew up a war strategy for the Likud government in 1996, and then recycled the document for the US war against Iraq before and immediately after 9/11/01. Along with their rise to the most influential positions of power in the Bush administration, the neocons attracted new recruits, like New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

What is striking about the operations of the 'cabal' is the very open and direct way in which they operated: former Director of the National Security Agency (under Reagan) Lt. General William Odom, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief of staff of Powell), retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, National Security Adviser to President George Bush (the First) Brent Scowcroft, and numerous disenchanted officials, including veterans of the intelligence agencies, high level observers, and former diplomats openly criticized the neocon takeover of US policy and the close relationship between them and Israeli officials.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wolfowitz and Libby were the architects of the military strategy for Rumsfeld and Cheney, their bosses. Douglas Feith established the "Office of Special Planning" to fabricate the lies to justify the war. Judith Miller, David Frum and Ari Fleisher served to disseminate the lies and war propaganda through articles, interviews, press conferences, and speechwriting for President Bush.

The neocons pushed to manipulate and marginalize many of the key institutions in the US imperial state. To circumvent intelligence from the CIA that didn't promote the Israeli agenda of war with Iraq, neocon Douglas Feith (number 3 in the Pentagon) established the Office of Special Planning, which fabricated propaganda and channeled it directly to the President's Office bypassing and marginalizing any critical review from the CIA. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld marginalized the leading generals, promoting nondescript "loyalists" and outsiders to the top positions, and discarding any advice which opposed or conflicted with their plans for war with Iraq. The Secretary of State referred to a speech prepared for him by Libby as "bullshit" because of its falsehoods. His chief aide, Colonel Wilkerson has written disparagingly of the cabal, which marginalized the State Department including his boss Powell.

The prosecution of Libby however reveals the intense internal struggle over the control of the US imperial state between the neocons and the traditional leaders of its major institutions. Along with the indictment of Libby by a grand jury at the request of the special prosecutor, the FBI has arrested the two leading policy makers of the most influential pro-Israeli lobby (AIPAC) for spying for the State of Israel. These are not simply isolated actions by individual officials or investigators. To have proceeded against Libby and AIPAC leaders , they had to have powerful institutional backing; otherwise the investigations would have been terminated even before they began.

The CIA is deeply offended by the neocon usurpation of their intelligence role, their direct channels to the President, their loyalty to Israel. The military is extremely angry at their exclusion from the councils of government over questions of war, the disastrous war policy which have depleted the armed forces of recruits, devastated troop morale, and the neocons' grotesque ignorance of the costs of a colonial occupation. It is no wonder that General Tommy Frank referred to Douglas Feith as "the stupidest bastard I have ever met."

The current institutional war recalls an earlier conflict between the rightwing Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Defense Department. At the time during the mid 1950's, Senator McCarty was accumulating power first by purging trade unions, Hollywood, the universities, and promoting likeminded conservative officials. He successfully extended his investigations and purges to the State Department and finally tried to do the same to the military. It was here that Senator McCarthy met his Waterloo, his attack backfired, the Army stood its ground, refuted his accusations and discredited his fabrications and grab for power.

In the meantime, the neocons are not at all daunted by the trials of their colleagues in AIPAC and the Vice President's office: they are pressing straight ahead for the US to attack Syria and Iran, via economic sanctions and military bombing. On October 30, 2005 the former head of the Israel Secret Police (Shin Bet) told AIPAC to escalate their campaign to pressure in the US to attack Iran (Israel National News.com). There was a near unanimous vote in the US Congress in favor of economic sanctions against Syria. Despite mass demonstrations, and because of a 'captured' congress, it appears paradoxically that the only force capable of defeating the neocon juggernaut, like the earlier Joe McCarthy, are powerful voices in the state threatened by new disastrous wars not of their making.

-James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu



Comment on this Article


2005: Former IDF Chief Pursued in US Court for War Crimes

Palestine Chronicle
28/12/2005

The class action lawsuit is in connection with the hundreds of civilian deaths and injuries in the 1996 bombing of a United Nations compound in Qana.

If Israeli Gen. Moshe Ya'alon had thought that retiring from the Israeli Defense Force after almost four decades of zealous military service, would allow him to gracefully spend his time without any cares, he miscalculated.
While in New York recently, his nightmare commenced when families of the victims of the Qana massacre charged him for war crimes and human rights violations in a US court.

The class action lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Rights [CCR] is in connection with the hundreds of civilian deaths and injuries in the 1996 bombing of a United Nations compound in Qana, in the south of Lebanon.

Gen Ya'alon who retired in June 2005 as the IDF's Chief of Staff, was then the head of the IDF Intelligence Branch, when the IDF deliberately bombed a place crowded with civilians seeking refuge from Israeli attacks in neighboring towns and villages.

CCR Attorney Maria LaHood said that despite knowing that hundreds of civilians had fled their homes to seek shelter at the UN compound, Ya'alon and the Intelligence Branch he headed then targeted its bombardment directly at the compound. 'Almost ten years later, the hundreds of victims of the IDF shelling have an opportunity to seek justice.'

The April '96 tragedy has become known as the Qana Massacre. In a military operation code-named 'Grapes of Wrath', Israeli forces directed the bombing, strafing and shelling of villages intended to force thousands of Palestinian inhabitants to flee their homes. The indictment alleges that forces under Yaalons command were deliberately and wantonly attacking and killing internally displaced civilians in a clearly-marked UN compound.

This class action lawsuit in an American court follows an earlier charge - filed a week before - against a former Shin Bet chief, Avi Dichter for his role in dropping a one-ton bomb onto a residential block of flats in July 2002 which resulted in the death of a senior Hamas leader, Salah Shehadeh and fourteen civilians.

Both legal actions have been brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights in what is emerging to be a major setback for pro-Israeli pressure groups in the US.

While it is expected that pro-Israeli lobby groups may resort to charges of anti-semitism in order to discredit the plaintiffs, Judith Chomsky, a CCR Cooperating Attorney has firmly assured that "no official in any country is above the law".



Comment on this Article


2005: Dozens indicted in alleged Katrina scam

CNN
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Forty-nine people have been indicted in a scam to pocket Red Cross hurricane relief funds and more indictments are expected, according to Justice Department officials.

Authorities said 22 people working for a Red Cross contractor at a call center in Bakersfield, California, filed false claims worth tens of thousands of dollars. They are also accused of involving family members and friends in the alleged scheme, bringing the number of people under indictment to 49.
"I'm really surprised people in this day and time would try to take advantage of the system that's intended to help those in need," said Jackie Smith, whose brother-in-law was named in the indictment on charges of wire fraud.

Officials said they planned to widen the investigation.

"Our investigation is going to be expanded to include other parts of California and other states, and there are thousands of claims made in other states," FBI Special Agent Javier Colon said.

McGregor Scott, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California, said about $200,000 in lost funds had been traced to the 49 people indicted, and that the total is expected to reach between $300,000 and $400,000.

"We anticipate in the coming weeks and months that we will indict a large number of people, perhaps even doubling the present number," Scott said.

"These are people who lack certain moral guidance in their lives to think that they would undertake a fraud to essentially steal from the victims."

Alleged scheme

The Bakersfield claim center processed calls from up to 16,000 people a day who were scattered across the country after Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of the Gulf Coast in August.

Red Cross workers said that because of the volume of calls, people were asked to provide only their name, address and birth date.

Call center agents would then have to confirm and approve those details before issuing a claim number, so the evacuees could receive payment at local Western Union outlets -- $360 for individuals and more than $1,500 for families.

Officials accuse the contract workers under indictment of tapping into the system by creating fake accounts.

Suspicious Red Cross employees called the FBI to investigate after an audit found a disproportionate number of disbursements for evacuees going to the Bakersfield region, thousands of miles away from the area ravaged by Katrina.

One Western Union store manager said an employee grew suspicious when the same person came in three times to collect money.

"She was the one who found out," he said. "She contacted the authorities."

Assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Conklin told CNN that scams are a fact of life, even in such dire circumstances as the wake of Katrina.

"Unfortunately, the fraud schemes are ever-present, and in this case, while we hoped no one would be willing to take advantage of the situation, people have," Conklin said.

Colon said he was surprised by the number of confessions authorities obtained.

"In many cases they've openly admitted that they have never been to the state of Louisiana and they were never entitled to the money," Colon said.

Red Cross: Safeguards weren't enough

The Red Cross had safeguards in place after Katrina, but "they were not fully adequate," spokesman Steve Cooper said.

He told CNN that the group was aware after Katrina that "there was some small possibility of fraud" in the system for distributing funds.

"We put the appropriate safeguards in place as best we could," Cooper said. "But we made the decision to take that risk in order to help as many people as possible."

Cooper said that about 4,000 cases of assistance out of 1.4 million were being investigated, involving about $400,000 of the $1.4 billion the Red Cross distributed.

Both figures represented a "small percentage" of the totals, he said.

The Red Cross said it is devising new systems with the help of the FBI and Secret Service so that such fraud will be easier to detect in the future.

"Should we ever find ourselves with a disaster of the scope and complexity of a Hurricane Katrina," Cooper said, "the American public can continue its high level of confidence that the American Red Cross will protect the funds that we receive and will properly distribute those."



Comment on this Article


2005: Volcano of Fire spews lava and ash

Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:24 PM GMT168

GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Guatemala's Volcano of Fire erupted on Tuesday, sending rivers of lava down its slopes and a huge cloud of ash and smoke into the sky.

About 25,000 local residents were put on alert. Emergency teams said there was no immediate need for evacuations but they might be necessary if there were more eruptions.

Experts said two rivers of lava, both about 1.5 miles (2 km) long, were flowing down the volcano's slopes, although they posed no threat to villagers in the area. A column of ash rose 1.5 miles and ash fell on areas south of the capital.

The volcano stands 40 miles southwest of Guatemala's capital and its peak is about 12,000 feet (3,700 metres) above sea level. It is one of the most active of Guatemala's 33 volcanoes.



Comment on this Article


2005: Travellers face chaos as freeze hits Europe

James Sturcke and agencies
Wednesday December 28, 2005

Freezing conditions across parts of northern Europe caused travel chaos today as forecasters warned that more snow and colder temperatures were expected over the next two days.
British motoring organisations urged people only to make essential journeys, while hundreds of drivers in France spent the night in their cars after 30cm of snow fell in parts the country.

In Austria, a blizzard resulted in power cuts to homes and was blamed for numerous road accidents across eastern parts of the country.

In the UK, Kent and eastern England suffered the worst of the freezing conditions, which brought road closures and train cancellations.


The coldest place in Britain last night was Benson, Oxfordshire, where temperatures plunged to -8.2C. Forecasters said temperatures were likely to drop further tonight.

"Temperatures tonight could fall as low as -10C where snow lies on the ground, and they could be down to -7C in other places," PA WeatherCentre spokesman Paul Knightley said.

"Tomorrow looks like being the coldest day of this cold spell, with daytime temperatures not rising above freezing in many places."

He said there would be snow today from north-east Scotland down the eastern side of England to the Wash, with snow showers in Kent.

"There could be some heavy snow in northern England and Scotland ahead of another weather system which will bring rain and higher temperatures on Friday and Saturday," Mr Knightley added.

The RAC said lanes on sections of the M20 in Kent were closed because of the snow, and that there was also disruption on the A20 between Dover and Folkestone.

Canterbury was hit by severe black ice, while part of the A3 at Milford, Surrey, was closed, as was a section of the A14 in Cambridgeshire.

"There are hazardous driving conditions throughout northern and eastern counties of England," an RAC spokesman said.

South Eastern Trains urged passengers from coastal areas in Kent and East Sussex not to travel at all this morning. No train services were running from Hastings to Tonbridge, Dover to Folkestone, Ashford to Swanley, Tonbridge to Redhill or Strood to Maidstone West.

Passengers using Arriva Trains Wales and Central Trains faced long delays after a road vehicle hit a railway bridge in the Oakengates area between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury.

Signalling problems at Tulse Hill, south London, led to delays for passengers on Southern and Thameslink services.

In France, hundreds of motorists were stranded overnight after heavy snowfall blocked roads, forcing some to abandon their cars and others to sleep in their vehicles.

Scores of travellers spent the night in community centres and hotels near Nancy, where road crews worked to clear up to 30cm of snow, according to the Regional Road Information and Coordination Centre in nearby Metz.

Several cars were abandoned on the A31 highway, which remained heavily congested heading north toward Luxembourg. Officials ordered trucks to remain parked in rest areas until normal traffic flow was restored, and advised drivers not to travel.

Hundreds of people were stranded overnight in the Calvados region in western Normandy, where the A84 highway was closed in both directions.

"There were 600 vehicles blocked, which amounts to around 600 or 800 people [stranded]," road security official Remi Fromont told the French television channel LCI.

In Austria, at least 15cm of snow fell in eastern areas, creating treacherous conditions blamed for numerous road accidents.

Authorities said at least 11 trucks had jack-knifed in the province of Lower Austria, causing long tailbacks, and at least 300 homes were without power.

Four trucks collided on the motorway linking the Czech capital, Prague, with the southern city of Brno, blocking traffic, while officials in Slovakia warned of a heightened avalanche risk in some areas.

Heavy snow and icy rain in Croatia forced officials to close local roads, effectively cutting off access to dozens of central villages. Snow also created traffic and rail havoc in Hungary, where nearly 120 trains were running behind schedule.

Most of northern Italy was under a blanket of snow, causing traffic disruption, and a motorway from Parma to La Spezia was closed as a precaution.



Comment on this Article


2005: Israeli warplanes hit militant base in Lebanon

Last Updated Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:35:42 EST
CBC News

Israel carried out an airstrike in Lebanon early Wednesday in retaliation after militants fired rockets into a northern Israeli town, an army spokesperson said.

The Israeli military said the planes attacked a militant training base south of Beirut.

The military said the base belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has been battling against Israel for decades.

There was no immediate word on whether anyone had been killed or injured in the airstrike.

Late Tuesday, three rockets landed in a residential neighbourhood in the town Kiryat Shemona, near the Lebanese border.

The Israeli army said no one was injured in the explosion but the ensuing explosions damaged property.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Violence often breaks out in the border region and both Hezbollah and Palestinian militants are active in southern Lebanon.

In November, Hezbollah launched mortar and rocket attacks from south Lebanon, injuring 11 Israeli soldiers and damaging an Israeli house.

Israel retaliated by attacking a Hezbollah command post in south Lebanon.



Comment on this Article


2005: White House Leaked Classified Intelligence to Make its Case for War

by David Swanson
28 Dec 2005

A new report looks into instances in which the Bush Administration leaked classified information to support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United States.

While that case was, of course, ridiculous and the information falsified, the leaking of it was illegal. And the leaks appear to have been part of a coordinated effort. Immediately following important leaks, top administration officials appeared on talk shows to discuss information that they could not have legally discussed had it not appeared in a newspaper that morning.
Congressman John Conyers has just released an extensive report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War." Pages 73 - 81 address the Bush Administration's claims regarding aluminum tubes allegedly acquired by Iraq for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons.

On page 78, the report notes: "Our investigation has also found that classified intelligence information supporting the Bush Administration's position regarding the aluminum tubes was leaked to the press. For example, on Sunday, September 8, 2002, the lead story in The New York Times, written by Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon, quotes 'anonymous' Administration officials as stating that 'Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.'"

The headline of that article was "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts."

Conyers' report continues: "The article goes on to source 'administration officials' for the proposition that '[i]n the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium' and that '[t]he diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program.'"

So, someone in the Administration was leaking classified information. Of course, it was false information, but that made it all the more damaging. But who was the leaker(s)?

According to Conyers' report, "Subsequent media accounts have traced the story, at least in part, to Paul Wolfowitz:

"'In the summer of 2002, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz convened a secret meeting [concerning the tubes] in his office with Francis Brooke, the I.N.C. adviser, and Khidir Hamza, a former chief of Saddam's nuclear program, who had defected to America in 1994 . . . Wolfowitz circulated his conclusions to his administration allies. A few days later, the story of the "nuclear" tubes was leaked to The New York Times, where it landed on the front page.'

"On the CNN Documentary, Dead Wrong, an anonymous source characterized the dissemination of this biased and slanted information to Miller and Gordon as 'official leaking': 'I would call it official leaking because I think these were authorized conversations between the press and members of the intelligence community that further misreported the nature of the intelligence community's disagreement on this issue.'

Of course, a front page story in the New York Times gets everyone's attention, and - if the lies are glaring enough - can lead to a reporter resigning in disgrace. But the Bush Administration has often promoted stories into the "mainstream" media by first establishing them in the super-right-wing outlets.

"The Constitution in Crisis" continues: "Our investigation has also learned that administration officials appear to have leaked classified information to the press well before the New York Times article. A July 29, 2002, article in the Washington Times, titled 'Iraq Seeks Steel for Nukes' reported:

"'Procurement agents from Iraq's covert nuclear-arms program were detected as they tried to purchase stainless-steel tubing, uniquely used in gas centrifuges and a key component in making the material for nuclear bombs, from an unknown supplier, said administration officials familiar with intelligence reports . . . U.S. intelligence agencies believe the tubing is an essential component of Iraq's plans to enrich radioactive uranium to the point where it could be used to fashion a nuclear bomb.'"

With impeccable timing, on the eve of the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks, top Bush officials appeared on the Sunday talk shows to discuss the aluminum tube story that someone among them had just planted in the New York Times.

Knight Ridder explained how this worked: "[the leaks] appearance in the nation's most influential paper also gave Cheney and Rice an opportunity to discuss the matter the same day on the Sunday television talk shows. They could discuss the article, but otherwise they wouldn't have been able to talk about classified intelligence in public." ("CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq [The Aluminum Tubes]," by Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers.)

And who can forget the horrifying comments that the Bush Administration made?

Condoleezza Rice: "[Iraq has obtained] high quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-- CNN Late Edition (CNN television broadcast, Sept. 8, 2002).

Vice President Dick Cheney: "I do know with absolutely certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon"
-- Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast, Sept. 8, 2002).

Donald Rumsfeld: "Imagine a September 11 with weapons of mass destruction."
-- Face the Nation (CBS television broadcast, Sept. 8, 2002).

http://www.davidswanson.org

DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.



Comment on this Article


Two Years Ago: 2004


2004: Sign's Daily Wrap-Up

Signs of the Times
28 December 2006

It's just another day of chaos and insanity on the Big Blue Marble.

The population of Bam, Iran, is still digging itself out after the earthquake. Estimates are as high as 40,000 dead and 30,000 wounded.

Bush, "wants to be a sunbeam for Jesus," says Gore Vidal in a radio interview. At the very least, his handlers want him to give that appearance. What does that mean for us? Listen to the interview if you can. We have excerpted a few important quotes from the transcript. He announces the decision has already been made in Washington - The US is going to war with Syria.
In The Joys of Yiddish (1968), Leo Rosten defines the person endowed with chutzpah -- the "chuzpanik" -- as "the man who shouts for help while beating you up." That could apply both to Alan Dershowitz, the American jurist who has called for the legalization of torture, as well as the state of Israel, which will continue to torture its prisoners regardless of international law. This is, in fact, what Dershowitz counsels.

Israel is in an uproar over the shooting of an Israeli youth who sided with the Palestinians in protesting against the West Bank wall.

It appears that officials from Saddam's regime are being systematically assassinated - but the identity of the assassins depends on whom you talk to. In a bizarre twist, Saddam somehow manages to threaten to reveal US support of his old government even though he is in US custody. American forces in Iraq continue to gun down or terrorize demonstrators.

Paul Bremer finds himself at odds with Tony Blair after a journalist quotes some comments from Blair to Bremer without naming the source. Bremer finds himself having to backtrack after learning the truth. Further up the old Silk Route in Afghanistan, the talks towards a new constitution are not going well. The Dutch police were forced to isolate the US Embassy in The Hague on Thursday because of, you guessed it, a phone call they "had to take seriously." The office of Berlusconi, however, is backpedalling on the reported remarks by the Italian PM that the Vatican was under threat of attack.

The US is now blaming Canada for the outbreak of Mad Cow disease. What's new! They also blamed Canada for the power outage in August, later found to be due to a problematic tree in Ohio, for allowing "terrorists" in the US because of its lack of security on the borders, later found to be false (they were learning their trade at a CIA front in Florida), as well as for remarks by one of the Prime Minister's aides that the US president is a moron, fully substantiated by a look at the man's record.

The President of the EU gets a mail bomb.

Congress passed legislation to reduce junk e-mail, and then added a little perk to legalize spam sent by a member of Congress to a constituent during the traditional 90-day blackout period prior to an election.

In Alaska, a little-known law will automatically register Alaskan males with the federal Selective Service.



Comment on this Article


2004: "Misspeaking" the Truth

Signs of the Times
28 December 2004

Bellies full of turkey and stuffing, heads turning under the bright, flashing lights, families gathered together with their attention turned to petty feuds and intrigues, Christmas is a great time to slip another one by a drugged and satiated public. And, boy, what a few days it has been! The massive earthquakes and tsunamis that killed tens of thousands in South-East Asia, another "spontaneous revolution" organised and financed by the US in the former Soviet bloc, the appearance of a comet that has gone from a 1 in 300 chance of hitting the earth in 2029 to a 1 in 37 chance. Of course, none of these events are related to one another, right? They are random happenings, unconnected, isolated incidents of local importance.

But that was not all.

On Christmas Day, we received a message from a reader pointing us to a remark made by Donald Rumsfeld during his surprise visit to Iraq to show the troops that he wasn't such a bad guy after all. Rummy had been coming up for criticism for his remarks to US soldiers on their lack of armour, his famous "you go to war with the army you have", and Bill Kristol, an important propagandist for the neocons, had been demanding Rummy's removal, though for other reasons. So off the US Secretary of Defence went to Baghdad on a PR tour to save his job.

According to the following CCN transcript, while he was addressing the troops, Rummy made the following remark:

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And to change
that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

Rummy's statement is rich because for once he is telling us the truth. He tells us that Flight 93, erected in myth as the flight where the passengers struck back to prevent another "attack", was shot down. This version of events does not mesh with the official story, enshrined in The 9/11 Commission Report. Rummy's new take on events is the version recounted by those so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do not buy the official version, who have seen the holes, inconsistencies, and lies woven together to justify America's Imperial plunder, and who want something better -- the truth.

But Rummy's admission is not all.

Rumsfeld is telling us that all the events he mentions were done by the same forces, those who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". There is only one authority who could have shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 -- members of the US military. And if elements in the US military were responsible for shooting down Flight 93.... Well, someone doesn't want us going there. However, we agree with Rumsfeld that the purpose of the people behind these events is to "intimidate, to frighten...to alter behavior, to make people be something than that which they want to be".

It sums up the Bush Administration to a "t".

Such a slip could not be left to stand. Too many people who had seen the holes in the official story were waiting to fall upon Rumsfeld's words and use them to buttress their campaign to know the truth. You know, the "conspiracy theorists".

But Rummy's words were "out there". How to do damage control? Call upon your friends at CNN. CNN would have to do because the good folks at Fox News had not reported this particular remark by Rummy. No need to disturb the great Fox-washed.

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.

Click here to comment on this article

And the answer is?! "Rumsfeld simply misspoke." Really. He "has not changed his opinion". Honest. He knows how important the image of "Let's roll" is to the whole 9/11, "let's make America safer", mythology. The war against terrorism started on that flight; you can't change the story now, no matter the truth.

Poor Don. He was probably confused, suffering from jet lag. It is so hard to keep the official story straight when the body is reacting to a change of so many time zones. Maybe he forgot to take his melatonin.

What is curious is that this is not the first time that Donald Rumsfeld has "misspoken" on the subject of 9/11, that is, in the sense of telling the truth, of recounting details that go against the official version. The official story tells us that it was AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and disappeared leaving no traces after passing through three rings of reinforced steel and concrete, disappeared leaving nothing but the bodies of the victims on the plane. Somehow the heat, fireball, and explosion that made the vaporized the plane didn't have the same effect upon the bodies of the victims. Readers of this page will have seen our Pentagon Strike flash presentation on the subject, as well as Laura Knight-Jadczyk's Comments on the Pentagon Strike.

On the DoD's own website, we find an interview with the Secretary of Defence where he explains what happened on that day. The interview with Parade Magazine was conducted on October 12, 2001.

Therein we find the following comment from Rumsfeld:

It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Oops. "A missile"? That isn't in the Commission's report. Did Rumsfeld "misspeak"?

Then again, there is this statement from the questioning of Rumsfeld by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick during the commission hearings:

GORELICK: Well, I expect that you would. So now I would like to talk about the aspects that were in your control. I had a conversation with Secretary Wolfowitz's -- one of his predecessors, when the 1996 Olympics were being planned about what do we do when an aircraft is being hijacked and is flying into a stadium at the Olympics? What is the military's response? What is it's role? And it has always been my assumption that even though, yes, you were looking out, that you have a responsibility to protect our airspace. So my question is: In this summer of threat, what did you do to protect, let's just say the Pentagon, from attack? Where were our aircraft when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon? Surely that is within the Pentagon's responsibility to protect -- force protection, to protect our facilities, to protect something -- our headquarters, the Pentagon. Is there anything that we did at the Pentagon to prevent that harm in the spring and summer of '01?

Oops. Was the good commissioner also "misspeaking"? It does get difficult to maintain a cover story if high-ranking officials charged with spreading disinformation go around telling the truth!

So what is "misspeak" -- if you permit us to make a noun out of this overused verb. A quick Google search on "Rumsfeld" & "misspoke" comes up with 5,210 items. Do the same for Bush, and it goes to 20,900!

As one blogger, Dusty Rhoades, wrote on the subject of "misspeaking" (the entire article is below):

Rummy is just one of a number of Administration officials who are having to "revise" some of their former statements on Iraq. Back on March 16th, Vice President Dick Cheney had this to offer on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." A few Sundays ago, Cheney was back on "Meet the Press". Good ol' Tim Russert, with the kid-gloves, please-don't-call-us-traitors-and-cost-us-ad-revenues handling that the entire press corps has inexplicably adopted, offered Cheney an out: "You misspoke?" Russert asked. And a grateful Cheney seized the chance: "Yeah, I did misspeak. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon." Ah. I get it. We believed it, but there was no evidence.

Rhoades sums up his point saying:

Now, "I misspoke" and "I should have been more precise" are not bad ways to cover up, shall we say, a departure from the truth. (No one seems to want to use the word "lie" anymore.) It's a particularly effective tactic to do what Wolfowitz did: make an inflammatory statement on a nationally watched news show then "correct" your "inaccuracy" off the air where a lot fewer people hear it.

But "sometimes I overstate for emphasis"? Man, that is brilliant. It makes lying (oops, there's that word again, sorry) look like some sort of roguishly endearing personal quirk. "Gosh darn it, am I overstating for emphasis again?"

The word no one dares speak -- or is that "misspeak"? Lying.

So we come to the real issue. In our 1984 world of newspeak, words take on new meanings. Politicians no longer "lie"; they "misspeak". Civilians are no longer killed in war; they are "collateral damage". There is a whole raft of terms that contain hidden meanings for Bush's fundamentalist Christian base that mean something else entirely to other Americans. These terms come forward to join the ranks of the famous "terrorist/freedom fighter" distinction that was so prevalent under the Reagan Administration.

You all remember the "freedom fighters", don't you? Those were the Islamic fundamentalists who were fighting for democracy and freedom in Afghanistan. One small group was led by a Saudi by the name of...what was his name again...the guy with the beard...oh, right: Osama bin Laden, from a family with close business ties to the US Vice President at the time...what was his name...George something or other.

And you remember the Reagan Administration. That was the one that was friendly to a Middle Eastern leader by the name of Saddam Hussein, selling him chemical weapons through salesman Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld. Weren't we talking about Rumsfeld?

Let's return to September 11, 2001 and look at Rumsfeld's actions on that day.

Chronology: Donald Rumsfeld, September 11, 2001
Adapted from Réseau Voltaire

8:44: Donald Rumsfeld announces "another event" to Christopher Cox who was in his office to talk about anti-missile defence and the risk of terrorism:

"If we remain vulnerable to missile attack, a terrorist group or rogue state that demonstrates the capacity to strike the U.S. or its allies from long range could have the power to hold our entire country hostage to nuclear or other blackmail,'' he said. "And let me tell you, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another event. " He repeated it for emphasis : "There will be another event. " Within minutes of that utterance, Rumsfeld's words proved tragically prophetic.

8:46 Attack on the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

9:02 Attack on the South Tower of the WTC.

8:46-9:02 ?: Donald Rumsfeld "wanted to make a few phone calls".

His assistant, Victoria Clarke, remembers: "Well, the terrible moment was actually earlier at about 8:40, 8:45 when we realized a plane and then a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. And immediately the crisis management process started up. A couple of us had gone into the secretary's office, Secretary Rumsfeld's office, to alert him to that, tell him that the crisis management process was starting up. He wanted to make a few phone calls."

9:02-9:37 ?: Donald Rumsfeld, who "watched the TV coverage from New York", declared: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said : "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."
Revealed : What really went on during Bush's 'missing hours', by William Langleyere, The Daily Telegraph, 16 décembre 2001.

9:37: Attack on the Pentagon

9:37-10:07 ?: Rumsfeld goes outside to "investigate and offer help".

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon at the time of the crash, and he walked outside the building to investigate and offer help.
DoD Official Provides Briefing After Pentagon Attack, par Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service, 11 September 2001.

Around 10:07: Donald Rumsfeld announces that "it was most likely a plane."

When he came back in the building about half an hour later, he was the first one that told us he was quite sure it was a plane. Based on the wreckage and based on the thousands and thousands of pieces of metal. He was the one that told us, the staff that was in the room. So he was really the first one who told us that it was most likely a plane.
Official transcript of interview with Victoria Clarke to WBZ Boston Saturday, 15 September 2001 : News Transcript, US Department of Defense.

Click here to comment on this article

This Rumsfeld is certainly a very well informed guy for having to deal with such inept US intelligence agencies. First he predicts there will be "another event", and then, when his words prove prophetic a mere two minutes later, he tells his guests that "it isn't over yet" and that the next target "could be us".

One wonders what sort of crystal ball Rumsfeld had on his desk that morning.

Notice, too, that it was Rummy who decided that the attack had been done by a plane. Perhaps he knew it was a plane because his crystal ball informed him the attacks were "Ariel" in nature.

For more detailed info on Madame Rummy, super clairvoyant, let's return to his Parade interview of the following month, the one where the plane has been transformed into a missile.

Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine
Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik, Parade Magazine
October 12, 2001
Q: Let me start by asking you, most of us are programmed to leave a building with smoke. What made you go towards the fire here a little over a month ago, and what was going through your mind?

Rumsfeld: Well, I was sitting here and the building was struck, and you could feel the impact of it very clearly, and I don't know what made me do anything I did, to be honest with you. I just do it instinctive. I looked out the window, saw nothing here, and then went down the hall until the smoke was too bad, then to a stairwell down and went outside and saw what had happened. Asked a person who'd seen it, and he told me that a plane had flown into it.

I had been aware of a plane going into the World Trade Center, and I saw people on the grass, and we just, we tried to put them in stretchers and then move them out across the grass towards the road and lifted them over a jersey wall so the people on that side could stick them into the ambulances.

I was out there for awhile, and then people started gathering, and we were able to get other people to do that, to hold IVs for people. There were people lying on the grass with clothes blown off and burns all over them.

Then at some moment I decided I should be in here figuring out what to do, because your brain begins to connect things, and there were enough people there to worry about that. I came back in here, came into this office. There was smoke in here by then.

We made a judgment about where people should be. The chairman was out of town, so he was separate. The vice chairman was with me. We had my deputy go out to another site. At a certain point it got too bad and we went into a room about 30 yards away here in this building, in the same general area but back that way that is sealable. But as it turns out it wasn't sealable for smoke and so forth. We worked in there, and we kept being told the building had to be evacuated completely except for the people that were in that group that were assisting me, and they kept saying you should get out of here because these people have to stay if you're here, as I recall. I said fine, we'll do that at the appropriate time.

They were able to get enough of the fire out and then move some air out that the increasing smoke stopped. It did not disappear, but it stopped. We were in there throughout the day, and never did go to (inaudible).

The advantage for me was I could be here near where the problems were and I had full communications from the area -- to the president and the vice president, the secretary of state. I guess he was out of the country, wasn't he? It was the deputy.

Click here to comment on this article

As a side note to this interview, Lyric Wallwork Winik has written an article for Parade about 9/11 "Conspiracy theories". In a box on that page, it states:

The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. PARADE found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's Web site, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.

There they go again, those pesky "conspiracy theorists". Taking poorly transcribed interviews out of context!

So here it isn't a question of "misspeaking", but of a "transcription error". Good to have friends covering your backside. The close relations between Winik and Rumsfeld are to be seen in this final exchange in the interview:

Q: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. It was fascinating.

I have something quickly for you from my husband who I think you know. The president loved the book as (inaudible) and Secretary Cheney (inaudible) on Saturday night for dinner, and we wanted you to have a copy. I don't know when you'll get the time, but --

Q: Am I allowed to accept this?

Unfortunately, more garbled transcriptions do not allow us to piece together the precise nature of the connections between Winik, the President, and Cheney, but you get the picture.

The other interesting bit of data here is the reference to Colin Powell's being out of the country. While we have no love for Powell, the man whose career lust permits him to stand up before the UN and declare that he has proof of Saddam's WMDs, it is well-known that he had differences with Rumsfeld. And he was out of the country on September 11. Imagine that!

Must just be another of those strange coincidences. You know the ones: the plane hitting the one area of the Pentagon that had been reinforced rather than hitting the roof where the damage would have been greater. Perhaps Hani Hanjour, the incompetent pilot accused of being in the cockpit of Flight 77, was aiming for the roof and missed! Or the fact that a military jet was seen near the site of the crash of Flight 93, the one that Rumsfeld said was shot out of the sky and whose pieces were strewn over an area of many miles -- typical of dozens, er, several, er, the occasional plane, er, this crash.

Let us continue our look at Rumsfeld's actions on that morning. He is in his office, not only aware that they were being attacked, but with precognitive abilities that allowed him to foresee the attack. When the Pentagon is attacked, he runs outside where everyone can see him at the same time that Cheney is being sequestered in the White House bunker and the President is being hopped around the country in Air Force One and told not to return to Washington because it wasn't safe.

Curious, no?

Did someone forget to tell Rumsfeld that he was in danger? Given that two planes had hit the WTC, and that a fourth plane, Flight 93 was still in the air, supposedly heading for Washington, how could Rumsfeld be so certain it wouldn't come down on the Pentagon?

How did Rumsfeld know that there would be no more attacks on the building? Must have been the same intuition that told him "we could be next".

Just prior to 10:00, the Pentagon sent out a press release:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 11, 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT THE PENTAGON

The Department of Defense is continuing to respond to the attack that occurred this morning at 9:38 a.m. EDT. There are no casualty figures currently available. Injured personnel were taken to several area hospitals. Secretary of Defense Donald S. Rumsfeld has expressed his concern for the families of those killed and injured during this shameless attack and is directing operations from his command center in the Pentagon.

All personnel were evacuated from the building as emergency response personnel from the Department of Defense and surrounding communities responded to fire and medical emergencies. Initial estimates of the damage are significant; however, the Pentagon is expected to be reopened tomorrow morning. Alternate worksites for those affected parts of the building are currently being identified.

In this first announcement, no mention is made of the nature of the attack, no mention of a plane hitting the building. Curious, no? Also curious is the fact that this release has been removed from the DoD server and is now only available at the site indicated above.

The early reports from the Pentagon spoke of a "helicopter explosion" or the explosion of a truck. It was only many hours later that the announcement was made that it had been Flight 77. So during the period when there were still mixed reports on the nature of the attack, Rumsfeld was out and about as if there was no danger of another attempt.

After helping to give aid to some of the victims, he comes back in and says that he has been told by "someone who'd seen it" that it was a plane that struck the building. Still, no one was talking about AA Flight 77. That only came later in the day.

Questions. So many questions.

It is clear to us that 9/11 was carried off with the foreknowledge of highly placed officials in Washington. In trying to piece the clues together, even small things can be important. Was Rumsfeld's behavior on that morning significant? Does it imply Rumsfeld had foreknowledge?

We'll end this round-up with a transcript of a press conference held by Donald Rumsfeld with leaders, both Republican and Democratic, of the Senate Armed Forces Commission. In front of the international press, Rumsfeld addressed Senator Carl Levin (D - Michigan):

Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don't have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you'll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending -- increase defense spending ?

Think of this in the light of the current attack on the Social Security program in the US Congress, led by the Bush Administration.





Comment on this Article


2004: Delta plane diverted to Florida after passenger's name found on watch list

By Jennifer Babson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Published on: 12/26/04

KEY WEST, Fla. - A 132-passenger Delta Air Lines flight from Colombia to Atlanta was abruptly diverted to a military airfield near Key West on Sunday after the name of a passenger was found to be the same as that of someone on a federal security "watch list."

About five hours later, federal agents determined that the Colombian man was a victim of "identity theft" by another person on a list that several sources said was issued by an intelligence agency.
The man - whose name authorities declined to reveal - was released late Sunday.

The Boeing 757 jet, en route from Bogota, landed about 2 p.m. at the U.S. Naval Air Station Key West's Boca Chica airfield just north of the city. There, the unidentified man and his baggage were removed from the plane by federal agents.

The plane sat on the runway for about two hours before taking off for Atlanta without the man - a Colombian citizen who lives in New York and has resident alien status in the United States, according to several federal sources.

"It was somebody on a no-fly list," Judy Orihuela, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Miami, said Sunday afternoon before the matter was resolved. "They won't really know until they get the person and ID them and make sure it's the person on the list."

That identification would take several more hours, as FBI and immigration agents tried to determine the man's identity using multiple methods.

"It was through fingerprinting and other sources of information" that officials finally determined that the man was not the man on the watch list, Orihuela said.

"It was a case of mistaken identity and identity theft," she said. "There is a person we are looking for who stole his identity, and so that's how he got on the no-fly list. They cleared him."

The plane was likely diverted to Boca Chica instead of Key West International Airport because of its large size, which the Key West airport would have had difficulty accommodating.

A Delta spokeswoman said Sunday night that the incident was fairly unusual.

"I can't say that we have this happen a lot," spokeswoman Tracey Bowen said.

In September, an international flight bound for Washington, D.C., was diverted to Bangor, Maine. On board was former pop singer Yusuf Islam, previously known as Cat Stevens, who is a Muslim.

He had been placed on the no-fly list over the summer and was eventually deported. Islam vigorously disputes the U.S. government's contention that he might have ties to terrorists.



Comment on this Article


2004: Suicide bomber kills 15 in Iraq

Monday, Dec 27, 2004
Associated Press

Baghdad - A suicide bomber detonated his car Monday at the gate of the home of the leader of Iraq's biggest political party, killing 15 people and injuring dozens, police said. The cleric was unharmed.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - the country's most powerful Shiite political group - was in his residence in Baghdad's Jadiriyah district when the attack occurred, said his spokesman, Haitham al-Husseini.
The blast, which shook the district and sent a cloud of smoke high above the area, killed 15 people and injured at least 50, said police Capt. Ahmed Ismail. Thirty-two cars on the street and near the gates were destroyed or damaged.

"It was a suicide attack near the gate leading to the office," Mr. al-Husseini said. "Several of the guards were killed and wounded."

Mr. Hakim also heads the candidate list of the 228-member United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which is expected to dominate Iraq's new constitutional assembly following the first free elections on Jan. 30. The coalition is supported by Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Mr. al-Hakim's son, Ammar, accused Saddam Hussein's followers of being behind the suicide attack.

"They are the remains of the dead regime and their allies who carried out similar criminal acts in the past," he said, adding that many of the blast victims were innocent civilians who happened to be on the street when the explosion occurred.

The residence, where Hakim has his home and offices, was previously the house of Tariq Aziz, a jailed former senior aide to Saddam Hussein who has been in prison since April last year.

Political and religious leaders of the Shiite community, who strongly back the holding of next month's vote, have been repeatedly targeted by the mainly Sunni Muslim insurgents since Saddam's ouster.

The Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people, have traditionally been dominated by the Sunni minority, which accounts for about a fifth of the population. Their leaders are eager to translate that numerical superiority into political power after next month's ballot - the first free elections since the overthrow of the monarchy 45 years ago.

In another blow to Washington's plans for the upcoming elections, the largest Sunni Muslim political party that had planned to take part in the Jan. 30 ballot announced Monday it was pulling out of the race because of the rapidly deteriorating security situation and the lack of public awareness about the vote.

"The security situation keeps going from bad to worse and has to be dealt with," said Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, the Iraqi Islamic Party's leader.

In August 2003, a suicide bomber killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, elder brother of Abdul Aziz and former leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Like his late brother, Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim is a Shiite cleric who opposed Saddam Hussein from exile in Iran before returning to Iraq after last year's U.S.-led invasion.

Meanwhile, a U.S. soldier died of wounds Monday and another was injured in a roadside bomb explosion in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said in a statement.

The latest casualty brings to at least 1,324 the number of U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March 2003. [...]



Comment on this Article


2004: Israel accused of obstructing Palestinian election in east Jerusalem

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Tuesday December 28, 2004
The Guardian

Palestinian election workers say they are being obstructed and harassed in east Jerusalem by the Israeli security forces.

Campaigners for the seven candidates to succeed the late Yasser Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority have been summoned for questioning by the Israeli security agency, the Shin Bet, and warned not to put up posters or canvass in Jerusalem.

East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in 1967. It has said it will allow east Jerusalemites to vote in the January 9 election, but is disturbed by anything that it sees as manifestations of Palestinian sovereignty.
On Sunday the Israeli cabinet approved measures to ensure a smooth election including a gradual withdrawal of Israel defence force soldiers from West Bank cities, granting Palestinians freedom of movement, and allowing candidates to canvass in east Jerusalem.

But campaigners say they are being obstructed by the Israeli security forces.

Nasser Dajani, the director of Ad Image, an advertising firm which was putting up bill boards for the candidacy of Mustafa Barghouti, was told to remove them and summoned for questioning by the Shin Bet. "I was told I would be held responsible for any posters that were put up. After one hour they let me go," he said.

Mr Barghouti was himself arrested by Israeli police as he campaigned in Jerusalem's Old City yesterday. He was told his presence was illegal.

It is the second time he has been arrested, and other candidates have been detained as they have attempted to move around the West Bank.

Gil Kleiman, a spokesman for the Israeli police, said deciding what electioneering was permissible in Jerusalem was a delicate matter.

"Normally electioneering without prior approval is not permitted and [neither is] anything that shows evidence of sovereignty." He said police had closed voter registration centres in November because their presence was a challenge to Israeli sovereignty.

In east Jerusalem there are some posters for Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah frontrunner to succeed Mr Arafat, but few for the other six candidates. The slogan reads: "Following the path of Yasser Arafat towards freedom, indepen dence, the rule of law and prosperity."

Zakaria Halaf, selling records at the Old City's Damascus Gate, had seen no election activity since the campaign started on Saturday. "There should be more happening. How can we have proper elections if nobody knows who the candidates are?"

Nasser Qous, Fatah's campaign manager, said he had been told by Israeli police that they were not allowed to put up posters: "They are afraid of these elections. They are an expression of Palestinian identity." Adel Abu Zneid, a Fatah campaigner, said: "The main problem in campaigning is checkpoints. They were easier to get through a week ago before the campaign started. I get delayed for up to 1 hours every day.

"This election is a challenge to Israeli authority and they will fight it in every way they can. The reality on the ground is very different from the statements they are making to the media.

"They tell the world they will make it easy for the Palestinians to have elections but in reality they are making it difficult."



Comment on this Article


2004: Quake rattled Earth orbit, changed map of Asia: US geophysicist

AFP
Tue Dec 28,12:14 AM ET

LOS ANGELES - An earthquake that unleashed deadly tidal waves on Asia was so powerful it made the Earth wobble on its axis and permanently altered the regional map, US geophysicists said.

The 9.0-magnitude temblor that struck 250 kilometers (155 miles) southeast of Sumatra island Sunday may have moved small islands as much as 20 meters (66 feet), according to one expert.
"That earthquake has changed the map," US Geological Survey expert Ken Hudnut told AFP.

"Based on seismic modeling, some of the smaller islands off the southwest coast of Sumatra may have moved to the southwest by about 20 meters. That is a lot of slip."

The northwestern tip of the Indonesian territory of Sumatra may also have shifted to the southwest by around 36 meters (120 feet), Hudnut said.

In addition, the energy released as the two sides of the undersea fault slipped against each other made the Earth wobble on its axis, Hudnut said.

"We can detect very slight motions of the Earth and I would expect that the Earth wobbled in its orbit when the earthquake occurred due the massive amount of energy exerted and the sudden shift in mass," Hudnut said.

Another USGS research geophysicist agreed that the Earth would have got a "little jog," and that the islands off Sumatra would have been moved by the quake.

However, Stuart Sipkin, of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center in Golden Colorado, said it was more likely that the islands off Sumatra had risen higher out of the sea than they had moved laterally.

"In in this case, the Indian plate dived below the Burma plate, causing uplift, so most of the motion to the islands would have been vertical, not horizontal." [...]



Comment on this Article


2004: Editorial: Tsunami/Tragedy in a holiday season

startribune
December 28, 2004

The bulletins poured in from Thailand, Sri Lanka and India on Sunday, each more heartbreaking than the last: a boy wrenched from his mother's grasp by a surge of seawater, impoverished fishermen watching their boats shredded by the fury of nature, a father trying to find dry ground to bury his drowned daughter.

But one of the most tragic thoughts is that much of the day's loss of life might have been averted had the victims received just a little more warning.
In 1964, after an epic earthquake in Alaska set off tsunamis across the Pacific Ocean, scientists began building an international warning system of ocean buoys and radio signals to track seismic events on land and undersea. The system became so effective that, when Sunday's earthquake erupted near Sumatra, scientists thousands of miles away in Honolulu knew about it within 15 minutes.

The global warning system, however, does not include tracking buoys in the Indian Ocean, so scientists could not chart the speed and direction of the catastrophic tsunamis that swept north and west from Sumatra on Sunday. Thousands of people hundreds of miles away, people who might have had an hour's warning or more, instead learned of their fate only when a horrific wall of water was upon them. The outpouring of medicine, food, water and other humanitarian aid from Europe and the United States already is impressive, but eventually it should also include help in extending the seismic warning system.

That said, Sunday's earthquake is a reminder of the humility of science before nature. When a 700-mile plate of ocean seabed suddenly surged like a giant sitting up in bed, millions of gallons of seawater were displaced and began rolling away with ineluctable force. Around the rim of the Indian Ocean, where millions of people are packed into coastal villages scarcely feet above sea level, a great disaster was inevitable. [...]



Comment on this Article


2004: Massive quake strikes Antarctica

From correspondents in Strasbourg
news.com.au
December 24, 2004

MASSIVE earthquake measuring 8.2 on the Richter scale struck the largely uninhabited area around Macquarie Island in Antarctica, French seismological officials said.

The quake hit at 1.58am Friday AEDT, the Earth Sciences Observatory in Strasbourg said in a statement.
The Macquarie archipelago, an Australian territory some 1500km south-east of Tasmania, is the only island group in the world composed entirely of oceanic crust and rocks from the mantle - deep below the earth's surface - according to the website of the Australian Government's environment ministry.

The island group, with mountains rising to 400m above sea level, became a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1997 due in part to its unique natural beauty and in part to its diversity in fauna.

Its colony of king penguins, numbering around 850,000, is one of the largest in the world.



Comment on this Article


2004: Volcanic island a threat to US coast

AFP
December 28, 2004

LONDON: A scientist looking to pinpoint the next big earthquake has warned the US east coast could be destroyed by a tsunami unleashed by the collapse of a volcanic island in the eastern Atlantic.

A massive chunk of La Palma, the most volcanically active island in the Canaries archipelago, is unstable, British geologist Simon Day warned yesterday.

Dr Day, of the Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre at University College London, said the 500 billion tonne rock could collapse the next time the volcano, Cumbre Vieja, erupts.

That would send a dome-shaped wall of water up to 100m tall - 10 times as high as the tsunamis that hit south Asia - racing across the Atlantic at 800km/h.
Waves would hit the west coast of Africa and the south coast of England within a few hours, he said.

Eight hours after the collapse, the US east coast and the Caribbean would bear the brunt. Cities from Miami to New York would be swamped by waves up to 50m high, capable of surging 20km inland, according to Dr Day's research.

Tsunamis are commonly caused by earthquakes under the sea. About three decades ago, scientists determined that such gigantic waves could also be caused by collapsing islands.

Dr Day first published his findings on Cumbre Vieja in 1999 after a two-year study into the volcano, which occupies the southern half of La Palma.

He identified dozens of volcanic vents formed by successive eruptions over the past 100,000 years and collected samples of lava to build a detailed geological picture.

He found the volcano's vents were laid out in the shape of a three-pointed "Mercedes star", the western flank of which - a mass comprising about 500 billion tonnes of rock - was gradually becoming detached as volcanic activity forced magma to the surface.

The flank is slowly falling into the sea, but a major eruption by Cumbre Vieja could cause it to fall with catastrophic effect, Dr Day said.

"Eruptions of Cumbre Vieja occur at intervals of decades to a century or so and there may be a number of eruptions before its collapse," he said.

The island has had seven known eruptions, the last of which was in 1971.

In August, one of Dr Day's colleagues, Bill McGuire, told a conference on global geophysical disasters that Cumbre Vieja could blow "any time" and warned there was insufficient watch on the volcano.

"Eventually, the whole rock will collapse into the water and the collapse will devastate the Atlantic margin," he said.

"We need to be out there now looking at when an eruption is likely to happen ... otherwise there will be no time to evacuate major cities."



Comment on this Article


2004: Dollar Falls to New Low Vs Euro

Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The dollar fell to new lows against the euro on Monday, part of broad losses the U.S. currency suffered as traders gunned down technical targets amid thin market conditions.

Many traders and investors were on extended vacations after the Christmas holiday keeping volume relatively low and causing small orders to have exaggerated effects on prices.
"Today traders primarily went after stop-loss orders, taking advantage of thin market conditions between the Christmas holiday and the New Year and succeeding in driving the dollar lower," said Alex Beuzelin, foreign exchange analyst with Ruesch International.

"It was largely a technical move that was very consistent with the underlying fundamental concerns on the greenback," he added. [...]

Larry Brickman, currency strategist at Bank of America in New York, said there was no fresh economic reason for the euro's move and agreed that thin conditions helped magnify the market's deeper trend.

"It's more of the same, more dollar weakness and a continuation of the same theme going into the new year," Brickman said. "We don't think the ECB is going to come in," he said, referring to potential intervention from the European Central Bank to stem the euro's rise. [...]



Comment on this Article


2004: U.S. leads the dirty dozen spammers

By Dan Ilett
Special to CNET News.com
Published: December 24, 2004, 3:22 PM PST

The United States is in a league of its own when it comes to sending junk mail to e-mail users.

Researchers at security software company Sophos found that 42 percent of all spam sent this year came from the United States, based on a scan by its researchers of a global network of honey pots--computers designed to attract spam e-mails and viruses.





























































Source of spam

Country

Share of spam (percent)
United States

42.11
South Korea

13.43
China

8.44
Canada

5.71
Brazil

3.34
Japan

2.57
France

1.37
Spain

1.18
United Kingdom

1.13
Germany

1.03
Taiwan

1
Mexico

0.89

Source: Sophos


Sophos said this is evidence that America's antispam legislation simply isn't working.

"When we released the first report back in February, the U.S. had the excuse that the Can-Spam Act had been in existence for only three months," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, on Friday.

"Almost a year and millions of spam messages later, it is quite evident that that the Can-Spam legislation has made very little headway in damming the flood of spam," he said. [...]



Comment on this Article


2004: Pondering the slaughter of innocents

Eric Ringham
Published December 26, 2004

The day after Christmas is a good time to ponder the slaughter of innocents. Naja Salman, a girl, age 2, killed by gunfire. Razzaq Salman, a boy, age 11, also gunfire. Rafid Georgis, a boy, 10, dead from a car bomb.

It's hard to come by a good estimate of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed in the current war. But it's easy to find descriptions of individual Iraqi dead, thanks in part to Iraqbodycount.net. Name, age, gender, place and cause of death -- it's all there, a memorial to as many victims as the IBC organization can identify.
Like Nada, 6, and her sister Estabraket, 9, killed by gunfire. And Rami Qais, 4, who died with Sami Qais, 6, both boys, in a mortar attack.

In a war against insurgents, you cannot always tell a combatant from a noncombatant, which is one reason for the confusion about the number of civilian victims in Iraq. Most guesses range between 10,000 and 20,000, though other estimates run much higher. The British medical journal Lancet recently suggested the total may be close to 100,000.

Remember, though, that almost half the population of Iraq is 18 years old or younger. Whatever the overall number of civilian casualties turns out to be, it will include an awful lot of children.

Shilan Rashid, 3, a girl, killed by a car bomb. Ali Abbas, 13, a boy, also by a car bomb.

It's true enough that these kids would have faced an uncertain future under Saddam Hussein. Who knows? They might have suffered and died in some other act of violence. Instead, though, they are dying in a war the United States started, by choice, and that makes us responsible.

"War is waged by adults, but it's the children who suffer the most," said UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy in a statement last month. She was talking not about deaths, but about health; severe malnutrition has almost doubled since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

That's saying something. Prior to the war, one in eight Iraqi children died before the age of 5. Acute malnutrition was reported at 4 percent. Now that figure stands at 7.7 percent, and the Washington Post reports that an estimated 400,000 children are afflicted by "wasting," with chronic diarrhea and other symptoms. Experts blame dirty water.

At a pediatrics teaching hospital in Baghdad, an administrator told the Post that health officials had expected big improvements under American occupation. Instead, health care is worsening. Many international aid agencies have packed up and left.

"Oh God, help us build Iraq again," said the hospital administrator. "For our children, not for us. For our kids."

A UNICEF report points out that Iraqi 18-year-olds are living through their third war. Some of them, anyway.

But not Rabha Rekaad, 16, a girl, "gunfire or bombing." Nor the other Rekaad children who died that day: Zahra, 15, girl; Ali, 12, boy; Hamza, 6, boy, and Fatima, 4, girl. Nor Arnood Talib, 2, a girl; nor her sister (or was she a cousin?), Kholood, age 6 months on the day last May when she was killed by "gunfire or bombing," never having lived a day of peacetime, in a country we promised to liberate.



Comment on this Article


2002: Palestinians say troops shot child dead

Saturday, December 28, 2002

alestinian medical workers said Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip today shot dead a nine-year-Palestinian girl, Hanneen Abu Suleiman, as she played outside her home in the town of Khan Younis.

Witnesses said there was no fighting going on, when troops suddenly opened fire from a nearby Jewish settlement.

The army said it had no knowledge of any injured child, but that Palestinians in the area had earlier fired at an army outpost.




Comment on this Article


Three Years Ago: 2003


2003: ABC (Australia) Radio Interviews Gore Vidal

Transcript: PM - Wednesday, 24 December , 2003 18:10:00
Reporter: Monica Attard
HAMISH ROBERTSON: As part of the ABC summer season, we present a Current Affairs Special.

GORE VIDAL: We have never had an administration that set out deliberately to rid us of the Bill of Rights. With USA Patriot Act Number One, which passed 45 days after 9/11, and now there's a current sequel to it, which has not yet been given to Congress, but it's been leaked, you can be arrested without a charge, put before a military tribunal without recourse to due process of law to a lawyer, you can be deprived of your citizenship and you can be deported, this is a born American, and there's some lovely language in it, you can be deported to a region or a country that has no government.
I mean it is a dictatorship. [...]


Then comes 9/11, and a few weeks afterwards there's a 342-page USA Patriot Act, which is enormous detail. Well, it certainly wasn't thought up in 30 days since 9/11, as a response to a terrorist attack. It had been prepared and it was sent to Congress. Congress was then so overwhelmed by the media and the horror that had befallen us by wicked Arabs or whoever it was who did it, they passed it without reading it.

Now we're stuck with the damn thing. Congress, at last, are sitting down and realising what they wrought, and they're reviewing some of the aspects of it, which are violently anti-democratic, if one can use that phrase. [...]

GORE VIDAL: Well, I'm sure he says that, but what he will do is a different thing. I think he's got himself in pretty deep and I don't think he's worked out enough of an exit to get out of it because they are going to go into Syria.

MONICA ATTARD: You believe that?

GORE VIDAL: I know that, and also Iran has been marked too. I hope it isn't going to happen, I hope that the American people will wake up and stop the junta.

MONICA ATTARD: How do you know that they're going to go into Syria or Iran? Why do you say you know that?

GORE VIDAL: I have connections in Washington and I know that this is a decision that has been made. [...]



Comment on this Article


2003: Israeli Army Shooting of Israeli Stirs Hot Debate

By Jeffrey Heller
December 28, 2003

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israelis hotly debated on Sunday just who crossed a red line: a young Israeli who joined Palestinians and foreign sympathizers in a protest against a West Bank barrier, or soldiers who shot him.

Gil Naamati, a 21-year-old kibbutz member who recently completed his compulsory military service, was hit in his knee and hip with live ammunition on Friday as he tried to cut through the razor-wire topped fence. An American woman was also wounded.
Unlike hundreds of incidents in which soldiers have killed or wounded Palestinians since an uprising began in September 2000, the army's first use of live gunfire against an Israeli was a shot heard across the Jewish state.

"Today they shot my son, tomorrow they'll shoot yours," Naamati's father, Uri, told Israel Radio. [...]



Comment on this Article


2003: Feelings of invasion hang in the air

Paul-Marie de La Gorce
| Special to Gulf News | 28-12-2003

From Dubai to Tunis, and throughout most of the Muslim-Arab world, one finds that, under the shock of the recent war against Iraq and its dramatic consequences, a debate about the future of the region is taking place in the shape of conferences, seminars and meetings amongst intellectuals, journalists, lawyers and politicians.

For those who have actually been there and taken part in these interactions, there can be no doubt that in all the countries a groundswell of public opinion is emerging.
[...] There is no doubt that this year the war has brought to a head the vehemence of comments and the violence of people's feelings.

Many things helped to bring this about: the absence of any legal justification for the US-led war against Iraq; the blatant lies about the non-existent links between Iraq and the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks; the threat presented by the Iraqi army which was obviously too weakened for this to be credible; the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which nobody has been able to prove, either before or after the war.

At the end of the hostilities, other things also conspired to bring this about: the destruction of the Iraqi administrative institutions, universities, hospitals and, partially, the museums, which the US authorities could have easily prevented.

Comment 2006: And after the three intervening years, what has all of this discontent and grumbling amounted to? Nothing. Lebanon has been invaded. Iran is being isolated for a nuclear strike by either Israel or the US. The Palestinians are being slaughtered and no one speaks in protest.

Words are easy. Indignation is, too. It calms the nerves, allows the indignant to protest and let off that uncomfortable energy. And then what?

Nothing. Self-calming. Really, doing anything is just too much of a bother, and even if all of these events are terribly unpleasant, until it hits home, until it is your city that is invaded or bombed, who really cares?


Comment on this Article


2003: Chutzpah: an avoidance strategy

Azmi Bishara

Not only was [Dershowitz] at the Herzliya conference, but he also attended a meeting of the law and constitution committee in the Knesset, where he proposed that Israel should deal with international law "creatively" (Haaretz 19 December 2003) by holding the "terrorist" responsible for forcing Israel to abuse civilians. Evidently, "terrorists" are meant to set up camp in Gaza like an ordinary army so they can be picked off by Israeli forces, for otherwise woe to the civilians among whom the terrorists choose to live. Here we have the logic of the new American liberal. He knows perfectly well that the people he calls terrorists are, in fact, civilians, ordinary people who live in their own homes under the occupation just like other people, and that the so-called terrorist infrastructure that Sharon prattles on about as though there were organised training camps is pure propaganda, because in the occupied areas overlooked by Israeli control towers no camps of any sort can exist. He is perfectly aware that the infrastructure of terrorism is the occupation itself. However, the professor has a position to stick to and that position is Israel's. He is a chauvinist of nationalist stripe, no more and no less, so he must take sides and to hell with liberal values.
When a liberal Harvard University law professor defended Orenthal James Simpson, commonly known as "OJ", on the grounds of "reasonable doubt," it must have reminded many of the line from Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part 2, IV, ii): "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

This liberal law professor built his reputation on defending citizens against all forms of discrimination, for upholding the freedoms of the individual, for safeguarding a defendant's right to "reasonable doubt" when on trial for murder. He is the intellectual who strives to be unpredictable by going against the consensus of his social milieu, which condemns the simultaneously celebrated and hated wealthy star, the professor who defends the person who people like to hate, as sometimes happens with celebrities. He is the lawyer who likes to play the enfant terrible, bent on provoking his peers in a battle that appears to revolve around the defendant who is innocent until proven guilty and whom he proves cannot be found guilty even if he cannot prove his innocence, thereby infuriating his peers even more while at the same time increasing their admiration of his courtroom finesse. And, from the real blood of the victim with a well-known name, family and friends who became the authors of memoirs and talk show guests, and from the human flesh beneath the victim's fingernails, liberals and conservatives -- whether they loved or hated the defendant -- squeezed a cheap melodrama on the antics of the rich, on their ethics of betrayal and the bloodiness of their ethics, and on a culture the values of which are as volatile as deodorant spray.

In this soap opera the Harvard professor played the high- priced legal eagle who had honed his skill at treading the rough and treacherous paths of the law -- and around the law -- in civil rights cases and who heeds neither rumour nor prevailing opinion as he forges ahead in his advocacy of the rights of the accused however unpopular his mission. From the civil rights dictum, "he is innocent until proven guilty even if black", the lawyer deftly segues to the "he is innocent even if he's rich and famous". Thus he turns the arguments, rhetoric and morals of civil rights to the promotion of amorality, and places the rejection of prejudice, the scorn for hearsay and strict adherence to the codes of civil rights advocacy at the service of the manufacture of prejudice, stereotypes, clichés, spectacle, and wealth buying innocence by purchasing "reasonable doubt".

It would have been nice to forget this rather ordinary chapter in the history of American entertainment, and to forget those whom its sensationalism casts into the limelight, because oblivion is a blessing and memory a curse. Unfortunately, however, the illustrious professor doesn't give up. As a "public intellectual" he keeps on producing one book after another, one called Chutzpah on the extraordinary relationship between Israel and American Jews, another on the Simpson trial and another on the secret of the success of terrorism. Then the newspapers slap us to attention with a report of a lecture of his in Herzliya -- the same Herzliya in which Sharon, Netanyahu and the chief of Mossad strutted and swaggered. What a coincidence, which is always so much more thrilling than a thousand appointments, as we say. And what a pleasure it was to read, several years after that courtroom farce, the star lawyer's advice to Israel on how to circumvent international law and its weakness for human rights.

So he too got to the Herzliya conference, as though Israel needs someone to advise it on how to flout international law with impunity. Naturally, his presence there occasioned a look back at his activity, which has taken a provocative course since 11 September. In interviews with CNN on 3 May, 2002 and with CBS on 20 September, 2002 he told television audiences how it was possible to justify the use of torture in the war against terrorism. But, as only befits a liberal university professor, he made it clear that the use of torture must be carefully monitored and controlled, used in very isolated cases and approved at the highest possible level of authority, and then only if there is sufficient cause to believe that the prisoner has knowledge of a terrorist operation and that torturing him would bring to light the information necessary to save human lives. In short, he thinks torture should be legalised. The question has been dealt with before in Israeli judicial and legal rights literature beneath the heading: permitting the use of "a reasonable amount of physical pressure" in the event of looming danger of terrorist attack, a danger the literature likens to a "ticking bomb."

Whereas human rights organisations were fearful that an attempt to legalise torture would constitute a dangerous precedent, the Harvard law professor argued in interviews that legitimising and monitoring the use of torture was preferable to practicing torture in secret. Here, apparently, we have chutzpah as integrity, as opposed to hypocrisy and beating around the bush.

Not only was he at the Herzliya conference, but he also attended a meeting of the law and constitution committee in the Knesset, where he proposed that Israel should deal with international law "creatively" (Haaretz 19 December 2003) by holding the "terrorist" responsible for forcing Israel to abuse civilians. Evidently, "terrorists" are meant to set up camp in Gaza like an ordinary army so they can be picked off by Israeli forces, for otherwise woe to the civilians among whom the terrorists choose to live. Here we have the logic of the new American liberal. He knows perfectly well that the people he calls terrorists are, in fact, civilians, ordinary people who live in their own homes under the occupation just like other people, and that the so-called terrorist infrastructure that Sharon prattles on about as though there were organised training camps is pure propaganda, because in the occupied areas overlooked by Israeli control towers no camps of any sort can exist. He is perfectly aware that the infrastructure of terrorism is the occupation itself. However, the professor has a position to stick to and that position is Israel's. He is a chauvinist of nationalist stripe, no more and no less, so he must take sides and to hell with liberal values.

Between Harvard and O.J. the American liberal is fanatic about the American way of life and about his Jewish identity, at the heart of which resides Israel in the new definition of this identity in the US, so no one can dare accuse him of being a Jewish nationalist. He is not being naïve when he theorizes about life under occupation. Not that life under occupation concerns him. What matters to him is how Israel handles itself and how it appears "among nations".

In his lecture in Herzliya Alan Dershowitz said: "The root cause of terrorism is its success and its support. It is a case of advantaged people using disadvantaged people as cannon fodder. As we all know, Palestinian terror has been supported by the UN, by the Vatican and several other institutions."

The liberal professor has summarily ruled out occupation and degradation as a cause, a motive and a background. But then to know what life under occupation is like one does not have to live in Gaza or to have experienced first hand how a densely populated land was transformed into a camp surrounded by control towers; how childhood, growing up and life have lost their meaning; how people have lost their humanity and not just their human rights; how the environment, and not just the quality of the environment, has been denuded of all aesthetic values so that colours are now a uniform gray and a sense of suffocation the norm. No, one does not have to live there to realise what its like; all you need is a bit of chutzpah.

Dershowitz resumes: "We have international sanctions on nations such as Cuba and Iraq. Everybody in a nation should take responsibility for the actions of its leaders. To be part of a group is to be accountable.... Pre-emption is the other primary method of reducing the scourge of terrorism. Preemption, although Israel has praciticed it, generally falls outside the rule of law. Terrorists put democracies in a tragic dilemma by hiding among civilians."

Barely pausing for breath in this amazing lecture, Dershowitz continues: "We have a joint project between Israel and the US, which lawyers must lead. Our project is to propose new rules of international law. Israelis are obliged to follow the rules of law in the democracy called Israel, as I am within the US. Your moral obligation to comply with international law is voluntary. You are not represented in the making or implementing of those laws. International law lives or dies by its credibility, not by the democracy by which it has been constructed. I am suggesting the change of the rule of law. Democracy should not have to justify its actions and show how the rule of human rights has become a weapon in promoting human wrongs... You are the lab for that process. You are contributing greatly. Do not allow the world to bully you into believing that you are the human rights violators..."

Israelis listened to this in rapture. They knew all these things already and they put them into practice. But they were ecstatic to hear it for the first time from a distinguished university professor, for now they can act on the conviction that their ideas and practices graduated from the University of Harvard. Israelis are fond of opening their self-justifying arguments with such assertions as "even in the US they have administrative detention", or "even in a great democracy like the US they use torture". It is as though all Israel needed to encourage it in its flouting of international law and the international will was a Harvard professor, courtroom king and champion verbal gladiator to tell it to become the laboratory for new international laws which will free the democracies' hands in the war against terrorism. Now Israel's codes of behaviour can become international law. Have you ever seen anyone more modest? It is as though his pride and ardour are fired by the thought that US and Israeli forces are waiting for his go ahead before committing their crimes, as though army and security officers carry his collected lectures around with them like an instruction pamphlet they open in order to put their finger on the necessary provision of international law to trample underfoot. The tragedy is that they are already committing the crimes and all our distinguished professor is doing is lending them moral justification and appeasing consciences with the liberal logic of an ex-civil libertarian.

Naturally, the law professor realises that the legal gymnastics of rendering international law something to abide by voluntarily by democratic countries must inevitably apply to non-democratic countries as well, as long as international law is not universally sovereign. But, in the case of those countries that do not please the venerable professor force can always be used to deter or punish them, not for having broken the law but for being "against us". Clearly, selectivity is the operative word in the business of abiding by, or making others abide by, international law. It all depends on who has the power to be selective when, in the final analysis, the rule of international law has been replaced by the law of the jungle.

Occupation, want, misery, destitution, degradation -- none of these justify the violence that goes by the name of terrorism in this case. Let us grant this, for the sake of argument, just to see where Dershowitz's logic leads us. Democracy in the US might mean that an athletic star and wealthy socialite who everyone, including his lawyer, knows is guilty of murder can get acquitted, not on the basis of lack of evidence or proof of innocence, but on the grounds of "reasonable doubt". Outside the US, however, bombing the poor under occupation is permissible, even if they are innocent, because they have a "guilty" man in their midst. Under this scheme of things, occupation as terrorism, as the daily repression of a civilian populace, is not only skirted over, it virtually becomes a right, as though occupation is a reaction against terrorism and not the reverse. Also, as long as the colonial power is democratic it has the right to make international law and, more, to define international law by its own behaviour.

In 1991 Dershowitz published a book called Chutzpah. The term, which in Hebrew means audacity, has in Yiddish acquired an almost endearing quality. A person who has chutzpah is confident, daring, able to lie and look you in the eye. In The joys of Yiddish (1968), Leo Rosten defines the person endowed with chutzpah -- the "chuzpanik" -- as "the man who shouts for help while beating you up." Zionism defines itself as the refutation of the exile, a state which includes refuting the manners and mores of the son of the ghetto, or the Jew of the Diaspora, whom Zionist theoreticians considered weak and too eager to please "others". Morally, Zionism stands for self-affirmation, self-reliance and the display of strength, and for freeing oneself from the minority complex with its attendant trait of excessive courteousness. And the opposite of the aversion to politeness is pride in being rude. There was a time when Jewish American liberals were an integral part of the American civil rights movement. However, a large segment of liberal Jews have "Zionized" in the sense that they have negated their exile through the move from minority status to establishment, and because of their irrational emotional attachment to Israel, which they support right or wrong, they now find themselves in league with neoconservative forces in the US. The result is that they are liberal in personal status issues and conservative in foreign affairs, including those affecting war and peace. Hence the shift from "reasonable doubt" to the law of the jungle in the areas within the influence of the empire, which the cream of these liberals has the necessary audacity to defend.



Comment on this Article


2003: Saddam Threatens to Expose US

P.K. Abdul Ghafour, Arab News Staff

JEDDAH, 27 December 2003 - Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, now being grilled by American investigators, has reportedly warned US authorities that he will expose Washington's "political games" and its behind-the-scene role in the occupation of Kuwait.

"Saddam threatened that if they continue to pressure him he will reveal startling facts - about America's political games with his country - that would shock the whole world," Al-Watan Arabic daily quoted a high-level European source as saying. [...]




Comment on this Article


2003: Rumsfeld Threatens Saddam's Family

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sounded intrigued when asked how to get Saddam Hussein talking to his interrogators.

"Does he have any interest in his family? ... I don't know," Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday, ruminating about the possible pressures that could be applied to the former dictator. [...]




Comment on this Article


2003: Reality check for US in Iraq

Sunday 28 December 2003, 10:43 Makka Time, 7:43 GMT

The US is taking a long hard look at its position in Iraq as its experiences in the country fail to meet the expectations of the Bush administration, a leading US newspaper reports.
Attacks on the US-led occupation and an accelerated timetable for Iraq's return to sovereignty have prompted the United States to scale down its ambitious agenda for remaking that country, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The daily said US officials have in the past few months dropped plans to privatise state-owned businesses and backed off efforts to disarm militias under the control of ethnic and political factions.

"The Americans are coming to understand that they cannot change everything they want to change in Iraq," Adel Abd el-Mehdi, a senior leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite Muslim political party cooperating with the US-led occupation, told the daily.

"They need to let the Iraqi people decide the big issues."

Comment 2006: Three years later and Bush is still needing a reality check. The latest calls for sending in even more troops in order to rpepare the disengagement. That is the kind of logic that passes on Fox News. Along with his recent sound bite of "We're not winning, but we're not losing", where "not losing" really means "We'll stay there until we win...." as if the disaster and criminal war that was Vietnam had never happened.

However, going back and reading an article like this is illuminating if for no other reason than it shows how the population can be manipulated. Really, three years later and they are saying the same things!!!


Comment on this Article


2003: Terror attempt on British jet foiled: report

December 28, 2003

Saudi Arabia has arrested two Islamic suicide pilots who were preparing to fly two light aircraft into a packed British Airways (BA) jet, a British Sunday newspaper said, quoting a senior opposition politician.

The suspected suicide pilots were arrested in the last few weeks after they were found red-handed with aircraft loaded with explosives near Saudi Arabia's main airport in the capital Riyadh, The Mail on Sunday said. [...]


Comment 2006: You remember last summer's liquid bomb hoax out of Britain? The one that has brought down permanent changes in the EU's flight security legislation that went into effect months after it was conclusively shown that it was not possible to fabricate bombs in an airplane's toilet the way we were told? Well, the phoney bomb scare has been a regular tactic of the pathocrats since September 11, 2001. The infamous "terror alert" system in the US was used to divert the public's attention away from political scandal for several years -- although it has been used less recently. Maybe they'll bring it back in 2007.

Comment on this Article


2003: Feeling A Draft: New law ties PFD to draft registry

By SEAN COCKERHAM
Anchorage Daily News
December 27, 2003

JUNEAU -- Alaska men between 18 and 25, stand at attention: Selective Service registration will now be a requirement to get a Permanent Fund check.

Starting Jan. 1, state law will demand that Alaskans be listed with federal Selective Service to get the dividend. The state plans to forward information from the dividend applications to the federal government, which will automatically register the eligible Alaska males who haven't already signed up. [...]
Word of the new requirement doesn't seem to have spread. Rob Hartley, a guidance counselor at Dimond High School in Anchorage, said he hadn't heard about it and doesn't think word has filtered down to the students either.

"No, I would seriously doubt that they know about that," Hartley said. [...]

"When they looked at Alaska, they felt the most efficient way to reach the greatest number of people would be through tying compliance with Selective Service to the Permanent Fund dividend," she said.

Nearly every Alaskan applies for the annual dividend check. The state sent out $1,107 checks to about 600,000 Alaskans this fall. That's about 94 percent of the population. [...]



Comment on this Article


2003: Bush Screws Our War Heroes

By Joseph L. Galloway
SFTT.org

WASHINGTON - Its formal title is The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003. Veterans say it is a long overdue measure to end what they have nicknamed The Disabled Veterans Tax. By either name it is a hot-button issue for 670,000 disabled American military veterans.

What the bill would do is redress a century-old injustice - a law that says anyone who retires after a full career of military service and draws retirement pay will have that pay reduced, dollar for dollar, for any payment received from the Veterans Administration for permanent service-connected disability.
n other words, if a military retiree is judged 100 percent disabled as a consequence of old war wounds or Agent Orange or bone damage from jumping out of airplanes, he would draw a maximum disability payment of $2,300 per month. His retired pay would disappear entirely, under the law.

Curiously, if a former soldier served only a two or four-year tour and was later judged disabled he would draw full disability payments with no reduction for any other payments he might receive from Social Security or a government or private retirement plan. [...]



Comment on this Article


2003: We Hate Spam, Congress Says (Except When It's Sent by Us)

By JENNIFER LEE
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Even as Congress was unanimously approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail, members were sending out hundreds of thousands of unsolicited messages to constituents.

The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported Congressional mass communications.

In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5 to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and was not part of the junk e-mail legislation. [...]




Comment on this Article


2003: How many Americans are satisfied with their lives?

USA Today

USA Today Snapshot: Fifty-seven percent of Americans are very satisfied with their lives. Americans are happier than Europeans, where just 21% are very satisfied with the state of their lives.




Comment on this Article


2003: 40,000 DEAD IN IRAN EARTHQUAKE

By Stephen Hayward28 December 2003

A BABY was dramatically pulled from the rubble yesterday as the death toll in one of the world's worst ever earthquakes looked set to reach 40,000.

As British rescue experts arrived in the devastated Iranian city of Bam, the condition of the baby was described as "stable".

The 68-strong British rescue team with sniffer dogs, special cameras and listening devices touched down near the disaster zone early yesterday.
Other emergency teams from the United States, South Africa, Germany, Austria, Russia, Switzerland and Turkey also travelled to Bam as the frantic search for survivors continued.

Officials said the final toll from Friday's disaster, which left 30,000 people injured, could be much higher than originally feared.

"As more bodies are pulled out, we fear that the death toll may reach as high as 40,000," said Akbar Alavi, the governor of Kerman City, the provincial capital. "An unbelievable human disaster has occurred."

Iran's interior minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari said: "There is not a standing building in the city. Bam has turned into a wasteland. Even if a few buildings are standing, you cannot trust them to live in them again."

Last night desperate relief workers refused to give up hope of pulling survivors from the rubble of the city, whose population was about 80,000. Some dug with shovels, others with bare hands. Exhausted Iranian rescue worker Omid Aliour said his team had dug out only three injured people during the night. "We don't have anything, just our bare hands," he said.

Among those missing was a British tourist who was visiting the area when the quake, which measured 6.3 on the Richter scale, struck. A second Briton was slightly hurt and is now recovering in hospital. Another 28 British holidaymakers in the region escaped unharmed. Last night there were increasing fears that Bam, once an important stop on the Silk Road through Asia, could be hit by disease.

Hundreds of bodies were bundled into trucks and the back seats of cars. Distraught relatives wailed next to bodies wrapped in blankets. Some relatives criticised the rescue operation. One man angrily interrupted Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari as he spoke to reporters yesterday. "My father is under the rubble," the man said, with tears rolling down his face. "I've been asking for help since yesterday, but nobody has come to help me."

-RESCUE workers were last night still wading through sludge in search of nine people missing after mudslides crashed down a canyon in California.

THE WORST FIVE QUAKES

FIVE earthquakes have caused a terrible toll of carnage around the world in modern times.

1. 500,000 people were killed in Chinese city of Tangshan in July 1976

2. 143,000 died in Tokyo and Yokohama when a quake rocked Japan in September 1923.

3. 50,000 killed in Gilan province, north-west Iran in June 1990.

4. 30,000 died in Gujarat state, India, in January 2001.

5. 25,000 killed in north- west Armenia, December 1988.



Comment on this Article


Four Years Ago: 2002


2002: President Bush said on Saturday the United States would confront the danger of "catastrophic violence" posed by Iraq

Reuters

President Bush said on Saturday the United States would confront the danger of "catastrophic violence" posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. Assessing the past year and outlining future challenges in his weekly radio address, Bush also vowed to turn an anemic U.S. economic recovery into sustained growth and to prosecute the war on terror with "patience, focus and determination." Speaking a month before U.N. arms inspectors submit a report on their hunt for banned weapons in Iraq and as the United States continues to build up forces in the Gulf, Bush called Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a danger to his neighbors and to world peace. Despite a lack of concrete evidence of Iraqi involvement in attacks against the United States, including the Sept. 11 hijacked plane assaults, Bush linked his anti-terror campaign to disarming Saddam.




Comment on this Article


2002: God Bless America & Pass the Ammunition

By Ken Nichols O'Keefe

Associated Press - December 3, 2002

'The authority to kill U.S. citizens is granted under a secret finding signed by the president after the Sept. 11 attacks that directs the CIA to covertly attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world. The authority makes no exception for Americans, so permission to strike them is understood rather than specifically described, officials said.'

On November 3, 2002 the CIA exercised this power by firing a "Hellfire" missile that killed a carload of "suspected" (not convicted) al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. One of those individuals happened to be an American citizen (Kamal Derwish). American authorities allege he was the leader of an al-Qaida cell in Buffalo, N.Y., although he was never charged with a crime. Well I guess that's all the proof flag waving Americans need, surely the "authorities" wouldn't lie.
Associated Press - December 3, 2002

'The Bush administration said the killing of an American in this fashion was legal.'

"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials,'' said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, after the attack. ''He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.'' In killing him, the administration defined Derwish as an enemy combatant, the equivalent of a U.S. citizen who fights with the enemy on a battlefield, officials said. Under this legal definition, experts say, his constitutional rights are nullified and he can be killed outright.'

The United States Declaration of Independence

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.'

"If I were to earn your confidence, my job will be to prepare the military to fight and win war." - George W. Bush - Presidential Debate 2000



Comment on this Article


2002: Rumsfeld gets tough on North Korea

John Gittings in Hong Kong and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday December 24, 2002
The Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, yesterday warned North Korea that America could fight and win two regional conflicts. He advised Pyongyang not to become "emboldened" by the US administration's immediate focus on Iraq.

"We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts. We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other, and let there be no doubt about it," Mr Rumsfeld said.

His comments came amid desperate diplomatic efforts to head off the growing Korean crisis.
The UN has confirmed that North Korea has carried out its threat to remove UN seals and dismantle monitoring cameras at a laboratory used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said: "There is not any legitimate purpose for the facility other than separating plutonium from spent fuel."

Senator Joseph Biden, the outgoing chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that North Korea's plan to restart a programme for plutonium extraction could allow it to produce bombs "within months".

Mr Biden said the crisis was "a greater danger immediately to US interests _ than Saddam Hussein".

While the rhetoric sharpened, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that Washington would pursue a diplomatic strategy against North Korea for the moment, as that crisis was still at a relatively early stage.

Pyongyang has issued a series of threats, including one to "destroy the earth" if the US resorted to nuclear war against it. South Korea's president, Kim Dae-jung, and the president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun, sought to calm the mood by saying they wanted a peaceful resolution.

While Russia expressed concern at the North's weekend announcement, the deputy foreign minister warned the US not to aggravate the crisis.

But the US state department yesterday rejected Pyongyang's insistence that the crisis can be solved if the US signs a treaty of non-aggression. "We will not bargain or offer inducements for North Korea to live up to the treaties and agreements it has signed," a spokesman said.

US intelligence sources were quoted by the BBC as saying they believe "North Korea may already have a small number of nuclear bombs and the material to make a few more".

The North Korean media has given Bush administration hardliners all the material they may want.

The communist party's newspaper, the Workers' Daily, declared that "the army and people of the DPRK are fully ready to mercilessly strike the bulwark of US imperialist aggressors" - implying that they could hit targets in the US.

Comment 2006: Four years later, the talks are still going on, and North Korea has yet to blow up the world. Whew!

Comment on this Article


2002: Iraq gives names of scientists to U.N. inspectors

Sunday, December 29, 2002 Posted: 10:45 AM EST (1545 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq gave United Nations weapons inspectors a list of more than 500 scientists associated with its weapons programs, a spokesman for the inspectors said Saturday.

Hiro Ueki said U.N. Monitoring and Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) chief Hans Blix had requested the list in a letter sent to the Iraqis on December 12. The deadline to come up with the list was December 31.
"Today we have received from the Iraqi national monitoring directorate a list of names of those associated with chemical, biological and nuclear and ballistic weapons," the spokesman said at a press briefing in Baghdad. "The list contains over 500 names."

On Friday, inspectors interviewed a scientist -- who later said on Iraqi television that Iraq had no nuclear program -- about a "possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear program," a spokesman for the inspectors said.

Search continues

A team of missile experts went to Al-Qa'qa Saturday, a site listed by British intelligence officials as a chemical complex that may be producing phosgene, which can be used as a chemical agent.

The facility -- located in al-Latifiya near Baghdad -- was severely damaged in the 1991 Persian Gulf War but has been repaired and is operational, according to a British white paper released on Iraq in September.

Other inspection teams fanned out across Baghdad, visiting a variety of sites as part of the United Nations' search for evidence that Iraq is developing a nuclear or biological weapons program.

Biological weapons inspectors headed to the Al-Kindi facility in Abu Greb and the Yafa Juice Company in Za'faraniya.

Another UNMOVIC team searched a private import-export business, Al-Najah.

After arms monitors interviewed the Iraqi scientist, Qadhem Mijbil, on Friday, he appeared in a news conference Saturday on Iraqi television, distancing himself from the country's past nuclear program.

"We don't have a nuclear program by the way, now, it's a past program, but really I don't know what kind of materials could be used in the nuclear program," he said.

Qadhem is a metallurgist from al-Raya, a well-known state company that is part of Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission, according to the Iraqi foreign ministry.

The scientist specializes in the use of aluminum pipes used to make missiles with a range of 10 kilometers (6 miles), according to the ministry, however Britain has accused Iraq of using the pipes in the process of producing depleted uranium.

Qadhem said he did not know the nuclear uses for the aluminum pipes.

"I'm a scientist and I don't respond to questions about intelligence, I can only talk about scientific issues," he said.

Iraq has admitted to previous efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, but insists it has no weapons of mass destruction programs now.

"Dr. Qadhem, with all due respect, has absolutely no relation with proscribed past programs," Gen. Hossam Amin, the head of Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate, told state television Friday.

Qadhem said a representative of the National Monitoring Directorate was present for the interview -- something he insisted his colleagues also request, as he did, if they are interviewed by the inspectors.

The inspectors are under U.S. pressure to take scientists and their families out of Iraq for the interviews. U.S. officials have said they believe the scientists would speak more freely if they were assured that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could not retaliate.

The IAEA began interviewing scientists this week. The U.N. Monitoring and Verification and Inspection Commission, which is searching Iraq for evidence of chemical or biological weapons or high-powered missiles, has not yet conducted such interviews.

A U.N. official said several issues need to be worked out before that can be done, including arrangements for secure interview facilities.

U.S. readies carriers for Gulf duty

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has been told to prepare two aircraft carriers for deployment to the Persian Gulf after New Year's Day, naval officials told CNN on Friday.

A "prepare to deploy" order has been issued for a carrier to move from both the East Coast and the West Coast. (Full story)

President Bush has threatened possible U.S.-led military action against Iraq if it refuses to abide by United Nations resolutions calling for it to disarm itself of alleged weapons of mass destruction.

On December 7 Iraq delivered to U.N. weapons inspectors 11,000-pages of what Baghdad said were details of its weapons of mass destruction programs and possible facilities that might be used to develop them.

U.N. Resolution 1441 -- passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council on November 8 -- demanded the Iraqi documents be handed over by December 8.

The resolution also called on Iraq to abide by all the U.N. resolutions that Iraq promised to follow in a ceasefire agreement reached after it lost the Gulf War.

Comment 2006: We all know what happened next. There was an illegal invasion and ocupation and no WMD have ever been found. Four years later, US ships are once again being deployed, this time to harrass Iran, a country that is developing nuclear power, leagally, having signed every necessary international accord -- something that Israel has never done.

Comment on this Article


2002: Non-U.S. students jailed over class load

Friday, December 27, 2002 Posted: 10:23 AM EST (1523 GMT)

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- At least six Middle Eastern students studying in Colorado have been jailed in the past 10 days for failing to take enough college classes as required by their student visas.

The students ran into trouble when they showed up to register with U.S. immigration officials, as required by new rules to track foreign students.
When they reported, they were jailed and required to post $5,000 bonds for enrolling in less than 12 hours of college credit.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service says the students are being detained because under-enrollment is a violation of their student visas. The students are not suspected of any other offense.

"We're concerned about the heavy-handed nature of the enforcement and their lack of understanding of their own regulations," said Chris Johnson, director of international education at the University of Colorado at Denver. "Students are being detained unfairly and callously."

One University of Colorado at Denver student was jailed last week because he was one hour shy of a full load after receiving college permission to drop a course, Johnson said.

"I don't believe this is helping us with the war on terrorism," said Mark Hallett, director of international student services at Colorado State University. "We're alienating people who could be our best friends and ambassadors once they return to their countries."

The Middle Eastern students were jailed for up to 48 hours before posting bond. Three attend UCD, two study at CU-Boulder, and one attends Colorado State University.

College officials expect more to be detained during a second round of January registrations at the INS district office in Denver.

Congress ordered federal registrations by December 16 for males 16 and older carrying temporary visas from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan -- countries identified by the State Department as having ties to terrorism.

A January 10 deadline is for men from the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, Morocco, Afghanistan and nine other countries. Two more rounds of registrations will follow with the goal of tracking most foreign nationals by 2005.

"As far as the INS is concerned, this system was put in place in Congress to combat the war on terrorism. We're carrying out their wishes. This is a policy issue," said Nina Pruneda, INS regional public affairs officer.

The INS wants to ensure that international students are diligently pursuing a degree, she said.





Comment on this Article


2002: Israeli destroyed the homes of two Palestinian militants

Reuters
(Link now dead)

in the West Bank city of Hebron on Saturday after gunmen shot dead four seminary students at a nearby Jewish settlement, military sources said. In the Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis, Palestinian witnesses said Israeli troops near another Jewish settlement opened fire, killing a nine-year-old Palestinian girl as she stood outside her home. The army said it was checking the report. The militant group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for Friday's attack on the settlement of Otniel near Hebron, saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of eight Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Wednesday and Thursday. Two of the four dead seminary students were unarmed off-duty soldiers, participating in a program that lets religious Israelis study as part of their military service, an army spokesman said. An army statement said their attackers were dressed in Israeli army uniform, armed with M-16 rifles and carried a large quantity of magazines.




Comment on this Article


2002: The Vatican, trying to counter charges it did too little to stop the Nazis

Reuters
(Dead link)

The Vatican, trying to counter charges it did too little to stop the Nazis persecuting Jews, has set February 15 as the date when it will release archives relating to relations with pre-war Germany. The archives will, however, be available only to scholars who must make a formal request, it said on Saturday. They include documents from 1922 to 1939, when Eugenio Pacelli -- later to become the wartime pope, Pius XII -- was Vatican ambassador in Berlin.




Comment on this Article


2002: U.S. is using torture to interrogate top al-Qa'ida prisoners

The Independent

The United States is subjecting top-level al-Qa'ida captives in its custody to extraordinary physical and psychological coercion, blurring the line between acceptable interrogation techniques under international law and outright torture, according to a detailed report in yesterday's Washington Post. - Some of these "stress and duress" techniques come close to practices denounced by the US State Department in its surveys of human rights violations. Washington has upbraided Israel, Turkey and Jordan, among others, for using sleep deprivation - defined by the United Nations as torture.

In some cases, the officials told the Post, prisoners will be taken out of CIA custody and handed over to foreign intelligence services - notably from Jordan, Egypt and Morocco - with a reputation for torturing political prisoners. The CIA will keep itself clean by staying out of the room but then take full advantage of any information its allies manage to extract. - As one official directly involved in the process put it: "We send them to other countries so they can kick the shit out of them." Another suggested - probably accurately - that US public opinion was more interested in results than in playing by the rules. "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," one official was quoted saying.




Comment on this Article


2002: 800,000 lose jobless benefits

Saturday, December 28, 2002 Posted: 11:50 PM EST (0450 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Almost 800,000 jobless workers lost their unemployment benefits Saturday because the U.S. House of Representatives recessed in November without extending them.
The emergency program extended state-funded benefits by 13 weeks in most states and by 26 weeks in three states with the highest unemployment levels -- Oregon, Washington, and Alaska -- and was scheduled to end December 28 no matter how many weeks of paychecks an unemployed worker had received.

Those who lost their benefits Saturday "join another million jobless workers who have already exhausted all of their unemployment benefits," according to the AFL-CIO's Web site.

"In addition, some 95,000 jobless workers will run out of state unemployment benefits each week and be left without jobs or temporary federal unemployment assistance," the Web site said, quoting a nonpartisan research center.

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney called the cut-off of the benefits extension "an economic catastrophe."

"The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and President Bush should feel ashamed," Sweeney said.

Bush: Extension first order of business

Bush has called on the next Congress "to make the extension of unemployment benefits a first order of business" when the new Congress convenes in January.

"No final bill was sent to me extending unemployment benefits for about 750,000 Americans whose benefits will expire on December 28," Bush said in his weekly radio address last week. " ... They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down."

Bush said those cut off on December 28 should have their benefits extended retroactively to that date.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, blamed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for the delay.

"We passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate," she said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. " ... But the House Republican leadership refused to pass this bill. They ran out the clock, and went home for the holidays, without even allowing a simple vote."

Clinton said she was pleased with Bush's announced support for an extension, but added that she wished "he could have made that statement several weeks earlier, in time for the holidays."



Comment on this Article


2002: Moscow points to Grozny's Arab tie

Sunday, December 29, 2002 Posted: 5:20 AM EST (1020 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Terrorist acts targeting Grozny are being financed by unnamed Arab countries, Moscow's leading anti-espionage agent says.

The head of the anti-terrorist branch for the northern Caucasus, Col. Ilya Shabalkin, said orders were coming from a well-known rebel, Shamil Basayev, and a representative of the "Muslim Brotherhood" -- Abu Al Walid , CNN's Jill Dougherty reported.
Military intelligence, he says, recently learned that Abu Al Walid was ordering a series of terrorists attacks on Grozny. The attacks are being financed by several Arab countries, which were not named.

The comments come as Russian officials revised the death toll in the twin bomb attacks on a pro-Moscow government building in the Chechnya capital downwards to 40. The number of injured in Friday's suicide attacks has jumped to 152.

Aslan Maskhadov, a Chechen separatist leader recognised as the republic's president until Russia established a Moscow-based Chechen council in 1999, denied Saturday any connection to a deadly suicide bombing in Grozny and even condemned it.

Maskhadov, a former Russian army officer, said such suicide bombings play into the hands of the Russian leadership, which, he said, was "doing everything possible to kill Chechens at the hands of Chechens."

"I appeal to those who... have decided to go down the path of martyrdom," Maskhadov said in a statement posted on an Islamic Web site. "I understand you, but I cannot support you."

But Dougherty added: "There are a number of groups working in Chechnya... with some linked to al Qaeda, and some splinter groups. So it is difficult in some cases to say who is taking responsibility."

About a tonne of explosives exploded outside the building after a jeep packed with the materials rammed through an armed security gate and continued towards the building.

Thirty seconds later another blast went off. The explosions virtually destroyed the building and left a 10 metre wide and four metre deep crater outside.

A spokesman for the Russian federal forces described the minutes just before the attack, saying guards opened fire when they realised something was wrong but the vehicle kept moving, pulling close to the building and exploding with deadly force.

Dougherty said questions were being asked about how two suicide bombers could get through Grozny and approach one of the most protected buildings and bomb it.

Interfax news agency is saying the men used a jeep bearing military number plates and showed documents at security checkpoints which resembled Chechen government paperwork.

Rescue attempts continue on Saturday with giant cranes being brought in to lift debris. A fifth person was dragged from the rubble, officials say. Two hundred people had been in the building at the time of the attack.

The majority of those killed were Chechens, including at least seven members of law enforcement, a Chechen Interior Ministry spokesman told Russia's Interfax news agency.

None of the top Chechen leadership were injured, Interfax reported.

The Kavkaz Centre, which operates a Chechen Islamic Web site, said Chechen "shaheeds" (martyrs) were responsible for the explosions.

Heightened security

Russian officials said Chechen leaders had recently met and ordered an attack against Chechnya's pro-Russian government.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the attack -- which shattered the government's image of a Chechnya returning to normal after years of conflict between Moscow and separatist Chechens -- "inhuman" and said that Chechen rebels were "waging a war on their own people."

Russian officials are stepping up security in Grozny and the rest of the breakaway republic, as well as Moscow, in the run-up to Russia's biggest holiday, New Year.

"They fear this will be an opportune time for something to happen," Dougherty added.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell offered his country's condolences and urged Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to find a political solution to the problem.

Powell added: "We call on Chechen leaders to firmly renounce terrorist acts and cut ties with terrorist groups."

Russian forces had stepped up their activity in the region after a theatre siege in Moscow two months ago.

Last week, Russian police arrested two Chechens they said were wearing explosive material in their belts and carrying grenades.

Russia first occupied Chechnya in 1994, three years after the breakaway republic declared its independence. The Russians withdrew in 1996 after Chechen rebels fought the Russian military to a draw. But the military returned in October 1999, after Chechen rebels invaded the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan.

-- CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.



Comment on this Article


2002: Illness strikes 81 aboard cruise ship

Friday, December 27, 2002 Posted: 5:03 PM EST (2203 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Seventy-one passengers and 10 crew members aboard Royal Caribbean's Majesty of the Seas have reported symptoms of flu-like illness, the latest in a series of such reports aboard cruise ships in recent weeks.
The ship left the Port of Miami Monday carrying 2,630 passengers and 870 crew members for a four-day trip to Nassau, Bahamas; Coco Cay, Bahamas; and Key West, Florida, where 35 of the ill passengers chose to leave the ship, a cruise line spokeswoman said. They were driven in a bus back to the Port of Miami.

The others were confined to their quarters to limit the chances they would infect others, said Lynn Martenstein, vice president of corporate communications for Royal Caribbean.

The ship returned Friday as scheduled to the Port of Miami.

Stool samples will be sent to a laboratory designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to determine the cause of the outbreak, Martenstein said. Results will not be determined for about a week, she said.

The 81 people sickened represent 2.3 percent of those aboard, less than the 3 percent figure the CDC uses to define an outbreak.

Depending on how long they were sick, some passengers will be given a credit for a future cruise, Martenstein said.

In recent weeks, Royal Caribbean has beefed up its cleaning regimen, following CDC-recommended procedures, she added.

The 10-year-old ship, one of 25 in Royal Caribbean's fleet, was scheduled to depart the Port of Miami Friday afternoon for its next cruise.



Comment on this Article


2002: Texas executes most in 2002

Saturday, December 28, 2002

exas executed 33 people this year, the most of any US state and almost double the number put to death in Texas last year, a study showed.

Since resuming executions 20 years ago, 298 Texas inmates have been executed, far more than in any other state. The 17 executions in Texas in 2001 represented a sharp drop for the state, which executed a record 40 people in 2000 and has executed an average of 22 inmates annually since 1992.
"What we are finding is that the use of the death penalty is becoming more and more concentrated in Texas and a few other states in the South," said Richard Dieter, who heads the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Centre, an anti-death-penalty group that published the study.

"And increasingly, Texas is finding itself standing alone in its increasing application of the death penalty," Dieter said.

Executions in 2002 declined sharply in Oklahoma, from 18 last year to seven this year. Missouri saw a slight decline, from seven in 2001 to six this year, as did North Carolina, which dropped from five to two.

In all, 13 of the 38 states with capital punishment sent inmates to the death chamber in 2002, the lowest number since 1993, according to the study. Two death penalty states had moratoriums on executions - Maryland since May and Illinois since 2000 - and the federal government executed no one.

Although the total number of executions in the United States increased from 66 last year to 71 this year, the number would have declined had Texas not sharply increased its share, Dieter said.

But Dudley Sharp, a spokesman for the Texas crime-victim advocacy group Justice For All, said executions slowed because the US Supreme Court took up two landmark death-penalty cases, not because of waning public support.

The high court considered whether states could execute mentally retarded inmates and whether a judge or a jury should decide on the aggravating circumstances that might elevate murder to capital murder.

"Those two cases, in effect, placed a moratorium on executions for any case that might have fallen into one of those categories," Sharp said in Saturday's editions of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

"There is nothing to suggest that anything less than the overwhelming majority of American citizens support the death penalty."



Comment on this Article


Five Years Ago: 2001


2001: Hate and evil

Dover, NH
Friday, December 28, 2001
Seacoast Online

On January 2 hate and evil will be in front of Dover High School. On January 2, The Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket DHS. On this date, the entire student body will be exposed to such hatred it makes one shudder. All because the senior class voted two girls to be its class couple.

Westboro Baptist Church, under the leadership of Reverend Fred Phelps, Sr., is located in Topeka, Kansas. It claims it is an "old school" or "primitive" Baptist Church. What it is appears to be an excuse for its members to preach vitriol, hate and hurt. Their posters and writing are virulence couched as the word of God. And it's not just homosexuals that they hate. They hate Jews, Blacks, Christians and America. Or rather, as they preach, God hates Jews, Blacks, Christians and America.
Their writings are thinly veiled pornography. Fred Phelps is an attorney who has been disbarred in Kansas and the federal court system for "little regard for the ethics of the system" and for being dishonest, according to published reports. Fred Phelps has little regard for anything or anyone but himself and his flock of sheep.

It would be nice if no one paid attention. It would be nice if the press refused to cover this debacle of first amendment right. Then it would be a wasted effort. They wouldn't get the one thing they came for - publicity. Unfortunately, the press being what it is, that probably won't happen.

On January 2, the students at Dover High School will get an education like they've never had before. And although one's first inclination might be to protect them from the filth that will be thrust into their consciousness, perhaps they need to see and read it. Perhaps they need to learn about the real evil in the world. Perhaps they need to understand that when they graduate it will be up to them to change their world, embrace all kinds of people and make the world safe and welcoming for everyone.

So to all of you at Dover High - Good and God are with you. Stand strong and go forth.



Comment on this Article


2001: 9-11 Proved Bush Legitimate Leader

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press
Friday, December 28, 2001

WASHINGTON - Sept. 11 dramatically transformed a political year that began with uncertainty about George W. Bush's legitimacy as president after his contested election.

The president and his foreign policy team became clear winners in 2001 in a political world turned on its head, analysts say. Much of the year's politics before the attacks became irrelevant.
"He lost the popular vote and ended the year with stratospheric poll ratings. He began the year as Clark Kent and ended up as Superman,'' said conservative analyst Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute.

Public concerns about terrorist attacks, homeland defense and the anti-terror war overseas rearranged political priorities across the board. And that came on top of a political year that was already remarkable.

"It was a truly extraordinary period,'' said Thomas Mann a political scholar at the Brookings Institution. "We had four mega-events over the last year.''

Mann described the events this way:

-"The most controversial presidential election in history.''

-"A change in party control of the U.S. Senate in mid-session.''

-"A sudden shift from a decade of prosperity to recession and the reappearance of deficits.''

-"And we had September 11th.''

Three of those four events have helped shape today's political reality. The fourth - the contested presidential election - has faded into the background.

Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate majority leader, became the most prominent Democrat when Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords became an independent in May. Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Senate Republicans were pushed from power.

Talk of balanced budgets, changes in Social Security and social programs requiring substantial new money faded as the economy tanked.

Issues like national security, missile defense and international coalition building moved to the forefront for the first time in a decade.

"A new seriousness overtook American politics,'' said Mann. "It was a radical change from the 1990s when politics was so nasty and trivial because the stakes were low. Now there is a real threat.''

Beneficiaries were the members of the experienced foreign affairs team put together by Bush - especially Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary.

Another politician whose fortunes soared after Sept. 11 was New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. His health problems and an embarrassing divorce were dominant images of the mayor before the attacks. But his steady, calm manner afterward earned him widespread respect.

The intense focus on the anti-terror campaign pushed news about most politics - especially the 2004 presidential race - far from view.

Democrats who needed to build their national profiles found they got almost no public attention for political activities.

Al Gore, the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee won the popular vote in the 2000 election. He was evenly matched against Bush in polls before Sept. 11. After the attacks, Bush led Gore in a hypothetical matchup by a 2-1 margin.

The public had a favorable view of almost everyone serving in government and for government in general. The attacks had reminded them they need government to keep them safe.

"By suspending politics for two months, everybody's evaluations went up - of state legislators, governors and the president,'' said Bruce Cain, a political scientist from the University of California-Berkeley. "It was an interesting national experiment - the less politicians attacked one another, the higher the public's estimation of government and politics.''

But Democrats have decided they can fight politically about domestic issues, while supporting Bush on the war. And by year's end, both parties had resumed the partisan political fight.

Democrats are betting a slumping economy and an easing of terrorism fears could give them an opening on their top domestic issues in the 2002 congressional elections.

But any hopes they had of challenging Bush's claim to the presidency are gone.

"Whatever happens in the future, questions about George Bush's legitimacy have completely disappeared,'' said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

And the question about who can lead a sharply divided nation has been answered.

"It was an awful way to get there,'' said political scientist Merle Black of Emory University, "but Americans did find a leader.''

Comment 2006: Remember back before Spetember 11, 2001? Remember how Bush was seen as a joke, as inept? Then there was the little matter of the false flag attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon and allk of that changed. How convenient. It has taken the US five years to come back to its original assessment of the Decider in Chief.

Under those circumstances, doesn't it seem logical that the bored Bush would try some new adventure to shore up his faded popularity?


Comment on this Article


2001: Lebanese president confers with Iranian envoy

Lebanon-Iran, Politics, 12/28/2001

President Emil Lahoud of Lebanon on Thursday received a message from the Iranian President Muhammad Khatami. It was conveyed by the Iranian deputy foreign minister Muhammad al-Sader in the presence of the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon Muhammad Ali Subhani and several officials at the Iranian foreign ministry.
In his message, the Iranian president stressed Iran's unwavering positions and announced Iran's decisive support to the right of the oppressed people in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine by the Israeli occupation.

The Iranian President stressed in his message that the current conditions makes it imperative to maintain coordination in the stances of the Arab and Islamic states.

He expressed his satisfaction over President Lahoud's stances in defending the legitimate and legal rights of the Palestinian and Lebanese people.

President Lahoud asked al-Sader to convey his greetings and good wishes to the Iranian President Muhammad Khatami, coupled with his thanks over his continued voiced support to the Lebanese people.

Discussions dealt with current regional and international developments and the position of both Lebanon and Iran towards them.

The Lebanese President renewed his assertion on the Lebanese political principles and the strategic options, stressing the need of strengthening cooperation between Lebanon and Iran in all fields.

Following his meeting with President Lahoud, al-Sader said that the Hizbullah was founded to eliminate the Israeli occupation and as far as this occupation lasts and a Lebanese territory is occupied, it is then the right of Lebanon to resist occupation.

Al-Sader indicated that discussions dealt with the date for the visit of President Khatami to Lebanon, noting that Lebanon will be among the first countries President Khatami will visit in the future.



Comment on this Article


2001: Arab-American secret service officer removed from flight

Regional-USA, Politics, 12/28/2001

An Arab-American Secret Service officer and member of US President Bush's Secret Service security, was forced to leave a flight, reports the US anti-Discrimination Committee calling the move "a disturbing incident which can only be categorized as illegal airline passenger discrimination."

The incident took place at Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) on December 25. The officer says that, on December 25, he was a scheduled passenger on American Airlines flight departing from BWI to the Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The officer who was originally scheduled to accompany the President aboard Air Force One to Crawford, Texas, was placed on a commercial flight because of a change in the President's schedule.
Due to a mechanical problem, the initial commercial flight and the officer was rescheduled on another flight with the same company. ADC reports that the officer was confronted by airline security personnel and was asked to exit the plane and submit to additional security checks.

After a delay of one hour and fifteen minutes, during which the officer was questioned by the American Airlines' flight's pilot, airline officials, and airport police, he was removed from the flight despite the fact that the officer offered to have the United States Secret Service verify his identity as a member of the Secret Service attached to President Bush's security service. No other reason was given for his removal.

Brian Marr, the Secret Service spokesman has confirmed the account of this incident to the media. This incident was also reported by many media outlets.

ADC says it has been directly contacted by the officer and filed an official complaint with the proper authorities at the United States Department of Transportation and requested that American Airlines take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.

ADC Legal Advisors consulted with the officer and provided him with legal recommendations and potential attorney representation.

ADC adds that while it strongly supports all measures to secure air travel as outlined by all U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration directives, it deems that the incident clearly points to national origin and/or ethnic discrimination by American Airlines and its agents. The unjustified and discourteous treatment of the officer, in charge of the U.S. president safety, cannot be attributed to random security measures or random passenger inspections and is indefensible and unacceptable, says ADC.



Comment on this Article


2001: Israeli forces break into Hebron Abu Dees

Palestine-Israel, Politics, 12/28/2001

The Israeli occupation forces on Thursday broke into Hebron and arrested 8 Palestinians. The Israeli forces also broke into the Palestinian internal office in Abu Des town, which is adjoining Jerusalem.

Meantime, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon renewed his rejection to resuming negotiations with the Palestinians before complete halting of the Palestinian Intifada.
The Israeli radio quoted Sharon as saying on Thursday during his meeting with several members of the extremist Likud party that the only contacts permitted with the Palestinians are those for ceasing fire, noting his intention to preside over the Israeli side in any future negotiations with the Palestinians.

Sharon considered that Tenet document is in contradiction with his position towards the establishment of the Palestinian state, noting he informed his foreign minister and members of his government that the agreement concluded recently between the Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and the chairman of the Palestinian legislative council Ahmad Qrei' to this effect is valueless because it was not submitted to the Israeli cabinet.

For his part the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Oreikat said that the memorandum submitted by Shimon Peres to resuming negotiations between the two sides includes several elements that can not be accepted by the Palestinian side.



Comment on this Article


2001: Pakistan denies having him, Bin Laden warns the US of unexpected results

12/28/2001

While Pakistan has strongly denied the existence of Osama Bin Laden on its territories, Bin Laden has warned in a video tape broadcast by the Qatari al-Jazira station on Thursday evening the US and professed of unexpected results for the US regardless to his own fate and the fate of al-Qaeda network he presides over.

In the said video tape, Bin Laden said the attacks of September 11 at the US were " blessed strikes," adding that the attacks which targeted Afghanistan by the US and the international alliance were based on mere suspects without giving evidences on that, as he claimed.
Bin Laden said it is important to strike the US base of America, which is the ground for the military base in it. If their economy ends they will be preoccupied by controlling weak peoples.

He added that those who carried out the attacks against the US had given the hard lesson to those " intransigent peoples" which see no meaning to freedom unless they follow the " white race." Bin Laden stressed that the conflict with the US is very grave not only for Muslims but also for the world as whole. He said what the US accuses " the few people whom he described as Mujahedeen for the sake of the God" is not built on an evidence, rather on repression and aggression, as he claimed.

He added that the alleged terrorism practiced in all its forms in Palestine and Iraq where one million Iraqi children were killed, noting that the " nation" should wake up to find out a solution for this crisis which threatens humanity as a whole.

The duration of the tape lasted for 33 minutes and al-Jazira TV said it was registered 15 days earlier.

To this effect, news reports said that Bin Laden seemed very obvious while his left arm stayed unmoved, a situation which raises questions on his health conditions.

Meantime, an Afghani official announced that Bin Laden is in one of the Pakistani areas, but Pakistan firmly denied these information and stressed they are groundless.



Comment on this Article


2001: Lahoud: Lebanon has restored international presence, enjoys stability

12/28/2001

Lebanese President Emil Lahoud stressed on Thursday that Lebanon has achieved recently many of its national achievements as it could liberate the greater parts of its south and western Bekaa from the Israeli occupation and also its own regional and international presence.
During his meeting on Thursday with the press at the presidential palace on the occasion of the end of the year, the Lebanese president said that Lebanon " has established itself as a one, solid strong and effective state and all this has been achieved is a result of the clear policy it has pursued and the national options it cling to within strategies that prove credibility."

He added that the coming phase requires protection of all achievements realized at the national level and to dedicate efforts to economic and social development through a future vision that would be materialized by all.



Comment on this Article


2001: Chairman of the Israeli Knesset expels four Arab members

12/28/2001

During the session held on Wednesday, the chairman of the Israeli Knesset expelled four Arab members because of their strong protest over the provocative racist statements voiced by the Israeli minister Dani Nafe in which he described the chairman of the Palestinian authority as a " Muslim terrorist."
The Israeli radio quoted Nafe as saying in the context of replying proposals concerning the Knesset's agenda submitted on the background of preventing Arafat from taking part in the mass given in Bethlehem on the occasion of the Christmas on Monday evening that " Arafat is not a Christian Saint, he is rather a Muslim terrorist."

Nafe also accused the Palestinian authority of violating Christianity. A matter which provoked anger of these Arab members and pushed them to strongly protest these racist statements.

Nafe also expressed his regret that the PA did not hand over the Palestinian resistance men who carry out operations against the Israeli occupation army in Israel.



Comment on this Article


2001: Secret documents reveal Sharon's confession having responsibility for Sabra, Shatila massacres

12/28/2001

The London- based MBC TV station on Tuesday evening disclosed that there are secret documents which the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon admits when he was a minister of defense in 1982 of green-lighting breaking into Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon and committing the crimes against the Palestinian.
The MBC correspondent in Brussels said that these documents are available since several weeks at the Belgian judiciary and confirm Sharon's confession before the Israeli Kahana extremist committee in 1982 that he had green-lighted for breaking into the two said camps.

On Wednesday, the Belgian court followed up necessary steps to be taken to start investigations with the Israeli prime minister of war crime accusations and listened to interventions made by the victims and discussed the question of the Belgian judiciary validity.

Lawyer Michael Verhaig who is the defendant of 23 of the victims of Sabra and Shatila committed in 1982 described Wednesday's session as very positive. He said in a statements to SANA's correspondent in Brussels the two focal points debated on Wednesday seized the attention of the Belgian judiciary.

Moreover 23 of victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres filed a complaint on June this year through the civil attorney in Brussels, according to the world validity law which aims to controlling war crimes and the crimes against humanity and mass annihilation. The said law authorizes trying foreigners accused of such crimes even such crimes are committed outside Belgium.

Other 6 Palestinians filed another case by the end of November this year against Sharon through the civil attorney law which is based on the world validity law adopted by the Belgian parliament in 1993 and amended in 1999.



Comment on this Article


2001: Palestinian Authority libel: "Israel steals body parts from Palestinian martyrs to use in hospitals."

By Itamar Marcus and Ruthie Blum

Lies and distortions whose aim is to create revulsion and hatred toward Israelis and Jews are published and broadcast regularly in the Palestinian media. This week an article appeared in the official Palestinian Authority daily in which Israel is accused of using Palestinian body parts for evil purposes.

[Note: This libel is one of a series of false claims made by the PA against Israel over the years. Other examples include: the distribution of poisoned candy to Palestinian schools by means of helicopters; the export of radioactive belts to the Palestinian Authority; the sale of carcinogenic foods to Palestinians; the injection of AIDS; etc.]

Headline: ". The occupying authorities steal body parts from martyrs to use in hospitals"

Excerpts from the text:

". When the occupying authority holds the bodies of martyrs. it does so in order to hide the traces of its crimes. The witnesses and evidence prove that the occupation forces torture the bodies of the martyrs on purpose and fire bullets into them at close range. There are clear indicators that the occupying authorities steal body parts of the martyrs during the holding process, in order to use them in Israeli hospitals, especially for Israeli patients in need of transplants. After they seize the body parts of the martyrs, they bury the corpses.under dubious circumstances, scorning humanitarian values and moral and religious regulations. Legal authorities noted that the occupation's refusal to surrender the bodies of the martyrs to their families is intended to hide the truth of their non-humanitarian practices on the bodies of the martyrs." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec 24] (PMW Dec 24)

Comment 2006: An example of the Zionist propaganda that set up the invasion of Iraq as well as the continued genocide of the Palestinians.

Comment on this Article


2001: Shoe bomb suspect brainwashed, says dad

December 28, 2001 Posted: 10:59 AM EST (1559 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Robin Reid told a UK newspaper on Friday his son, Richard, was "determined enough" to commit suicide but would never have harmed others unless he was "brainwashed."
Richard Reid, 28, is suspected of trying to ignite plastic explosives in his shoes aboard a U.S.-bound commercial airplane. He is scheduled to appear in a U.S. federal court for a bail hearing on Friday.

"He's not a bad lad," the elder Reid told The Daily Mirror. "I can't imagine him doing anything like this without being involved with somebody else."

Reid is charged with interfering with a flight crew. His flight left Paris last Saturday bound for Miami, but it was diverted to Boston after a flight attendant saw him trying to set fire to one of his shoes.

The British national was subdued and sedated by passengers and crew members. The FBI said his shoes contained sophisticated plastic explosive.

"My son is a determined boy and I can imagine him being determined enough to blow himself to bits," said Robin Reid, who has spent 18 years in jail, according to the London tabloid.

"But I just can't believe that he would want to hurt anyone else in doing it -- unless, that is, he has been brainwashed, which seems the case. He would not have done it off his own bat without being coaxed, talked into it."



Comment on this Article


2001: The Face Of Things To Come... Cosmic Communications At Chilbolton Radio Telescope?

KAREN DOUGLAS
Swirled News
23 Aug 2001

Just when you thought you'd seen it all... Two astonishing formations at Chilbolton have arrived to stir the croppie masses. KAREN DOUGLAS reports on the mysterious face and 'code' which have appeared, almost in reply, next to a radio telescope...
If you have not yet seen the new formations that appeared at Chilbolton in Hampshire at the weekend, glance to the right. If you thought the Milk Hill fractal would be the last wonder of the season, be prepared - you might be wrong!

Two formations were reported to have appeared on Sunday 19th August in a wheat field next to the radio telescope at Chilbolton, Hampshire. One is a very strange rectangular formation with what looks distinctly like some kind of digital code displayed within it, the code being illustrated by standing patterns of crop. The second formation is also completely unique; at first it appears to be a random collection of standing circular clumps of varying sizes, also contained within a rectangle shape. However, as you get further from the pattern and gain some perspective, suddenly, and quite spookily, you see a face staring out at you from the crop field! Nothing like this has ever been seen before.

What is so interesting is that this 'dot matrix face' and the strip of code next to the radio telescope are remarkably similar to the kinds of coded information we sent out into space on the Voyager spacecraft. Could this be our reply or some strange intergalactic echo?

Many have already commented that they see a distinct similarity between this formation and the mysterious 'face' on Mars.

Is this the face of the real circlemakers or a likeness of our own image engraved into the crop fields of Hampshire? Watch this space... Or is it space watching us?

Comment: Also see further details on the Chilbolton Crop Glyph HERE.

Comment on this Article


2001: Hell's Grannies - Shame Israel

By George Monbiot
Guardian
August 14, 2001

Ariel Sharon's decision not to blast the Palestinians out of existence after last week's suicide bombings is, at first sight, mystifying. While jets blew up the Palestinians' police station in Ramallah and Israeli soldiers occupied their East Jerusalem headquarters, these reprisals were far less bloody than most people had predicted.
Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain this uncharacteristic restraint. Sharon is seeking to keep faith with his more conciliatory foreign minister, Shimon Peres. He is hoping to collect some moral credit, which he will use to defend much fiercer intervention at a later date. The seizure of Palestinian offices does more to hurt their cause than the murder of prominent figures. All these explanations are plausible, but there is another possible interpretation, overlooked by almost everyone. In killing Palestinians, Ariel Sharon can no longer be sure that he is killing only Palestinians.

For the past few weeks, foreign peace activists belonging to the international solidarity movement have been arriving in Jerusalem and the West Bank, joining demonstrations, staying in the homes of threatened Palestinians, turning themselves into human shields between the Israeli army and its targets. A few days ago they were joined by one of the most remarkable forces in British politics, a group of mostly middle-aged or elderly campaigners called Women in Black UK. These Hell's Grannies have moved straight into the front line, ensuring that the brutality with which the Palestinians are routinely treated now has international repercussions: Israel can't hurt local people without hurting them too.

For the past few nights, members of the solidarity movement have been sleeping in the homes of Palestinians in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala. Eight hundred and fifty homes here have been shelled by soldiers stationed in the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Gilo, as the army seeks to expel the Palestinians in order to expand Israel's illegal plantation.

The foreigners have been standing at army checkpoints, photographing soldiers when they stop people trying to leave or enter their communities and recording the names of those they arrest. The soldiers hate this scrutiny, but whenever the monitors arrive at a checkpoint, there's a marked reduction in the violence there.

The Women in Black also helped to organise the demonstrations outside Orient House, the Palestinian headquarters seized by Israel on Friday. They established the physical and political space in which Palestinians could protest non-violently. Arrested and beaten up with the local people, the women witnessed the torture of Palestinian prisoners in the police station, which would otherwise have gone unrecorded.

In short, these volunteer peacekeepers are seeking to do precisely what foreign governments have promised but failed to do: to monitor and contest abuses of human rights, to defuse violence, and to challenge Israel's ethnic cleansing programme. Their actions put us all to shame.

As well as seeking to enforce peace, they are trying, hard as it is in the current atmosphere, to broker it. They have been suggesting to their Palestinian hosts some of the novel means by which injustice can be confronted without the use of violence. They have plenty of experience to draw on.

Some of these activists have been involved in the Trident Ploughshares campaign which, over the past fortnight, has been running rings round the marines guarding the nuclear submarines in Scotland. To the astonishment of the guards, the protesters there have managed to evade the tightest security in the UK, swimming into the docks in which the submarines are moored and spray-painting the words "useless" and "illegal" on their sides. They have launched canoes and home-made rafts into the paths of submarines trying to leave their berths. They have cut through the razor wire and roamed around the base, hoping to arrest its commander for crimes against humanity. A few days ago, they blocked the main gates of the nuclear warhead depot, their arms embedded in barrels of concrete, bringing work to a halt as the police tried to figure out how to extract them.

Two years ago, three of these women climbed into the Trident programme's floating research laboratory on Loch Goil and, as a delightful new video commissioned by the Quakers shows, threw all its computers into the sea. In Greenock court, they were acquitted of criminal damage, after the sherriff accepted their defence that the Trident programme infringes international law: rather than committing a crime, they were preventing one. Soon afterwards, the women "borrowed" a police boat from the Trident base in Coulport and drove it into the submarine docks at Faslane. Among them was one of the women who were also found not guilty in 1996 after smashing up a Hawk aircraft bound for East Timor. The subsequent publicity forced the government to stop exporting Hawks to Indonesia.

Though they're acquitted as often as they're convicted, Hell's Grannies have spent much of the past few years in jail. They take full responsibility for their actions. If the police fail to spot them, they ring them up and ask to be arrested. Their candour, clarity and humour have played well in court, but the risks of this accountable campaigning are enormous. The prosecution began yesterday of 17 British and American Greenpeace activists, who are being tried on terrorism charges after peacefully occupying the Californian launch pad being used for George Bush's missile defence tests. In the Middle East such tactics are likely to be still more dangerous, as Israeli soldiers have shown no hesitation in killing protesters in cold blood. But, as Gandhi recognised, the brutal treatment of non-violent campaigners can destroy the moral authority of the oppressor, generating inexorable pressure for change.

The Women in Black are clearly prepared not only to die for their cause, but also to make what Dostoevsky correctly identified as a far greater sacrifice: to live for their cause. They are ready to lose their homes, their comforts, their liberty, to be vilified, beaten up and imprisoned. Their accountable actions require a far greater courage than throwing bricks at the police.

Most importantly perhaps, these campaigners never cease to acknowledge the humanity of their opponents. They seek not to threaten but to persuade. The results can be astonishing. The MoD police who pulled the Trident swimmers out of the water ferried them back to their camp, rather than arresting them, while massaging their legs to stop cramp. When Angie Zelter, one of the coordinators of Women in Black, was on remand for her attempts to demolish the British military machine, she was visited in prison by a timber merchant whose business she had once tried to shut down. He had, as a result of her campaign, stopped importing mahogany stolen from indigenous reserves in Brazil, and started refashioning his business along ethical lines, and now he needed her advice.

All this is a long-winded way of saying something which, in the 21st century, sounds rather embarrassing: these people are my heroes. They confront us with our own cowardice, our failure to match our convictions with action. We talk about it, they do it. Hell's Grannies are walking through fire. If they can, why can't we all?



Comment on this Article


2001: Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism

by Greg Felton
MediaMonitors
August 1, 2001

Soon, delegates to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance will assemble in Durban, South Africa, and possibly debate a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

That we should have to debate this issue in 2001 is regrettable, for the General Assembly has already decided the matter. On Nov. 10, 1975, it passed Resolution 3379, which, among other things, reaffirmed the UN's condemnation of the "unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism," (Resolution 3151G, 1953), and further condemned "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority [to be] scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous," (Res. 1904, 1963).
Even more regrettable is the reticence of Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to revisit the issue: "If there is an attempt to revive the idea of Zionism as racism we will not have a successful conference." (Toronto Globe and Mail, July 28).

I submit that a conference that willfully ignored the worst sustained human rights violation of the last 60 years is irredeemably compromised. By this willful sin of omission it will tacitly condone the very kind racism it purports to abhor.

Even a cursory examination of the Zionist enterprise and statements by its practitioners provides ample prima facie proof that Zionism is, has been, and will always be, racist.

Zionism as racism

* "Both the process of expropriation and removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl in The Complete Diaries, Chapter I, p. 88.

* "The Palestinian refugees will find their place in the diaspora. Those who can resist will live thanks to natural selection. The others will simply crumble. Some of them will persist, but the majority will be a human heap, the scum of the earth, and will sink into the lowest levels of the Arab world," Near East Department of the Israeli government, 1948.

* "There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left." Joseph Weitz, the Jewish National Fund administrator for Zionist colonization (1967), from My Diary and Letters to the Children, Chapter III, p. 293.

* "The only good Arab is a dead Arab...When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle," Rafael Eitan, Likud leader of the Tsomet faction (1981) in Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, pp 129, 130.

* "It is forbidden to be merciful to them, you must give them missiles, with relish - annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones. May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arabs' heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them, and cause them to be vanquished and cause them to be cast from the world," Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, founder and spiritual leader of the Shas party, Ma'ariv, April, 9, 2001.

In reaction to Yosef's statements, Interior minister Eli Yesha said supportively: "They reflected the overall state of thinking of the Israeli Jewish society."

These five citations, from Herzl to the present, show that Zionism is, at root, a conscious war of extermination and expropriation against a native civilian population. In the modern vernacular, Zionism is the theory and practice of "ethnic cleansing," which the UN has defined as a war crime.

Unfortunately, justice doesn't always win against a determined campaign of disinformation and intimidation. In 1991, under intense pressure from Israel and the North American Jewish lobby, the UN reversed itself on Zionism, thereby denying the truth it spoke 16 years earlier.

The Zionist argument, then as now, consists of the falsehood that the UN's action itself constituted an act of racism. Zionism, we are told, is merely the national expression of Jewish self-determination. Thus, to condemn Zionism is to condemn all Jewry--an act of "anti-Semitism."

The epithet "anti-Semitism" is hurled to silence anyone, even other Jews, brave enough to decry Israel's systematic, decades-long pogrom against the Palestinian Arabs. Because of the Holocaust, "anti-Semitism" is such a powerful instrument of emotional blackmail that it effectively pre-empts rational discussion of Israel and its conduct.

It is for this reason that many good people can witness daily evidence of Israeli inhumanity toward the "Palestinians' collective punishment," destruction of olive groves, routine harassment, judicial prejudice, denial of medical services, assassinations, torture, apartheid-based segregation, etc. -- yet not denounce it for fear of being branded "anti-Semitic."

To be free to acknowledge Zionism's racist nature, therefore, one must debunk the calumny of "anti-Semitism." Once this is done, not only will the criminality of Israel be undeniable, but Israel, itself, will be shown to be the embodiment of the very anti-Semitism it purports to condemn.

Zionism as anti-Semitism (general case)

First, we need to rectify one major misunderstanding. The words "Semite" and "Semitic" refer to more than Jews and Jewishness. Strictly speaking, "semitic" is a linguistic term denoting a family of Afro-Asiatic languages, of which we have today Arabic, Hebrew, Maltese, and the South Arabic languages of northern Ethiopia.

Ancient semitic languages included Akkadian, Sumerian, Canaanite, Amorite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, as well as ancient Hebrew and Syriac.

Thus, anyone who spoke or speaks these languages is by definition a Semite, though the term only came into use in 1813. In the case of the Middle East, Semites include the Palestinian Arabs. Not only do they speak a semitic language (Arabic), but they are the direct blood descendants of the Canaanites, whom we know as the Philistines.

Now, the Zionist Jews who founded Israel are another matter. For the most part, they are not Semites, and their language (Yiddish) is not semitic. These Ashkenazi ("German") Jews -- as opposed to the Sephardic ("Spanish") Jews -- have no connection whatever to any of the aforementioned ancient peoples or languages.

They are mostly East European Slavs descended from the Khazars, a nomadic Turko-Finnic people that migrated out of the Caucasus in the second century and came to settle, broadly speaking, in what is now Southern Russia and Ukraine.

In A.D. 740, the khagan (ruler) of Khazaria, decided that paganism wasn't good enough for his people and decided to adopt one of the "heavenly" religions: Judaism, Christianity or Islam. After a process of elimination he chose Judaism, and from that point the Khazars adopted Judaism as the official state religion.

The history of the Khazars and their conversion is a documented, undisputed part of Jewish history, but it is never publicly discussed. It is, as former U.S. State Department official Alfred M. Lilienthal declared, "Israel's Achilles heel," for it proves that Zionists have no claim to the land of the Biblical Hebrews.

Thus what we know as the "Jewish State" of Israel is really an ethnocentric garrison state established by a non-Semitic people for the declared purpose of dispossessing and terrorizing a civilian semitic people. In fact from Nov. 27, 1947, to May 15, 1948, more that 300,000 Arabs were forced from their homes and villages. By the end of the year, the number was close to 800,000 by Israeli estimates. Today, Palestinian refugees number in the millions.

That the Jews knew they were committing a criminal act is shown by a eulogy Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan delivered for a Jew killed by Arabs on the Gaza border in 1956:

"Let us not heap accusations on the murderers," he said. "How can we complain about their deep hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the Gaza refugee camps, and before their very eyes, we are possessing the land and the villages where they and their ancestors have lived. We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home."

In April 1969, Dayan told the Jewish newspaper Ha'aretz: "There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

Clearly, the equation of Zionism with racism is founded on solid historical evidence, and the charge of anti-Semitism is absurd.

Zionism as anti-Semitism (specific case)

Despite the preceding evidence, Zionists still have one rhetorical weapon that must be defused: the claim that the state of Israel is necessary because Jews need a safe haven from "anti-Semitism" in the non-Jewish world. Zionists insist that anti-Semitism is solely a crime against Jews, and that criticism of Zionism is by definition an attack upon Jews, a denigration of the Holocaust, and therefore "anti-Semitic."

The image of Israel as a necessary bastion for Jews is compelling enough to convince reasonable people that equating Zionism with racism is morally wrong. This was especially true in the immediate post-war world: "Generally speaking, the Zionists succeeded in persuading large segments of world public opinion to link the Zionist cause with the Holocaust," wrote Professor Ilan Pappé of Haifa University. "Against such a claim, even able Palestinian diplomats -- and there were not many in those days -- could hardly win the diplomatic game." The Journal of Palestine Studies (Winter 1997).

The equation of Zionism with the Holocaust, though, is based on a false presumption. Far from being a haven for all Jews, Israel is founded by Zionist Jews who helped the Nazis fill the gas chambers and stoke the ovens of the death camps. Israel would not be possible today if the World Zionist Congress and other Zionist agencies hadn't formed common cause with Hitler's exterminators to rid Europe of Jews.

In exchange for helping round up non-Zionist Jews, sabotage Jewish resistance movements, and betray the trust of Jews, Zionists secured for themselves safe passage to Palestine. This arrangement was formalized in a number of emigration agreements signed in 1938. The most notorious case of Zionist collusion concerned Dr. Rudolf Kastner Chairman of the Zionist Organization in Hungary from 1943-45. To secure the safe passage of 600 Zionists to Palestine, he helped the Nazis send 800,000 Hungarian Jews to their deaths. The Israeli Supreme Court virtually whitewashed Kastner's crimes because to admit them would have denied Israel the moral right to exist.

As the Jewish-Israeli scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi wrote: "Out of the original sins of the world against the Jews grew the original sins of Zionism against the Palestinians: Its memory poisons the blood and marks every moment of existence." (Original Sins -- Reflections of the History of Zionism and Israel. p. 216.)

If this horror seems incredible or aberrant, it shouldn't. In a letter to the Zionist executive on Dec. 17, 1938, David Ben-Gurion stated it openly and unapologetically: "The saving of Jewish lives from Hitler is considered here as a potential threat to Zionism, unless they are brought to Palestine. When Zionism had to choose between the Jewish people and the Jewish state, it unhesitatingly preferred the latter...

"Zionism accepts anti-Semitism as the natural, normal attitude of the non-Jewish world toward the Jew. It does not consider it as a distorted, perverted phenomenon; it is a response to anti-Semitism, but not a confrontation, denunciation or fight against it." (Faris Yahya, Zionist Relations with Nazi Germany, p. 78.)

Even today, pro-Israeli journalists and publishers play up acts of violence against Jews to give the illusion that anti-Semitism is rampant and to manufacture consent for Zionism as a virtuous, necessary ideology. Journalists who try present a balanced view of Israel, to say nothing of a critical one, are silenced or terrorized. This goes for Jews as well as non-Jews.

On Nov. 10, 2000, the American-Jewish editor in chief of the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, Debbie Ducro, published an impassioned 1,150 word article from another Jew decrying Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. The writer, Judith Stone, even used the term Israeli Shoah, to draw allusion to Hitler's genocidal war against the Jews. Ducro was fired on Nov. 11.

In San Francisco, Rabbi Michael Lerner has endured death threats and vicious harassment from right-wing Jews because he gives voice to Palestinian views on his website and in the magazine Tikkun.

"An Israeli web site called 'self-hate' has identified me as one of the five enemies of the Jewish people, and printed my home address and driving instructions on how to get to my home," wrote Lerner in a May 13 e-mail. "We reported this to the police, the Israeli consulate, and to the Anti Defamation league. The ADL said it wasn't their concern because this was not a 'hate crime."

Here's a typical letter that Lerner said Tikkun received: "You subhuman leftist animals. You should all be exterminated. You are the lowest of the low life" (David Raziel in Hebron).

If anyone other than a Jew had written this, you can be sure that the ADL and any other Jewish lobby groups would have gone into full attack mode. In other words, when non-Jews slander and threaten Jews, it's called "anti-Semitism" and "hate crime'; when Zionists slander and threaten Jews, nobody is supposed to notice.

Summary

War crimes occur when cruelty is made to appear honourable, and good people stand by and do nothing to stop it.

The world watched as the Nazis unleashed state-sanctioned terrorism against the Jews, who were deemed to be sub-human (Untermenschen) - not worthy of dignity, respect or legal protection under the law. To kill a Jew, to destroy his livelihood, to force him and his family out of their homes - these were accepted, sanctioned forms of conduct by citizens of the German Reich to rid Europe of a specific group of people.

Today, the world watches as Israelis unleash state-sanctioned terrorism against Palestinians, who are deemed to be sub-human (Untermenschen) - not worthy of dignity, respect or legal protection under the law. (See citations above.) To kill a Palestinian, to destroy his livelihood, to force him and his family out of their homes - these are accepted, sanctioned forms of conduct by citizens of the Zionist Reich designed to rid Palestine of a specific group of people.

If Nazism is racist and deserving of absolute censure, then so is Zionism, for they are both fruit of the poisonous tree of fascism. It cannot be considered "anti-Semitic" to acknowledge this fact.

To condemn Israeli terrorism, does not in any way imply animus against Jews; neither does it attempt to diminish the Holocaust. In fact, the opposite is true. Zionists did nothing to aid non-Zionist survivors of the death camps, and did everything they could to coerce them to come to Palestine. For Zionists, the only Jew worth saving from the camps was one who wanted to build the Jewish State.

As famed violinist Lord Yehudi Menuhin told the French newspaper Le Figaro in January 1988: "It is extraordinary how nothing ever dies completely. Even the evil which prevailed yesterday in Nazi Germany is gaining ground in that country [Israel] today."

For it to have any moral authority, the UN must equate Zionism with racism. If it doesn't, it tacitly condones Israel's war of extermination against the Palestinians.

Mr. Greg Felton is a Canadian editorialist on international politics, especially the Middle East. He can be reached at



Comment on this Article


2001: President, General Franks Discuss War Effort

Remarks by the President and General Tommy Franks in Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool
The Prairie Chapel Ranch
Crawford, Texas

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. As you can see, I've invited a guest to come to the ranch. Tommy Franks is no stranger to Texas. After all, he was raised in Midland, Texas. And I'm looking forward to taking him over to the house here in a minute to say hello to Laura. Both of them went to Midland Lee High School, at about the same time.

But Tommy has just come back from the Afghan theater. He gave me a full briefing on what he saw and what he heard. We just got off of a teleconference with the national security team, to discuss his trip and to discuss what's taking place in Afghanistan.
I want to thank you for coming, Tommy. I am real proud of the military, and I'm proud of the commander. Tommy has done everything we've asked. He is fulfilling the mission with patience and discipline and success. He's a down-to-earth, no-nonsense guy. Precisely the kind of man we need to lead a complex mission such as this.

You know, a couple of months ago, a lot of people said that this administration and our military really weren't sure what we were doing. But I had confidence all along. And the reason why I did -- confidence in the success of what we set out to do -- was because I had a chance to be briefed by Tommy Franks on the strategy and on the plan, and on how we were going to use our United States military. And he hasn't let us down. The country needs to be proud of the military, and one reason that I'm so pleased to welcome Tommy, is to be able to say that out loud in Tommy's presence.

So I'm going to have Tommy say a few words, and then we'll be glad to answer a couple of questions.

GENERAL FRANKS: Thank you, Mr. President. As the President said, my wife and I recently have had an opportunity to be with a bunch of great young people -- soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines -- in the front-line states around Afghanistan and in Afghanistan, and Kandahar and at Camp Rhino and up in Kabul. We had a chance to meet with these young people who are doing the work for the nation.

We also had a chance to attend the installation ceremony in Afghanistan, where we saw Mr. Karzai and members of that team form an interim government in Afghanistan, where for the first time in decades, more than 26 million people will have an opportunity to have their way represented in that government.

And the combination of seeing these great young people and seeing this momentous event just filled me with a desire to be able to brief the President on what's going on over there in the theater, on what our people are doing, how they feel about what they're doing.

And so, Mr. President, thanks very much for having me out here in Crawford.

THE PRESIDENT: You bet.

Scott.

Q Mr. President, what's your reaction to the new bin Laden tape this week? And do you fear he's now alluded the manhunt? Also, are you concerned that if military tribunals require a unanimous verdict for the death penalty, some terrorists could avoid execution?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first of your three questions. Which was what? I've already forgotten.

Q What's your reaction to the bin Laden tape. Are you afraid he's alluded the manhunt.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, the tape, yes. I didn't watch it all. I saw snippets of it on TV. You know, it's -- who knows when it was made. Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy who, three months ago, was in control of a county. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run.

Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all.

So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know. There's all kinds of reports and all kinds of speculation. But one thing we know is that he's not in charge of Afghanistan anymore. He's not in charge of the -- he's not the parasite that invaded the host, the Taliban. We know that for certain. And we also know that we're on the hunt, and he knows that we're on the hunt. And I like our position better than his.

In terms of whether or not the tribunals will be able to render the justice necessary, that -- I spoke to the Secretary of Defense today about the story in the newspaper. Evidently, somebody in our government wanted to show off to his family, or her family, in between Christmas and New Year's by leaking information in the press that he or she thought would be helpful to the government. The truth of the matter is the Secretary of Defense hadn't even seen the report that was on the front page of America's newspapers.

So my answer to your question, Scott, is I know that the leaked report is preliminary, that they're still in discussions about how best to bring justice. But one thing is for certain, that whatever the procedures are for the military tribunals, our system will be more fair than the system of bin Laden and the Taliban. That is for certain. The prisoners that we capture will be given a heck of a lot better chance in court than those citizens of ours who were in the World Trade Center or in the Pentagon were given by Mr. bin Laden.

David. Good to see you.

Q Good to see you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q Can you say with confidence now that Osama bin Laden in no longer in a position to mastermind another terrorist attack against the United States or our allies? And related to that, you talked about 2002 being a year of war. What can you say to prepare the American people for what that vision is, what they need to be prepared for, as compared to what they've seen in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope 2002 is a year of peace. But I am also realistic, and I know full well that bin Laden and his cronies would like to harm America again, bin Laden and his cronies would like to harm our allies. How do I know that? I receive intelligence reports on a daily basis that indicates that that's his desires. And therefore, the United States must be vigilant, must make sure we continue to focus on our homeland security measures, must disrupt, must use our intelligence-gathering network to prevent the enemy from attacking.

And so, while I hope 2002 is a year of peace, I'm realistic. As to whether or not bin Laden is in control of some network, who knows? The thing we're certain about is that he's on the run, that he's hiding in caves, if hiding at all. And the other thing I'm certain about is we will bring him to justice. I don't know whether it's going to be tomorrow, but Tommy will tell you that I haven't said, Tommy, get him tomorrow. I said, just get him. And we will. We will bring him to justice.

We don't know, David, whether or not he's given any orders to any of his soldiers, but we take nothing for granted. And so our country still remains on alert, and we're actively looking for anybody who would harm America.

The shoe bomber was a case in point, where the country has been on alert. A stewardess on an American Airlines flight -- or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight was vigilant, saw something amiss, and responded. It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. And I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response, as I'm sure the passengers on that airplane. But we've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.

Q Mr. President, do you think that India and Pakistan are sliding toward war?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things that we discussed today in the national security conference, and I discussed yesterday with members of my national security team, was the India and Pakistan issue. Colin Powell has spoke to both sides today, urging restraint, urging calm. I was pleased to -- I'm pleased to note that President Musharraf has announced the arrest of 50 extreme terrorists -- extremists or terrorists. And I hope India takes note of that, that the President is responding forcefully and actively to bring those who would harm others to justice.

The war on terror is not just an American war on terrorists, it's a civilized government war on terror that we're talking about here. But my government and my administration is working actively to bring some calm in the region, to hopefully convince both sides to stop the escalation of force. And as I say, I'm pleased that President Musharraf is responding to the Indian requests to round up those who would do harm to others and incarcerate them, which he did.

Q Are you making any calls yourself, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Not yet. I will if need be. As a matter of fact, I have been making calls recently to leaders in our own hemisphere. I spoke to the Presidents of Mexico and Uruguay, Chile and Brazil about the Argentinean situation. I made it clear to those governments that we want to work with them, to work together to make sure that the Argentineans understand that we will support a plan that sustains economic growth. We're willing to offer technical assistance through the IMF; that our government is aware of what's taking place and that we're fully engaged in the issue.

Q Mr. President, some say that the events of 2001 have changed you, while others say that you're the same person you always were --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Who's right? Or is it fair to say there's some truth in both arguments?

THE PRESIDENT: Talk to my wife. (Laughter.) I don't know. I don't spend a lot of time looking in the mirror. Except when I comb my hair. And -- listen, I'll give you a hint. I liked coming to the ranch before September the 11th; I like coming to the ranch after September the 11th.

Q -- the war for a moment. Have you had any contact with Ken Lay or other Enron officials in the last six weeks --

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q -- and do you think that there is something the government should do to help Enron --

THE PRESIDENT: I have had no contact with Enron officials in the last six weeks. Do I think the government ought to help what now?

Q Help Enron or do something to help prevent some of these employees from losing their life savings.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the life savings issue is something we need to look into. I think it's very important to understand what took place. The government will be looking into this. I mean, the SEC will be looking into matters, Congress appears to be looking into matters. There will be a lot of government inquiry into Enron and what took place there.

I'm deeply concerned about the citizens of Houston who worked for Enron who lost life savings. It's very troubling to read the stories about those who locked up Enron stock -- had their Enron stock locked up in their 401K plans, and then saw their savings dissipate. I think it's very important for us to fully understand the why's of Enron. And there will be plenty of investigations.

Q Sir, will you make recess appointments --

THE PRESIDENT: Thinking about it. I don't know yet. I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan and giving Tommy a tour of my ranch. But I, at the appropriate time, will take a good, hard look at recess appointments.

I'm disappointed that a lot of my appointments were stalled in the United States Senate, weren't given a hearing. This Scalia man got out of committee, but never given a vote on the floor of the Senate. He's a good fellow, he ought to be approved. But I'll take a good, hard look at all the options available to me.

Q Mr. President, is there a timetable in your mind for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan? Or as long as bin Laden is still on the run, do you imagine them being there indefinitely?

THE PRESIDENT: I imagine us being there for quite a long period of time. But my timetable is going to be set by Tommy Franks. Tommy is in charge of the military operations; he's in charge of the military. I'll let Tommy speak for himself, but I will tell you this -- we won't be making political decisions about what to do with our military.

I gave Tommy a mission; it was a well-defined mission. And Tommy is in charge of getting that mission done, and when Tommy says, "Mission complete, Mr. President," that's when we start moving troops out. But until he says that, I am -- I will make the case to the American people that we're doing the right thing.

Q What's your definition of the mission being complete in Afghanistan, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: In Afghanistan? Well, Taliban gone, the country secure, the country stable, that al Qaeda cells rounded up, Taliban fighters brought to justice. The over 6,000 troops, prisoners being held -- prisoners of war being held by our allies interrogated, finger-printing. I mean, there's a lot to do. And the American people just must understand when I said that we need to be patient, that I meant it. And we're going to be there for a while. And I don't know the exact moment when we leave, David, but it's not until this mission is complete.

The world must know that this administration will not blink in the face of danger, and will not tire when it comes to completing the missions that we said we would do. The world will learn that when the United States is harmed, we will follow through. The world will see that when we put a coalition together that says, "join us," I mean it. And when I ask others to participate, I mean it. And in order to lead the coalition, we must show that we will complete the mission. And part of that mission is, as Tommy will tell you, is to make sure that Afghanistan is a stable country.

And he's got a lot to say on that if you want him to talk about it. Okay, bring the man to the Mike.

Q General Franks, could you talk about how you took evasive action when you were fired upon the other day? There was a report yesterday that your helicopter was fired upon.

Q You should get right to that, sir, after you do the first question. (Laughter.)

GENERAL FRANKS: Let me take that -- let me take your question first. As we look around, today we have more than 50 nations involved in this coalition effort, and around Afghanistan, providing support and so forth. We have 26 nations represented at our headquarters down in Tampa, Florida. We have 16 nations represented on the ground or in the air or at sea around Afghanistan.

And it's interesting that over the past 10 days, the numbers I've just described have grown rather than shrinking. I think the view is that Afghanistan is a part of a global effort against terrorism, that we'll stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to do what the President has said. We will do away with the Taliban, and that has been done. We now have a legitimate interim government in Kabul.

We will destroy the al Qaeda terrorist network inside Afghanistan. We will take care of the screening and the work that needs to be done with all these detainees -- finger-printing, DNA work, photography, screening, interrogation. We'll determine which ones need to be brought out and need to be handled in some form of legal process.

How long will that take? I think the President said it immediately after the 11th of September, and I think many of us have said it about every day since then: It will take as long as it takes.

Interesting to me, the fact that these young people standing at Kandahar Airport a few nights ago, in the middle of the night, watching the USO show, showed me absolutely no desire to leave their mission at all. And so, I think it's best for all of us to recognize that we will not be hurried, we will not be pressed into doing something that does not represent our national objectives. And we will take as long as it takes.

And a very short answer to the business of the helicopter -- I have been told since I took that helicopter ride that someone took a shot at the helicopter. I didn't see it when it happened, and I believe it may have happened, but then again, this is Afghanistan and we have pockets of Taliban still in that country. And that's one of the reasons that we're going to stay there until we have mopped all that up.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It's your big day, Scott, two questions.

Q A one-part question this time, I promise.

THE PRESIDENT: Four questions, excuse me. (Laughter.)

Q Would you prefer to see bin Laden captured and questioned about the attacks and possible future attacks?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, dead or alive is fine with me.

Q Mr. President, you mentioned Argentina and you talked about you support more technical assistance from the IMF for them. Would you support more money for Argentina from the IMF, or has the well kind of run dry there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it depends upon what Argentina decides to do. The key for Argentina is to get her fiscal house in order, get monetary policy in order, and to develop a plan that will show sustained economic vitality and economic growth. But it's up to Argentina on how to develop the plan. As you know, there's been an interim government in place, there will be elections in a couple of months. And the point we've made to the Argentinean government, as well as to our friends in the region, is that we will be willing to help them develop the plan, if they ask for technical advice. It will all be done through the IMF.

But the first order of business is for the Argentineans to develop a plan to show us how they're going to get their house in order. They've got a lot of work to do, but -- and all of us that are concerned about Argentina are willing to work together to get the job done. There was near unanimity on my phone calls to the other leaders in the region that -- of the course of action that I just laid out.

Q Have you decided that anybody should be subjected to a military tribunal?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Americans shouldn't, as you know. I mean, I excluded any Americans.

Q Of the prisoners, have you decided that any one --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, have I made any decisions yet? Not at all, not yet, Dave. We're still -- I still want to make sure that the -- I still want to see what the Secretary of Defense recommends as to how to proceed. He has -- as I said, he hasn't seen the now famous document that some American decided to leak.

I don't know why people do that. I guess either to make you feel good, and-or to make themselves feel good. But, nevertheless, it was not very helpful. And as the Secretary of Defense said, he hasn't even seen the document yet. But they're working through, and we're working through, as you know, all the other types of cases that have come forward. I mean, as Tommy said, there's a lot of people to be questioned, and there's also a lot of decisions to be made as to how to run these folks through our system. And we're just not quite there yet. We've got time.

Q What about Walker?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, same situation. We've got time. And Walker is well-berthed on a U.S. warship. It's a heck of a lot more comfortable on that ship than he was in the basement of that prison. When he decided -- when he was captured, Walker made a terrible decision, and our system is such that he'll have proper justice. But he's working with the enemy, and we'll see how the courts deal with that.

Q Sir, were you upset that that Secret Service agent was kept off that plane? Because you have been saying this --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I was. I talked to the man this morning. I told him how proud I was that he was by my side. He's here on the ranch, and he's guarding me. And, of course, I was. We'll let the facts -- they're going to get the facts out. There's an inquiry going on as to specifically what took place. But if he was treated that way because of his ethnicity, that will make me madder than heck.

Q There are increasing news reports that bin Laden escaped to Pakistan --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah? Well, sorry to interrupt your question, but if you'd asked me the question yesterday, you would have said there's increasing news reports that he's dead, and the day before, that he's hiding in a cave. In other words, there's increasing speculation about bin Laden. But what one shouldn't speculate on is if he's alive, he's on the run. And you don't need to worry about whether or not we're going to get him, because we are. And it's just a matter of time.

I mean, I've read reports where he died his hair red. That's not going to stop us from finding him.

Q But what assurances have you gotten from President Musharraf that if that is the case, that he'll find him and turn him --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. President Musharraf has been very helpful. Tommy has visited with him, I visited with him, the Secretary of Defense has visited with him. And he said he will help in all matters. And we believe he'll help with Mr. bin Laden, too, if, in fact, he happens to be in Pakistan. Who knows where he is. But one thing is for certain; he's on the losing side of a rout. And the other thing for certain is we're not going to stop until we get him and all those murderers that are associated with him.

And who knows how many we've gotten to date, because we're gathering evidence. We don't know whether some of those people are in those caves. And Tommy did a fine job of shutting them down. They may still be locked up in there. And as you know, we're sending troops up in that region to take a look at some of the caves to find out what's in there. And we're going to have to dig some of them out.

But as time will go on, we will know more and more about how successful we've been. The point is, is that we are going to be there for a while. I'm patient. The commander on the ground is executing the plan, and the American people are in strong support of what's taking place.

Listen, thank you all for being here today. It's great to see you. Welcome back to Prairie Chapel Ranch, and maybe we'll get you back out here before the New Year's. If not, happy New Year. Thank you.

Q What are you doing for New Year's?

THE PRESIDENT: Probably going to bed early. (Laughter.)_

Q What are you doing with your days here?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm up -- I was up this morning at 5:00 a.m., spent a little quality time with the First Lady. And I just finished my book, Theodore Rex, by Edmund Morris, which is a fabulous book on Teddy Roosevelt. I recommend people reading it. I am going to -- I would have gotten up and run three or four miles this morning, which I'll probably do that this afternoon. I'm going to take Tommy around to show him parts of the ranch. But if Tommy weren't here, I'd be working down there, a little chain-saw work, clearing some brush, burning some brush.

We're making great progress in one of our -- one of the bottom areas that was heretofore relatively inaccessible. One of these days I'll take you down there. It's a beautiful place. It's a bodark grove -- bodark tree is a native tree, real hard wood that grows these giant green, kind of apple-looking things. But I'll spend time doing that.

And then this afternoon -- it gets dark here about 5:30 p.m., and so I'll probably watch a little University of Texas football tonight.

Q What about the tree you planted yesterday?

THE PRESIDENT: Tree plant, very good. My senior staff gave me a beautiful oak, 10-inch oak. And we planted her right outside the house. I haven't written my thank-you note yet, so I'll give them a verbal -- thanks for the tree. It is a beauty. And we planted about -- I think we planted so far about 35 trees, live oaks and cedar elms here. And it's going to be a beautiful sight for when these trees -- when they take off.

Did a little fishing yesterday, by the way. Not very successful. The water is cold, the fish are at the bottom. They're not biting very much. But just the fact that I was able to fish was a nice treat.

Thank you all.

END 10:23 A.M. CST



Comment on this Article


2001: Judge denies bail to accused shoe bomber

December 28, 2001 Posted: 9:33 PM EST (0233 GMT)

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- A federal judge denied bail Friday to the man suspected of trying to ignite plastic explosives in his shoes aboard a trans-Atlantic flight last week.

FBI special agent Margaret Cronin testified that tests indicate the sneakers worn by Richard Reid aboard American Airlines Flight 63 contained the explosive TATP, or triacetone triperoxide.
Passengers and crew members subdued and sedated Reid, 28, when he tried to light his shoes, and the plane was diverted from its original destination of Miami, Florida, to Boston, Massachusetts.

Since his arrest last Saturday, Reid has been under suicide watch at a prison in Plymouth, Massachusetts, about 40 miles south of Boston.

Cronin, the only witness to testify during Friday's probable-cause hearing, said an explosives expert told her that if the explosive in the sneakers had been detonated against the outside wall of the plane, it would have blasted a hole in the fuselage.

Reid's shoes allegedly contained several bomb-related materials including the explosive PETN, plastic chemicals to gel and mold the explosives and TATP, a highly sensitive material needed to detonate the shoe bombs, sources told CNN. Reid also had a safety fuse containing black powder, a U.S. government official said.

Partly based on Cronin's testimony and the conclusion that Reid posed a flight risk, U.S. District Judge Judith Dein denied bail for the British national and ordered that he be held in custody for further hearings.

Reid has had previous run-ins with the law, U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan said in a news conference Friday.

Another federal prosecutor "indicated on public record that (Reid) has double-digit convictions on his record," Sullivan said. "He didn't describe what those convictions were for, except it was crimes against persons and crimes against property."

The British Home Office said Friday that Reid twice stayed at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in West London -- for 10 days in 1992 and one month in 1994. It was not known Friday what charges led to Reid's incarceration there.

Two public defenders appointed for Reid said they have seen no government evidence linking Reid to any terrorist group.

But Brixton Mosque chairman Abdul Haqq Baker said both Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person so far charged with conspiracy in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, attended the same south London mosque in late 1998 and early 1999.

Some al Qaeda detainees in Afghanistan claimed to recognize Reid when U.S. interrogators showed them his picture, officials said. But authorities cautioned that they have no independent confirmation linking Reid to any terrorist organization.

Reid told the FBI that he made the shoe bombs himself, a U.S. government official said.

Sullivan said "there was no credible evidence to suggest there was an accomplice" aiding Reid on Flight 63. Other officials have suggested the explosive's "very, very sophisticated" nature suggest Reid did not act alone.

The suspect's father, Robin Reid, told a British newspaper Friday that his son was "determined enough" to commit suicide but would never have harmed others unless he was "brainwashed."

Israeli government officials said Reid traveled to this Middle Eastern country for "around 10 days" in July before apparently heading by land to Egypt. Reid then moved to Amsterdam, where he worked as a dishwasher at several restaurants between August through November, according to French and Belgian authorities.

After a 10-day stay in Belgium, Reid apparently traveled by train to Paris on December 16. Six days later -- and one day after being turned aside by airport officials -- he boarded Flight 63 in Paris.



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford


Remembering Gerald Ford: Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers NTUF Policy Paper 131

by Peter J. Sepp

Since the founding of the Republic, Americans have had a healthy skepticism of the concentration of power. The Framers of the Constitution established a system they hoped would prevent not only the disproportionate accumulation of influence in one branch of government, but also the disproportionate accumulation of privilege.

Today, Members of the United States Congress enjoy a vast web of perquisites that benefit them personally as well as professionally, including:

* Comfortable salaries that are often determined through legislative sleight-of-hand. Contrary to the arguments of many Washington "insiders," the cost of living has rarely eroded the historical value of lawmakers' pay, which on a constant-dollar basis is hovering near the postwar high.

* Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives. Taxpayers directly cover at least 80 percent of this costly plan. Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer.

* Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers.

* Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports.

* Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.

* A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.

But the very nature of public office itself demands a more comprehensive definition of a "perk" than that normally applied to corporate America. Members of Congress can also wield official powers that allow them to continue to enjoy the personal benefits outlined above, such as:

* The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.

* An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for "favors" that can be returned only at election time.

* Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves.
Since the founding of the Republic, Americans have had a healthy skepticism of the concentration of power. The Framers of the Constitution established a system they hoped would prevent not only the disproportionate accumulation of influence in one branch of government, but also the disproportionate accumulation of privilege.


Congressional pay and perks directly add hundreds of millions of dollars to the yearly bill that Americans are forced to pay for the federal government -- a significant cost for taxpayers, even if pundits dismiss the amount as a "drop in the bucket." Yet, beyond the basic issue of dollars and cents, Congress's perks have other pernicious effects. They distort the budget process, by diminishing lawmakers' moral authority to say "no" to special interest spending requests and benefit boosts for other government officials. They distort the electoral process, by tilting the playing field against challengers. Most importantly, they undercut efforts for long-term economic and budget reform, by insulating Members from the real-world effects of their own policies.

American taxpayers and American government would be better served by benefits for Members of Congress that look more like incentives than perks. Enactment of proposals for a defined-contribution pension plan, a scaled-back franking privilege, a pay level tied to government efficiency, and a term-limit Constitutional amendment would help to restore balance to a system plagued by the trappings of office.

Since the founding of the Republic, Americans have had a healthy skepticism of the concentration of power. The Framers of the Constitution understood the historical importance of maintaining a connection between government and the governed. Through the first three Articles of that document they established a framework of government that aimed to prevent the disproportionate accumulation of influence in one branch of government or one body of people.

A lesser-known but likewise important current in American political history has been the ongoing struggle to prevent the disproportionate accumulation of privilege in government. In no other area of our public sector has this battle taken more prisoners, inflicted more collateral damage on the public, or defied more attempts at "peaceful" resolution, than the United States Congress.

The Webster's New World Dictionary defines a "perquisite" as "something additional to regular profit or pay," or a "gratuity," or "something claimed as an exclusive right." Through the years, lawmakers have employed any and all of these descriptions in various commentaries on their system of "perks." Yet, the very nature of public office requires a somewhat more expansive definition, for reasons which this paper will outline and hopefully justify.

Business or Personal?
The Benefits of Being a Lawmaker


At first glance, the issue of Congressional compensation would seem straightforward. Rank- and-file lawmakers are currently paid a salary of $141,300. The Speaker of the House earns $181,400, while the Senate President Pro Tem and the Majority and Minority Leaders each earn $157,0001. The total annual cost to taxpayers to pay Members of Congress is thus roughly $75 million. All of these salaries are subject to periodic increases depending upon the actions of lawmakers. But as with any position, the salary is only a part of the total compensation package.

Certain perquisites for Members of Congress are intended more for their personal comfort than to enhance their ability to do the nation's business. Although these perks tend to have counterparts in the private sector, many of them come with frills or subsidies that even similarly-salaried executives in the private sector would envy.

Pensions - Platinum Parachutes

By far the single most personally valuable perk to a Member of Congress is his or her pension plan. Lawmakers began coverage under the government's pension system in 1942, but suspended their participation until after World War II. The rules can be complex, but extremely rewarding.2

Basically, Congressional pensions are determined by tenure in office, other federal service, age at retirement, and the average salary upon leaving Congress. The "accrual rate," the amount by which lawmakers build their pension benefit, is the most generous in the federal government short of the President of the United States.

For lawmakers who were elected before 1984, the pension formula upon retirement is the average of the three highest years' salaries, multiplied by years of Congressional, federal, and active duty military service, multiplied by 2.5 percent. The first year's benefit may not exceed 80 percent of final salary (but subsequent Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) can boost the figure well past 80 percent). The retirement age can be as early as age 50, depending upon years of service. This plan is part of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) that covers many other rank-and-file federal civilian workers.

For lawmakers elected in 1984 and thereafter, the formula is generally the same as above, except that the accrual rate is 1.7 percent instead of 2.5 percent, and after the first 20 years of service, the rate falls to 1.0 percent. Also, there is no "80 percent of final salary rule" for these Members (lawmakers under the old CSRS also had the option of converting to this plan). This plan is part of the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), and along with CSRS, enrolls millions of government employees and their dependents (there is an optional spousal annuity).

Nonetheless, there are key differences in the way lawmakers' benefits are calculated versus other government personnel. Members of Congress under CSRS have a generous accrual rate of 2.5 percent for all years served, while most workers in the Executive Branch get a sliding rate of between 1.5 and 2.0 percent. For FERS, Members get a 1.7 percent initial rate, versus 1.1 percent or 1.0 percent for most rank-and-file federal employees. Also, lawmakers with longer careers in Congress can generally collect pension benefits at a far earlier age than their counterparts with similar service elsewhere in the government.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1984, all lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 have usually paid 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but some may have elected a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split part of the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service.

Members elected in 1984 and thereafter have generally paid 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. For Congress overall, these contributions only cover roughly 20 percent of the actual average lifetime pension payout.

All Members of Congress are eligible to participate in a "Thrift Savings Plan," a supplemental retirement contribution plan that works much like a private sector 401 (k) arrangement. However, only those first elected in 1984 and thereafter are entitled to receive a very generous government match -- up to 5 percent of salary, if the Member contributes a like amount.

The end results of these formulas -- huge pension windfalls for lucky lawmakers -- have been the subject of thousands of print, radio, and television media features since National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) began publicizing them. In 1988, NTUF announced that for the first time, the Congressional pension system had delivered a million dollars each to three retired Members -- Ben Reifel (R-SD), Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), and Al Gore, Sr. (D-TN).3

Today, a sitting lawmaker who retires at age 60 with 15 or 20 years of service will likely collect at least a million dollars in inflation-compensated lifetime pension benefits. Some will collect four or even five times that amount. In 1997 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that 400 lawmakers were receiving pensions, at an average benefit of just under $47,000.4 Based on a subsidy rate of 80 percent, this would amount to an annual taxpayer cost of approximately $15 million.

But how do these benefits compare with those of the public and private sectors?

It would be tempting to simply measure a Member's pension against the average individual Social Security benefit of just under $10,000 annually, or the national defined benefit average of slightly above $17,000 for "private-sector employees earning $50,000 or more."5 But much more precise (and alarming) comparisons are possible.

According to CRS, a lawmaker with 20 years of service under FERS could expect to receive a pension equivalent to 34.0 percent of his or her highest three years' salary average. For other federal employees in the Executive Branch, the "replacement rate" would be just 20.0 percent. For CSRS participants, the gap between a Member of Congress and an Executive Branch employee is 50.0 percent versus 36.5 percent.6

In 1995, the Wall Street Journal asked private-sector pension consultants to compare the first year's pension benefit for a 60-year-old Member of Congress with 30 years of service to that of a similarly-salaried private-sector executive fitting the same profile. The Journal determined that the lawmaker's benefit would start at $99,175, versus just $56,220 for the executive.7

More recently, Reader's Digest cited a projection from a survey by the benefits firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide that compared pensions for a Member of Congress with a final salary of $136,000 and 20 years of service to a corporate manager with the same tenure and pay. Ten years after retirement, the hypothetical lawmaker would enjoy a benefit of $104,290, while the comparable private-sector retiree would receive $62,500.8

But even these estimates don't completely illustrate the compounding value of Congressional pension COLAs (see Table 1 on page 6 for examples). NTUF estimates that fewer than 1 in 10 private-sector defined benefit plans offer COLAs (regular or occasional). In the space of a typical retired "lifetime" spanning a few decades, the inflation-adjusted Congressional payout can become many times more generous than its corporate counterpart.

Ironically, since 1989 every NTUF pension estimate has been just that -- an estimate. Because of an Appeals Court decision involving the revelation of pension information for a participant in CSRS, actual benefits for individual Members of Congress are not a matter of public record.9

One issue that will likely never make it to a courtroom involves pensions for lawmakers convicted of crimes. Unlike military retirement pay, which may be revoked under these circumstances, only conviction for a "high crime" such as treason can automatically deprive a lawmaker of his or her pension.

In March 1995, NTUF revealed that at least 13 Members in the "felonious fraternity" collected taxpayer-funded benefits, some while serving time in prison:

* John Dowdy (D-TX), who went to jail on a perjury charge involving a $25,000 bribe, managed to pull in 40 times that amount in pensions after leaving Congress in 1970.

* Mario Biaggi (D-NY), who served 26 months of an 8-year sentence as a result of the infamous Wedtech bribery scandal, was drawing more than $44,000 per year.

* Harrison Williams (D-NJ), sent to prison as a result of the ABSCAM investigation, was using his $40,000+ pension to help pay off the fines associated with his conviction.10

The irony of this situation never ceased. Shortly after House Post Office scofflaw Daniel Rostenkowski's (D-IL) release to a halfway house, National Taxpayers Union (NTU) told the Chicago Tribune that COLAs had pushed his pension past the $100,000 mark. Attempts in the 104th Congress to end taxpayer-subsidized pensions to Members convicted of a felony failed.11

Since its deceptive attempt at "reform" by instituting the FERS program in 1983, Congress's only other significant act on its own pensions took place in the 104th Session, when lawmakers passed a mammoth budget bill that included a provision to equalize their retirement formulas with rank-and-file federal workers. After President Clinton vetoed the bill for other reasons, this change was quietly dropped.

An Even Prince-lier Pension?

Perhaps the only federal elected officials whose pensions can compete with those of lawmakers are ex-Presidents, who receive a pension equal to the annual salary of a Cabinet-level official (currently $157,000). This benefit rises as the Cabinet pay rises. Only the dual act of impeachment and conviction (removal from office) can automatically strip a President of his or her pension.12

In addition, former Presidents receive staff, travel, mail, and office expense allowances that ranged from $308,000 to $548,000 for FY 1999 alone. Secret Service protection costs are not reported.13

Attempts to limit these Presidential perks have not fared much better than similar efforts to curtail Congress's privileges. The FY 1994 Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations Bill would have ended the staff and office allowance portion of the Presidential retirement package by October 1998, but these benefits were restored when Congress repealed the "sunset" provision in 1997.14

Given the lack of any public groundswell in favor of these perks, who could have possibly prevailed upon Congress to change its mind? None other than Gerald Ford, who, according to NTUF calculations, drew more than $253,000 in Congressional and Presidential pensions in 1999 alone.

Health and Life Insurance - Super Subsidies


Members of Congress may obtain health insurance coverage for themselves and their families through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which covers approximately 9 million government workers, retirees, and dependents. Widely touted as a model program even by fiscal conservatives, FEHBP allows employees to select the level and type of health insurance they desire (such as fee-for-service or managed care) from a variety of competing private plans, cooperatives, and union-negotiated arrangements. Providers are encouraged to "bid" with the government by offering specially-designed benefit packages at varied prices.15

According to Office of Personnel Management reports, the average biweekly premium for family coverage paid by the enrollee will amount to $80.16; for self-only coverage, the biweekly amount would be $36.52. However, the government provides workers with a large subsidy for the coverage, under a formula ironically dubbed the "Fair Share." Enacted into law in 1997, taxpayers generally contribute 72 percent of the "program-wide weighted average of premiums in effect each year," or 75 percent of the "total premium for the particular plan an enrollee selects."16

If each Member of Congress selected the average self-only coverage option under FEHBP for the year 2001, taxpayers would contribute a subsidy of roughly $1.2 million.

Lawmakers may also participate in the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) program, which like FEHBP is also generally available on a government-wide basis. Basic coverage is equivalent to one year of the employee's salary, for which the employee contributes 2/3 of the program cost (taxpayers pick up the remainder of the tab). There is an "Extra Benefit" at no cost to the employee that doubles the amount payable for workers 35 or younger (it declines in value to zero by age 45). Extra coverage options for additional fees include a flat $10,000 supplemental benefit, a payment of up to five times an employee's annual salary, and payments for the death of a spouse or children.17

For a Member of Congress, the premium for basic coverage would amount to approximately $48 per month, and the taxpayer contribution $24 per month. If every lawmaker opted to take this lowest level, the total annual government subsidy would add up to approximately $150,000. Although these costs may be comparable with private life insurance rates for some Americans, the rates for lawmakers are basically flat, with little regard for age or health. In addition, Congressmen retain a 1/4-of-final-salary life insurance benefit once they reach age 65, at no cost to themselves.

But life and health care for lawmakers does not end with insurance.

The Attending Physician's Office is a $1.8 million-per-year operation that encompasses three separate facilities employing nearly twenty doctors, nurses, and technicians in the U.S. Capitol (some of whom are part-time workers). The clinics are open to Members of Congress and Legislative Branch employees.18 Until 1992 lawmakers were entitled to receive acute care, lab tests, and other clinical work free of charge.

Since that time, an annual fee has been instituted, which this year is reportedly set at $332 for House Members and $520 for Senators. At this rate, the annual taxpayer subsidy for the Attending Physician is still at least $1.6 million. However, Americans may take comfort in the fact that their subsidy has personal value -- Capitol visitors who fall victim to medical emergencies may receive treatment as well.

One medical benefit for lawmakers that even other Congressional employees can't obtain is the combination of outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital -- along with inpatient care at the minimum flat daily rate even if intensive care treatment is required.19

Wheeled Perks - Driven to the Brink

The public is often under the impression that all lawmakers receive chauffeured limousines. In reality, only the top ten ranking leaders in the House and Senate are entitled to this courtesy on a regular basis, and not all of them avail themselves of the perk. It is difficult to put a price tag on this benefit, but an unofficial estimate by the Office of Management and Budget from 1992 claimed that the Executive Branch spent $5.7 million for 288 cars and 190 drivers.20

Adjusting for inflation and accounting for overlap of drivers and cars, the Congressional limousine perk probably runs up a taxpayer tab of at least $250,000 per year.

In addition, lawmakers may rent or lease automobiles for business use, and are entitled to receive the standard IRS reimbursement rate of 32.5 cents this year for business-related travel in a personal vehicle.21 Either way, such reimbursements come out of the official allowances provided to each House and Senate Member.

During the early 1990s, Congress was rocked by allegations that Representatives were playing fast and loose with automobile leasing costs. One investigation determined that nearly one-third of House Members were leasing cars, some them luxury models that fetched up to $1,000 per month at the time. The report concluded that the House could have saved more than half of its $769,000 total leasing cost that year if it had simply leased "through the government's motor pool manager, the General Services Administration."22

But this is not the end of automobile-related perks for Congress. The U.S. Capitol provides 11,000 parking spaces for employees and authorized users, half of which are indoors. They are administered by an army of parking-garage and parking-lot employees estimated to number close to 100.23 The choicest spots belong to Members of Congress. And just like office space, parking spaces for lawmakers are issued on a seniority basis -- the longer they serve, the closer to the Capitol and its offices they can park.

Although some say this privilege is justified because lawmakers must get to House and Senate chambers for quick votes, its value is undeniable to Washington, DC residents who must pay for their own parking. According to a quick survey by NTUF, downtown and Capitol Hill monthly garage parking rates range from an average of approximately $200 to as much as $300. Using the lower value, taxpayers subsidize lawmakers' parking to the tune of nearly $1.3 million per year.24

Ironically, Capitol Hill residents and visitors can pay an additional "tax" of their own on Congress's parking spaces. The U.S. Capitol Police are empowered to issue parking tickets on spaces within their jurisdiction, and they have done so at the exhausting pace of more than 12,000 issued per year.

Another parking perk that taxpayers -- especially traveling ones -- are more likely to notice are the 150 prime parking spaces located at Washington's Reagan National and Dulles airports, which have been set aside for use by Members of Congress and a handful of other high-ranking officials. Rates for the general public in more remote lots at the same airports can run as high as $28 per day. Whereas everyday passengers can travel a mile or more by foot or shuttle bus between parking lots and terminals, in the case of Reagan National, lawmakers are literally yards from one of the departure terminals.

Apparently even retired lawmakers can avail themselves of the privilege. Former Rep. (and now high-powered lawyer) Guy Vander Jagt (R-MI) continued to slip in to the reserved lot when space was available long after being voted out of Congress.25

But if Americans do notice these spaces, it wouldn't be for Congress's lack of trying to disguise them. For years, the signage in front of these lots read "Reserved Parking/Supreme Court Justices/Members of Congress/Diplomatic Corps." Amidst adverse criticism in the 1980s and 1990s, the signs were replaced to read "Restricted Parking/Authorized Users Only."

In 1994, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered a resolution to end the taxpayer-funded parking lots at these two airports, but it was voted down 53-44. Opening these spaces to the paying public might have generated $1.6 million in savings, according to McCain's own estimates.26

Perhaps Congress's most unique transportation perk is the Capitol Subway system that links House and Senate Office Buildings with the Capitol Building (replete with cars that had "Reserved for Members" seats). In 1994, the Architect of the Capitol unveiled an $18 million automated improvement to the system that would connect the Senate chamber with two of the office complexes. Four years earlier, when the federal budget deficit was climbing to new heights, Congress appropriated $6 million for improvements to overall operations.27

Travel and Junkets - Is This Trip Necessary?

Although the House and Senate maintain different systems of reimbursement for Member expenses, domestic travel to and from Washington and the lawmakers' homes is basically funded through office accounts. The House's Members' Representational Allowance, for example, is adjusted on an individual basis to account for the relative distance (and hence cost of travel) from each district to the nation's capital.

According to an examination of House records, Members of the lower chamber spent approximately $12 million in 1997 to travel on official business both to their districts and other points in the United States.28 Millions more were spent by Committees. Yet these figures can't comprise the actual price tag, since they do not include the services of the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing, which provides the planes for many trips taken by lawmakers, the President, and other dignitaries.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office -- which even the auditors themselves admitted was incomplete -- found that the total tab for aircraft alone for President Clinton's foreign excursions in the past three years amounted to $247 million.29 Although Members of Congress do not require the elaborate arrangements of the Chief Executive, it is safe to assume that lawmakers run up tens of millions on their own military aircraft adventures.

Even travel within the Continental U.S. is not without costly controversy for taxpayers. Thanks to a loophole created in 1991, employees of the House are able to convert the frequent-flyer mileage benefits they receive on official taxpayer-funded travel to personal use. One anonymous staffer told the Washington Times in 1994 about a lawmaker who gave his frequent-flyer miles to his daughter for her honeymoon; another official recalled a House Member who gave away a vacation gift to a lobbyist friend.30

No one is certain how extensive this practice is, but two government agencies have taken an ongoing interest: the IRS, which claims that personal windfalls from official travel are generally taxable income, and the Federal Election Commission, which would require disclosure of frequent- flyer coupons used to support any kind of election activity.

The Senate and all other agencies in the federal government have banned personal use of frequent-flyer mileage earned through this type of travel. To this day, the House officially frowns on conversion fever, but does not ban it. According to the closely-guarded Members' Congressional Handbook:

Free travel mileage, discounts, upgrades, coupons, etc. accrued by Members or employees as a result of official travel awarded at the sole discretion of the [airline] company as a promotional award, may be used at the discretion of the [recipient Member(s) or employees]. The Committee on House Administration encourages the official use of these travel awards wherever practicable.31

When most Americans hear the word "junket," however, they tend to think of privately-funded trips to resorts in sunny Florida or Hawaii, and taxpayer-funded "fact-finding missions" to far-flung foreign destinations. The rules of Congress, along with increased media scrutiny, seem to have curtailed beach-hopping and globe-trotting, but for how long?

According to House rules, for example, "Official travel to a foreign country may be authorized by the Speaker ... or by a Committee Chair."32 Staff travel for official purposes must likewise receive the approval of the Member-employer. Privately-funded journeys connected with a Member's official duties is limited to 4 days for domestic trips and 7 days for trips outside the Continental U.S. Trips of longer duration require advance written approval by the Standards Committee of the House.

Like the President, lawmakers have readily available access to military aircraft for official travel. In the case of travel on a private aircraft for "a political or an official purpose," House Administration Committee and Federal Election Commission rules require Members to reimburse the operator for the equivalent of a first-class ticket on a regularly scheduled flight or the cost of a charter for a flight arranged especially for the Member. Representatives may accept special-interest expenses to cover the costs of one spouse or accompanying family member.33

Yet, these rules and their interpretations have their genesis in a number of high-profile travel travails that continue today:

* In 1989, Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-TX) reportedly attempted to deny funding to the Department of Defense in retaliation for the Air Force's refusal to allow his girlfriend to board a military aircraft in the Middle East.34

* In the fall of 1992, four lawmakers took 25 aides, spouses, and escorts on a 17-day tour of the Orient to study "infrastructure." Not coincidentally, the "infrastructure" they examined led to famous tourist attractions, such as the Great Wall of China and a giant panda preserve. Charges to taxpayers included $497,000 for an Air Force jet and $68,000 for meals, lodging, and bellhop tips.35

* In 1994, House Public Works Committee Chair Norm Mineta (D-CA) led a similar 23-member entourage on an estimated $500,000 trip through Europe and Russia that included visits to "premier museums and ... boat tours through St. Petersburg."36

* In 1996, the House sent a 16-member delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly's biannual meeting in Paris, even though "opinions about the importance of the Assembly vary" and the transportation costs for the journey typically stick taxpayers for $470,000 per year.37

* In December 1997, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, normally a strong supporter of Congressional fact-finding missions, chided lawmakers for accepting too much hospitality from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which sought Congressional exemptions from certain labor standards that could be applied to the territory's garment factories. "Trips by one or two leadership staffers and a couple of Members would be more than defensible," the Editors wrote. "But when 80-odd people flock halfway across the world from Capitol Hill to a sunny island destination in the guise of fact-finding, there's only one word to describe their collective actions: junket."38

* The House International Relations Committee reported spending $722,462 on delegation travel in 1999, approximately 1/3 of which went to per-diem allowances for hotels, restaurants, and entertainment. However, some lawmakers ran up per-diem bills that were 2-3 times higher than "the maximum allowances available to foreign services officers and other agency officials" that are established by the State Department.39

In a supremely ironic twist, the 1989 "Ethics in Government Act," which banned Members from accepting honoraria but gouged taxpayers with a 40 percent Member pay hike, was expected to reduce the itch to travel on private dollars. After all, without honoraria to collect, it was thought Members would lose the incentive to take trips offered by special-interest hosts.

But two full years after the honoraria ban, the Washington Post reported that "Many Members of Congress [were] still venturing far and wide." The article quoted one "top honoraria giver" from a New Jersey agribusiness firm as saying he simply "sends [honoraria] checks to charities" instead.40 To many taxpayers, this charity should have begun at home.

Gymnasiums & Personal Care - No Sweat

Among the personal perks offered to Members of Congress, the House and Senate gymnasiums remain heavily shrouded in secrecy. Few photos of these facilities have ever been published, and less still is known of the type of equipment they feature. The Washington Post reported that the House gym in the bowels of the Rayburn Office Building sported "a swimming pool, and basketball and paddle-ball courts."41 Much of the public's knowledge of the gyms is second-hand, through early accounts of renovation plans that did not meet approval. For example, investigative reporter Don Lambro uncovered schemes in the 1980s to add to already lavish arrangements:

The gyms contain swimming pools, saunas, steam baths, bodybuilding and exercise equipment, whirlpools, a heated pool, wrestling mats, and other equipment. The gyms are open sixteen hours a day and are staffed by eleven 'physical therapists.' 42

In 1992, House and Senate leaders agreed to establish a $400 annual fee system for the House and Senate gymnasiums, which according to NTUF research is one-half to one-third the going rate for Washington, DC's better health clubs.

Another target of popular derision in Congress -- the "five-dollar Hill haircut" -- was clipped on the House side of the Capitol beginning in 1995. The estimated annual saving to taxpayers, in foregone operating deficits, is nearly $100,000.

Yet, the Senate's Barber and Beauty Salon continues to shear taxpayers of their hard-earned funds ($1.8 million in subsidies from 1993-97). The large annual payroll may have something to do with these exorbitant costs: seven barbers, five hair stylists, two manicurists, two receptionists, and a shoeshine attendant. In 1998, one barber was reported to have received $62,000, while a receptionist pulled down $47,000 and a shoeshine attendant $27,000. A generous pension plan ensures that these coiffeurs will be living in style long after their scissors stop snipping.43

A similar split has occurred over the "cheap eats" in cafeterias located throughout the Capitol. Although both the House and Senate have attempted to bring in private contractors and restore market-level prices to their eateries, a recent audit of the Senate's restaurants by the General Accounting Office determined that the facilities posted a $680,000 loss in sales in 1999 (a 50 percent improvement versus 1998!). Taxpayer subsidies, "in the form of loans and appropriations, [were] reduced ... from $1.7 million in 1998 to $1.1 million in 1999."44 Ironically, much of the losses at the restaurants are directly traceable to Senators and their staffs, who owed close to $200,000 in unpaid tabs at the end of the fiscal year.

Congress's "reforms" of its gymnasium, barber shop, and restaurant privileges are not the only efforts made over the past decade to curtail perks (see Table 2). However, given the strings attached to many of these give-backs, the list may not seem all that impressive to outside observers.

Cradle to Grave Perks?

Lawmakers who need their little ones looked after may use the Congressional employees' Child Care Centers. The Chief Administrative Officer's Statement of Disbursements reported that the House spent $132,000 on the operations of its facility during the first quarter of the year 2000.

But Representatives and Senators strive to take care of young and old alike, regardless of their financial circumstances. It is the time-honored practice to award widows of lawmakers who die in office a "gratuity" equal to one year's salary of the dear departed.45

Another legacy is reserved for lawmakers who are dead or alive. Although the rules of Congress do not allow Committees that supervise building projects from naming structures after actively-serving Members of Congress, nothing prevents other Members from doing so through amendments to spending bills. Recent commemorations for living Members who were also in Congress at the time the honor was bestowed include: Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC, 1987); Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR, 1996); and, Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH, 1998). In the 106th Congress, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) had introduced legislation to end this practice.46

The Fiscal Year 2001 Budget of the United States Government reported that in 1999, $1 million in funding was appropriated to the "Congressional Cemetery." Lest taxpayers think that Members are entitled to a free burial plot of their own, the Cemetery is actually a non- profit historic landmark containing the remains of 60,000 people, just 76 of whom are (or were) Members of Congress. But the hand of corruption has touched even this hallowed ground -- this year Roll Call reported that the former Superintendent of the Congressional Cemetery was indicted for embezzling $175,000 in charitable contributions to the graveyard.47

House Bank - Gone But Not Forgotten


One of the seminal scandals in the history of the House of Representatives involved its bank. Between January and June of 1990, 134 House Members passed 581 bad checks in amounts of $1,000 or more at the House's $50 million-a-year facility operated by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Overdrafts were routinely covered for periods of up to a month, and no banking privileges were ever suspended, even for the worst offenders. Altogether, 8,331 checks in all amounts were bounced between July 1989 and June 1990.48

Nearly two years prior, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) knew that these easy practices were producing a scandal. He ordered the House Bank to initiate reforms to curtail overdrafts. But the number of bounced checks actually increased 8 percent after the alleged reforms took effect. The Bank subsequently closed, and Congressional incumbents suffered on the campaign trail.

Members of Congress may have lost their own exclusive piggy bank, yet they can still reap the rewards of cut-rate financial services through the Congressional Federal Credit Union (CFCU). As this paper went to press CFCU offered members deals such as:

* A 6.35% Certificate of Deposit Yield on a 1-Year Account with a $500 minimum.

* A 7.5% APR loan on the purchase of a new car, up to 100% of purchase price or retail value.

* A Visa Gold Card with a line of credit of as much as $15,000, with finance rates of 10.9% APR - 11.9% APR.49

Unlike the House Bank, which had to rely on the fickle financial habits of lawmakers, the CFCU has 44,000 members to balance the bad debts of a few deadbeats. On the other hand, since CFCU is a federally-insured financial institution, taxpayers can never be sure that their wallets are safe from Congressional check-kiters.

Offices - Fine-Feathered Nests


No one wants to work in a hovel, but the halls of Congress are rarely described as such. Over the years, lawmakers have come under fire for some fabulous digs:

* Senate "hideaways" have long served as quiet, poshly-furnished areas where the upper chamber's solons can unwind, reflect, and cut deals with colleagues. The locations are so secret that even some Senate staffers admit to not knowing where their own bosses' cubbyholes have been carved out. According to the National Journal, "Several years ago, then-Sen. Paul Simon [D-IL] gave Chicago Tribune reporters a tour of his small room, but only after being promised that they would not publish its location."50

* In 1992, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) raised a flap when he authorized $20,000 to be spent on marble-inlaid floors in just three elevators on the House side of the Capitol.51

* In 1994, it was revealed that the Senate spent $324,000 (not including installation) for slightly over 100 silver-plated bronze chandeliers modeled after those that hung in the Russell Office Building when it opened in 1905.52

* In 1993, a mini-scandal erupted over a little-known 1974 law that allowed retiring Members of Congress to purchase like-new office equipment for personal use, at 50 to 90 percent discounts. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) recalled that his 1991 office inventory "nowhere matched" what he actually had, because his predecessor Buz Lukens had carted off much of the furniture at a cut rate.53

* Since 1998, the Clerk of the House has been on a hunting and gathering expedition to recover millions of dollars in taxpayer property looted by House Speakers for their own museums as they left office, including a fireplace from the White House, the original marble Speaker's rostrum, and a Grecian urn valued at up to $3 million.54

Apparently, Congress doesn't even need to buy new furnishings to spend more tax dollars on offices. Following each election cycle, lawmakers who move up the seniority ladder are likewise eager to "trade up" their office space, prompting what many Capitol Hill staffers call the "post- election shuffle." One investigation found that after the 1996 election, 232 of the House's 435 Members moved their offices, at a cost to the House Architect's decorating and moving staff of $600,000.55

Public Perks, Public Purse: The Link

Taxpayers may be tempted to conclude that lawmakers who are willing to spend freely on themselves are just as willing to spend freely on special interest programs. But how valid is this assumption? At least two comprehensive comparisons confirm this suspicion.

In 1992, National Taxpayers Union assessed the performance of lawmakers involved in the House check-bouncing scandal on its 1991 Rating of Congress, which scored every lawmaker on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy. Nine of the 17 worst check-kiters fell into the category of "Big Spender," which denotes lawmakers with the worst pro-taxpayer voting records. Fifteen of the 17 worst abusers had below-average taxpayer scores. On the "full list" of abusers, 78 percent of the Members with 50 or more overdrafts rated below the average pro-taxpayer score.56

In 1996, National Taxpayers Union compared House Members' office and staff expenditures for the previous year with its Rating of Congress. The 100 biggest office spenders had an average pro- taxpayer NTU Rating of 46 percent, or 12 points lower than the overall House average. The 100 must frugal office spenders had an NTU Rating of 72 percent, or 14 points higher than the average.57

What's In a Name?

Ironically, simply being a former Member of Congress can constitute a "perk" in the private sector too. According to a review of the 1998 Edition of Washington Representatives, at least 128 former Members of Congress were listed as lobbyists among the 17,000 individuals included in the directory. That accounts for 12 percent of all Members who retired from Congress since 1970. Some Members offer themselves as "consultants for hire" on issues they may have tackled on Committees. Others have signed on full-time in government affairs departments:

* Connecticut Rep. Anthony Moffett (D, 1975-83) joined Monsanto Corporation as the Vice President for International Government Affairs.

* Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder (D, 1973-97) became President of the American Association of Publishers.

* Louisiana Rep. W. Henson Moore (R, 1975-87) went on to serve as President of the American Forest and Paper Association.58

As a bonus, Congressional pensions are not reduced or otherwise affected by decisions to seek additional private sector or lower-level public sector employment. Only those Congressional retirees named to new federal positions -- like Ambassador (and Former House Speaker) Tom Foley (D-WA) -- must normally forgo their benefits while on active duty. The upside (for them) is, these former Members may elect to count their additional service and higher salaries toward a bigger, recalculated pension once they leave the federal government permanently.

Official Perks:
Helping Those in Power Stay There


By definition, any "perk" worth its name must deliver something of value to its intended recipient. That's why even a lawmaker's official powers function like perks. By helping to keep incumbent Members in office, items such as franking privileges, personal staffs, and other "official" powers are the means to a very comfortable end.

The Frank - Mailing Challengers to the Wall

The privilege to send mail under a "frank" (whereby a lawmaker's signature serves as postage) is one of the oldest prerogatives of office ever granted to members of a legislative body. The First Continental Congress, borrowing an idea that originated in the British House of Commons in 1660, enacted mailing privileges in 1775. According to the Congressional Research Service, however, "the franking privilege has carried an element of controversy since the earliest days of the Continental Congress. ... Misuse was such a problem in the latter part of the nineteenth century that Congress repealed the franking law for one year (1873), and then reenacted it."59

Lawmakers, of course, argue that the franking privilege is an essential communication tool that they use not only to conduct everyday legislative business, but also to reply to the crushing volume of mail they receive from their constituents. That myth was destroyed on the floor of Senate itself in 1982, when Sen. Charles Mathias (R-MD) revealed data suggesting that the "crushing volume" comes from Congress, not citizens -- less than 5 percent of Congress's outgoing mail was sent in reply to constituent inquiries.60 The rest generally consists of unsolicited mass mailings.

Historically, the most vocal complaints about the frank have come not just from taxpaying citizens, but also from other Congressional candidates. This is because the content of even "official" mailings can portray the incumbent Member in such a favorable light to his or her constituents that political challengers must devote scarce resources of their own toward counter- advertising. Veteran Capitol Hill reporter Glenn R. Simpson and Professor Larry J. Sabato captured the essence of the frank when they related the following sales pitch from a Capitol Hill computer vendor:

You've got to get his [the lawmaker's] name out seven times in a two-year period, so that they'll remember him at the polls. I sometimes go in and do a training session and say, 'hey, you guys are in the advertising business. You guys got to get your Member's name out over and over.'61

As with so many other perks, the more Congress attempted to self-regulate the franking privilege, the more susceptible it became to abuse. By 1969 Congress ceased to rely on the U.S. Postal Service for rulings on what kind of Member mail could be sent under the frank. Charges of self-interest from challengers in the 1972 campaign became so prevalent that Common Cause, a citizen group working for cleaner elections, sought to overturn the frank in court as an unconstitutional and "unfair advantage."

The suit took ten years to wind its way through the "justice" system, until the Supreme Court finally decided to let stand a lower court ruling against Common Cause and place trust in Congress's latest round of "reforms."62

Predictably, Congress's feeble steps to curb its own excesses during the 1980s went nowhere. The House created a "Commission on Mailing Standards" to conduct a pre-mailing review process designed to weed out blatantly political messages, family references, and obsequious holiday greetings. The Commission also established "content guidelines" that, among other provisions, "recommends" Members limit references to themselves to 8 per printed page.

Even in this regulatory process, Congress's embarrassment over the frank was apparent. As recently as 1995, when a National Taxpayers Union Foundation staff member contacted the Commission to inquire about viewing the tax-funded mass mailings of his own Representative, he was told:

* 24 hours' advance notice was preferred.

* Mailings could only be viewed in the Commission's Washington, DC office.

* Copying of documents was prohibited.

* Note-taking was "permitted."

* A "release form" to view "the Congressman's mail" was required.63

The Senate provides comparatively convenient access to franking records, the House remains mired in Dark-Age disclosure policies -- one of its only recent "reforms" was to allow public photocopying of Commission advisories issued after January 1, 1996.

But it would take more lawsuits and more adverse publicity to loosen the electoral stranglehold of the franking privilege. In July 1992, a federal Appeals Court agreed with the National Taxpayers Union in ruling that a law permitting certain mass mailings outside current Congressional districts was unconstitutional. Prior to the ruling, many mailings were being sent outside Members' own districts under the guise of "introducing themselves" in newly-drawn districts shortly after the decennial census.64

Additional abuses kept revealing themselves. In the first 18 months of the 1993-94 election cycle, House incumbents spent $51 million on the frank. By comparison, the Federal Election Commission reported that the 1,041 challengers had raised just $40.8 million over that same period for their entire campaigns.65

In 1994, nearly three dozen House Members were caught red-handed in attempts to circumvent a rule forbidding mass mailings of more than 500 pieces in the 60 days prior to a primary or general election (now 90 days). First, 27 Members "bundled" their communications in 333 mailings of 400 pieces or more within the 60-day window. Second, 15 Members of Congress sent out a combined total of 4.6 million pieces of mail in the week prior to the 60-day deadline, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $600,000.66

By 1995, Members of the 105th Congress felt compelled to enact a new round of reforms. The Senate ambitiously chose to limit use of the Official Mail Account to constituent inquiry responses and town meeting notices only, up to 15 cents per address in most states. Mass mailings could only be funded from each Senator's Office Expense Account, and postage for this type of mail was limited to $50,000 per Senator per year. The House was somewhat less bold, opting instead to slash the combined mass mail and constituent reply allowance from approximately 67 cents per address to 43 cents.67

Today, the Senate spends roughly 1/5 to 1/4 as much on franked mail postage as the House, even though both chambers represent the same number of constituents. And although House expenditures have fallen to approximately $25 million per year from the high of nearly $80 million in 1988, the franking privilege is as effective as ever.

The Information Age may have made "snail mail" a dated technology for many citizens, but not for Congress. Separate individual postage limits for House Members were lifted in 1999. Offices can now purchase CD-ROM mailing lists customized to virtually any demographic group, meaning that Members need no longer blanket an entire district with mass mailings just to make sure they are reaching their desired audience. The use of glossy color inserts in newspapers, radio airtime, and television programs beamed back to district stations have also served to supplement the frank's outreach potential. In the 1995-96 cycle one enterprising Member, Steve Stockman (R- TX), used $68,800 from his office funds to purchase radio time to supplement the message in his mass mailings.68

By most accounts, the franking privilege will continue to exert a disproportionate influence on the electoral process until citizens pressure lawmakers for genuine reform. Meanwhile, complaints from challengers during the current 1999-2000 election cycle are already filling the nation's newspapers.69

Constituent Services - An Offer They Can't Refuse

In the opening scene of the movie "The Godfather," Don Vito Corleone greets a series of characters asking for a variety of "favors" that the normal institutions of society can't provide. Knowing he cannot turn down such requests on his daughter's wedding day, Corleone reminds his well-wishers that someday he may ask them to "perform a service" for their new-found friend, the Don. This Hollywood lesson has apparently been well-learned in Washington, DC, in the form of "constituent service."

In 1998, the Legislative Branch employed more than 31,000 individuals, about the same level as in 1971.70 Yet, these figures are deceptive, for they fail to account for the explosive growth of one category within that workforce - personal staffs. Between 1967 and 1977, for example, personal staffs for Senators and Representatives mushroomed by 94 percent and 75 percent, respectively. During the mid-1970s about 75 percent of these staffs worked in Washington, DC, with the remainder scattered among small offices in the Members' home states and districts. By 1990, that level had fallen below 40 percent.71 Today about half of all employees in the Legislative Branch work in Congressional offices or on Committees (the rest work for agencies such as the Architect of the Capitol and the Library of Congress).72

Prior to World War II, the notion of ever-larger permanent staffs would have seemed ludicrous to most lawmakers. Today, every Member of Congress maintains a cadre of "constituent caseworkers" in Washington and in district offices who help citizens to deal with the very bureaucracy that Congress helped to create. These staffers do everything from assisting retirees with Social Security check problems to arranging for school group tours of the Capitol to resolving disputes with the IRS.

Nearly 40 years ago, a Brookings Institution scholar made the electoral connection to this process when he observed that it offers "great potential for political benefit to the Congressman since [it affects] the constituent personally. If the legislator can be of assistance, he may gain a firm ally; if he is indifferent, he may even lose votes."73

The Congressional Management Foundation, a private organization dedicated to "helping Members of Congress and their staff better manage their workloads," was equally blunt, but in a more empirical manner, when it surveyed top Capitol Hill aides as to what they thought the "most important factors in solidifying [their] Member's base" were. Heading the list of replies was "constituent services."74

The result, according to political scholars James Bennett & Thomas DiLorenzo, "is a nationwide network ... of tax-funded flunkies whose primary job is to subvert the electoral process -- that is, to give incumbents unfair advantages over their already under- financed challengers." In fact, the authors found that often "no effort is made to mask" the naked political purpose -- in one election cycle, 40 percent of lawmakers seeking reelection hired a member of their official personal staff for their campaign.75 The rules of Congress continue to permit this practice.

No survey of reelection perks would be complete without noting the power of the purse. The ability to deliver pork-barrel projects to home districts certainly helps to curry favor among special interest supporters. For example, Congress's largest standing Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure, includes about 1 out of 7 House Members in its ranks. In 1998 the Committee helped to draft the $216 billion "BESTEA" bill, whose $21.3 billion in earmarked projects for roads and mass transportation dwarfed the amount of pork in the last major transportation funding bill passed in 1990.76

Majority and Minority Staffs - Covering Both Sides


Traditionally, parliamentary systems of government provide for a "majority" and a "minority" side of the aisle, in order to foster structured debate on questions put before them. But in the United States, these two titles also carry with them some serious taxpayer costs -- and some serious subsidies for incumbent lawmakers.

The FY 2001 Budget of the United States Government requests more than $17 million in funds for the offices and staff of the House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Republican and Democratic Conferences, Majority and Minority Policy Committees, and Steering Committees.77 These requests come above and beyond budgets and staff reserved for those who actually preside over the daily business of Congress, such as the House Speaker, President Pro Tem of the Senate, and the Whips.

What does this $17 million buy? In addition to some purposes relating to the business of the nation, the tax dollars also apparently help to fund a fair amount of partisanship aimed at extending or preserving incumbent advantages. As a tour of just four House leadership websites shows:

* The Democratic Caucus describes its mission as providing "essential information on House Democrats, our agenda, and the work of this Congress." Its newsletter, Beyond the Rhetoric, "...shines the spotlight on what GOP leaders really believe by cataloguing some of their most extremist statements."78

* Part of the Republican Conference's mission is to furnish "Republican Members and staff with pending legislative, press, and constituent service handbooks, ... talking points, and analyses..." along with "Coordinating talk radio." 79

* The Majority Leader's website states, "The Vice President now claims that he has a plan to lower oil prices. That raises the question: what has he been doing the past 8 years?"80

* The "Leader's Corner" of the Minority Leader's website proudly proclaims that "Ten years ago, Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt began his pioneering efforts to develop a more unified Democratic message ... [by] creating the House message group which set the pace and tone as Democrats regained their voice on the issues that matter -- working families, new opportunities, and new ideas."81

Members of Congress and political parties are certainly free to speak their minds within the American political system. Yet, how much of this "free speech" should their constituents pay for?

The Bottom Line


How effective are these perks of power in helping lawmakers to boost their own job security? This year, Congressional Quarterly, one of the media's most respected observers of events in Congress, could only identify 90 of the 435 contests for the House of Representatives where there was "any possibility of partisan turnover." The overwhelming majority of the races - nearly 80 percent - were described as "safe Republican or Democratic."82

Obviously, many factors contribute to the lack of competitiveness in Congressional election contests. Private fundraising, constituent demographics, and the method in which a district is drawn can present formidable obstacles that deter challengers from the beginning. At the very least, however, the privileges of incumbency greatly augment these advantages.

Above the Law:
A Unique Advantage for Those Who Make the Law


In 1995, lawmakers adopted the Congressional Accountability Act. Based upon the notion that "no one should be above the law," the bill applied a litany of civil rights and worker protection laws from which Members of Congress had previously exempted themselves, including: the Fair Labor Standards Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; the Americans With Disabilities Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; and, several other lesser-known laws that normally affect private employers.83

Despite this laudable progress, Members of Congress continue to skirt laws or rules that apply to the rest of America, as if doing so were their prerogative. This indifference to equality under the law often amounts to a "perk" that even the most callous private-sector boss would avoid.

Special Tax Policies - Roadblock to Reform

Taxpayers may wonder why Congress always talks a good game about tax reform, but rarely does anything about it. Perks may have a role to play. In addition to the IRS's past tax-time consulting offices (open to Capitol Hill employees), the tax agency also maintains an extremely active "Legislative Affairs Division" in Washington, along with a host of "Congressional Affairs Program" and "Casework Inquiries" contacts to help Members iron out tax problems with their constituents.84

A recent opinion survey conducted for the Discovery Health Channel found that by a 57 percent to 30 percent margin, Americans feared the IRS more than God.85 Many beleaguered taxpayers would view their Congressman's help with IRS problems as Heaven- sent, for which thanks could be given in voting booths as well as church pews. Yet, Congress plays its own devil's advocate, by having given the tax agency the very powers that have led to high- profile civil rights abuses, not to mention creating the complex Tax Code that invites bureaucratic bungling.

Why such an apparent disconnect? In 1993 Money Magazine determined that 60 percent of the Members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, who are responsible for our tax laws, didn't even prepare their own tax returns. Money also estimated at the time that the IRS's two "customer service centers" for lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees cost taxpayers $100,000.86

Another tax-related controversy arose in 1993, when the New York Times revealed that Congress was following the lead of IRS officials who discovered a "creative valuation method" to avoid having to pay income taxes on "free" parking spaces when their private-sector equivalent value exceeded $155 per month. Even at the current $175 threshold, most Capitol parking would constitute a partially taxable fringe benefit.87

Today, however, the clearest illustration of Congress's elevation above normal taxpayers is its own $3,000 annual income tax deduction for maintaining a second residence.

Normally, a taxpayer in a lawmaker's income bracket could be subject to reductions in the value of his or her mortgage interest write-off for residences. The typical American who uses an additional residence for business or rental purposes may qualify for certain expense deductions, but only by filing complex forms.88

Immunity - Or Impunity?

Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that Senators and Representatives:

[S]hall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Given the era in which the Constitution was written, this clause made good sense. Parliaments had much to fear from kings or other sovereigns who would use their own troops to interfere with legislative business. Additionally, partisans within Congress might very well be able to manipulate law enforcement officials to act maliciously against their political opponents, and thus influence the outcome of key votes.

Predictably, lawmakers in the modern age have put their own "spin" on this clause. Not until 1992 was Congress put out of the business of helping Members to avoid traffic and parking tickets. Prior to that time, the House's Sergeant-At-Arms would process all the necessary paperwork on behalf of Members to have the tickets canceled, a process conducted with the District of Columbia Mayor's Office and the Department of Public Works.89

However, even without help from Congressional staff, lawmakers still often enjoy "free rides" from police who are reluctant to push tickets anyway. According to press accounts, 81-year-old Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was recently involved in a rear-end collision with a van on Route 50 in Fairfax, VA, during which he produced to the ticketing officer a copy of the Constitution and pointed to the clause mentioned earlier in this section. At the Fair Oaks Police Station Byrd reiterated his claim of immunity and asked the shift commander to call the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax to obtain confirmation that his claim was valid. Byrd was re-issued the ticket one week later, but he was not fined.90

Lawmakers claimed the right to exempt themselves from another system of "fines" known to children across America -- those applying to overdue library books. In 1994, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the "Library of Congress Book Protection Act," in response to official estimates that 1/3 of the books on loan from the Library of Congress were overdue, and that $12 million worth of books were "missing." In many cases, Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staff members were implicated.91

Even Congress's retirement policy has given lawmakers a legal "leg up" on the rest of America. According to the Wall Street Journal, former Rep. Philip Sharp's (D-IN) pension -- which began at $65,000 when he was just 52 years old -- would be "almost unheard of [in the private sector] because it exceeds by $14,000 or more the Tax Code limits Congress has placed on business deductions for early pensions above certain levels."92

When the Best Isn't Enough


Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: The Farcical Definition at the Heart of the War on Terrorism

By James Bovard
Lew Rockwell
31 Jan 06

A recent denunciation of U.S. government foreign policy offers insights into a paradox of the war of terrorism. On January 24, 2006, the East Timor Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation denounced the U.S. government for backing the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor. In the following decades, a quarter million East Timorese residents died as a result of this incursion. The commission declared that U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation."
The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor were among the most barbaric actions of the late 20th century. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met with Indonesian President Suharto in Jakarta the day before the invasion and gave U.S. approval. The primary concern of U.S. officials seemed to be to get back to Washington before the bloodbath began. Kissinger told Suharto, "We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned." Kissinger, doing his best imitation of Lady Macbeth, urged Suharto, "It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly."

Indonesia used U.S. military weapons to bombard East Timor and to crush resistance. The Indonesian military finally left East Timor in 1999, inflicting one more orgy of burning and killing on the island in the final days before its exit.

More people died as a result of the U.S.-backed invasion of East Timor than were killed by international terrorists in the subsequent 30 years. According to the U.S. State Department, between 1980 and 2005 fewer than 25,000 people were killed in international terrorist incidents around the globe.

The Bush administration, in its war on terror, stresses that anyone who aids and abets a terrorist is as guilty as the terrorist. By this standard, the U.S. government was guilty of enabling the Indonesian government to terrorize the Timorese people. The Timorese victims of U.S.-backed aggression received far less than 1 percent of the attention than have American victims of terrorist attacks.

The U.S. government currently bankrolls and arms many foreign regimes that terrorize their own people, including Colombia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Frida Berrigan of the World Policy Institute noted that the State Department's 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices "lists 52 countries that are currently receiving U.S. military training or weapons as having 'poor' or 'very poor' human-rights records."

President Bush declared in 2002, "Our mission is to make the world free from terror." But the only way that Bush's pledge makes any sense is by relying on a myopic - if not absurd - definition of terrorism.

The United States has long insisted that government agents cannot be terrorists. The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Since government action is almost always lawful - or at least not considered criminal by the government itself - governments almost never qualify as terrorists under the U.S. definitions.

A far sounder definition was offered by Israeli National Security Council chairman Major General Uzi Dayan, who defined as terrorist in a December 2001 speech "any organization that systematically harms civilians, irrespective of its motives." This definition catches all types of terrorism - not just actions that lack political blessings or official sanctions.

If a government systematically attacks civilians, the government is no less culpable than private cabals that blow up planes, buses, or cafés. By this standard, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was as much a terrorist action as the bombings of Bali nightclubs in October 2002 that killed hundreds of civilians.

The U.S. terrorism definition is the key to the Bush administration claim that the war on terrorism is automatically a war for freedom. Without the "state-exempt" concept of terrorism, fighting terrorism would, in most parts of the world, have little or nothing to do with defending freedom. With an honest definition of terrorism, many governments in the Bush "freedom-loving coalition" are guilty of inflicting more terrorism than they prevent.

Having a "state action" exemption to the concept of terrorism is like having a "mass murder exemption" in the homicide statute. Any action carried out by private citizens that would be considered terrorism should also be considered terrorism if carried out by government agents. The United States should recognize that its bankrolling and support of governments that terrorize their own people make a mockery of Bush's promise to rid the world of evil.

James Bovard is the author of the just-released Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, and Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. He serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Copyright © 2006 The Future of Freedom Foundation




Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: An Interview With William Blum, Author "Rogue State"

ICH
C-Span
28 Jan 06

William Blum, "Rogue State," on the author's 2000 book, which was recently cited by Osama bin Laden as one Americans should read.

First broadcast - C-Span - 28/01/06 - 40 Minutes

Below: This is a chapter from the book Rogue State: A Guide to
the World's Only Superpower
, by William Blum
War Criminals: Theirs and Ours
I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as
a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side.
US General Curtis LeMay, commander of the 1945 Tokyo fire bombing operation.[1]


On December 3, 1996, the US Justice Department issued a list of 16 Japanese citizens who would be barred from entering the United States because of "war crimes" committed during the Second World War. Among those denied entry were some who were alleged to have been members of the infamous "Unit 731", which, said the Justice Department, "conducted inhumane and frequently lethal pseudo-medical experiments -- on thousands of ... prisoners and civilians," including mass dissections of living humans.[2] Oddly enough, after the war the man in charge of the Unit 731 program -- whose test subjects included captured American soldiers -- General Shiro Ishii, along with a number of his colleagues, had been granted immunity and freedom in exchange for providing the United States with details about their experiments, and were promised that their crimes would not be revealed to the world. The justification for this policy, advanced by American scientists and military officials, was, of course, the proverbial, ubiquitous "national security".[3]

Apart from the hypocrisy of the Justice Department including Unit 731 members on such a list while protecting its leaders, we are faced with the fact that any number of countries would be justified in issuing a list of Americans barred from entry because of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". Such a list, of those still alive in 2005, might include:

William Clinton, president, for his merciless bombing of the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights in 1999, taking the lives of many hundreds of civilians, and producing one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history; for his relentless continuation of the sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and for his illegal and lethal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, for his direction of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with an almost sadistic fanaticism ... "He would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'"[4]

George H. W. Bush, president, for the death of more than a million innocent Iraqi citizens, the result of his 40 days of bombing in 1991, the deliberate ruination of the public water supply, the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons which has brought continuing suffering to many thousands of American servicemen and to many more Iraqis, and for the institution of draconian sanctions against Iraq, which lasted 12 years.

For his unconscionable bombing of Panama in 1989, producing widespread death, destruction and homelessness, for no discernible reason that would stand up in a court of law or a court of public opinion.

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his prominent role in the attacks on Panama and Iraq, the latter including destruction of nuclear reactors as well as plants making biological and chemical agents. Hardly more than a month had passed since the United Nations, under whose mandate the United States was supposedly operating in Iraq, had passed a resolution reaffirming its "prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities" in the Middle East.[5] In the wake of the destruction, Powell gloated: "The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished."[6] He was just as cavalier about the lives of the people of Iraq. In response to a question concerning the number of Iraqis killed in the war, the good general replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."[7]

For his part in the cover up of war crimes in Vietnam by troops of the same brigade that carried out the My Lai massacre.[8]

General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage in 1991; for continuing the carnage two days after the cease-fire; for continuing it against Iraqis trying to surrender.

Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state under Reagan; a tireless campaigner and propagandist for the vilest of dictatorships, death squads, and torturers in Central America and Pinochet's Chile; a spinmeister for the ages, who wrestled facts into ideological submission. "When history is written," he declared, "the Contras will be folk heroes," he wrote of the terrorists who carried out multiple atrocities against the people of Nicaragua.[9]

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense for seven years under Reagan, for his official and actual responsibility for the numerous crimes against humanity perpetrated by the United States in Central America and the Caribbean, and for the bombing of Libya in 1986.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, assigned to Reagan's National Security Council, for being a prime mover behind the Contras of Nicaragua, and for his involvement in the planning of the completely illegal invasion of Grenada, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.

Henry Kissinger (who has successfully combined three careers: scholar, Nobel peace laureate, and war criminal), National Security Adviser under Nixon and Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford, for his Machiavellian, amoral, immoral roles in the US interventions into Angola, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, and Cambodia, which brought unspeakable horror and misery to the peoples of those lands.

Gerald Ford, president, for giving his approval to Indonesia to use American arms to brutally suppress the people of East Timor, thus setting in motion a quarter-century-long genocide.

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense under presidents Kennedy and Johnson, a prime architect of, and major bearer of responsibility for, the slaughter in Indochina, from its early days to its extraordinary escalations; and for the violent suppression of popular movements in Peru.

General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff, for the numerous war crimes under his command in Vietnam. In 1971, Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor at the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, cited the "Yamashita" case as grounds for indicting Westmoreland. Following the war, a US Army Commission had sentenced Japanese General Tomayuki Yamashita to be hanged for atrocities committed by his troops in the Philippines. The Commission held that as the senior commander, Yamashita was responsible for not stopping the atrocities. The same ruling could of course apply to General Powell and General Schwarzkopf. Yamashita, in his defense, presented considerable evidence that he had lacked the communications to adequately control his troops; yet he was still hanged. Taylor pointed out that with helicopters and modern communications, Westmoreland and his commanders didn't have this problem.[10]

And the Bush administration, some of them are still at it, even as you read this: George W. Bush, president, Richard Cheney, vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, for the awful horrors and grave suffering they deliberately brought down upon the heads of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, who had done them no harm; for the unending lying they engaged in, in an attempt to enlist American and world support for these atrocities.

The crime of bombing


As mentioned in the "Bombings" chapter, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. This is a legacy of World War II. The Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments are silent on the subject of aerial bombardment. Since both sides had played a terrible game of urban destruction -- the Allies far more successfully -- there was no basis for criminal charges against the Germans or Japanese, and in fact no such charges were brought. But as Telford Taylor has asked: "Is there any significant difference between killing a babe-in-arms by a bomb dropped from a high-flying aircraft, or by an infantryman's point-blank gunfire? ... The aviator's act [is described] as more 'impersonal' than the ground soldier's. This may be psychologically valid, but surely is not morally satisfactory."[11]

No one ever thinks they're guilty of anything ... they're all just good ol' patriots:

"Asked whether he wants to apologize for the suffering he caused, he looks genuinely confused, has the interpreter repeat the question, and answers 'No'. ... 'I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country.'"
Journalist Nate Thayer interviewing a dying Pol Pot, 1997 [12]


"I tell you how I feel. I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country, who served Chile throughout his entire life on this earth. And what he did was always done thinking about the welfare of Chile."
General Augusto Pinochet, under house arrest in England, 1998 [13]


(While Pinochet was being held, George H.W. Bush, the Pope, and the Dalai Lama all called for his release.)

How to deal with the unthinkable

At the close of World War II, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East held a trial in Tokyo of former Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo. His lawyer asked why Tojo's crimes were any worse than dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that moment, the prosecution interrupted the Japanese translation and ordered the removal of the remarks in the official trial record and in the press.[14]

Another unthinkable

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("Genocide Convention"), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948: "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." The Convention then goes on to define genocide as certain acts, listed therein, "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

Missing from this list is perhaps the most significant manifestation of genocide in modern times: the extermination of people because of their political ideology. The Nazis became notorious for their slaughter of Jews and Gypsies, but German fascism, as in Italy, Spain, Greece, Chile, Indonesia, and elsewhere, was firstly and primarily directed against socialists and communists, regardless of any other characteristic. (Hitler, in any event, largely equated Jews and communists.)

As can be seen in the chapter on "Interventions" and in other chapters -- from China and the Philippines in the 1940s to Colombia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the United States has long been practicing this politicide. However, the CEOs of The World's Only Superpower can rest easily. There will be no international convention against it, and no American official will ever have to answer to a court for it.

Yugoslavia -- another war-crimes trial that will never be
Beginning about two weeks after the US-inspired and led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in March, 1999, international- law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed by the law professionals were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including "wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences."

The Canadian suit named 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleged "open violation" of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The complaint was submitted along with a considerable amount of evidence to support the charges. The evidence makes the key point that it was NATO's bombing campaign which had given rise to the bulk of the deaths in Yugoslavia, provoked most of the Serbian atrocities, created an environmental disaster, and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded depleted uranium and cluster bombs.

In June, some of the complainants met in The Hague with the court's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour of Canada. Although she cordially received their brief in person, along with three thick volumes of evidence documenting the alleged war crimes, nothing of substance came of the meeting, despite repeated follow-up submissions and letters by the plaintiffs. In November, Arbour's successor, Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, also met with some of the complainants and received extensive evidence.

The complainants' brief in November pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was "not only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the victims and of deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their military might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other natural restraint such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the war's victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in international criminal law.

In one of the letters to Arbour, Michael Mandel, a professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit, stated:

Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about the impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians in Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was the major provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more money to it.[15]


Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore beneath her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury, and prison guard. In a year in which General Pinochet was still under arrest, which was giving an inspiring lift to the cause of international law and justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, under Arbour's leadership, ruled that for the Great Powers it would be business as usual, particularly the Great Power that was most vulnerable to prosecution, and which, coincidentally, paid most of her salary. Here are her own words:

I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and open-minded investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the obligation of commanders to prevent and punish, if required.[16]


NATO Press Briefing, May 16, 1999:

Question: Does NATO recognize Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities?

Jamie Shea: I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because we will allow her to. ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.


The Tribunal -- created in 1993, with the US as the father, the Security Council as the mother, and Madeleine Albright as the midwife -- also relies on the military assets of the NATO powers to track down and arrest the suspects it tries for war crimes.

There appeared to be no more happening with the complaint under Del Ponte than under Arbour, but in late December, in an interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was prepared to press charges against NATO personnel. She replied: "If I am not willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my mission."

The Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO crimes, which Del Ponte was examining, and that the study was an appropriate response to public concerns about NATO's tactics. "It is very important for this tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the armed conflict within the former Yugoslavia."

Was this a sign from heaven that the new millennium was going to be one of more equal justice? Could this really be?

No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the United States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials ... "appalling" ... "unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Her office quickly issued a statement: "NATO is not under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."[17] And there wouldn't be, it was unnecessary to add.

But the claim against NATO -- heretofore largely ignored by the American media -- was now out in the open. It was suddenly receiving a fair amount of publicity, and supporters of the bombing were put on the defensive. The most common argument made in NATO's defense, and against war-crime charges, was that the death and devastation inflicted upon the civilian sector was "accidental". This claim, however, must be questioned in light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO's air war, Lt. Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point during the bombing:

If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you
take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo
[Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic], what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"[18]

General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade."[19]

At another point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea declared: "If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign."[20]

After the April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building -- which housed political parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies, and more -- the Washington Post reported:

Over the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing the hope that members of Serbia's economic
elite will begin to turn against Milosevic once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to
resist NATO demands.[21]

Before missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled out the risks: "Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250 -- Apts in expected blast radius."[22] The planners were saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings might be killed in the bombing, in addition to the government and political party employees.

What do we have here? We have grown men telling each other: We'll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even if B does in fact result, we're saying beforehand -- as we'll insist afterward -- that it was unintended.

The International Criminal Court

Following World War II there was an urgent need for a permanent international criminal court to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, but the Cold War intervened. Finally, in 1998 in Rome, the nations of the world drafted the charter of The International Criminal Court. American negotiators, however, insisted on provisions in the charter that would, in essence, give the United States veto power over any prosecution through its seat on the Security Council. The American request was rejected, and primarily for this reason the US refused to join 120 other nations who supported the charter. The ICC is an instrument Washington can't control sufficiently to keep it from prosecuting American military and government officials. Senior US officials have explicitly admitted that this danger is the reason for their aversion to the proposed new court,[23] although most commonly US government spokespersons speak of "frivolous lawsuits". They know they have no legal or moral argument to explain why the United States and its officials should be exempt from international law and justice, so they insist that all such indictments would be "frivolous" or "politically motivated"; i.e., without sufficient merit to take seriously and undertaken purely out of some perverse anti-Americanism. Their real concern of course is not that charges of war crimes will be made against American civilian and military officials "frivolously", but that they will be made "seriously" and that there are indeed quite a few American officials who would qualify.

But this is clearly not the problem with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It's Washington's kind of international court, a court for the New World Order.

The key human right promoted abroad by the United States is the right to shop. Washington tries to sell the notion that respect for human rights arises organically from free-market economics.

NOTES
1. The New Yorker, June 19, 1995, p.48
2. Washington Post, December 4, 1996, p.1
3. Leonard A. Cole, Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests over
Populated Areas (Maryland, 1990), p.12-14
4. Washington Post, September 21, 1999, p.1
5. United Nations General Assembly Resolution: "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in the region of the Middle East", December 4, 1990, Resolution No. 45/52.
6. New York Times, January 24, 1991, p.11
7. Ibid., March 23, 1991
8. Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, Four Hours in May Lai (Viking, New York, 1992),
p.175, 209-13
9. LA Weekly (Los Angeles), March 9-15, 1990, p.12
10. New York Times, January 9, 1971, p.3
11. Telford Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: an American Tragedy(New York, 1970), p.140-43
12. Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), October 30, 1997, p.15, 20
13. Sunday Telegraph (London), July 18, 1999, interview with Pinochet
14. Washington Post, May 25, 1998, p.B4
15. This and most of the other material concerning the complaints to the Tribunal
mentioned here were transmitted to the author by Mandel and other complainants.
16. Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague, May 13, 1999.
17. The Observer (London), December 26, 1999; Washington Times, December 30 and 31, 1999;
New York Times, December 30, 1999
18. Washington Post, May 24, 1999, p.1
19. New York Times, May 13, 1999, p.1
20. NATO press conference, Brussels, May 25, 1999
21. Washington Post, April 22, 1999, p.18
22. Ibid., September 20, 1999, p.1
23. New York Times, December 2, 1998, p.1; January 3, 2000


http://killinghope.org/ To write to the author: bblum6@aol.com

Comment: If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the river for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Dubya, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"

Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry

March 5, 2006
Team Liberty


In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.
When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration's Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, "Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium - the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders."[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, or as I like to call it, the Fascist Opinion X-change, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs - regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran. The NEO-CON war drumbeaters have already devised their plans for the liberation of the people again, this time Iranian people, and making things all better, just like they have done in Iraq. Scary stuff, but it is true. In preparation, the Bush Administration has primed the mainstream media so effectively that 8 out of 10 Americans believe Iran poises an immediate nuclear threat to the United States. The President's recent and risky travel to regional nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, no doubt also served as a strategic warning to those countries to prepare for the certain public backlash to be expected once the U.S. or Israel begins to drop bombs on Iran.

It is also worth noting that in 2000, the World Bank resumed making loans to Iran. As of June 30, 2004, the World Bank as made 51 loans valued at $2.6 billion to Iran. The World Bank gets its funds from the International Monetary Fund, which in turn, gets its money from member nation dues / contributions. The United States is required to contribute $37.2 billion per year into the IMF. The atrocious Federal Reserve Banking Cartel orchestrated this money scheme so that it can continue to print and loan astronomical numbers of debt notes. If the American people understood that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Congress have been funding many activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, most would be skeptical of the federal government's current claim that Iran's 30 year old, U.S. sanctioned, nuclear program is somehow now an immediate threat to the security of the United States. The IMF and the World Bank create just enough degrees of separation to shield the government from the people recognizing that the federal government has fed the dog well that it now claims will bite if we do not 'put it down' with a pre-emptive strike.

With Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank, one has to wonder if once again the Federal Reserve has positioned itself to fund both sides of a warring conflict. One thing is certain; loaning money to fund both sides of a war is a perfected craft of the member banks of the Federal Reserve, which is interested only in loan collateral and interest payments. Patriotism is not part of the equation. What is most disturbing about the relationship between the Fed, IMF, and World Bank is that the $37.2 billion the U.S. is obligated to pay to the IMF annually, is actually secured by the American taxpayer. We the People, and the ability of the U.S. Congress to confiscate our wealth through that unconstitutional apparatus referred to as a federal income tax, makes loaning money to the Islamic Republic of Iran easy because if Iran defaults on its World Bank loans, the U.S. portions of the loans work their way back to the lender of last resort, which is the U.S. Congress. When the U.S. Congress responds to failed loans and failed banking institutions, they assume responsibility for the loan amount, and pass the burden of repayment onto the American people.

Finally, but very much part of the U.S. government's charade aimed at deceiving the American people into believing that the U.S. has played no part in the development of Iran or its nuclear power programs, is the absolute economic threat that Iran poses to the global value of the U.S. dollar. Unless the U.S. intervenes, on March 20, 2006 the world will have the option of purchasing oil with euros instead of dollars through the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. The Iran Oil Bourse will be the third exchange in which global oil transactions will be executed. While financial analysts debate whether such an exchange operating solely in euros will have the potential to collapse the U.S. economy, the complete silence of the mainstream media regarding this most important untold story can be interpreted as a sign that this suggested economic threat is real. As the Bush Administration has proven itself to be the most dishonest, secretive presidency in the history of the United States, it has repeatedly demonstrated that the truth about its motives and agendas can only be found in what is not being reported to the American people. And if the Iran nuclear threat rhetoric is the firewall that the U.S. government is hiding the U.S. dollar global supremacy behind, than any military action in Iran will be solely on behalf of the member banks of the Federal Reserve - at the expense of American sons and daughters serving in the U.S. military and at the burden of the U.S. taxpayer who is already indebted to the federal government to the tune of $28 thousand, which is each and every American's current share of the Federal Reserve / U.S. Congress banking cartel produced national debt - $28,000 and growing faster than ever!

Here's a patriotic challenge and very American gut check for your consideration: Next time you hold your children and / or grandchildren, look them in the eye and explain to them how they are, right at this very moment, indebted to the federal government of the United States of America, to the tune of $28,000, and then ask yourself how you allowed it to happen. Sobering fact that feels better to ignore, does it not? But hell, we're spreading democracy, right? I don't think so, and hopefully soon, neither will you.



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: The nuclear hypocrites

May 12, 2006
Socialist Worker Online

FOR WEEKS, the mainstream media have been filled with accusations that Iran's nuclear program presents an alarming threat to the U.S. and the world. And a string of U.S. officials are threatening military action against Iran for refusing to "cooperate."

Dick Cheney promised that Iran would suffer "meaningful consequences" if it refused to abandon its nuclear program--words slightly less stark but no less menacing than U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) John Bolton's threat of "tangible and painful consequences."
But the media have ignored some essential facts about the brewing "crisis" between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. is striving to get a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran stop its nuclear program. But the truth is that Iran hasn't violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or any other international obligations.

"Let me remind everybody that nothing Iran is accused of doing is illegal," said Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who challenged the Bush drive to war against Iraq, in an interview last month. "We're condemning Iran for doing that which is permitted under a treaty which it has signed and entered into in force, and has UN inspectors on the ground verifying Iranian compliance."

The NPT explicitly allows nations to enrich uranium to provide energy for civilian power plants. But the U.S. refuses to believe Iran's many pledges that its nuclear facilities are for this purpose and endlessly repeats the claim that Iran could field a nuclear weapon soon.

Iran's announcement in April that it had successfully set up 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium spurred U.S. officials to assert that Iran could produce a nuclear weapons in 16 days--an absurd claim slavishly repeated by the U.S. media.

In reality, Iran would need 16,000 of these centrifuges to refine enough uranium for a weapon--and Iran doesn't have enough uranium for this purpose. Although Iran has indigenous uranium deposits, they are contaminated by the element molybdenum, which Iran does not have the technology to remove.

A more realistic approximation came in the 2005 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which stated that Iran is at least 10 years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. And this assessment depends on two key assumptions--that Iran already has an active nuclear weapons program, and that the "international atmosphere" were conducive to Iran obtaining the necessary raw materials and technical support--neither of which are true.

In an attempt to defuse the controversy around its nuclear program, Iran offered to limit itself to procuring no more than 3,000 centrifuges--an offer that the U.S. refused to accept.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHILE IRAN hasn't violated the provisions of the NPT, the same can't be said of the U.S.

Kennedy-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara declared last year that the U.S. is nothing short of a "nuclear outlaw." "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous," said McNamara.

Since 1999, when the Senate rejected the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the U.S. has developed a new generation of "mini-nukes," also called "bunker busters," which U.S. officials have openly threatened to use against Iran--a clear violation of international law and the NPT.

The U.S. is in flagrant violation of the NPT's provisions calling on nuclear powers "to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery."

According to the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), "Thirty-seven years after agreeing to these conditions, the U.S.--the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against human beings--spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads, 2,000 of which are on hair-trigger alert."

Of that number, the U.S. has some 480 nuclear weapons based in Europe--making it the only nuclear power that still deploys nuclear warheads outside its borders. U.S. war plans include the strategic handover of 180 of these weapons to other non-nuclear countries, such as Germany, Italy and Turkey, for deployment by their militaries--another clear violation of NPT provisions.

And, according to FAIR, "When details of a secret White House planning document, called the Nuclear Posture Review, were leaked in 2002, they revealed that the Bush administration intended to create and test new nuclear weapons, and outlined a broad array of contingencies under which the U.S. might use nuclear weapons.

"Among these contingencies: Using nuclear weapons against countries with no nuclear weapons capacity, such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. (To be fair, Presidential Directive 60, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, had earlier added these countries to nuclear targeting lists, canceling assurances that went back to 1978 that the U.S. would not use nuclear force against a non-nuclear country.)"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE U.S. refusal to consider Iran's proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone exposes what all the U.S. hype about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program is really about.

On the surface, Iran's proposal appears to fit U.S. aims. In fact, the U.S. used UN Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which for "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction" as justification for its 2003 war on Iraq.

But Israel is currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East--with an arsenal of some 300 nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn't want to eliminate nuclear weapons in the Middle East--so long as they remain in the hands of an ally.

That's why the U.S. gave a green light to Iran's nuclear program back in the 1970s, before the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, Muhammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979.

"The White House staffers, who are trying to deny Iran the right to develop its own nuclear energy capacity, have conveniently forgotten that the United States was the midwife to the Iranian nuclear program 30 years ago," wrote nuclear weapons expert William Beeman in January. "Every aspect of Iran's current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976, and the only reactor currently about to become operative, the reactor in Bushire, was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval."

Today, the U.S. faces different circumstances--some of its own making.

The disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq not only failed to cement Washington's hold on the country's huge oil reserves and give it a strategic foothold of the Middle East, but it brought to power Shiite religious parties with ties to Iran's Shiite establishment. This inadvertently strengthened Iran's influence in Iraq and the region, creating fears in the U.S. and among its Arab allies of a "Shiite crescent," stretching from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon and Syria.

So when the U.S. raises alarms about Iran's nuclear program, it's the responsibility of the antiwar movement to raise even louder alarms about U.S. aggression.

"[B]e careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen," said Ritter in an April interview with San Diego CityBeat. "The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change...

"It's the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn't care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam."

The U.S. wants to sell its war in Iran by using the language of nuclear disarmament. But its threats to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike, its support for a nuclear-armed Israel and its own massive nuclear arsenal make the U.S. itself the biggest threat to peace and justice in the Middle East and around the world.



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: Terrorists in Miami, Oh My!

By Robert Parry
06/24/06

The Bush administration finally took action against alleged terrorists living in plain sight in Miami, but they weren't the right-wing Cuban terrorists implicated in actual acts of terror, such as blowing a civilian Cuban airliner out of the sky. They were seven young black men whose crime was more "aspirational than operational," the FBI said.

As media fanfare over the arrests made the seven young men, many sporting dreadlocks, the new face of the terrorist enemy in America, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded that the men had no weapons or explosives and represented "no immediate threat."

But Gonzales warned that these kinds of homegrown terrorists "may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaeda." [NYT, June 24, 2006]

For longtime observers of political terrorism in South Florida, the aggressive reaction to what may have been the Miami group's loose talk about violence, possibly spurred by an FBI informant posing as an al-Qaeda operative, stands in marked contrast to the U.S. government's see-no-evil approach to notorious Cuban terrorists who have lived openly in Miami for decades.
For instance, the Bush administration took no action in early April 2006, when a Spanish-language Miami television station interviewed Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch, who offered a detailed justification for the 1976 mid-air bombing of a Cubana Airlines flight that killed 73 people, including the young members of the Cuban national fencing team.

Bosch refused to admit guilt, but his chilling defense of the bombing - and the strong evidence that has swirled around his role - left little doubt of his complicity, even as he lives in Miami as a free man, protected both in the past and present by the Bush family.

The Bush administration also has acted at a glacial pace in dealing with another Cuban exile implicated in the bombing, Luis Posada Carriles, whose illegal presence in Miami was an open secret for weeks in early 2005 before U.S. authorities took him into custody, only after he had held a press conference.

But even then, the administration has balked at sending Posada back to Venezuela where the government of Hugo Chavez - unlike some of its predecessors - was eager to prosecute Posada for the Cubana Airlines murders.

Summing up George W. Bush's dilemma in 2005, the New York Times wrote, "A grant of asylum could invite charges that the Bush administration is compromising its principle that no nation should harbor suspected terrorists. But to turn Mr. Posada away could provoke political wrath in the conservative Cuban-American communities of South Florida, deep sources of support and campaign money for President Bush and his brother, Jeb." [NYT, May 9, 2005]

Bush Family Ties

But there's really nothing new about these two terrorists - and other violent right-wing extremists - getting protection from the Bush family.

For three decades, both Bosch and Posada have been under the Bush family's protective wing, starting with former President George H.W. Bush (who was CIA director when the airline bombing occurred in 1976) and extending to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and President George W. Bush.

The evidence points to one obvious conclusion: the Bushes regard terrorism - defined as killing civilians to make a political point - as justified in cases when their interests match those of the terrorists. In other words, their moral outrage is selective, depending on the identity of the victims.

That hypocrisy was dramatized by the TV interview with Bosch on Miami's Channel 41, which was cited in articles on the Internet by Venezuela's lawyer José Pertierra, but was otherwise widely ignored by the U.S. news media. [For Pertierra's story, see Counterpunch, April 11, 2006]

"Did you down that plane in 1976?" asked reporter Juan Manuel Cao.

"If I tell you that I was involved, I will be inculpating myself," Bosch answered, "and if I tell you that I did not participate in that action, you would say that I am lying. I am therefore not going to answer one thing or the other."

But when Cao asked Bosch to comment on the civilians who died when the plane crashed off the coast of Barbados in 1976, Bosch responded, "In a war such as us Cubans who love liberty wage against the tyrant [Fidel Castro], you have to down planes, you have to sink ships, you have to be prepared to attack anything that is within your reach."

"But don't you feel a little bit for those who were killed there, for their families?" Cao asked.

"Who was on board that plane?" Bosch responded. "Four members of the Communist Party, five North Koreans, five Guyanese." [Officials tallies actually put the Guyanese dead at 11.]

Bosch added, "Four members of the Communist Party, chico! Who was there? Our enemies..."

"And the fencers?" Cao asked about Cuba's amateur fencing team that had just won gold, silver and bronze medals at a youth fencing competition in Caracas. "The young people on board?"

Bosch replied, "I was in Caracas. I saw the young girls on television. There were six of them. After the end of the competition, the leader of the six dedicated their triumph to the tyrant. ... She gave a speech filled with praise for the tyrant.

"We had already agreed in Santo Domingo, that everyone who comes from Cuba to glorify the tyrant had to run the same risks as those men and women that fight alongside the tyranny." [The comment about Santo Domingo was an apparent reference to a strategy meeting by a right-wing terrorist organization, CORU, which took place in the Dominican Republic in 1976.]

"If you ran into the family members who were killed in that plane, wouldn't you think it difficult?" Cao asked.

"No, because in the end those who were there had to know that they were cooperating with the tyranny in Cuba," Bosch answered.

In an article about Bosch's remarks, lawyer Pertierra said the answers "give us a glimpse into the mind of the kind of terrorist that the United States government harbors and protects in Miami."

The Posada Case

Bosch was arrested for illegally entering the United States during the first Bush administration, but he was paroled in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush at the behest of the President's eldest son Jeb, then an aspiring Florida politician.

Not only did the first Bush administration free Bosch from jail a decade and a half ago, the second Bush administration has now pushed Venezuela's extradition request for his alleged co-conspirator, Posada, onto the back burner.

The downed Cubana Airlines flight originated in Caracas where Venezuelan authorities allege the terrorist plot was hatched. However, U.S. officials have resisted returning Posada to Venezuela because Hugo Chavez is seen as friendly to Castro's communist government in Cuba.

At a U.S. immigration hearing in 2005, Posada's defense attorney put on a Posada friend as a witness who alleged that Venezuela's government practices torture. Bush administration lawyers didn't challenge the claim, leading the immigration judge to bar Posada's deportation to Venezuela.

In September 2005, Venezuela's Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez called the 77-year-old Posada "the Osama Bin Laden of Latin America" and accused the Bush administration of applying "a cynical double standard" in its War on Terror.

Alvarez also denied that Venezuela practices torture. "There isn't a shred of evidence that Posada would be tortured in Venezuela," Alvarez said, adding that the claim is particularly ironic given widespread press accounts that the Bush administration has abused prisoners at the U.S. military base in Guatanamo Bay, Cuba.

Theoretically, the Bush administration could still extradite Posada to Venezuela to face the 73 murder counts, but it is essentially ignoring Venezuela's extradition request while holding Posada on minor immigration charges of entering the United States illegally.

Meanwhile, Posada has begun maneuvering to gain his freedom. Citing his service in the U.S. military from 1963-65 in Vietnam, Posada has applied for U.S. citizenship, and his lawyer Eduardo Soto has threatened to call U.S. government witnesses, including former White House aide Oliver North, to vouch for Posada's past service to Washington.

Posada became a figure in the Iran-Contra scandal because of his work on a clandestine program to aid Nicaraguan contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. The operation was run secretly out of the White House by North with the help of the office of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.

Posada reached Central America in 1985 after escaping from a Venezuelan prison where he had been facing charges from the 1976 Cubana Airlines bombing. Posada, using the name Ramon Medina, teamed up with another Cuban exile, former CIA officer Felix Rodriguez, who reported regularly to Bush's office.

Posada oversaw logistics and served as paymaster for pilots in the contra-supply operation. When one of the contra-supply planes was shot down inside Nicaragua in October 1986, Posada was responsible for alerting U.S. officials to the crisis and then shutting down the operation's safe houses in El Salvador.

Even after the exposure of Posada's role in the contra-supply operation, the U.S. government made no effort to bring the accused terrorist to justice.

Secret History

As for the Cubana Airlines bombing, declassified U.S. documents show that after the plane was blown out of the sky on Oct. 6, 1976, the CIA, then under the direction of George H.W. Bush, quickly identified Posada and Bosch as the masterminds of the Cubana Airlines bombing.

But in fall 1976, Bush's boss, President Gerald Ford, was in a tight election battle with Democrat Jimmy Carter and the Ford administration wanted to keep intelligence scandals out of the newspapers. So Bush and other officials kept the lid on the investigations. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

Still, inside the U.S. government, the facts were known. According to a secret CIA cable dated Oct. 14, 1976, intelligence sources in Venezuela relayed information about the Cubana Airlines bombing that tied in anti-communist Cuban extremists Bosch, who had been visiting Venezuela, and Posada, who then served as a senior officer in Venezuela's intelligence agency, DISIP.

The Oct. 14 cable said Bosch arrived in Venezuela in late September 1976 under the protection of Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, a close Washington ally who assigned his intelligence adviser Orlando Garcia "to protect and assist Bosch during his stay in Venezuela."

On his arrival, Bosch was met by Garcia and Posada, according to the report. Later, a fundraising dinner was held in Bosch's honor during which Bosch requested cash from the Venezuelan government in exchange for assurances that Cuban exiles wouldn't demonstrate during Andres Perez's planned trip to the United Nations.

"A few days following the fund-raising dinner, Posada was overheard to say that, 'we are going to hit a Cuban airplane,' and that 'Orlando has the details,'" the CIA report said.

"Following the 6 October Cubana Airline crash off the coast of Barbados, Bosch, Garcia and Posada agreed that it would be best for Bosch to leave Venezuela. Therefore, on 9 October, Posada and Garcia escorted Bosch to the Colombian border, where he crossed into Colombian territory."

The CIA report was sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, as well as to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, according to markings on the cable.

A Round-up

In South America, investigators began rounding up suspects in the bombing.

Two Cuban exiles, Hernan Ricardo and Freddy Lugo, who had left the Cubana plane in Barbados, confessed that they had planted the bomb. They named Bosch and Posada as the architects of the attack.

A search of Posada's apartment in Venezuela turned up Cubana Airlines timetables and other incriminating documents.

Posada and Bosch were arrested and charged in Venezuela for the Cubana Airlines bombing, but the men denied the accusations. The case soon became a political tug-of-war, since the suspects were in possession of sensitive Venezuelan government secrets that could embarrass President Andres Perez. The case lingered for almost a decade.

After the Reagan-Bush administration took power in Washington in 1981, the momentum for fully unraveling the mysteries of anti-communist terrorist plots dissipated. The Cold War trumped any concern about right-wing terrorism.

By the late 1980s, Orlando Bosch also was out of Venezuela's jails and back in Miami. But Bosch, who had been implicated in about 30 violent attacks, was facing possible deportation by U.S. officials who warned that Washington couldn't credibly lecture other countries about terrorism while protecting a terrorist like Bosch.

But Bosch got lucky. Jeb Bush, then an aspiring Florida politician, led a lobbying drive to prevent the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from expelling Bosch. In 1990, the lobbying paid dividends when Jeb's dad, President George H.W. Bush, blocked proceedings against Bosch, letting the unapologetic terrorist stay in the United States.

In 1992, also during George H.W. Bush's presidency, the FBI interviewed Posada about the Iran-Contra scandal for 6 ½ hours at the U.S. Embassy in Honduras.

Posada filled in some blanks about the role of Bush's vice presidential office in the secret contra operation. According to a 31-page summary of the FBI interview, Posada said Bush's national security adviser, Donald Gregg, was in frequent contact with Felix Rodriguez.

"Posada ... recalls that Rodriguez was always calling Gregg," the FBI summary said. "Posada knows this because he's the one who paid Rodriguez' phone bill." After the interview, the FBI agents let Posada walk out of the embassy to freedom. [For details, see Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & Project Truth.]

More Attacks

Posada soon returned to his anti-Castro plotting.

In 1994, Posada set out to kill Castro during a trip to Cartagena, Colombia. Posada and five cohorts reached Cartagena, but the plan flopped when security cordons prevented the would-be assassins from getting a clean shot at Castro, according to a Miami Herald account. [Miami Herald, June 7, 1998]

The Herald also described Posada's role in a lethal 1997 bombing campaign against popular hotels and restaurants inside Cuba that killed an Italian tourist. The story cited documentary evidence that Posada arranged payments to conspirators from accounts in the United States.

Posada landed back in jail in 2000 after Cuban intelligence uncovered a plot to assassinate Castro by planting a bomb at a meeting the Cuban leader planned with university students in Panama.

Panamanian authorities arrested Posada and other alleged co-conspirators in November 2000. In April 2004, they were sentenced to eight or nine years in prison for endangering public safety.

Four months after the sentencing, however, lame-duck Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso - who lives in Key Biscayne, Florida, and has close ties to the Cuban-American community and to George W. Bush's administration - pardoned the convicts.

Despite press reports saying Moscoso had been in contact with U.S. officials about the pardons, the State Department denied that it pressured Moscoso to release the Cuban exiles. After the pardons and just two months before Election 2004, three of Posada's co-conspirators - Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon and Gaspar Jimenez - arrived in Miami to a hero's welcome, flashing victory signs at their supporters.

While the terrorists celebrated, U.S. authorities watched the men - also implicated in bombings in New York, New Jersey and Florida - alight on U.S. soil. As Washington Post writer Marcela Sanchez noted in a September 2004 article about the Panamanian pardons, "there is something terribly wrong when the United States, after Sept. 11 (2001), fails to condemn the pardoning of terrorists and instead allows them to walk free on U.S. streets." [Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2004]

But a whole different set of standards is now being applied to the seven black terrorism suspects in Miami. Even though they had no clear-cut plans or even the tools to carry out terrorist attacks, they have been rounded up amid great media hoopla.

The American people have been reassured that the terrorists in Miami have been located and are being brought to justice.

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



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: Where Bush's Arrogance Has Taken Us - An illegal war, a long list of eroded rights, and a country run by and for the benefit of corporate campaign donors -- all courtesy of the imperial presidency

By Jim Hightower
Hightower Lowdown
August 23, 2006

During his gubernatorial days in Texas, George W let slip a one-sentence thought that unintentionally gave us a peek into his political soul. In hindsight, it should've been loudly broadcast all across our land so people could've absorbed it, contemplated its portent?and roundly rejected the guy's bid for the presidency. On May 21, 1999, reacting to some satirical criticism of him, Bush snapped: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

Gosh, so many freedoms to limit, so little time! But in five short years, the BushCheneyRummy regime has made remarkable strides toward dismembering the genius of the Founders, going at our Constitution and Bill of Rights like famished alligators chasing a couple of poodles.
Forget about such niceties as separation of powers, checks and balances (crucial to the practice of democracy), the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and open government-these guys are on an autocratic tear. Whenever they've been challenged (all too rarely), they simply shout "war on terror," "commander-in-chief," "support our troops," "executive privilege," "I'm the decider," or some other slam-the-door political phrase designed to silence any opposition. Indeed, opponents are branded "enemies" who must be demonized, personally attacked, and, if possible, destroyed. Bush's find-the-loopholes lawyers assert that a president has the right to lie (even about going to war), to imprison people indefinitely (without charges, lawyers, hearings, courts, or hope), to torture people, to spy on Americans without court or congressional review, to prosecute reporters who dare to report, to rewrite laws on executive whim?and on and on.

Here, we are pleased to give you a sense of the enormity of what Bush & Company are doing under the cloak of war and executive privilege in a handy-dandy poster format.

The War President

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004


* Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577

* What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number"

* Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438

* Number of Americans wounded (a vague term that includes such horrors as brain damage, limb blasted off, eyes blown out, psyche shattered, etc.) in Bush's war:

o Official count: 18,777
o Independent count: up to 48,000

* Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in Bush's war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960

* For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006

more than 100 civilians killed per day

* Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit's advice to Iraqis who see TV reports of innocent civilians being killed by occupying troops: "Change the channel."

* Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82

* Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0

* Number of nations in the world: 192

* Number that joined Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) to invade Iraq: 48
(The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.)

* Number of COW nations that actually sent any troops to Iraq: 39
(Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.)

* Number of the 39 COW nations contributing troops that have since withdrawn them: 17
(An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.)

* Number of COW troops in Iraq: 150,000

* Number of these that are U.S. troops: 139,000

* Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

Follow the Money

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
-"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003

* The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

* As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

* Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

* Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

Bonus Stat!

* Annual salary of Stuart Baker, hired by the Bushites to be the White House "Director for Lessons Learned": $106,641
* Number of lessons that Bush appears to have learned: 0

The Imperial Presidency

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.


Signing Statements

When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past.

Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey.

* Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800
(This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)

A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements:

o a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military

o a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our homes and secretly seize people's private papers

o a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally

o a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without delay" when requested

* Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8

* Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed": Article 2, Section 3

* Name of the young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote a 1986 strategy memo on how to pervert the use of signing statements in order to concentrate more power in the executive branch, as Bush is now doing: Samuel Alito, named to the U.S. Supreme Court by Bush this year

National Security Letters

These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search.

Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself.

* Surely the agents have to get a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court's approval? No

* But to issue an NSL, an agent must show probable cause that the person being searched has committed some crime, right? No

* Well, don't officials have to inform citizens that their records are being seized so they can defend themselves or protest? No

* Number of NSLs issued by various FBI offices last year alone: 9,254

NSA Eavesdropping

In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law.

* Number of Americans who have had their phone and internet communications taken by NSA: Just about everyone!
(NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.)

* In May of this year, the Justice Department abruptly halted an internal investigation that was trying to uncover the name of the top officials who had authorized NSA's warrantless, unconstitutional program. Who killed this probe, which was requested by Congress? George W himself! (He directed NSA simply to refuse security clearances for the department's legal investigators.)

* What happened to NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was the key architect of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program and the one who would've formally denied clearances to Justice Department investigators? In May, Bush promoted him to head the CIA.

* This past May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act of 1917.

* Times in U.S. history this act has been used to go after the press: 0

* Margin by which the U.S. House in 1917 voted down an amendment to make the Espionage Act apply to journalists: 184-144

Interesting Fact:

The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the-Times" political campaign.

Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.

Watch Lists

From the Bushites' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become "The Watched Society."

* Number of data-mining programs being run secretly on us by the federal government: Nearly 200 separate programs at 52 agencies

* Number of "local activity reports" submitted to the Pentagon in 2004 under the "Threat and Local Observation Notice" program (TALON), which directed military officers throughout our country to keep an eye on suspicious activities by civilians: More than 5,000
(They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.)

* Number of official "watch lists" maintained by the feds: More than a dozen run by 9 different agencies

* Number of Americans on the Transportation Security Administration's "No- Fly" list: That's a secret.
(TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.)

* Most famous citizen who is on the No-Fly list and has been repeatedly pulled aside by TSA for additional screenings at airports: Sen. Ted Kennedy

* How can you get your name removed from TSA list? That's a secret.

Name That Guy!

In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government."

Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld!

Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld!

Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him again!

Regime of Secrecy


"Democracies die behind closed doors."
-- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bushites cannot hold deportation hearings in secret


* Increase in the number of government documents marked "secret" between 2001 and 2004: 81 percent

* Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2001: 8.6 million

* Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2004: 15.6 million (a new record)

* Cost to taxpayers of classifying and securing documents in 2004: $7.2 billion ($460 per document)

* Number of previously declassified documents that the CIA tried to reclassify as "secret" under a 2001 secret agreement with the National Archives, even though many had already been published and some date back to the Korean War: 25,315

* Number of different "official designations" the government now has to classify nonsecret information so it still is kept out of the public's reach: Between 50 and 60
(They include such stamps as CBU: Controlled But Unclassified, SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU: Limited Official Use Only.)

* The only vice-president in history who has claimed that he, like the president, has the inherent authority to mark "secret" on any document he chooses: "Buckshot" Cheney

* Number of documents Cheney has classified: That's a secret.
(He claims he does not have to report this to anyone -- not even the president.)

* Of the 7,045 advisory committee meetings held by the Bushites in 2004, percentage that were completely closed to the public, contrary to the clear intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 64 percent (a new record)

* Number of times from 1953 to1975 (the peak of the Cold War) that presidents invoked the "state secrets" privilege, which grants them unilateral power in extraordinary instances literally to shut down court cases on the grounds they could reveal secrets that the president doesn't want disclosed: 4

* Number of times the same privilege was invoked between 2001 and 2006: At least 24

* Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno issued an official memo instructing agencies to release as much information as possible to the public. In October 2001, AG John Ashcroft issued a memo canceling Reno's approach, expressly instructing agencies to look for reasons to deny the public access to information and pledging to support the denials if the agencies were sued.

* 2005 FOIA requests still awaiting a response at year's end: 31 percent
(a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog)

* Median waiting time to get an answer on FOIA request from Bush's justice department: 863 days

Halliburton

"Halliburton is a unique kind of company."
-- Dick Cheney, September 2003

* Total value of contracts given to Halliburton for work in the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" since 2001: More than $15 billion

* Amount that Halliburton pays to the Third World laborers it imports into Iraq to do the work in its dining facilities, laundries, etc.: $6 per 12-hour day (50 cents an hour)

* Amount that Halliburton bills us taxpayers for each of these workers: $50 a day

* Amount that Halliburton bills U.S. taxpayers for:

o A case of sodas: $45

o Washing a bag of laundry: $100

* Halliburton's campaign contributions in Bush-Cheney election years:

o In 2000: $285,252 (96 percent to Republicans)

o In 2004: $145,500 (89 percent to Republicans)
Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99 percent to Republicans)

* Increase in Halliburton's profits since Bush-Cheney took office in 2000: 379 percent

* Halliburton's 2005 profit: $1.1 billion
(highest in the corporation's 86-year history

"Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, September 2003


* Annual payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he's been vice-president:

o 2001: $205,298
o 2002: $162,392
o 2003: $178,437
o 2004: $194,852
o 2005: $211,465

* Cash bonus paid to Cheney by Halliburton just before he took office: $1.4 million

* Retirement package he was given in 2000 after only 5 years as CEO: $20 million

* Number of times in the past two years that Republicans have killed Sen. Byron Dorgan's amendment to set up a Truman-style committee on war profiteering to investigate Halliburton: 3

* Naughty word Cheney used during a Senate photo session in 2004 to assail Sen. Patrick Leahy, who had criticized Cheney's ongoing ties to Halliburton: "Go #@!% yourself.

Jim Hightower is the author of "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush" (Viking Press). He publishes the monthly Hightower Lowdown.

[Editor's Note: The August issue of The Hightower Lowdown contains a poster-sized chart detailing the many grievances, lies and miscues of the Bush Administration. Below is the story in text form, you can also download the full poster from The Hightower Lowdown.]



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford (And his pals): It's the IQ, stupid

Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

His supposed intellectual failings are the butt of countless jokes, but so far the question of George Bush's brainpower hasn't hampered his electoral prospects. Why not? In the latest of his dispatches for G2, former New York Times editor Howell Raines asks how important intelligence really is in an American president.
Pocono Summit, PA. It was here, in the parking lot of Cramer's building supply, only 15 miles from a Nascar racetrack, in a pivotal battleground state, on the back of a battered work van, that we saw the first one. "Somewhere in Texas," the bumper sticker said, "a village is missing its idiot." The next Bush-is-thick sticker showed up at Home Depot on the back of an equally battered pick-up driven by a tough-looking kid dressed for construction work. It said:

BUSH

LIKE A ROCK

ONLY DUMBER

These are signs of the fierce conviction of some voters - and the secret fear of a quieter and perhaps larger group - that George Bush is not smart enough to continue as president. Indeed, if an unscientific survey of bumper stickers, graffiti and letters to the editor in this conservative mountain region of eastern Pennsylvania is an indicator, doubts are spreading, and probably not in a way helpful to the Republicans.

Yet the subject is seldom taken head on by the mainstream newspapers and network news. The discourse about presidential intelligence appears mainly on the internet, in the partisan press, among television comics and at the level of backyard jokes and arguments. The White House has shown a devious brilliance in keeping a contrived debate on John Kerry's "fitness" to be commander-in-chief in the headlines, at the expense of any prolonged journalistic examination of the far more important question of Bush's mental capacity. That uncomfortable question will surely be glossed over when the Republican national convention starts next week in New York.

After four decades of newspapering, including coverage of the "dumb" Ronald Reagan and the "smart" Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, I am not unsympathetic to the problems of reporters and editors trying to inform the public on this touchiest of competency issues. As Richard Reeves commented memorably in a 1976 article comparing Gerald Ford to Bozo the Clown, the rules of conventional journalism make it almost impossible to report that a presidential candidate "had nothing to say and said it badly to a stunned crowd". Big news organisations are captives of our own rules of fairness. Voters are doubly disadvantaged - by a paucity of information in the campaign coverage and by the elusive nature of the evidence about the kinds of intelligence that matter in our leaders.

For example, my generation of White House correspondents was accused of covering up Ronald Reagan's supposed stupidity and his reliance on fictional "facts" derived from Errol Flynn movies and the John Birch Society, the rightwing organisation founded in 1958 to combat the perceived infiltration of communism. In 1981, Clark Clifford, the Democratic "wise man", entertained Georgetown dinner parties with the killer line that Reagan was "an amiable dunce". Twenty years later, we know that Clifford got indicted for bank fraud and the dunce ended the cold war and the entire Soviet era.

This lesson of history raises questions of seeming importance. What is presidential intelligence, and how much does it really matter? Most astute Americans can recite the lists of ostentatiously brilliant presidents who faltered (Wilson, Hoover, etc) and apparent plodders who triumphed (Truman). When I was covering the Reagan White House in 1981, all his top aides were wholesaling Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous comment about FDR possessing "a second-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament". In the end, Reagan confounded scholars, journalists and voters alike. Even so devoted a cheerleader as Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speechwriter, sees him as flawed by "detachment". His diligent and tormented biographer, Edmund Morris, does not even list "intelligence" as an index entry under Reagan, Ronald Wilson. Such entries are also missing from such solid journalistic biographies as those by Lou Cannon and Lawrence Barrett. Morris, in his obituary essay about Reagan in the New Yorker, referred in one paragraph to his instinctive "intelligence" and in the next to his "ignorance".

To be fair, innate intelligence has to do with capability and ignorance to do with variables such as educational opportunity and personal diligence. But the conundrum remains. Is intellect important in presidents? If Americans can't solve the question definitively in the matter of John Kerry and George Bush, we damn sure ought to make an educated guess.

One highly imperfect but salient way to do so is at the level of campaign tactics. Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead. Yet at this point in the campaign, Bush deserves an A or a high B instead of a gentleman's C when it comes to neutralising Kerry's knowledge advantage. That much was apparent even before the campaign got mired in the current argument over the nasty television commercials questioning Kerry's record of heroism as a Swift Boat commander in Vietnam.

Over the course of the summer Bush, or more likely his political adviser, Karl Rove, dictated the subject-matter of the campaign by successfully triggering Kerry's taste for complicated ideas and explanations. Kerry is telling voters that we live in a complex world. Americans know that, but as an electorate, they are not drawn to complexity. Kerry's explanations about his conflicting votes on the Iraq war and how he would have conducted it are wondrous as rhetorical architecture. They are also signs that Bush has trapped him into having the wrong conversation with the voters. Last week, Bush trumped Kerry's intricate explanation of his conflicting votes on funding the Iraq war by going on Larry King Live and saying over and over that a president must be resolute, and that he will be. Meanwhile, his wife Laura seemed to make a sale with the outrageous claim that her husband's restrictions on stem cells are not really hurting medical research.

Whatever his IQ, George Bush as a candidate is a one-trick pony. The story of the campaign so far is that Kerry is letting him get by with his single trick - endless repetitions of "I make a decision; I stick to it; that's what presidents do." As astute an observer as David Broder has written that Bush's twin millstones - the war and a job-losing economy - may bring about his defeat. I'm not so sure, mainly because Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, keep talking about what the White House wants them to talk about instead of messages that the bumper-sticker guys at Cramer's and Home Depot need to repeat to their buddies. They have yet to force Bush outside his one-trick comfort zone.

That pattern continued this week as Rove demonstrated his mastery of the "Willie Horton strategy" perfected by his mentor, the late Lee Atwater. In 1988, Atwater famously destroyed the campaign of Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, with a series of "independent" ads claiming that Dukakis had improperly paroled a convicted rapist and murderer named Willie Horton. This year, wealthy Bush supporters close to Rove have funded a front organisation called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to carry out an "independent" attack on Kerry's well-documented record as a decorated battle commander in Vietnam.

Kerry's demand that Bush condemn the commercial and Bush's hair-splitting refusal to do so dominated the news all week. Bush refers to Kerry's Vietnam service as "noble" while carefully avoiding a specific, direct denunciation of the veterans' grossly misleading ad. There's a good reason for this. The president does not want to identify with these worms who sponsored the ads, but he wants their commercials to keep eating away at the apple of Kerry's much stronger reputation as a warrior.

Happily for the White House, this contrived debate over Kerry's war record diverts voters from a truly important national-security question related to the intellectual capability of the incumbent. Was George W dumb enough to be talked into adopting a flawed strategy for a phoney war by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? The facts and authorship of these blunders are beyond dispute. Cheney and neo-conservative theorists wanted to make war on Iraq, not al-Qaida. Rumsfeld wanted to do it with a much smaller force than the military needed. What we don't know is why Bush went along.

Bush's former press secretary, Karen Hughes, in her awkwardly named book Ten Minutes from Normal, assures us that what "Bush does best of all" is "ask questions that bore to the heart of the matter". She says that during the 2000 campaign, she and a "brilliant" issues staff "never once succeeded" in anticipating all of Bush's penetrating questions. "He has a laserlike ability," Hughes writes, "to reduce an issue to its core."

In regard to Iraq and the war on terror, there's little evidence of such Bush interventions in the public record or the report of the 9/11 Commission. We have been told instead that the then director of central intelligence, George Tenet, misled Bush by assuring him that Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk".

The millions of us who did not witness this and other potentially laserlike interactions must rely on speculation as to how Bush's mind works. The most informative writing I've seen on that score was an essay published over a year ago in the Atlantic Monthly by Richard Brookhiser, the historian and conservative columnist sympathetic to Bush. "Bush has intelligence, energy and humility," he writes, "but does he have imagination?"

Brookhiser goes on to worry that Bush's limited information "habitat" could cut him off from the ideas necessary to feed presidential creativity in activities like running a major war. ("Habitat" is a wonderfully chosen word in that it invokes the territoriality of White House advisers in general. Can we imagine Rumsfeld, the alpha-male advocate of hi-tech warfare, inviting the commander of an armoured division into the cabinet room to tell the president why it's stupid not to take more tanks to Iraq?)

Brookhiser goes on to speak of Bush's reliance on "instinct" and the fact that Bush's religious "faith means that he does not tolerate, or even recognise, ambiguity". The comments sent my memory reeling back to the Reagan campaigns and what the cartoonist Garry Trudeau called "the search for Reagan's brain". Trudeau's meaning, of course, was that Reagan didn't have one, but these days the phrase is to me more evocative of the journalistic gropings of the White House press corps to explain what, if anything, was going on inside that big, smiling, glossy-haired head. In a filing cabinet I had not opened in over 20 years, I found my own attempt - a 6,000-word draft of "reflections" on "Reagan's mind". I had never turned the piece in to my editors at the New York Times because I felt I had not solved the mystery as to the quality of Reagan's intellect.

I was not the first, nor will I be the last writer to break his pick on that stone. But in reviewing what I wrote in 1982 after two years of close observation of Reagan on the campaign trail and in the White House, I saw a couple of points that seemed worth revisiting as Reagan's self-appointed heir seeks a second term. I characterised Reagan as a "political primitive" who valued "beliefs over knowledge" based on verifiable facts. The White House spin was that this was a positive in that it represented "rawbone American thinking". I also noted that Reagan had a "high tolerance for ambiguity" as to the outcome of policies that proceeded from such rough-hewn thought.

That strikes me as a different - less troubling - trait than what Brookhiser sees as Bush's refusal to recognise the mere existence of ambiguity. In general, I've come to feel that what we have in George Bush is a shadowy version of Reagan's strengths and an exaggerated version of his intellectual weaknesses.

In 1982, at the height of my journalistic desire to explain Reagan's brain, I went to see David Gergen, then a presidential assistant in charge of communications. His was not an easy job, since it included such tasks as explaining Reagan's decision to throw thousands of the most disabled Americans off social security assistance. We're not talking "welfare queens" here. We're talking blind people in wheelchairs.

I told Gergen I wanted to write a piece for the sophisticated reader about exactly how Reagan's mind worked. With a twinkle in his eye, Gergen said, "It will be a long, long time before we can have that conversation."

It hardly seems worth the trouble now. Reagan is in the pantheon, and the American nation and its allies and adversaries escaped mutual assured destruction. Now the US is at war in Iraq in a conflict that could yet metastasise into regional strife or global terrorism. We'll never know how much Reagan thought and how much he gambled in regard to security and economics. My guess is the answer would be pretty scary. So for the 150,000 US troops in Iraq, for the 99% of taxpayers who will not get a five-figure windfall, for the millions of urbanites unsettled by talk of suitcase nukes, it's still worth asking how Bush's mind really works.

Comment: By reducing "intelligence" to a single idea, Raines misses the point completely. A predator has the intelligence of the predator. It is a cunning that predicts the moves of the prey. Bush has this form of "intelligence". It is the intelligence of the psychopath. This is not the intelligence of someone who is able to manipulate abstract ideas or who can build complex models of complex situations, playing with several variables at the same time...unless it is for the hunt.

After reading them through, listen to these quotes by clicking on the links. They are rather astonishing. Reading Bush is one thing, but hearing him speak, fumbling, the vacuity, the empty stare of his mouth, is to peer into a, uhh, black hole through your, uhh, ears. Or his ears. My god! We've been contamerated!


You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, uhh, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos, and order, but we -- but we will. -- There's nothing quite like restoring chaos, George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003

Americans are serving and sacrificing to keep this country safe and to bring freedom to others. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this nation resolved to fight terrorists where they dwell. We resolved to arm the terrorist enemy. -- The White House website quietly changed "arm" to "disarm", but forgot to take down the video of the event. Charleston, George W. Bush, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2004

You know, let me let me talk about al Qaeda just for a second. I -- I made the statement that we're dismantling senior management, and we are. Our people have done a really good job of hauling in a lot of the key operators: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi ahh -- Ramzi al Shibh, or whatever the guy's name was. -- Eventually he got around to saying "Binalshibh", George W. Bush, White House, Jul. 30, 2003

The goals for this country are peace in the world. And the goals for this country are a compassionate American for every single citizen. -- Having more trouble with making sense, George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2002

The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats who are friends of America. -- George W. Bush, Fort Hood, Texas, Jan. 3, 2003

You said we're headed to war in Iraq -- I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you. -- Discounting the roles of Congress and an inquisitive press in order to look tough in front of a reporter (and avoid answering the question), George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, Dec. 31, 2002


Oh, yeah. Don't mess with me! I'm the one who decides. Not you! Not Congress!

This next quote is one of our favourites. It is from this past [2004] summer, and the laughter in the audience is laughing at the president, not with him, although that little fact goes right over his head -- or is it right through it?

REPORTER: What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?

DUBYA: Yeah -- tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. It's -- you're a -- you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're -- viewed as a sovereign entity. [Laughter emanates from the audience]

REPORTER: Okay.

DUBYA: And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between -- sovereign entities. -- Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004


More laughter. Funny, charming kinda guy? Look at it in this light:

The fact is, regardless of all studies and new therapies, psychopaths are "hard-wired" for life-long bad behaviour.

Leland M. Heller, M.D., writes that people who have this disorder have symptoms which include lying, cheating, cruelty, criminal behaviour, irresponsibility, lack of remorse, poor relationships, exploitation, manipulation, destructiveness, irritability, aggressiveness, and job failures.

Many do not exhibit criminal behaviour, but act antisocially in socially acceptable professions.

Alcohol makes the disorder worse, and psychopaths are very prone to substance abuse. The causes are often "poor parental discipline, association with "bad" kids, and poor bonding with parents..." [Heller, 75]. But the causes can also be mostly biological.

Another characteristic is their unusual word usage, because they can't distinguish between neutral and emotional words. One psychopathic individual told me that he was "deftly afraid of needles" once, but the word deftly implies "skill." Instead of saying "deathly afraid," he said "deftly," and never noticed it was wrong. (See Hare's book for more interesting examples of this).

Strangely enough, many find the psychopath's verbal deftness quite charming, and psychopaths do tend to talk a lot, especially when they're pouring on the charm. [Psychopathy]


Psychopathy is funny stuff, isn't it? Especially when the psychopath is going to war and making big profits for his backers.

People were nervous during the recession. Then we got attacked, and I'm going to talk a little bit about making America safer. But we got attacked on September 11th. It hurt our economy. In other words, you're in a recession, then we have an attack. -- Well, that makes sense (especially the shift from "we" to "you" and back to "we"), Smoketown, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004


Bush is clear that he isn't affected by the recession: "you" are.

You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta. -- Charlotte, North Carolina, Feb. 27, 2002


Listen to 'em laugh at the joke in the second quote. They're all in on it. They won the "trifecta", stuffing the "winnings" robbed from the US government into their pockets. But then Bush has been the president who says openly what many people have been saying since Marx, that capitalism is war on the working class:

The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production. -- At the signing of the September 11th Commission Bill, Washington, D.C., Nov. 27, 2002


Those weapons of mass production, would those be the ones filling the Earth with useless junk?

But looking at what Bush says seriously, we see he is telling us the truth. He knows that he isn't suffering and that "you" are. He knows that "we are resolved to arm the terrorist enemy". He knows that "it'll take time to restore chaos" in Iraq. These are the signatures left by those who are committed to the downward spiral of evolution, the spiral that leads to sleep, to becoming "One" with matter, not spirit. The truth comes out in a twisted and distorted way, as if the subconscience is speaking, bypassing the brain.

Next we see Bush trying to think on his feet, or is that with his feet.

REPORTER: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
DUBYA: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet. -- I guess we can forget about introspection, too, Prime Time Press Conference #3, White House, Apr. 13, 2004


Poor, ole George. Having to own up to a mistake is just too damn difficult. He has to react without the help of his handlers, alone on the stage. You can feel the panic. He is feeling cornered. "I'm the PRESIDENT!"

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator. -- During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000


Isn't this in fact what is happening right now?



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: Be very afraid

Sam J Noumoff
Al-Ahram Weekly
9 - 15 September 2004

The revival of a Cold War elite committee says a lot about how far Washington's neocons are willing to go to keep Americans in a state of fear and perpetual war.
On 20 July, we were witness to a second resurrection of the "Committee on the Present Danger" (CPD), an organisation with two previous incarnations. Who are these people who seek a third life, and what are their objectives?

The identity of the honorary co- chairs of CPD-III provides a clue as to its orientation: Senators Joseph Lieberman and Jon Kyl. Positioning one member of each of the two major political parties at the helm continues the tradition from earlier committees, CPD-I from 1950 and CPD-II from 1976. This bi-partisan alliance is yet another example which belies the two party system in US politics; there are minimal differences.

What explains this Cold War relic surfacing again? Speculation runs the gamut from the need to find an institutional bastion for the so called "neocons", should George W Bush be defeated in the forthcoming election, to an anchor for the battle of the soul of the conservative movement between the ideologues of US pre-emptive hegemony, such as Norman Podhoretz, Kenneth Edelman and Max Kampelman, and the so- called traditional, pragmatic, less interventionist conservatives, represented by Colin Powell, Alexander Haig, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates.

As CPD-III lays claim to the legacy of its predecessors, let us go back a bit and trace out that heritage.

The common thread of CPD-I, II and III is the perception by elements of the US elite that major threats loom that the general population fails to fully comprehend. This has led, the theory runs, to a dangerous, potentially catastrophic lack of support for what they see as the necessary defensive response. CPD-I was led by Harvard University President James B Connant after his return from his European diplomatic assignment. Parenthetically, one of Connant's lieutenants while in Europe was the father of US presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

With the support of then Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of State Edward R Barnett said it would be necessary to initiate a "psychological scare campaign" directed at the American people. It has been suggested that CPD-I was initiated to preserve the good name of "anti- communism", which was being caricatured by the antics of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The fear was that if McCarthy maintained his dominance of the anti- communist movement it would result in a diminution of the Soviet threat in the eyes of the American people.

CPD-I functioned on the basis of what was then called "ExSET" (Expanding Soviet Empire Theory). Policies flowing from this theory were designed to destabilise the USSR via a military build-up, economic isolation and peripheral insurgencies. It maintained vigorous opposition to any and all Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and II) with the Soviet Union. It took any such talks as a sign of US weakness. Among early members was Jay Lovestone, former leader of the "City College faction" of the American Communist Party who was purged and subsequently became the backbone of anti-communism within the American trade union movement.

CPD-II resurfaced formally in 1976, led by Eugene V Rostow and Paul Nitze, the latter having authored National Security Council document NSC-68, which called for a massive military build up against the Soviets and the maintenance of US global hegemony.

The resurfacing evolved out of a group organised by George Bush Sr, who then headed the CIA, and was authorised by President Gerald Ford. This group was known as "Plan B". The group was led by Richard Pipes and Paul Nitze and included Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, four Generals and the Rand Corporation, among others.

The political anchor of the group was The Coalition for a Democratic Majority, led by right wing hawks of the US Senate from the Democratic Party such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who believed that communism was the great evil and had to be obliterated and replaced by global "democracy", plus Secretary of State Dean Rusk. While the Democrats were in the majority they were joined by those of similar persuasion from the ranks of the Republican Party; the initial number totalling 193 members. To this list were added UN Ambassador Jeanne J Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan, who became a member of the Executive Committee in 1979.

During the administration of President Jimmy Carter, CPD-II considered itself under siege as his foreign policy shifted away from US unilateralism towards what was then characterised as "trilateralism"; a movement originating with the Trilateral Commission of which Carter as governor of Georgia was a member, and where he encountered Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became his national security adviser.

Trilateralism placed a renewed emphasis on strategic consultations between the US, Japan and Europe, and saw arms limitation agreements with the Soviet Union as being in American interests. Both aspects of this policy were seen as anathema by CPD-II. Founding member William R Van Cleave said "arms control had a depressant effect not only on our military programmes but also on our ability to deal with the Soviets. It has totally muddled our thinking." In other words, arms control suggests that we in the "democratic world" accept the existence of the USSR.

The Carter policy was reversed under the first Reagan administration with the inclusion of 33 CPD- II members, with more than 20 of them strategically placed in the national security apparatus. Included in this group were Claire Booth Luce, former ambassador to Italy in the late 1940s and the architect of undermining the impending Communist Party electoral victory in that country. Others included Donald Rumsfeld, Richard V Allen, as national security adviser, and Ray Cline, deputy CIA director, with links to the World Anti-Communist League, and academics such as the University of Pennsylvania's Robert Strasz- Hupe.

Added to this group, under the influence of Jay Lovestone were prominent members of the US trade union movement; the heads of the AFL-CIO, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Iron Workers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Other labour affiliated groups included the A Philip Randolph Institute, the Free Trade Union Institute, the African-American Labor Center, the Asian-American Free Labor Institute, the Bayard Rustin Fund, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Social Democrats of the USA, Freedom House, the International Rescue Committee and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

Not to be left out, the corporate sector was represented by Hewlett- Packard, the Potomac International Corporation, Concept Associates, Goldman-Sachs Investments, Gateway National Bank, Time Inc, Reader's Digest, Digital Recording, Prudential Insurance, Nichols Co, International Bank and Honeywell.

Bringing up the rear, were the think tanks, including the Hudson Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Middle East Institute of Columbia University.

Initial funding came from David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, followed by grants from three foundations linked to Richard Mellon Scaife, of Gulf Oil, totalling $300,000 from 1973 to 1981, from 1984 a sustaining group of 1,100 contributors. If this is any consolation, individual contributions were limited to $10,000 per year.

As can be seen, the skeleton group of the 1950s developed into a full-blown bi-partisan elite of the most bellicose elements within US political life. With the implosion of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s the driving force of many CPD-II members seemed to wane. That the US was elevated to the position of sole remaining superpower was self evident and its hegemony understood by all. NATO under American guidance had broken Yugoslavia, advanced to the borders of European Russia and established a military presence in Central Asia.

Two phenomena combined have led to the third life of CPD. One was the emergence of an increasing divergence within Europe from the tactical and strategic goals of the US, under the slogan of "multi-polarity", joined by a preliminary realignment of China and Russia around the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. To this are added the so-called pariah states of Iran, Syria, Libya, the DPR of Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; a broad and tenuous alliance of states in one way or another hostile to the US. The sole commonality between them is a desire to inhibit US intervention in their domestic polities and dilute the power of its hegemony. This was an irritant to US policymakers, but not sufficient to regenerate the CPD. If we combine this with the totally unanticipated response to the invasion of Iraq, the chemistry seems right.

What has terrified hawks who have morphed into "chicken- hawks" (defined as those prepared to sacrifice others when they themselves avoided military service) is the increasing alienation of the entire Muslim world in tandem with the acts of terrorism from an amorphous adversary under the misnomer "Al-Qaeda". While we have not yet reached the state where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", multiple groups have emerged which reinforce the challenge to US global domination. It is within this context that CPD-III surfaced.

The primary fear of CPD-III's initiators is that a growing anti-war sentiment in the US will weaken America's historical resolve to undertake the arduous task of maintaining its global dominance. As the two honorary chairs of CPD- III, Senators Lieberman (Democrat) and Kyl (Republican) have argued, we must not permit a political undertow (read anti-war sentiment) in the US to "wash out the recent gains" of the invasion of Iraq. CPD-III's line continues: "too many people are insufficiently aware of our enemy's evil worldwide designs which include waging jihad against all Americans and re-establishing a totalitarian religious empire in the Middle East", and the war against it is the "test of our time". In their mission statement it is explicitly stated that reform must be supported "in regions threatening to export terror". It is important to note that regions which do not export terror are not worthy of mention.

Consistent with previous CPDs, support for "decisive victory" must be built against what one of the 41 CPD-III adherents, Frank Gaffney, calls "islamofascism". This is not just a political creed; it has taken on a form of religious zealotry. Kenneth Edelman, another member of the 41-strong CPD-III has argued that it is our duty and destiny to eliminate totalitarian threats from radical Islam, while Midge Decter, a current and past member of CPD, has cautioned that it is time for Americans to understand that they have been chosen by providence.

Until now I have scrupulously avoided mention of a lateral issue of significance -- the Israeli connection to CPD. Six of the 41 current members of CPD-III overlap in membership with the Likud- oriented Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Middle East Forum or the US Committee for a Free Lebanon. The linchpin in this relationship is Michael Ledeen, comrade-in- arms with Oliver North in the Iran-Contra affair, with David Kimche, in the release of US hostages from Lebanon, with Morris Amitay, of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Francesco Pazienza of the Italian secret police, SISMI. Ledeen, a founding member of JINSA who has recently argued for "regime change" in Iran, Syria and Lebanon, holds to the view that violence is the essence of history and boasts that "creative destruction is our [America's] middle name". Currently resident at the right wing think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, he may be characterised as the theologian of the neocons. Parenthetically, he has also called for a purge of "environmental wackos and radical feminazos". It appears clear that the invasion of Iraq, the war on terror, proposed action against Lebanon, Syria and Iran are motivated in large part by the perverse view that Israel is best defended with these policies.

In a recent article by Laura Rozen posted on Altnet, the funding sources for CPD-III are identified. They include Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, Charles and Andrea Bronfman of Seagrams, Bernard Marcus of Home Depot, Leonard Ambramson of US Healthcare, the Judy and Michael Steinhardt Foundation, Dale Feith, father of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, among others. There is an apparent link between these benefactors and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which was initiated to improve Israel's public relations in the US and gain support for the Israeli reaction to the Al-Aqsa Intifada .



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: Who Inserted The Mutated Human Influenza Virus In A Pig In South Korea?

By Bill Sardi
17 March 2005

Also recall the Swine Flu "epidemic" of 1976 which caused President Gerald Ford to call for the mass inoculation of the American people. The Swine Flu vaccination program caused many side effects including Guillain-Barre syndrome which resulted in more deaths than the virus.
And How To Prepare For The Upcoming Influenza Pandemic

Who inserted a mutated version of the human influenza virus in a pig in South Korea? That's what a leading biologist wants to know. Health authorities claim that animal viruses from pigs and poultry are jumping to humans and infecting them, causing some people to die. But it appears somebody is helping the process along.

Nature Magazine, in its February 24 issue, reported that biologist Henry Niman, who works for a biotechnology company, was examining flu viruses' gene sequences that were placed in GenBank, the public database for genetic sequence information. Niman found a strain of human flu virus that was created in 1940 in a London lab by scientists who were experimenting with the virus that caused the global flu pandemic of 1918. The flu sequence, obtained from a pig virus, had been placed in GenBank by researchers at Chungnam National University in Daejon, South Korea. Neither the World Health Organization (WHO) or the South Korean government have commented on Niman's claim. Niman says "the incident raises worrying questions about how the human flu genes got into a virus in a pig." While laboratory accidents may be responsible, Niman wonders if this is evidence of "bioterrorism" at work?

Why is the subject of bioterrorism brought up with the flu? Obviously researchers in communicable disease, vaccines and biological warfare see this is an opportunity to gain attention and funding if they sensationalize this story. But is al Qaeda a real suspect in this emerging flu outbreak in Asia? There appears to be more to this than selfish aggrandizement of scientists' careers or stuffing money into research projects. Are the bio labs themselves the threat, or al Qaeda? Dr. Niman says: "(WHO doesn't) want to think about the fact that it escaped from some lab, which is most certainly what happened."

News stories about germ warfare, that a biological terrorist could unleash a virus of some kind against the world, are now frequently mentioned within reports about the threat of a flu outbreak. A Reuters news report in February of 2005, quoting Interpol, said "the threat of a biological terrorist strike by al Qaeda is very real. If al Qaeda launches a spectacular biological attack which could cause contagious disease to be spread, no entity in the world is prepared for it," said the Reuters report. [Reuters Feb. 22, 2005]

But a terrorist would have some cause, some homeland, some family roots to protect. A virus can encircle the globe and kill indiscriminately. Only a psychotic would spread such a weapon. Terrorists can plant dynamite sticks and blow up buses loaded with passengers, even aircraft in the sky. But they need a laboratory and sophisticated knowledge and equipment to create mutated flu viruses. A worldwide flu pandemic is more likely to escape from an existing laboratory that conducts viral experiments than any alleged terrorist group. That's what caused the brief SARS virus outbreak, which was traced back to a laboratory worker in China. "Patient zero," a professor working on viral strains that cause influenza, transported the SARS virus from Guangzhou to Hong Kong on the way to a wedding. He later succumbed to the virus.

Swine Flu Revisited?

Few reporters dare bring up the possibility that the threat of an impending epidemic is being used for unrevealed political agendas. Recall that the world sat on edge as news reporters declared the SARS virus was on its way to becoming a global pandemic. SARS fizzled and killed only about 812 people worldwide. For comparison, seasonal influenza in the US kills thousands, mostly older adults. Also recall the Swine Flu "epidemic" of 1976 which caused President Gerald Ford to call for the mass inoculation of the American people. The Swine Flu vaccination program caused many side effects including Guillain-Barre syndrome which resulted in more deaths than the virus. The Swine flu itself dissipated and was not a major influenza outbreak. Why is the news media drumming up such public anxiety in such a concerted fashion? Is this a re-run of the Swine flu episode?

A small number of people in Asia where there is close contact with animals, died due to a dreaded flu virus known as H5N1, believed to be the strain that caused the flu pandemic of 1918 that killed millions worldwide. The bigger concern is that a mutated flu virus may have found a way to be transmitted from human to human. So far, as of early 2005, less than 100 people in Asia have tested positive for the influenza A H5N1 strain. It's as if public health authorities are disappointed the infection hasn't widened. [...]

Credibility of Public Health Agencies in Question

The credibility of governmental health gencies is waning. Predicting an epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control has been calling on the public to received flu shots for the 2004-2005 flu season, but when the supply of flu vaccine was interrupted by contamination problems at a manufacturing plant, no overwhelming epidemic resulted. It's obvious the CDC is hyping the flu threat to get the vaccine sold and get the manufacturers off the hook for losses occurring from unused vaccine.

Furthermore, a study now shows that flu shots for the elderly have not saved lives. [Arch Intern Med 2005 165:265-72, 2005] The CDC also called for toddlers under the age of two years to be vaccinated against influenza for the first time this year. But researchers now say there is "no good science" to back such a vaccination program. [Lancet 365:773-80, 2005] How long will the public go on believing public health agencies with these types of embarrassments?

CDC has had time to prepare for a worldwide flu outbreak, but continues to say the world is unprepared. Somebody ought to lose their job over this lack of preparation. Laurie Garrett, author of The Coming Plague (1994) says CDC Epidemiologic Intelligence Office Karl Johnson MD, presided over an event in 1989 called viral "war games." Health authorities have been practicing for more than 5 years but continue to say they are unprepared.

A Hidden Population Control Agenda?

People are asking, what's the real agenda behind the flu pandemic scare? There is worldwide public discussion that the anticipated flu pandemic is being hatched by plan in order to curb the size of the world human population. According to the United Nations, the world's population will increase by 40 percent, from 6.0 to 9.1 billion by the year 2050. Virtually all of the growth will come in the developing world, especially the 50 poorest countries. [United Nations Feb. 25, 2005]

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was wrong. He predicted an ever multiplying human population that grew exponentially. But in developed countries, population size is stagnant, particularly in Japan, the US, and Western Europe. Furthermore, Malthus couldn't have foreseen the tremendous increase in agricultural productivity. Malthus' theory was that the world would run out of resources as population multiplied.

The question is, could population controllers intentionally introduce germs to selectively cull the size of human populations? Even if released by accident, the consequences could be so disastrous that laboratory experiments like these should be outlawed. Viruses strike harder in undeveloped lands. The developing world has the poorest nutrition and is more vulnerable to infection and mortality.

There is some public discussion that the world has to return to the plagues of old to control population size. Much of this thinking emanates from Darwinism, a mentality of "survival of the fittest" that permeates biology today. Those who aren't fit won't survive. It's all part of evolution, so they say. But being fit from an immune standpoint depends largely upon the nutritional state of any population.

Moreover, there is suspicion that worldwide restrictions on the dose of essential vitamins and minerals in dietary supplements by CODEX, a United Nations food standards and trade organization, is somehow timed to coincide with the release of a virus that could eradicate millions of people. Undernourished people are more vulnerable to infection.

One of the telling facts that reveal health authorities are manipulating the public and softening them up for a flu pandemic is the absence of any real preventive measures outside the control of public health authorities.

Comment: Another of Gerry's efforts to "Heal the Nation."

Comment on this Article


Gerald Ford's Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up

by Don Fulsom
November 11, 2006

At approximately 12:30 p.m. on Nov. 22 1963, in Dallas's downtown Dealey Plaza, a large and friendly crowd lined the street, cheering and waving excitedly at the approaching presidential motorcade. Riding in the third car - an oversized Lincoln with its Plexiglas "bubble" top removed - were President John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jackie, and Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie. As the limousine carrying the Connallys and the Kennedys wound its way through the hospitable crowds, Nellie Connally turned to President Kennedy, who was seated behind her, and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Then the shots rang out.
Today, more than four decades later, the details on specifically how and by whom President Kennedy was assassinated are still open to question.

According to the report of the Warren Commission, released in September 1964 after a full year investigation, one single shooter - Lee Harvey Oswald - killed Kennedy and wounded Gov. Connally by firing three bullets from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

The most significant documentary record of President Kennedy's assassination, however, is the famous 8mm home movie taken that day by Dallas dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder. It seems to show Kennedy reeling from shots fired from more than one location. The film's apparent crossfire causes one to conclude that there were several gunmen - and a conspiracy. The number of shots reportedly heard by witnesses ranges from two to more than eight.

The most important eyewitness to the assassination was Gov. Connally. Questioned by Warren Commission counsel and now-U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission solidly supports the Zapruder film:

Mr. Specter: In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?

Gov. Connally: The second one.

Mr. Specter: And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Gov. Connally: Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot ... and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.


Gov. Connally's vivid memories of those horrific moments never changed. And they fit a more-than-three-bullet scenario. Connally firmly believed different bullets struck him and President Kennedy. In a later interview for a TV program, Connally recalled hearing a rifle shot over his right shoulder "because that's where the sound came from." He said he saw "nothing out of the ordinary," and was in the process of turning to look over his left shoulder "when I felt a blow in the middle of my back as if someone had hit me with a double-fist ... it bent me over and I immediately saw I was covered with blood and I knew I'd been hit, and I said, 'Oh my God, they're going to kill us all.'" Connally then heard another shot and said, "I knew that the President had been fatally hit, because I heard Mrs. Kennedy then, I heard her say, 'My God, I've got his brains in my hands.'"

In a separate comment, Connally said, "There were either two or three people involved, or more, in this - or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."

Gov. Connally's insistence that he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that killed President Kennedy clearly contradicts the Warren Commission's lone-killer conclusion that a single bullet - fired by an old Italian-made mail-order rifle - hit both men.

The 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Depository and was originally identified as a 7.65 mm German Mauser. The Italian weapon, then nearly 20 years old, had a terrible reputation. The October 1964 issue of Mechanix Illustrated described the rifle as "crudely made, poorly designed, dangerous and inaccurate."

The commission said the first shot struck the President in the base of his neck and exited from his throat. This very same bullet then proceeded to hit Connally in the back, shattering his fifth rib. The bullet then emerged from the governor's chest, passed through his right wrist - breaking several bones - and finally came to rest in the his left thigh. This is known as the single or "magic" bullet- magic because it inflicted so many wounds, broke so many bones, yet still wound up - in nearly perfect condition - on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

The Warren Commission uncovered "no credible evidence that any shots were fired from the Triple Underpass (near the grassy knoll), ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location."

This determination was intended to support the scenario that Oswald could have fired the purported number of shots within an allotted timeframe - and that one of the bullets fired that fateful day hit both the president and the governor.

Despite this public assertion, JFK assassination expert Anthony Summers emphasizes most of the commission's seven members had private doubts about the theory: "John McCloy had difficulty accepting it. Congressman Hale Boggs had 'strong doubts.' Senator John Sherman Cooper was, he told me (Summers) in 1978, 'unconvinced.' . . . On a recently released tape, held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, (Sen. Richard) Russell is heard telling President Johnson, 'I don't believe it.' And Johnson responds, 'I don't either.'"

In fact, many of the Warren Commission's conclusions do not agree with the evidence it collected. As Facts on File points out: "Of the 266 known witnesses to the assassination, the commission questioned 126. Of these, 51 thought the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll, 32 said that they came from the Texas School Book Depository. Thirty-eight did not offer an opinion, but most of these witnesses were not asked. The remaining five thought the shots came from more than one location."

Those who thought shots came from the grassy knoll seem to be supported by NBC cameraman Dave Weigman's herky-jerky 16mm film of the assassination scene. With his camera rolling, Weigman jumped out of the seventh car in the JFK motorcade and ran up to the knoll. Experts who made a frame-by-frame examination of Weigman's film say it clearly shows puffs of smoke coming from bushes at the top of the knoll.

Dallas County deputy constable Seymour Weitzman also ran toward the top of the grassy knoll - where he found a man carrying Secret Service identification. Weitzman later identified this man as Bernard Barker, a CIA asset and the future Watergate burglar who would lead the four-man contingent of Cuban-born Watergate burglars from the Miami area. Barker was an expert at surreptitious entries, planting bugs and photographing documents. He was a close associate of Florida Mafia godfather Santos Trafficante, and of Mob-connected Key Biscayne banker Bebe Rebozo - Richard Nixon's bosom buddy.

Barker was a veteran CIA asset. Along with JFK assassination suspects Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and David Ferrie, he had helped plan the unsuccessful 1961 CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba, a mission fathered by Vice President Richard Nixon. The actual invasion was finally carried out at the Bay of Pigs under President Kennedy. The CIA recruited the Mafia to kill Cuban President Fidel Castro at about the same time the exile invaders waded ashore.

Barker's day job was a real estate agent on Key Biscayne. And he was a close friend and neighbor of fellow CIA asset Eugenio Martinez - the Watergate lock-picker. Martinez's real estate firm had extensive dealings with Bebe Rebozo, and had brokered Nixon's purchase of a house on Biscayne Bay.

In the immediate aftermath of the Watergate arrests, President Nixon was anxious about his pal Rebozo's vulnerabilities. On White House tapes released many years later, after hearing that Howard Hunt's name turned up in two of the burglars' address books, Nixon had a question for his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman: "Is Rebozo's name in anyone's address book?" Haldeman answers, "No ... he (Rebozo) told me he doesn't know any of these guys." Sounding rather dumbfounded, the president responds: "He doesn't know them?"

If Weitzman was correct in fingering Barker, the CIA man would have had no trouble obtaining Secret Service credentials. CIA operatives have a way of coming up with badges and other items to suit their various goals (As a Nixon White House spy, Howard Hunt once wore a speech alteration device and a red wig to a secret encounter.)

Barker wasn't the only future Watergate conspirator to reportedly show up in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Under oath, CIA operative Morita Lorenz placed CIA agents Hunt and Frank Sturgis at the assassination scene.

This claim was bolstered by two other local law enforcement officers who reported encountering men on the grassy knoll who identified themselves as Secret Service agents - yet the Secret Service maintained that none of its agents were in Dealey Plaza right after the shooting.

For the record:

* Deputy Constable Weitzman told the Warren Commission he encountered "other officers, Secret Service as well" on the grassy knoll. In 1975, he told reporter Michael Canfield the man he saw produced credentials and told him everything was under control. He said the man had dark hair, was of medium height, and was wearing a light windbreaker. When shown photos of Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker, Weitzman immediately pointed at Barker, saying, "Yes that's him." Just to make sure, Canfield asked, "Was this the man who produced the Secret Service credentials?" Weitzman responded, "Yes, that's the same man."

* Dallas patrolman J. M. Smith also ran up the grassy knoll. At the top, he smelled gunpowder. Encountering a man, he pulled his pistol from his holster. "Just as I did, he showed me he was a Secret Service agent ... he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was."

* In the mid-70s, Dallas police sergeant David Harkness told a House committee, "There were some Secret Service agents there - on the grassy knoll - but I did not get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service."

* According to a Secret Service report in the National Archives, "All the Secret Service agents assigned to the motorcade stayed with the motorcade all the way to the hospital, none remained at the scene of the shooting."


In the years following the Warren Commission Report, its findings have been repeatedly questioned. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations suggested that at least two gunmen were involved, and that the probable assassination conspirators were Mafia-connected.

Later, two top committee staffers, G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, concluded that the assassination was planned and implemented by Mob bosses; that there were two shooters; and that Lee Harvey Oswald was silenced - on Mafia orders - by mobbed-up Dallas striptease club owner Jack Ruby.

In 1998, a review board appointed by President Bill Clinton found nothing in secret JFK assassination records to bolster the single-bullet theory. In fact, as the Assassination Records Review Board went out of business, it complained that records of the post-mortem examination of President Kennedy's body were incomplete. Such records could have cleared up mysteries about Kennedy's head wound, or wounds, and helped determine whether he was shot from the front.

In its final report, the review board said: "There have been shortcomings that have led many to question not only the completeness of the autopsy records of President Kennedy, but the lack of a prompt and complete analysis of the records by the Warren Commission."

While it collected and released thousands of previously secret government documents, the board also expressed worry that "critical records may have been withheld" from its scrutiny. It stressed that it was not able to secure "all that was out there."

In 2005, appearing at a scholarly symposium, assassination expert Dr. Jack Gordon went over doctors' statements from the hospital in Dallas where Kennedy was taken after the shooting. Gordon produced quotes from nine doctors who gave the same description of a huge softball size hole in occipital-parietal region of Kennedy's skull, and one nurse who said, "in layman's terms, 'One large hole, back of his head.'" This contradicts the official story that the back of the head was completely intact.

With all of these contradictions emerging - both during the Warren Commission hearings and in the aftermath of its final report - one has to wonder how the Warren Commission managed to arrive at the conclusions it did.

A key edit in the Warren Report may have helped. The report's first draft said: "A bullet had entered his [President Kennedy's] back at a point slightly below the shoulder to the right of the spine." Had that stood, the trajectory would have made it impossible for the bullet that struck Kennedy to come out his neck, and then somehow critically wound Connally.

Newly released documents show, however, that Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the wound and place it higher in Kennedy's body. Ford wanted the wording changed to: "A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." The panel's final version was: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

This crucial change only came to light in 1997, when the Assassination Record Review Board released handwritten notes made by Ford that had been kept by J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's chief counsel. Ford's change is even at odds with his own declaration in the Oct. 2, 1964 issue of Life: "I personally believe that one of these three shots missed entirely - but which of the three may never be known. I believe that another bullet struck the president in the back and emerged from his throat (and went on to strike Connally.)"

When the alteration was brought to Ford's attention in 1997, he said it "had nothing to do with (thwarting) a conspiracy theory" and was made "only in an attempt to be more precise." Assassination researcher Robert Morningstar, however, called the change "the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report." He pointed out that if the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have gone on to strike Connally the way the commission said it did. Morningstar contended that the effect of Ford's editing suggested that a bullet hit the president in the neck - "raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins."

Ford's alteration supports the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Harold Weisberg, a longtime critic of the Warren Commission's work, said: "What Ford is doing is trying to make the single bullet theory more tenable."

Cyril Wecht, president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, is among many pathology experts who find this theory unacceptable: "The angles at which these two men [Kennedy and Connally] were hit do not permit a straight-line trajectory (or near straight line trajectory) of commission exhibit 339 (the so-called magic bullet) to be established. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. In order to accept the single-bullet theory, it is necessary to have the bullet move at different vertical and horizontal angles, a path of flight that has never been experienced or suggested for any bullet known to mankind."

A member of the House investigating committee's forensic pathology panel, Wecht remains a passionate opponent of the Ford theory. He has also been a consultant on a number of other high-profile cases, including the deaths of Elvis Presley, JonBenet Ramsey, Laci Peterson and - most recently - the 20-year-old son of model Anna Nicole Smith.

Former Texas First Lady Nellie Connally - who died in 2006 at the age of 87 - rediscovered her assassination diary in 1993. When Newsweek published it in 1998, the magazine said the diary "reaffirms the Connallys' verdict that the Warren Commission was wrong in concluding that a single bullet passed through JFK's neck and Connally's chest." Noting the commission's finding that one bullet missed the car, the magazine added: "Some conspiracy theorists argue that if three (Author's note: the commission said only two bullets hit the two men) bullets hit their targets, and an additional bullet missed, then there must have been a second gunman: nobody could have fired so many rounds so quickly."

After a two year probe costing taxpayers $5.5 million, House investigators concluded in 1978 that President Kennedy's murder was "probably . . . the result of a conspiracy," and that there was a strong possibility of a shot from the grassy knoll, meaning that two gunmen must have fired at the president within split seconds of each other. In 2001, a peer-reviewed article in Science and Justice determined there was a 96.3 percent chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll to the right of the president's limousine.

The author of the new analysis, JFK assassination researcher D. B. Thomas, believes this was the shot that killed the president.

G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel of the House investigation, called the new study "an honest, careful scientific examination of everything we did, with all the appropriate statistical checks." And he said it "increased the degree of confidence that the shot from the grassy knoll was real, not static (contained on a police dicta-belt of the sounds in Dealey Plaza that day.)"

In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board released a strong clue that more than three shots were fired at President Kennedy.

The cover of an empty FBI evidence envelope - dated Dec. 2nd 1963 - noted that it had once held a 7.65 mm rifle shell that was found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. The discovery of a fourth bullet shell, therefore, supports the acoustical evidence cited by the House committee, as well as all of the eyewitness reports of a shot from the grassy knoll.

What motivation did Congressman Gerald Ford have for misrepresenting the placement of the President's back wound? For one thing, he had strong personal ties to the staunchest official advocate of the lone-assassin theory, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Hoover had proclaimed Oswald was the lone killer long before the Warren Commission had even been appointed. On the very afternoon of the assassination, the FBI chief issued an internal memo stating that Dallas police "very probably" had Kennedy's killer in custody. In the memo, Hoover described Oswald as being "in the category of a nut and the extremist pro-Castro crowd . . . an extreme radical of the left."

Hoover may have wanted Oswald identified as the sole killer to protect himself. Some JFK assassination experts are convinced Hoover knew about the plot to murder the president in advance and helped cover it up. In his 1992 book Act Of Treason, researcher Mark North contends that - as the result of covert FBI surveillance programs against the Mafia - Hoover learned of the plot in September 1962.

North said Hoover found out that the family of New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello "had, in order to prevent its own destruction (through prosecutorial pressure resulting from the [Kennedy] administration's war on organized crime), put out a contract on the life of John F. Kennedy ... Hoover did not inform his superiors within the Justice Department, or warn the Secret Service . . . (Hoover) did this because JFK had made it known that he intended . . . to retire the director . . ."

Former CIA operative Robert Morrow agreed that Hoover had learned in advance of both the contract on JFK and the ensuing plot to assassinate him. In a 1992 book, Morrow said the contract "called for the assassination of the president prior to November 4, 1964 (Author's note: the date of the next presidential election), and was clearly the directive of New Orleans crime boss Carlos Marcello."

Gerald Ford was so close to Hoover that he served as the FBI director's informant while he was on the Warren Commission. This is confirmed by an internal FBI memo of Dec. 12, 1963. Written to Hoover by his deputy Cartha DeLoach, it says: "Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the commission. He stated that would have to be done on a confidential basis; however, he thought it had to be done." The Washington Post disclosed the memo in 1991. Newsweek had earlier described Ford as "the CIA's best friend in Congress."

Hoover biographer Curt Gentry concurs that Ford was Hoover's informant on the commission. In fact, in his 1991 book J. Edgar Hoover, Gentry notes that the Hoover-Ford connection went back a number of years. Discussing the FBI's "favored politicians," the author said such people "were warned who their opponents would be, what background they had, and what skeletons might be hidden in their closets. In some cases, they were even elected with the FBI's help. Impressed with a young congressional hopeful in Michigan, the bureau in 1946 arranged support for Gerald Ford, who then expressed his thanks in his maiden speech in the House by asking for a pay raise for J. Edgar Hoover."

Not only was Ford leaking the commission's deliberations to Hoover, but on the eve of the publication of the Warren Report, he rushed to publicly endorse its coming finding that Oswald was solely to blame for Kennedy's murder. In the Oct. 2, 1964 issue of Life, he stressed that the "sorely disturbed" Oswald's "faith in Communism and the writings of Karl Marx" made him "look to Cuba as the as the place where ... his shadowy philosophical theories might possibly come to fruit."

Hoover's man on the commission added, "there is not a scintilla of credible evidence" to suggest a conspiracy to kill JFK, adding, "The evidence is clear and overwhelming: Lee Harvey Oswald did it. There is no evidence of a second man, of other shots, of other guns. There is no evidence to suggest that Oswald went to work at the Depository for the long-range purpose of killing the President, that Jack Ruby knew Oswald before he killed him, or that either of them knew Officer Tippit (the Dallas policeman who was killed the afternoon of the assassination).

Why did this future president think if was necessary to declare his belief in Oswald's guilt just before publication of the commission's report? Was he acting in league with his friends at the CIA and the FBI to give advance support to what he knew would be the report's lone-killer conclusion? Almost certainly, the answer is "yes." Especially when you consider the fact that the man most responsible for placing Ford on the commission - President Richard Nixon - later described the "Oswald did it by himself scenario" as "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Nixon's assertion - contained in a tape of an Oval Office conversation with aide Bob Haldeman - was not made public until 2002.

Hoover himself helped promote the commission's finding two days before the Warren Commission was even formed. He personally ordered a leak to United Press International that resulted in a worldwide wire story that began: "WASHINGTON - An exhaustive FBI report now nearly ready for the White House will indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone and unaided assassin of President Kennedy, government sources said today."



Comment on this Article


Remembering Gerald Ford: Ford's legacy is Cheney and Rumsfeld

Jon Wiener
The Nation
December 27, 2006

Gerald Ford is gone, but he lives on in two of his key appointees: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Their impact on America today is greater than Ford's, who died Tuesday at 93.

Ford appointed Rumsfeld his chief of staff when he took office after Nixon's resignation in 1974. The next year, when he made the 42-year-old Rumsfeld the youngest secretary of defense in the nation's history, he named 34-year-old Dick Cheney his chief of staff, also the youngest ever.

Those two Ford appointees worked together ever since.
The Bush White House assertion of unchecked presidential power stems from the lessons they drew from their experience of working for the weakest president in recent American history. "For Dick and Don," Harold Meyerson wrote in The American Prospect last July, "the frustrations of the Ford years have been compensated for by the abuses of the Bush years."

Ford also named a new head of the CIA -- a former Texas congressman named George H. W. Bush. Thus you could also credit also Ford with launching the Bush dynasty.

It was during Ford's presidency that the last Americans left Vietnam -- that photo of them struggling to get into that chopper on the roof of the Saigon embassy remains our most powerful image of American defeat, and it shadows our current debate about how to get out of Iraq.

Ford did leave one positive legacy, as Meyerson reminds us: his supreme court appointee, John Paul Stevens. Few remember it today, but when the Court majority appointed Bush president in December, 2000, Stevens wrote a blistering dissent, damning the other Republican appointees for their blatant partisanship. And this year Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld declaring that the military tribunals at Guantanamo violated the Geneva Convention.

But we wouldn't need Stevens if we didn't have Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush -- that's the legacy of Gerald Ford.



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