Globalism with Combat Boots

Editor's note: I moving to post at the secondary blog.
See last Friday's stories at the overflow blog.

---
Views > April 19, 2007

By Salim Muwakkil

America's new Africa initiatives might be characterized as globalism with combat boots, though it's the same old story with the well-worn plot of Western hegemony.

The United States launched a deadly air attack against Somalia last February, using the war on terror as a pretext. The bombings, which killed scores of civilians, were in support of an Ethiopian invasion to oust a Somalieregime composed of “Islamic militants” considered hostile to Ethiopia and reportedly sought by the United States.

A convergence of Ethiopian and American interests provoked the air attack that helped rout this leadership, the so-called Islamic Courts movement, and endangered thousands of Somali lives. But it failed to turn-up the targeted Islamic militants. Continuing attempts to flush them out has produced what some critics have called an “African Guantánamo.”

According to an April 5 Associated Press story, “human rights groups say hundreds of prisoners, including women and children, have been transferred secretly and illegally to the prisons in Ethiopia” and interrogated by CIA and FBI agents. The bombings were part of “an on-going operation of air strikes in southern Somalia” to support Ethiopia’s struggle against fighters tied to al-Qaeda, a Pentagon spokesman said in explaining the deadly attacks. For five years, the U.S. military has operated a regional task force based in Djibouti designed ostensibly to prevent al-Qaeda sympathizers from gaining a foothold on the Horn of Africa. Last year, the Bush administration announced an enormous expansion of Camp Lemonier, the U.S. military base in Djibouti.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the Bush Administration’s bombing of Africa is the lack of any real public discussion in this country. The silence of African-American leadership is especially troubling. Aside from Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.), very few black politicians have even raised the issue. “I think the policy is wrong,” Payne told me when I asked him about the bombing of Somalia. It just “shows a misguided policy in Africa in particular, and the world in general,” he said.

John Prendergast and Colin Thomas-Jensen, two members of the International Crisis Group, argue in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs that the Bush administration’s singular focus on stemming terrorism, “is overshadowing U.S. initiatives to resolve conflicts and promote good governance—with disastrous implications for regional stability and U.S. counterterrorism objectives themselves.”

And while the Greater Horn of Africa (which includes the Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda) has attracted the most public attention, the U.S. also has operations in Algeria, Angola, Chad, Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal and other locations.

The U.S. military presence in Africa has been increasing for many years but wasn’t officially acknowledged until Feb. 7, when President George W. Bush announced a new Pentagon command for the entire continent called AFRICOM. The new command, scheduled to start operation by October 2008, “will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” Bush said.

AFRICOM eventually will encompass the entire continent—except Egypt—and include the islands of Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe (in the Gulf of Guinea, where the United States is building another large base). This region will become increasingly important to the United States for reasons made clear in press reports on the AFRICOM proposal: “The U.S., the world’s biggest energy consumer, also hopes the Gulf of Guinea region in West Africa will provide up to a quarter of its oil imports within a decade.”

West Africa has about 60 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and its oil is the low sulfur, sweet crude that petroleum refiners prize. Experts predict that one in every five new barrels of oil entering the global economy in the latter half of this decade will come from the Gulf of Guinea. Nigeria already supplies the U.S. with 10 percent of its imported oil and Angola 4 percent. The continent is also rich in bauxite, diamonds, gold, uranium and a stunning variety of other useful minerals.

The buildup of U.S. forces is often justified as necessary, both to fight the threat of terrorism and to counter growing instability in the continent’s resource-rich regions—to guard against so-called “failed states.”

China’s growing influence in Africa is another reason the United States is anxious to assert a military presence. The burgeoning economic growth of the world’s largest nation has produced a desperate need for Africa’s natural resources and a vigorous rivalry with the West for influence.

America’s new Africa initiatives are driven by the same concerns as the imperialism of the past: unrestricted access to the continent’s resources and geopolitical advantage over perceived enemies. Today it might be characterized as globalism with combat boots, though it’s the same old story with the well-worn plot of Western hegemony.

Once, the enemy was Communism; now it’s Terrorism. But the real enemy is an independent Africa.

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and an op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community.

Who will be hardest hit by a US slowdown?

18.04.2007

By Stephen Roach

The global debate is endless (fortunately), but it’s also very simple. The key question is whether the current US slowdown has broader cross-border consequences. For financial markets, which are still discounting relatively sanguine global growth prospects for 2007-08, there is great enthusiasm for the ever-optimistic decoupling scenario – whereby the rest of the world miraculously untethers itself from the US. That remains a real stretch, in my view.

On the surface, the latest global trends seem quite consistent with a decoupling scenario. America has slowed but the rest of the world has picked up. In particular, there seems to have been a meaningful shift in the mix of growth in the industrial world. The US economy has downshifted from 3.4% growth over the 2003-05 period to only about 2% over the past year while trend growth in Europe and Japan has accelerated from around 1.5% to 2.5%.

Never mind that the improved pace in Europe and Japan is only a scant faster than the weakened trend now evident in the US. The decoupling crowd rests its case on the “second derivatives” – the juxtaposition of a deceleration in the US compared with acceleration elsewhere in the industrial world. China and India are the icing on the cake – emblematic of a seemingly open-ended boom in the developing world that remains unscathed by the US slowdown. The case for global decoupling concludes that world GDP growth – which surged at a 30-year high of 4.9% over the past four years – will barely skip a beat in 2007. Little wonder that financial markets are priced for a continuation of what many call the best global economy in a generation.

World economy yet to face a legitimate test

The fly in the ointment in this debate is that it may well be that an increasingly integrated world economy has yet to face a legitimate decoupling test. The US may have slowed but the downshift hardly represents a major derailment of the world’s major growth engine. Moreover, the deceleration has been concentrated in one of the least globalized pieces of the US economy – homebuilding activity.

Over the final three quarters of 2006, a steep contraction in residential construction expenditures knocked an average of 1.0 percentage point off real GDP growth in the US – a swing of -1.5 percentage points from the positive growth contribution of 0.5% over the preceding three years and enough of a drag to have accounted for all the downshift in real GDP growth over the same period. While the housing recession has undoubtedly reduced US demand for foreign sourced construction materials, this is hardly a major challenge to growth elsewhere in the world economy.

So far, the rest of the US economy has been relatively resilient in the face of this steep contraction in residential construction activity. That’s especially the case for personal consumption – more than 70% of US GDP and the one sector of aggregate demand that has the tightest linkages to America’s trading partners. During the final three quarters of 2006, when homebuilding activity hit the skids, annualized real consumption growth still averaged 3.2% - down only 0.2 percentage point from the growth pace of the preceding three years and fully 33% faster than overall GDP growth over the final three quarters of last year; moreover, in the first period of 2007, our latest tracking estimates suggest consumption growth held at this same impressive 3.2% pace. Business capital spending has started to weaken a bit in recent months. But the weakening has been concentrated in the equipment piece – only 7% of US GDP, or one-tenth the size of the personal consumption sector. Needless to say, as long as the American consumer continues to hold its own as a source of relative resilience, the US economy can shrug off a capex hit – and the global economy will hardly be tested.

Internal spillovers and external linkages

This outcome underscores a major source of confusion over the global decoupling call – the distinction between internal spillovers and external linkages. The former, in my view, pertain to the interconnectedness within an economy – the relationships between sectors. An obvious case in point is the lack of any spillovers between homebuilding and consumption in the US – at least, so far. I would define linkages as more of a cross-border phenomenon – in effect, the transmission of shifts in one economy to the broader global economy through global trade flows. Internal spillovers are a necessary – but not sufficient – condition for cross-border linkages. But if there have been no internal spillovers, the external linkage debate – and therefore, the global decoupling call – is all but meaningless. That remains very much the case today, in my view.

This same point recently has been made by the research staff of the IMF in the prepublication of one of the chapters in the April 2007 issue of the World Economic Outlook (see Chapter 4 on the IMF website, “Decoupling the Train? Spillovers and Cycles in the Global Economy”). Notwithstanding erroneous press accounts of this research, the IMF staff throws cold water on the notion of a global decoupling from the US. To the contrary, they stress that the “…potential size of spillovers from the United States has increased with greater trade and financial integration.” They underscore the same point I stressed above – that as long as the US slowdown remains confined to sector-specific developments such as housing, the less the chances of a more severe stalling out of the American growth engine and, as a consequence, the lower the probability of a more broadly based global slowdown.

Who has the greatest export exposure the the US?

The IMF research also provides a comprehensive ranking of the cross-border linkages to the US. Based on export exposure to the US, America’s NAFTA partners – Mexico and Canada – are at the top of the vulnerability list; for both of these economies, goods shipped to the US account for around 25% of their GDP.

China’s exposure, while considerably less than the NAFTA bloc, has increased dramatically in the past five years; by IMF estimates, US exports accounted for an average of 5.9% of Chinese GDP over the 2001-05 period – seven times the 0.8% share 20 years earlier from 1981-85. US exposure remains quite high in Asia ex Japan; for the newly industrialized economies of Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, in conjunction with the ASEAN-4 (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand), US exports accounted for an average of 10.3% of their combined GDP over the 2001-05 period.

By contrast, Japan has reduced its dependence on America, with US-bound exports averaging just 2.9% of GDP over the 2001-05 interval – well below the 4.0% portion some 20 years earlier. For the Euro area, US dependency ratios remain quite low, although they have inched up from 1.5% in the first half of the 1980s to 2.4% in the first half of 2000s. Similar modest increases in US exposure have been evident in Brazil and Argentina, and because of oil and resource linkages, US dependency ratios have also risen for Sub-Saharan Africa – from 3.0% in 1981-85 to 5.9% in 2001-05.

The results of the IMF staff research are not surprising. They are, in fact, nearly identical with similar conclusions that I and others have stressed in considering the repercussions of a US slowdown on the broader global economy (see my 30 October 2006 dispatch, “The Fallacy of Global Decoupling”). As I noted at the time, the “decouplers” – economies that can stand on their own in the event of a major growth shortfall in the US – must satisfy three conditions: They need to have a broadening base of self-sustaining domestic demand, a diversified export mix, and policy autonomy. In my view, progress is still quite limited on all three counts. Private consumption continues to lag in Europe and Asia. Moreover, the US is still the dominant global export destination; by IMF estimates, the US accounted for 20% of global merchandise exports over the 2001-05 period – a record high for the US and larger than the Euro area as the biggest portion of global trade. Nor is there much leeway for global policy makers to ride to the rescue in the event of a US growth shock; that’s especially the case in developing Asia, which is constrained by currency considerations, but it is also true in Japan, where policy rates are still very close to “zero.”

The outlook for the US consumer

In the end, this debate boils down to the one big call that has always weighed most heavily on the macro outlook – the fate of the American consumer. If US consumption growth remains brisk in the face of pressures building elsewhere in the economy – especially housing, but also business capital spending and autos – then a globalized world will, in effect, have nothing to decouple from. The surprisingly strong March labor market surveys – brisk employment and falling joblessness – underscore the ongoing resilience of labor income generation and consumer purchasing power.

Yet as Dick Berner, our resident consumption bull, recently conceded, consumers will need all the help they can get in the face of higher energy and food costs, decelerating housing wealth creation, adjustable-rate mortgage resets, and a tightening of lending standards in the aftermath of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco (see his 2 April dispatch, “Perfect Storm for the US Consumer?”). But if the US labor market continues to display extraordinary staying power in the face of adversity elsewhere in the economy, the overly-indebted, saving-short American consumer could squeak by once again – and so, too, would the rest of a still-coupled world. I remain highly dubious of such an outcome but concede that the burden of proof remains on me.

I have long been struck by the inherent inconsistency of a macro call that extols the virtues of integration and globalization, on the one hand, while celebrating the resilience of a decoupled world, on the other hand. Don’t kid yourself – if the lead engine of the global growth train goes off the tracks, the rest of the world will be quick to follow. So far, that hasn’t happened – underscoring my basic conclusion that there has yet to be a meaningful test of the global decoupling thesis. It’s up to the American consumer as to whether that test will ever occur.

By Stephen Roach, global economist at Morgan Stanley, as first published on Morgan Stanley’s Global Economic Forum

Israel worst place for Holocaust survivors to live throughout Western world

Shoah survivors forced back to Germany due to Israel's lack of restitution laws

Documentary shows Israel worst place for Holocaust survivors to live throughout Western world. Hundreds protest outside Knesset, demand goverment help survivors with financial difficulties

Ines Ehrlich

Published:

04.16.07, 11:32 / Israel News

Holocaust survivors have left Israel to live out the rest of their days in Germany due to the better conditions they receive there, according to a documentary program broadcast Tuesday night by Israel's Channel 2 television. The documentary, Musar Shilumin (The Morals of Restitution) opened with an elderly woman speaking from her comfortable home in Berlin to two of Israel's best known docu-activists – Orly Vilnai Federbush and Guy Meroz. The woman's fluent Hebrew was spoken with an unmistakable German accent. Ashamed Social affairs minister laments situation of Holocaust survivors / Yael Branovsky Minister Isaac Herzog says thousands of survivors live in deplorable conditions: 'Too many organizations thought the responsibility should fall on a different organization' Full story This Holocaust survivor had left Israel to return to Germany to receive the free medication and monthly allowance provided to survivors by the German government. Contrary to Israel, the German government has stipulated that Holocaust survivors in need of housing and medicine are entitled to receive them free of charge. When asked what she thought of the Israeli government's attitude towards Holocaust survivors, she said: "I would not want what I think to appear in print." Meanwhile, hundreds of people, including Holocaust survivors, college students, and youth movement members, rallied outside the Knesset in Jerusalem Monday, in protest of the dire financial situation many Holocaust survivors have found themselves in. The protestors began their march at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority. They called on the government to help the survivors by transferring NIS 30 million to the Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in Israel. The protest was organized by “Tafnit - A New Agenda for Israel”, an organization that aims at “bringing about a significant change in Israel’s national priorities toward the broad national consensus”. “Even on Holocaust Remembrance Day, it’s not enough to remember those who were killed, but also those that are with us here,” said Tafnit Chairman Uzi Dayan. Years of delayed processing and neglect The six-month investigative report took the two activists on a voyage to New York, Berlin and Amsterdam to seek out the bureaucratically withheld funds. They discovered a disappearing world, the world of 250,000 Holocaust survivors still alive today in Israel, of whom 80,000 live in dire poverty while substantial funds are withheld. The documentary pointed an accusing finger at the Israeli cabinet and at the Claims Conference, the organization responsible for recovering and distributing Jewish assets plundered by the Nazis. The Conference is supposed to transfer restitution funds to Holocaust survivors but for years has been withholding a sum of $300 million to $900 million, depending on who is asked, due to various bureaucratic reasons. As a consequence of this, despite being one of the wealthiest foundations in the world, many survivors in poor health and living in impoverished conditions will not live to receive their restitution entitlements. The documentary also criticized Israeli banks for withholding Holocaust victims' funds, and also found fault with the JNF, the Israel Museum and various other institutions still holding Holocaust victims' properties. Locked in her home Depicting personal stories, the documentary showed another elderly survivor called Esther who was initially interviewed at her home but by the end of the documentary had moved to a senior citizens’ home after falling over and lying on the floor for hours until she was able to get to the phone to seek help. Her allowance totals NIS 1,800 (about $442) a month and she had lived off her pension, often finding herself debating between the purchase of food or medicine, telephone and electricity bills. She had not left the house for four years because she needed help with her walker. She did not lock the door lest she fell and could not be rescued, until a burglar broke in and stole all the cash she had – a total of NIS 87 (about $21). A nurse at the Abarbanel Mental Health Center spoke of survivors admitting themselves into the institution just for the sake of a warm bed and food. Sadly, they were later forcefully evicted. The Lobby for Holocaust Survivors The documentary covered a recent meeting held by the Lobby for Holocaust Survivors to allow victims a platform on which to voice their complaints. The lobby was founded by Knesset members Colette Avital and Sara Marom Shalev, in an effort to improve the plight of Holocaust survivors, as well as to promote legislation on the issue. Numerous survivors spoke at the meeting, harshly criticizing Israel for what they called its “ruthless, disrespectful policy” towards them. “Does the country prefer the victims to die before they receive the funds they deserve?” Avital asked. By the end of six months of docu-activism in an effort to bring about change, some $120,000 of restitution funds were transferred to the needy – just enough for an ad-hoc allowance of NIS 1,500 per survivor.

The De-Zionization of Israel; An Interview with Ilan Pappe

April 17, 2007

by jon the antizionist jew

Of all the Israeli historians, academics, and activists that I have read, Ilan Pappe stands out as the one who has made the strongest impact on my understanding of Israel and Palestine. Why is that? Well, I'd say it is due to the way his research and morality have come together, quite unlike many others. But let's be specific, and compare him with Benny Morris. Benny made a landmark study, no doubt, with his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. He helped dispell in the academic world, at least, the notion that Israel was blameless in the exodus of over 800,000 Palestinians during Israel's establishment. It took him until the follow-up to that study to acknowledge that Zionism, to some extent, had within it the seeds of the expulsion of the Palestinians in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine. But in an interview with Haaretz a few years ago, it became clear that whatever historical facts about Zionism and its crimes he had uncovered, his dedication to Zionism was unaffected;

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

Benny went on to acknowledge ethnic cleansing as something that was "necessary" to create Israel as a Jewish state, while also meticulously detailing the 24 massacres of Palestinians, ranging from 4 or 5 people up to 100 or more in places like Deir Yassin and others. The icing on the cake of his dreadful rationalizations is this chilling line; "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians."

This is where Ilan Pappe comes in the picture. Dr. Pappe also has documented the many atrocities and offenses of Zionism, but when faced with this reality, he does not justify and approve of the wholesale slaughter and expulsion of another people; he condems it. And he does more than that, he works towards the correction and vindication of such crimes, by opposing Zionism and its racist foundation, and supporting the Right of Return for Palestinians, so that the injustice that they have been enduring for the past 60 years can be answered with the most simple of remedies; that they be able to come home, and welcomed doing so.

Unfortunately, Dr. Pappe has found it necessary to leave Israel for a teaching positon in the UK;

lan Pappe, a senior lecturer in the University of Haifa's Department of Political Science, says he is moving to the UK because it is "increasingly difficult to live in Israel" with his "unwelcome views and convictions."

In an interview in The Peninsula, Qatar's leading English-language daily, during a visit last week to Doha as a guest of the Qatar Foundation, Pappe said: "I was boycotted in my university and there had been attempts to expel me from my job. I am getting threatening calls from people every day. I am not being viewed as a threat to the Israeli society but my people think that I am either insane or my views are irrelevant. Many Israelis also believe that I am working as a mercenary for the Arabs."

Pappe is to join the History Department at Exeter University, in southwest England. He is active in anti-Israel academic boycott efforts.

So what follows is an interview of Dr. Pappe by email. I decided not to focus on the recent controversy of his leaving Israel, but more on the subject of his most recent book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which I recently posted excerpts from here on Kos (with full permission, of course). Here is a short list of his other books, all of which I have read and gained much from;

The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951 (Paperback)

Book Description
Arabs and Jews describe the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948 in completely different ways. Among Arabs, and especially Palestinians, the events of that year are known as the "nakba" - the catastrophe, the trauma, the disaster. For Jews, and in particular for Israelis, their victory in the war of 1948 is a veritable miracle in which, against tremendous odds and through heroic military effort, the Jewish community succeeded in thwarting attempts by the Arab states to destroy it.This book integrates new archival material with the findings of recent scholarship to present the reader with a comprehensive and general history of the origins and consequences of the 1948 war. The author shows, in sharp contrast to the recollections and myths of both sides, that the military events of 1948 were not decisive. The victory of the Zionist organization and the fate of the Palestinians was determined by politicians on both sides - in the discussions and decisions of the United Nations in 1947-8 and in the Arab League - long before a shot had been fired. The author argues that Israel's failure to take advantage of the genuine opportunity for peace with the Arabs at the UN-sponsored Lausanne Conference in 1949 resulted in the prolonged and tragic conflict between Israel and the Arab states still very much alive today.

The Israel/Palestine Question (Rewriting Histories) by Ilan Pappe

Review
a useful collection that offers a glimpse into one of the most collateral processes occurring simultaneously with the intifada and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
– Journal of Palestine Studies

...a more nuanced view of the power struggle between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Israelis than any previous history of the conflict. Challenging the nationalist paradigms of both sides, it will lay the groundwork for future studies in Israeli and Palestinian history....
–Arthur Goldschmidt, Penn State University

Book Description

An explicitly revisionist collection that takes the ground away from pro-Israeli historians and suggests a far more nuanced view of the issue, The Israel/Palestine Question assimilates diverse interpretations of the origins of the Middle East conflict with emphasis on the fight for Palestine and its religious and political roots. Drawing largely on scholarly debates in Israel during the last two decades, which have become known as `historical revisionism,' the collection presents the most recent developments in the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a critical reassessment of Israel's past. The volume commences with an overview of Palestinian history and the origins of modern Palestine, and includes essays on the early Zionist movement, the 1948 war, international influences on the conflict and the Intifada.

A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples by Ilan Pappe

Review
‘Pappe’s latest work will inspire ...’ James Cullingham, Seneca College

‘Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent writer of Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly ... here, for the first time, is a textbook on Palestine that narrates the real story as it happened - a non-Zionist version of Zionism ... To its credit, Cambridge University Press has published Pappe’s pioneering and highly accessible work as an authoritative history.’ New Statesman

'Ilan Pappe is a 'new historian' and this book is true to this label. It adopts a revisionist approach and it challenges the old ways in which the history of Palestine is written which makes it such an exciting read.' Ahron Bregman, King's College London, International Affairs

' ... Ilan Pappe has written a book that is lucid and forthright. It is a unique contribution to the history of this troubled land, and all those concerned with developments in the Middle East will have to read ... Ilan Pappe's book is a valuable contribution to the historical research of Palestine as a general survey for those studying the subject. Designed for students and general readers, the book's new approach to the analysis of well-known events will be of interest to academics, journalists, foreign-policy makers, and to all those concerned with Palestine's complex past and its uncertain future. The inclusion of illustrations, maps, short biographies, a glossary of terms, a bibliography, and a reliable index further increases the usefulness of the book.' Quarterly Journal of African and Asian Studies

Book Description
Ilan Pappe's book traces the history of Palestine from the Ottomans in the nineteenth century, through the British Mandate, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent wars and conflicts which have dominated this troubled region. The second edition of Pappe's book has been updated to include the dramatic events of the 1990s and the early twenty-first century. These years, which began with a sense of optimism, as the Oslo peace accord was being negotiated, culminated in the second intifada and the increase of militancy on both sides. Pappe explains the reasons for the failure of Oslo and the two-state solution, and reflects upon life thereafter as the Palestinians and Israelis battle it out under the shadow of the wall of separation. As in the first edition, it is the men, women and children of Palestine who are at the centre of Pappe's narrative.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his latest work, renowned Israeli author and academic Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine) does not mince words, doing Jimmy Carter one better (or worse, depending on one's point of view) by accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity beginning in the 1948 war for independence, and continuing through the present. Focusing primarily on Plan D (Dalet, in Hebrew), conceived on March 10, 1948, Pappe demonstrates how ethnic cleansing was not a circumstance of war, but rather a deliberate goal of combat for early Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion, whom Pappe labels the "architect of ethnic cleansing." The forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians between 1948-49, Pappe argues, was part of a long-standing Zionist plan to manufacture an ethnically pure Jewish state. Framing his argument with accepted international and UN definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants. An accessible, learned resource, this volume provides important inroads into the historical antecedents of today's conflict, but its conclusions will not be easy for everyone to stomach: Pappe argues that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues today, and calls for the unconditional return of all Palestinian refugees and an end to the Israeli occupation. Without question, Pappe's account will provoke ire from many readers; importantly, it will spark discussion as well.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Book Description
Since the Holocaust, it has been almost impossible to hide large-scale crimes against humanity. In our communicative world, few modern catastrophes are concealed from the public eye. And yet, Ilan Pappe unveils, one such crime has been erased from the global public memory: the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948. But why is it denied, and by whom? The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine offers an investigation of this mystery.

So, enjoy the interview, and I welcome any and all constructive dialogue that may follow.

Tell me why you wrote the ethnic cleansing of palestine?

With opening up of the military archvies in 1998, the accumalation of oral testemonies by Palestinians around the world and the passage of time provided a rare opportunity to go back and revist the event that shaped the conflict and which explains best why we are today where we are.

What should Americans, particularly those left-leaning politically, know about Israel and Palestine, and why is it important that they know it?

The conflict in Palestine erupted in the beginning of the 20th century and continues today because of the Zionist colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the native population by Israel in 1948 and ever since. This policy is possible mainly because of the unconditional American support for Israel. And this is despite the fact that this unconditional support undermined American national interest: it alienates the Middle East and the Muslim world, it raises the prices of oil production and prevent the US for investing in its own domestic problems. But far more important probably this is a conflict that has always the potential of dragging the rest of the world into an insoluble
conflict.

On a moral basis, it is shameful that American tax payers money has been used in the last 60 years to dispossess, occupy, exile and kill Palestinians wherever they are.

Finally, if Americans care about the Jews who live in Israel, and they should, for this Jewish community's benefit they should pressure it to cease its oppression of the Palestinians.

You mention in your book A History of Modern Palestine that the left- right political model doesn't work well in the case of Israeli politics- can you explain that?

I said with respect to the policies towards the indigenous population of Palestine. There is no left, namely soft and compromising, attitude and right, namely, inflexible and hostile, attitude. The Zionist consensus is that Israel needs be a state where Jews enjoy supremacy and preferably exclusivity. The left and right differ on how to achieve it, but no on the goal, which to my mind is morally unacceptable in the 21st century.

Tell me about the issue of destroyed Palestinian villages, the National forests and the involvement of the JNF. What is the JNF?

The JNF is the Jewish national fund, which was the main agency that prior to 1948 purchased land for the Jewish community and after 1948 turned the 531 destroyed Palestinian villages to either Jewish settlements or forests for recreation.

What evidence do you use to challenge the contention that there was no master plan within the Zionist leadership to expel the Palestinian population?

I show that the new documents in the military archives indicate for a clear master plan that was devised on 10 March, 1948.

How much in financial terms do you think Palestinians are owed in reparations for the Nakba?

I bring a certain estimate in my book, but i think the best source is Salman Abu Sitta website PALANDS for a thorough examination of this issue.

[Also see Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflictby Michael R. Fischbach]

I have read of the Mossad being engaged in covert operations within the Arab states after the 1948 war, with the aim of generating hate against the Jews and forcing them to emigrate?

I know only of its operation in Iraq in 1950 and 1951 being involved in planting bombs in synagogues in Baghdad that indeed caused panic among the Jews there and persuaded some of them to immigrate.

Is it fair to say that in regards to current academic consensus, the work of Palestinians & Israeli new historians have shattered the previous Zionist consensus? What would you say is the significance of the work of Palestinians and others before the advent of the new Israeli historians?

Well, without the information gathered in the Palestinian historiography and the persistence of Palestinian historians in telling the truth, there would not have been a new history. We were motivated to do this, because we knew there was an alternative narrative. And yes I think together with the Palestinian historiography we changed the accepted academic narrative beyond recognition.

Yet, in the US, non-academic discussion of I/P is still, at the least, slowed down if not dominated by Zionist mythology- why? What is the situation in Israel?

It is connected to the impact of the Zionist lobby on the media and academia and the unwillingness of prominent figures in both to challenge this pressure or to risk the victimization.

Jeff Halper opposes the 2 state solution because he feels that the facts on the ground make it impossible- do you feel the same way? And how do we reconcile supporting the right of return with a 1 or 2 state solution? Are either possible?

There is no way of implementing the right of return within a 2 states solution. This is one good reason to support the one state solution. Secondly, the facts on the ground are irreversible. There is one state controlled by a certain regime. All we need is to change the ideology of that regime.

What kinds of changes inside Israel would be necessary to break the gridlock and reopen a true negotiating process with the Palestinians? How likely do you think such a development might be, considering Israel is presently in the process of encircling the major Palestinian enclaves from the west, de facto annexing the Jordan Valley, and denying responsibility for the Nakba?

In short, [what is necessary is] the de-Zionization of Israel. This is not going to be easy and will not happen without outside pressure. But it will happen, if not in my life time than in my children’s'.

ANALYSIS: Court Rules That AIPAC Trial Must Be Open

Court Rules That AIPAC Trial Must Be Open

A federal court this week rejected a government proposal to restrict public access to evidence in the forthcoming trial of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged under the Espionage Act with unauthorized receipt and transmission of classified information.

Using a procedure called the Silent Witness Rule, the prosecution had proposed to present classified evidence to the jury but to withhold it from the public and from open deliberation during trial.

"I think it is fair to say that the government's proposal is novel," said Judge T.S. Ellis, III on April 16.

But he said that because the evidence could not be openly addressed in court, the proposed procedure "would render virtually impossible an effective line of cross-examination that might be vital to the defense."

Therefore, the judge ruled, "you can't do it. It closes the trial. It's unconstitutional. It's unfair to the defendants."

Explaining what is at stake, Judge Ellis elaborated:

"A public trial requires witnesses' testimony to be public, so it deters perjury. It requires a judge's rulings to be made in public, as today, so it deters partiality and bias. And by requiring prosecutors to present their charges and evidence publicly, it deters vindictiveness and abuse of power."

Another "novel and distinctive" feature of the government proposal noted by Judge Ellis is that prosecutors were prepared to share classified evidence with jurors who do not hold security clearances. ("Interestingly, there is some authority for that," he observed.)

More dubiously, the judge said, "the government's proposed procedure treats even certain selected public domain documents, including news reports, as if they were classified documents."

At any rate, while the government may suggest unclassified substitutions for classified evidence (as provided by the Classified Information Procedures Act), the proposal to withhold evidence from the public altogether was decisively rejected.

At the conclusion of the April 16 hearing it was unclear how the government would proceed, and even whether the trial itself could go forward.

If the prosecution "decline[s] to submit any substitutions [for classified evidence] that you would ever make public," Judge Ellis warned, "then maybe ... I have decide whether to dismiss the indictment, if that's the case."

The transcript of the April 16 hearing provided substantive discussion of the issues involved in handling classified evidence and the importance of open trials, along with some intense legal maneuvering and occasional flashes of humor. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

A follow-up hearing was scheduled this afternoon (April 20) to identify the prosecution's next step.

Posted by Steven Aftergood on April 19, 2007 11:56 AM | Permalink

US-Israel ties bad for peace: Soros

George Soros, the billionaire investor, has added his voice to the debate over the role of Israel's lobby in shaping US foreign policy.

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros takes issue with "the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]" in Washington and says the Bush administration's close ties with Israel are obstacles to a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Soros, who is Jewish but not often engaged in Israeli affairs, echoed arguments that have fuelled debate in academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the US Jewish community.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism," wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.

AIPAC has consistently declined comment on such charges, but many of its supporters have been vocal in dismissing them.

Historian Michael Oren, speaking at AIPAC's 2007 conference in March, said the group was not merely a lobby for Israel. "It is the embodiment of a conviction as old as this (American) nation itself that belief in the Jewish state is tantamount to belief in these United States," he said in a keynote speech.

The long-simmering debate bubbled to the surface a year ago, when two prominent academics, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, published a 12,500-word essay entitled "The Israel Lobby" and featuring the fiercest criticism of AIPAC since it was founded in 1953.

AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most influential special interest groups in the United States, its political clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.

The AIPAC members are all US citizens and the group receives no funding from the Israeli government.

Its annual conference in Washington attracts a Who's Who of American politics, both Republicans and Democrats.

Unwavering support

Mearsheimer and Walt said the lobby had persuaded successive administrations to align themselves too closely with Israel.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism"

George Soros, the billionaire investor

"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but much of the rest of the world," they wrote.

No other lobby group has managed to divert US foreign policy so far from the US national interest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of Israel are essentially identical, they wrote.

The two academics said that pressure from Israel and its lobby in Washington played an important role in President George Bush's decision to attack Iraq, an arch-enemy of Israel, in 2003.

Mearsheimer and Walt found no takers for their essay in the US publishing world. When it was eventually published in the London Review of Books, they noted it would be hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing such a piece.

It has been drawing criticism that ranged from shoddy scholarship to anti-Semitism, chiefly from conservative fellow academics and political supporters of the present relationship between Washington and Israel.

In his contribution to the debate, Soros said: "A much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties."

That influence is reflected by the fact that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid in the world.

Going mainstream

Mearsheimer and Walt are now working on expanding their article into a book - to be published in September by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The company has not commented on online reports that it paid the two authors a $750,000 advance and plans to print one million copies.

Another mainstream publisher, Simon and Schuster, already discovered that not only is it possible to publish criticism of Israel but it can also be good for the bottom line.

Former president Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" shot up the bestseller lists after its publication last November; stayed there for more than three months and is still selling well.

It had an initial print run of 300,000 copies and there are now 485,000 copies in print, said Victoria Meyer, a spokeswoman for Simon and Schuster.

Carter's book and its reference to apartheid provoked angry reactions - more in the United States than in Israel, where leftists opposed to the occupation of the West Bank have been accusing the government of apartheid practices for years and where the word has lost its shock value.

In response to charges of bias and anti-Semitism, Carter said he wanted to provoke a discussion of issues debated routinely and freely in Israel but rarely in the United States.

"This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times during a tour to promote his book. "It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

According to Oren, the pro-AIPAC historian, the Carter book and the Mearsheimer-Walt paper had the same "insidious thesis" and suffered from the same flaw - ignoring oil as a driving element in US policies on the Middle East.

The Enrichment Of Bush Cronies

April 19, 2007

By Evelyn Pringle


It's time for Americans to face the cold hard truth that nothing will be accomplished by allowing the daily carnage in Iraq to continue, and if Bush has his way, our young people will be dying in this war profiteering scheme until hell freezes over. Congress needs to authorize funding to pull our troops out of that deathtrap and not one dime more.

It apparent that Bush is a madman who will listen to no one. After Bush's speech on January 10, 2007, about the plan to send more troops, retired Army Col Doug McGreggor, a former advisor to Don Rumsfeld in 2003, said in a broadcast interview, "There seems to be a complete failure to understand that we have been trying to suppress a rebellion against our occupation."

"As long as we are there," he warned, "we are the number one public enemy for the Muslim-Arab world."

"We were after all," he points out, "a Christian army occupying a Muslim Arab country, something which in the Middle East, is essentially a disaster."

This decorated combat veteran says Bush's strategy will never work. "We did not go to Iraq originally," he explains, "to dismantle the state, dismantle the army, the police, and the government, to occupy the place with the object of changing the people that lived there into something they did not want to become."

After Bush's speech, military families also spoke out publicly against the decision to send more troops. "I don't have words for it," said Nancy Lessin, of Military Families Speak Out, a group of 3,100 families, including 100 who have lost a loved one in the war.

"This is a war," she said, "that should never have happened, that has wreaked so much havoc on our loved ones, Iraqi children, women and men, and now to be facing, almost four years into it, this news of an escalation of the war, is just unbearable."

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed that 70% of Americans opposed sending more troops, but Bush went right ahead and did it anyways. And then to make matters worse, this month he announces the plan to extend the 12-month tours to 15-months to allow his 30,000-troop buildup in Baghdad to stay for another year.

This war is going to bankrupt the US. A January 2007 study by Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who won a Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes, estimated that the total costs of the Iraq war could be more than $2 trillion when the long-term medical costs for the soldiers injured so far are factored in.

The only people who are benefiting from Bush's war on terror are members of the Military Industrial Complex. Since 9/11, the pay for the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors in the US has doubled, according to the August 2006 report, "Executive Excess 2006," by the Institute for Policy Studies, and the United for a Fair Economy.

The bill is rising so fast because the level of war profiteering is unprecedented. The Excess Report lists George David, CEO of United Technologies, as the top earner, making more than $200 million since 9/11, despite investigations into the poor quality of the firm's Black Hawk helicopters.

Halliburton CEO David Lesar made $26.6 million in 2005, and nearly $50 million since 9/11, an amount that even beats the $24 million that Dick Cheney received in exchange for the guarantee that Halliburton would be the number one military contractor during the Bush administration.

Cheney himself is also taking in war profits, contrary to what he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2003, when he denied making any money off his former employer. "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president," he said, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

"I have no financial interest in Halliburton," Cheney told Tim, "of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Those statements were proven false when financial disclosure forms showed that Cheney had received a deferred salary from Halliburton of $205,298 in 2001, $262,392 in 2002, $278,437 in 2003, and $294,852 in 2004.

In 2005, an analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), reported that Cheney continued to hold over 300,000 Halliburton stock options and said their value had risen 3,281% over the previous year, from $241,498 to more than $8 million.

"It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it," Senator Lautenberg said.

Cheney may be the most visible profiteer to those who find it difficult to follow the war on terror money trail, but many other members of the administration with insider knowledge set themselves up to profit early on as well.

For instance, there was the Undersecretary of Defense, Doug Feith, largely credited for fabricating the tales that got the US into the war to begin with, along with his fellow neocons and best buddy, Ahmed Chalabi.

Feith was a partner with Marc Zell, in the Feith & Zell, DC law firm before joining the administration. After he left for the White House, Zell renamed the firm, Zell, Goldberg & Co, and teamed up with Salem Chalabi, Ahmed nephew, to solicit contracts for clients in Iraq. This scam operated under the name, "Iraqi International Law Group."

At the time, the National Journal quoted Salem as saying that Marc Zell was the firm's "marketing consultant" and had been contacting law firms in Washington and New York to ask if they had clients interested in doing business in Iraq.

According to its web site back then, the IILG was made up of lawyers and businessmen who "dared to take the lead in bringing private sector investment and experience" to the war-torn country and offered to "be your Professional Gateway to the New Iraq."

"The simple fact is," the site stated, "you cannot adequately advise about Iraq unless you are here day in and day out, working closely with officials at the CPA, the newly constituted governing council and the few functioning civilian ministries [oil, labor and social welfare, etc]."

It is highly likely that the preceding statement was absolutely true when made because Feith helped set up the Coalition Provisional Authority in May 2003, with its leader Paul Bremer, and Feith's office and the CPA were in charge of awarding reconstruction contracts with Iraqi money.

For his part, Salem was a legal adviser to Iraq's governing council, of which his Uncle was a member, and Bremer even tried to appoint him to lead the tribunal that would try Saddam.

Uncle Chabali footprints in the profiteering racket can be traced back to September 2003, when the CPA awarded an $80 million contract to Nour USA, a company with ties to Winston Partners, which is a whole other story in itself because Winston Partners is headed by none other than Marvin Bush, the brother to the president.

In May 2003, Nour was founded by, Abul Huda Farouki, whose financial ties to Ahmed Chalabi date back to 1989, when Chalabi was CEO of the Petra Bank, and helped Farouqi finance projects around the world.

Nour's website at the time described the firm as an "international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and listed expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel.

In January 2004, Nour picked up another contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and police worth $327 million. However, shortly thereafter, Nour came under fire when a shady deal surfaced involving the first $80 million contract and Ahmed Chalabi.

Newsday reported that Chalabi had received $2 million for helping to arrange the contract, but as it turned out, the contract was actually awarded to Erinys International, a firm set up in Iraq immediately after the invasion. The problem arose, Newsday said, because within days of receiving the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.

Next, the $327 million contract was in jeopardy after it was revealed that Nour had no experience providing military equipment and Nour claimed that it planned to subcontract its weapons procurement to Ostrowski Arms. However, the army soon learned that Ostowski had no license to export weapons.

The contract was finally axed in March 2004, after six of the 17 firms that bid on it complained that Nour's winning bid was impossibly low.

Following the money trail on this insider deal turned up the names of a few more suspects. According to the National Journal, a Nour executive said the Cohen Group "introduced us to people in the U.S. government who were involved in oil-industry security."

Former Republican Congressman and Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, William Cohen, sits at the helm of the Cohen Group, and according to a report by David Hilzenrath in the Washington Post on May 28, 2006, when he left office in January 2001, Cohen was saddled with debt and his final financial disclosure form, "listed tens of thousands of dollars of charge-account debts at interest rates as high as about 25 percent."

However, within a matter of weeks Cohen and his wife were residing in a $3.5 million mansion. It seems Cohen had wanted this house but was still in office and had no way to finance the purchase, so Frank Zarb, then chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, sold the house to Michael Ansari, chairman and CEO of defense contractor MIC Industries, in October 2000, and the Cohen took up residence in January or February of 2001, according to the Post.

From there, Cohen went on to join the board and audit committee of the Nasdaq Stock Market, and 11 days after he left office, MIC announced Cohen's appointment as chairman of its board of advisers in a press release.

In no time at all the Cohen Group was raking in mega-bucks. In applying for one contract, that earned the Group $490,000 over seven months, the firm bragged that it had helped Lockheed win a $3.6 billion contract for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Poland, financed by the US government.

The Group's proposal said its efforts for the Lockheed deal included "advocacy with key decision-makers in the White House, Office of the Vice President, National Security Council, Department of Defense and the State Department during an 18-month campaign," according to the Post.

In regard to helping Nour get contracts in Iraq, according to the Post, where the government disclosure form for Nour asks the firm to identify "Specific lobbying issues," the Group's filings say: "Exploring overseas business opportunities."

When it comes to war profiteering, members of the Bush administration have given a whole new meaning to the "revolving door." A whole gang of thugs has been robbing us blind in Iraq since day one and nobody seems to be able to stop it.

Congress knows what's going on. Back on September 30, 2003, during the Senate debate over the first Iraq spending bill, Senator John Edwards said he refused to funnel the $87 billion to Cheney and other Bush cronies after learning that Bush's former campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, who was later appointed to head FEMA, had quit his job 3 weeks before the bombs began to fall in Iraq to start the consulting firm, New Bridge Strategies, for clients seeking contracts in Iraq.

"First, Vice President Cheney's Halliburton receives more than $2 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts," he said, "and now this."

He called it outrageous and disrespectful to the young people serving in Iraq. "President Bush should start addressing this credibility gap by calling on Joe Allbaugh and his friends to stop using their influence to secure government contracts in Iraq," he said.

Senator Edwards said there used to be talk about money for Iraq being a blank check but we now "know the president is writing it out to Joe Allbaugh and Halliburton and it's all endorsed by Vice President Cheney," he said.

In hindsight, Edwards should have expressed outrage at a few more people because the profiteering team at New Bridges was stacked with Republicans. The company's address was the same as a lobbying firm run by Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee that went under the name of Barbour Griffith & Rogers.

And as luck would have it, Lanny Griffith was the CEO of New Bridge, and Ed Rogers was the vice president.

The firm's initial web site told potential clients, "the opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C., and on the ground in Iraq."

And these greedy thugs were so shameless that they didn't even try to hide their elation over all the money they planned to make in Iraq. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the firm's partners told Naomi Klein, quoted in an article in Harper's Magazine in September 2004.

"One well-stocked 7-Eleven," the partner said, "could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."

There were rumors that a McDonald's might open, a Starwood hotel was mentioned, and General Motors was said to be planning a factory and according to Ms Klein, Citigroup was preparing to offer loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil.

However since the war never did end, in 2004, Joe Allbaugh abandoned the quest for reconstruction gold mine in Iraq and started a consulting firm with the former director of Cheney's secret energy task force, Andrew Lundquist, and their first client was Lockheed Martin.

The marriage between the ex-campaign manager, Cheney's buddy, and Lockheed apparently worked out much better than the plan to build 7-Elevens in Iraq, because Lockheed stock value has doubled since 2001, and according to the Excess Report, the firm's CEO has made $50 million since 9/11.

It may well have been that Joe's new firm was simply an outgrowth from the many other firms set up by this same gang because Haley Barbour had already worked as a lobbyist for a Lockheed.

On thing is certain, Lockheed was not lacking for administration insiders when Allbaugh came knocking. For instance, before Cheney took over as VP, his wife, Lynne served on the board of Lockheed, receiving deferred compensation to the tune of half a million dollars in stock and fees, according to a January 16, 2007 report by Richard Cummings.

Cummings notes that Cheney's "2004 financial disclosure statement lists Lockheed stock options and $50,000 in Lockheed stock."

In addition, Cheney's son-in-law, Philip Perry, Cummings says, was appointed to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security, and he had been a registered lobbyist for Lockheed who had worked for a law firm representing Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security.

According to Cummings, less than a month after 9/11, in October of 2001, the Pentagon announced a $20 billion contract for Lockheed for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, called the F-35. At the time, Edward Aldridge was Undersecretary of Defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, which was responsible for the approval of the contract. Aldridge left his government post in 2003, and he now just happens to serve on Lockheed's board of directors.

However, the most stunning revelation in the Cummings report, is that in November 2002, Stephen Hadley, deputy national security advisor at the time, called Lockheed employee, Bruce Jackson, to a meeting at the White House and told him that the US was definitely going to war in Iraq but there was one small hitch, the administration could not decide what reason to use to justify it.

So Jackson formed the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," and its mission statement said it was "formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations."

According to Cummings, the "pressure group began pushing for regime change - that is, military action to remove Hussein - in the usual Washington ways, lobbying members of congress, working with the media and throwing money around."

Jackson told Cummings that he did not see the point of going on about WMDs or an Al Queda link because he thought the human rights issue was enough to justify the war.

However, Hadley did not agree. "The committee's pitch," Cummings says, "or rationale as Hadley would call it, was that Saddam was a monster -- routinely violating human rights -- and a general menace in the Middle East."

Jackson said he closed down the Committee in June 2003 because its human rights rationale had been abandoned. "We were cut out," he told Cummings, "after the whole thing went to Rumsfeld," and Hadley explained that "terrorism and WMDs" were now the rationale for the war, not human rights.

However, Cummings reports that members of the war sales team that served with Jackson have done well for themselves. The president of the Committee, Randy Scheunemann, became the president of the Mercury Group, and lobbied for Lockheed and others, and then set up the firms, Scheunemann and Associates, and Orion Strategies, which, among other things, consults with companies and countries looking to do business in Iraq.

In November 2003, another Committee member, Rend Al-Rahim Francke, was appointed Iraqi ambassador to the US.

Meanwhile back in Iraq goldmine, the Iraqis have nothing to show for all the torture that they have endured for the past 4 years. On average, Iraqis still get only about two hours of electricity a day, and the situation won't be improving anytime soon because the US has not built a single major power plant.

And despite the $22 billion funneled to the war profiteers for reconstruction, a US official recently said, Baghdad may not have continuous 24-hour electricity until the year 2013.

For the people drawn to Iraq to fight against the occupation, this is not a war against Americans; it's a war against Bush. He tore this country apart for no reason and then just as the Iraqis predicted, the greedy gang of thugs swooped in and ripped everybody off.

And there is no reason to believe that the thievery has ended or the situation in Iraq will get better because an audit released on January 31, 2007, by Inspector General, Stuart Bowen, reported that the $300 billion war and reconstruction effort continues to be plagued with waste and corruption, and yet Bush now wants us to hand over another $100 billion to be funneled through Iraq to the exact same gangsters.

We will never win in Iraq no matter how long we stay because the other side will always have more people willing to die for the cause, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the number of daily attacks continues to escalate as they have for the last 4 years, the US will run out of troops before they do.


Evelyn Pringle can be reached at: evelyn- evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net

Video: Cho Seung-Hui Manifesto

Sometime after he killed two people in a Virginia university dormitory but before he slaughtered 30 more in a classroom building Monday morning, Cho Seung-Hui mailed NBC News a large package, including photographs and videos, lamenting that “I didn’t have to do this.”

Cho, 23, a senior English major at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, killed 32 people in two attacks before taking his own life.

CLIP 2


Gunman was teased and picked on, former schoolmates say.

You Have Had a Million Warnings - Virginia Tech Killer's Video

Final message ... mass killer Cho Seung-Hui points a gun at the camera in one of a series of shocking images released for the first time today with his video telling viewers you have "blood on your hands" / AP

Specter vs. Gonzales -- Round 1

Less than a minute into his questioning, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) snapped at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in an exchange that didn't bode well for Gonzales and his much ballyhooed make-or-break testimony in defending his role in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys.

The unexpected attack from the committee's top Republican immediately put Gonzales on the defensive.

Specter told Gonzales his opening statement about his involvement in the controversial firings continued "this same pattern of not being candid," and that it was still unclear whether the attorney general was directly involved in the process or just delegating authority. When Specter derisively noted how much time Gonzales has spent preparing for the hearing during the past two weeks, the attorney general snapped: "I prepare for every hearing."

Sparks then flew.

Specter, who has so far resisted calling for Gonzales's resignation, apparently didn't like being interrupted, and bristled at the tone of the attorney general's voice. So the Pennsylvania Republican began mocking Gonzales's performance at a March 13 press conference in which he said he had not been involved in "discussions" nor seen any "memos" about the firing plan. Those statements have now been clearly rebutted by the thousands of pages of documents the Justice Department has released.

"Were you prepared for that press conference, were you prepared for that press conference?" Specter said. Then, as Gonzales tried to answer, Specter kept interrupting, his voice growing louder. "What I'm asking you is, were you prepared for that press conference?"

Specter cut off Gonzales before he could fully answer, moving on in his questioning with one final dismissive remark: "I don't think you're going to win a debate about your preparation."

And that, in the first two hours of testimony and questions and answers, was the sharpest give-and-take. It's doubtful one small exchange would be determinative in Specter's view of whether Gonzales should retain his post. But in a hearing in which Gonzales is trying desperately to shore up his support among Republicans, and fend off calls for his resignation, it was an ominous start. If Specter sours on him, other Republican senators are likely to follow.

Other early highlights from the first two hours of the hearing:

* Gonzales's strong rebuttal to suggestions from Sens. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) that prosecutors politicized an investigation into a gubernatorial aide in Wisconsin. He accused the Wisconsin senators of attacking well meaning career prosecutors, declaring: "What does that say to that attorney general, to that local prosecutor, to the career prosecutors?" Earlier, he told Kohl:: "This is not about Alberto Gonzales. This is about what's best for the Department of Justice. ... The work of the department continues."

*Gonzales specified for the first time the date - Oct. 11 -- that President Bush told him of concerns about a lack of voter-fraud prosecutions by David C. Iglesias as U.S. attorney in New Mexico. He also said that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) had complained multiple times about Iglesias' prosecution record, but specified that it was about a lack of prosecution of "public corruption cases." Five days after Bush spoke with Gonzales, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called Iglesias about his handling of a public corruption case in Albuquerque. And less than three weeks after the Bush conversation with Gonzales, Domenici called Iglesias about the Albuquerque case. On Nov. 7, a new firing list emerged for U.S. attorneys and Iglesias' name appeared for the first time.

*Two days after recusing himself from the Ethics Committee's examination of Domenici's role in the Iglesias firing, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) was given permission by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to sit in on the hearing at the dais. He's not on the committee, but Salazar -- one of two Hispanic Senate Democrats -- has been an ally of Gonzales in the past. He introduced him at the January 2005 confirmation hearing for Gonzales.

By Paul Kane | April 19, 2007; 12:30 PM ET
Previous: Ethics switch signals long Domenici probe |

Don't forget about Iraq

Thursday, April 19, 2007

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As expected -- because it is always so -- a media event has become a media orgy. I'm talking, of course, about the Virginia Tech shootings, but that hardly matters. In search of sensationalism, the media have no shame. Any story will do, pretty much -- but the media play particularly well off stories like this one. Everything about it, after all, seems so juicy. The media do so well with death and destruction, but they also like a human side to the mayhem. Hence the mainstreamization -- if I may coin a term -- of weather news. (Hurricanes are sexy.) But there's more. There is also pain and suffering. And it's all happening right at home, in English, with so much mystery to unravel -- who was he? why did he do it? -- and with so many hot-button issues lingering on the periphery -- gun control, immigration, education.

Why the media do this is beyond the scope of this post, but there are a few points to make: Obviously, the media need to fill up the empty space that follows the reporting of the facts. That was done -- the facts are known, more or less, and so all that's left is repetition and speculation. There is a fine line between journalism and exploitation, and that line has been crossed. Just turn on your media outlet of choice. You'll see what I mean.

On this, see Taylor Marsh, who asks the right questions: "Have we lost all sense of dignity? When did our pain become something we're so proud of we need to broadcast it... never mind. We are a therapy nation now, televising our grief for all to see. It's what we now do best. But did the community of Virginia Tech need our prying eyes? It likely never occurred to anyone to ask." Taylor compares this to the media's coverage of the Iraq War, which has been abysmal. But, then, an Iraqi life is hardly worth an American one, we are left to conclude from this imbalance, and Iraq is way over there, and we don't want to think too much about it, lost cause that it is, and it's not nearly as sensational as what happened in Virginia. (More on Iraq below.)

Americans -- media and media consumers alike -- need answers. They cannot imagine that what happened in Virginia was just some senseless act of violence. There must have been more to it. And so the media orgy revolves around trying to answer the existential questions as well as the factual ones -- not just the who but the why -- that is, to unravel the seeming mystery of it all. Americans do not seem to want such answers to similar questions about the Iraq War -- it is far too remote, it would seem, for there to be needed any such effort -- but we are Virginia Tech and Virginia Tech is us. Even here in Canada, the media have focused disproportionately on the one Canadian who was killed, as if that death is somehow more significant than the others, but so it goes. This isn't about them, the victims, it's about us. We need to soothe ourselves, to have our existential upsurge pacified. We cannot and will not accept meaninglessness. To stare into the abyss is one thing. To accept that the abyss is all there is would shatter our fragile shells of civilized self-understanding. There must be a God.

And so we search for answers -- through the media, which are more than happy -- for ratings, to bolster their self-importance -- to oblige with all the investigation and speculation that can fill up the empty space. In this case, for this story, this leads us to such banal topics as mental illness, alienation, antidepressant medication. Are the answers to be found in there, anywhere? Or are they to be found in the world of politics -- gun control is the hot topic. In its more extreme and repugnant form, this search demands scapegoats, an evil Other upon which our indignant blame can be heaped. This is the world of Michelle Malkin and her ilk -- a world which upon which I discoursed to much fanfare last night.

On this, see also Steven Taylor: "[W]hy do we have to find blame in places other than the fact that a truly disturbed individual simply did an unthinkable act and cracked. There is only so much that can be done in a free society to prevent such situations. This attempt to blame a general 'liberal' attitude at universities and that this somehow has led to a culture of 'conflict avoidance' that somehow, by inference, led to people not defending themselves on Monday -- that is utterly ridiculous." Our own Capt. Fogg also put it well in a comment to a post by Creature: "This guy didn't go nuts because of television or rap music or gay marriage or any of the other shibboleths -- he went nuts because he was human and going nuts is a human affliction. It's an affliction that won't go away despite lectures on personal responsibility or despite bans or laws or wiretaps appeals to family values or protests or rubber bands worn on wrists."

But the truth -- rather than the truthiness presented to willing consumers by sensation-seeking news outlets and deranged commentators -- does not go down so easily. If the truth about Iraq is being largely ignored, or avoided, the truth about the Virginia Tech shootings continues to be overwhelmed by a media orgy that, as of right now, shows no signs of letting up.

**********

And this brings us to Iraq, forgotten Iraq, where today was just another day, as we say, of life and death:

Four car bombs killed 131 people and wounded 164 others across Baghdad Wednesday, the U.S. military said, as bloodshed spiked two months into a U.S.-led crackdown meant to pacify the Iraqi capital.

It was one of the deadliest days of the four-year-old Iraq war, and some news agencies suggested the death toll may be higher. Reuters, quoting local officials, said almost 200 people were killed Wednesday. The Associated Press put the number at 183.

The carnage underscored the profound insecurity that continues to plague the nation, where additional American soldiers are being deployed in an attempt to curb sectarian violence.

Bloodshed. Carnage. Insecurity.

Is it right to compare Iraq and Virginia Tech? Perhaps not. But the juxtaposition -- and specifically the juxtaposition of media coverage -- is nonetheless deeply troubling. (This is Taylor's point.) There has been so much concentrated coverage of what happened in Virginia (and, to an extent, rightly so), but there has been, overall, gross indifference to what is happening in Iraq each and every day. It takes a massive death toll for Iraqi violence to register -- like today's, but, even then, nothing like there should be. And not just Iraqi violence. Stuck in perpetual therapy, Americans don't want to know much about anywhere else, either.

"But this happened in our own backyard," a critic cries. Yes, yes, I know -- and I understand. That, too, was my reaction to the news. The shooting did happen close to home -- closer to home than the violence in Iraq, closer to home in terms of our ability to relate to it, to see ourselves in those we see on television. We are them, they are us. We are all Hokies now.

Fair enough.

All I am saying -- well, perhaps not all -- is that some perspective is in order. Becoming one with Virginia while detaching from Iraq is the easy way out. It allows us to cleanse our souls in yet another media-driven orgy of existential therapy even as more and more blood is spilled in some faraway place that is just too horrible even to attempt to comprehend.

And yet the media will soon move on, as they always do, to the next source of sensationalism, the next object of exploitation. The pain and suffering in Virginia will go on, but we won't care, because it was never really about them -- and because we will once again have managed to lie the ultimate lie to ourselves, to have persuaded ourselves that our questions were answered, that our fears were all dreams, that there was a point to the madness, or at least a reasonable explanation that put everything right again.

And we will follow the media, wherever they may go, from one sensation to the next.

And, media coverage or not, the blood will continue to flow... over there.

American and Iraqi alike, and others too. Whether we pay attention or not.

New Phil Giraldi article about Sibel Edmonds, Waxman

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Former CIA officer Phil Giraldi has a new piece out in the April 23, 2007 print edition of the American Conservative about Sibel Edmonds and our call to have Henry Waxman hold hearings into her case.

Giraldi is an expert in Sibel's case and features prominently in the new film about Sibel, Kill The Messenger.

I've electronically liberated the article in full, all errors are mine etc.

California Congressman Henry Waxman's Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations that the Bush administration might be concealing something about the Niger document forgeries, that it maliciously outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, and that it has looked the other way over massive fraudulent contracting in Iraq. These investigations are admirable and very much in the public interest. He has been less interested in pursuing another matter, however. FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds and her numerous supporters both inside and outside of government have been urging Waxman to hold open hearings on her claims regarding malfeasance and corruption among high-level government officials.

Edmonds is subject to a State Secrets Privilege gag order initiated at the request of the Pentagon and State Department, but she has recently elaborated on her allegations, stating that investigations already carried out by the FBI would demonstrate that three former senior officials were involved in illegal weapons sales and other activities that would justify charges of espionage and possibly even treason against them. The three are leading Pentagon neoconservatives Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, as well as former State Department number three Marc Grossman. Edmonds is no crackpot and is considered to be a credible witness, most of whose charges were substantiated both by former FBI officials in 2002 and by the Department of Justice in 2005. Waxman appears to be uninterested in pursuing the matter, however, possibly because Israeli officials and the country's defense industry are believed to have been involved in the weapons diversion activity.

Congressman Waxman is regarded as close to Israel's principal lobby, AIPAC, and even promised Jewish voters back in November 2006 that there would be no Democratic congressional committee chairmen involved with Middle Eastern policy who were not completely supportive of Israel.

As Giraldi says in Kill The Messenger:

All of these people (Perle, Feith) have been investigated by the FBI at one point or another for passing secret information to Israel.

In no cases were any of them convicted. The prosecutions were dropped… in my opinion because of political pressure not to get into this kind of case that involves
'Israel' and 'Espionage'.

I'm not yet ready to write-off the possibility that Waxman will hold hearings into Sibel's case. He has previously promised to do so, and we haven't yet heard from his office that he won't hold hearings. Congress has been in recess for the past two weeks and we'll be attempting to get him on the record one way or other this week. I've been told that a number of prominent-ish people tried to get Waxman to go on the record on Monday (yesterday) in response to Giraldi's new article to no avail - but surely he can't maintain that position, so in the meantime, no news is good news.

Oh - and for those of you who are saying 'Huh? AIPAC? Israel? I thought Sibel's case was about Turkey and the American Turkish Council (ATC)!' Sibel says that both AIPAC and the ATC both essentially operate as fronts for the same criminal organization. Or as Giraldi put it in his earlier article about Sibel's case:

On one level, (Sibel's) story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection.

I'll keep you updated, of course. Stay tuned, and thanks for your help & support, again.

Onward, Free Market Soldiers: Privatizing Public Diplomacy

Submitted by Diane Farsetta on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 09:48.

Long-time Bush confidante and U.S. public diplomacy chief Karen Hughes

U.S. Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes' remarks at the "Private Sector Summit on Public Diplomacy" opened on a militaristic note. "Looking around the room and seeing the quality and the scope of the talent represented here," she said, "I feel like reinforcements have arrived."

Given Hughes' membership in the White House Iraq Group, a key part of the Bush administration's Iraq War "sell job," perhaps her choice of imagery isn't surprising. But are her new corporate "troops" well suited for the job of public diplomacy?

The January 2007 public diplomacy summit was co-sponsored by the State Department and the PR Coalition, an "ad hoc partnership" of groups representing the public relations, investor relations, lobbying and other communications professions. Nearly 160 PR executives and government officials attended, engaging "in a dialogue over how the private sector can become more involved in and supportive of U.S. public diplomacy," in the words of PR Coalition chair and Accenture PR chief James Murphy.

The PR Coalition's recently released summit report (PDF file) contains the usual warnings about the United States' "image problem" overseas, while fretting that "anti-Americanism is bad for business." Not surprisingly, it skirts around the root causes. The opening page tersely notes that summit participants "were there to address the image problems, not create foreign policy." (While this admission is routine in public diplomacy circles, PR pros often say the opposite, insisting that their clients' new-found concern for human rights, the environment or other noble cause reflects a real change in policies and practices.)

More oblique references to fallout from the Bush administration's "war on terror" follow. "It's no secret that negative views of this country are most widespread in Muslim countries," states a summary of remarks by the State Department's Steve Shaffer, "but they also exist in sub-Saharan Africa" and "even among some long-term allies," with "much of the decline coming after 9/11." The Program on International Policy Attitudes' Steven Kull is paraphrased as saying, "There is also a fear in many countries that the U.S. will use force against them."

Wow. Even with all the high-powered PR flacks in the room -- including Burson-Marsteller founder Harold Burson and CEO Mark Penn, Edelman general manager Niel Flieger, EnviroComm chair E. Bruce Harrison, Fleishman-Hillard senior vice-president Jeff Weintraub, GolinHarris chair Al Golin, Ketchum CEO Raymond Kotcher, Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide CEO Paul Hicks, and Publicis chair Lou Capozzi -- it's difficult to imagine a lipstick garish enough to distract from that pig.

Secretary of State Rice addresses summit participants

Summit participants developed eleven "Models for Action that the private sector can use to support U.S. public diplomacy." Several are to increase international exchanges, a tried and true way to increase the global awareness of frequently-insular U.S. citizens, in addition to providing first-hand U.S. experiences for foreign visitors.

However, some suggestions are vague to the point of meaninglessness. For example: "Make U.S. business practices consistent with U.S. values." Would that mean providing living wages to workers employed overseas as contractors to U.S.-based companies? Somehow I think that Wal-Mart lobbyists Robert Lee Culpepper and Sarah Thorn, who were at the summit, might object to that. (Executives from Citibank, Pfizer, Wyeth, General Electric, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Reuters were also present.)

Other suggestions boil down to co-opting civil society groups (referred to as NGOs, for non-governmental organizations). These include "strategic philanthropy and greater engagement with responsible NGOs" (emphasis added), closely followed by the clarification, "Companies should partner with NGOs that 'fit' their business model." A similar suggestion is to "create 'circles of influence' through relationships with organizations, chambers of commerce, journalists and local business leaders."

Perhaps the most striking assumption is that promoting capitalism will somehow excuse, or lessen antagonism towards, U.S. foreign policy. Elizabeth Funk of the microcredit organization Unitus told summit attendees, "There is no better way to improve America's image abroad than to allow the people in those countries to bring themselves out of poverty, and experience the free enterprise system for themselves." David Chernow of JA (Junior Achievement) Worldwide explained, "Our model is driven largely by U.S.-based multinational companies. ... We are teaching young people about free market principles and how they can create opportunities for everyone."

Of course, summit attendees hail from major U.S. corporations. It's not surprising that they see the free market system as a core American value. However, public diplomacy efforts emphasizing the wonders of capitalism are unlikely to play well in Palestine, Persia, Pakistan, or any other region where much of the population condemns the U.S. initiated conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine.

Members of the PR Coalition are skilled at portraying image-challenged clients -- like pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and the nuclear industry -- as responsible, commendable contributors to U.S. society. But applying the same PR tactics to issues of war, national sovereignty and global economic development risks increasing international resentment of the United States.

---

Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior researcher.

Many of the links in the above article are to articles on SourceWatch, the Center for Media and Democracy's collaborative online encyclopedia. SourceWatch volunteer editors can help update, expand and improve these or any of the other SourceWatch profiles of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It's free to sign up, and we'd love to have you join us.

Diane Farsetta's blog

Topics: corporations | international | public diplomacy | public relations | U.S. government | war/peace

"I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIE" - US Representative Dana Rohrabacker

Related
Why we must tell truth about torture
No More Abu Ghraibs: Ask Congress to Fully Investigate CIA and DoD Interrogation Methods
---
Thu, 2007-04-19

By US Army Reserves Colonel (Retired) Ann Wright

"I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIE" said US Representative Dana Rohrabacker to American citizens who questioned the Bush Administration’s unlawful extraordinary rendition policies.

Congressional hearings provide a deep insight into the inner spirit of our elected representatives-and sometimes, the insight is not pretty.

On April 17, we witnessed Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) unleash his unbridled anger onto members of the European Parliament’s committee on Human rights who were invited guests and witnesses in the House Foreign Affairs European subcommittee hearing. The European Parliamentary human rights committee had issued a report in January, 2007 sharply critical of the Bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program in which persons from all over the world were detained by either CIA or local police and then flown by CIA jet (torture taxi) to other countries where they were imprisoned (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Djibouti, Morocco, Yemen. The report was equally critical of European governments for allowing the unlawful flights to take place.

From 2001 through 2005, the governments of fourteen countries in Europe allowed at least 1,245 CIA flights with illegally abducted terrorist suspects to be flown through their airspace or to land on their territory. Germany, Britain, Ireland and Portugal allowed the highest numbers of covert flights. As well as at least 1,245 flights operated by the CIA, there were an unspecified number of US military flights for the same purpose.

The European Parliament report differeniated between lawful extradition of criminal suspects for trial in another country and the unlawful abduction, sending to a third country usually noted for torture of prisoners and imprisoning for years without trial persons suspected of criminal terrorist acts.

The report acknowledged that terrorism is a threat to European countries as well as to the United States, but the European Parlimentary committee said that terrorist acts must be handled lawfully by both European countries and by the United States. The report said: "After 11 September 2001, the so-called 'war on terror' - in its excesses - has produced a serious and dangerous erosion of human rights and fundamental freedoms." The extraordinary rendidition program undercuts the exact liberties we are defending, the rule of law, the right for a fair and speedy trial, the right to know the evidence on which one is held and prosecuted.

Some who were kidnapped ended up in Guantanamo. Others were flown to prisons in other countries for interrogation and torture. Many of those who were subjected to extraordinary rendition are still in Guantanano. Many have been there for over 5 years. Over 400 of the 770 persons who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo over the 5 years it has been opened, have been released. Only 380 are left imprisoned in Guantanamo. Only 3 have been charged by the Military Commission and only one tried in Guantanamo. After five years of being held prisoner, Australian citizen David Hicks was convicted in March, 2007 of material support to terrorism and sentenced to only seven months further imprisonment which he is serving in Australia. The Bush administration has said it will try only 50-70 of the 380 remaining in Guantanamo. That means that of 770 who have been in Guantanamo, on 50-70 will be tried. The others eventually will be freed due to lack of evidence of a crime. Many will have spent five years or more in imprisonment.

According to virtually every prisoner that has been released, they were tortured while imprisoned in countries such as Syria, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some prisoners say they were tortured by police or interrogators. Some say they heard American voices in the background while they were tortured. None were charged with any crimes. None went to trial. They were abducted by CIA or local authorities at the request of the United States. The United States did not present evidence of criminal actions nor request extradition from the country where the person was detained. Nor did a central approving authority look at the rationale for spiriting a person to the control of a third country for interrogation. Persons were “rendered” many times on the say-so of junior CIA officials.

Back to the Congressional hearing. With eyes narrowed and mouth in a contorted grimace, Congressman Rohrabacker attacked the two British and one Italian members of the European Parliament who testified before the committee. Reminding one of Joe McCarty in tone and substance, Rohrabacker demeaned and degraded the report and chastised, belittled and berated the Parliamentarians. Remarkably, Rohrabacker said the most of the CIA private flights that landed in Europe were to transport CIA agents all over the world, not to move prisoners. Yet the logs of the 1245 flights have been tied by date and location to the movement of specific individual prisoners from one location to another.

Rohrabacher railed against anyone who questioned the right of the Bush administration to do whatever it wanted, legal or illegal, to prevent terrorist acts and said that by not supporting the Bush policies was consigning their country to the terrorists. In particular he said that any Americans who questioned the extraordinary rendition were un-American.

Citing historic examples of other countries kidnapping persons, Rohrabacker said Israel had every right to kidnap Nazi official Adolph Eichmann from Argentina, bring him to Israel and execute him. Rohrabacher conveniently forgot to mention that the Israeli government did put Eichmann on trial, a trial which none of those who have been extraordinarily rendered have had. Rohrabacher then attacked and belittled the European Community for outlawing the death penalty saying that “You in the European community won’t stand up to evil people, you won’t execute them. Eichmann deserved to be executed, just like these terrorists must be executed.”

Rohrabacher never once mentioned due process, the rule of law, right to a trial for anyone picked up in the extraordinary rendition program. Merely because persons were “rendered” and imprisoned by the US meant to Rohrbacker they were guilty.

Rohrabacher said if European countries did not cooperate with the United States and go along with whatever the Bush administration wanted, they were condemning their countrymen to death by not using extralegal methods to imprison terrorist suspects. When citizens attending the hearing, including members of Codepink Women for Peace and Veterans for Peace, heard Rohrabacher’s statement, they collectively groaned. Then, much to the shock and disbelief of everyone in the hearing room, Rorhbacker said to those who had expressed displeasure at his statements: "I hope it’s your family members that die when terrorists strike."

At that point, I had had enough of Rohrabacher. I stood up and said "I did not serve 29 years in the US military and 16 years in the US diplomatic corps to see demise of the rule of law and violation of our own laws. Rohrback’s statements are outrageous. No wonder the world hates us!"

Chairman Delahunt gaveled for me to stop speaking and I was escorted by the police out of the committee room. I was not arrested.

Remarkably, I do agree with one thing Rohrabacker said. "They hate us."

Rohrabacker finished his sentence with "They hate us because they hate our way of life." Unfortunately, many people do hate us, but it’s not for our way of life.

Its for exactly the talk and actions that Rohrabacker and the Bush administration represent: illegal and unlawful actions, an arrogant attitude that America is always right and everyone else is wrong, that the world’s resources are for the exclusive use of the United States and we have the right to invade and occupy any country.”

Until we change the manner in which Presidential administrations and the Congress operate and the way we approach our membership in the community of nations, the world will continue to question what America stands for.

About the Author: Ann Wright retired as a Colonel after serving 13 years on active duty and 16 years in the US Army Reserves. After 16 years in the US diplomatic corps, she resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She had been assigned in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December, 2001.

PBS=NEOCON TV

Related
Why we must tell truth about torture
Right Web | Profile | Frank Gaffney
---
The producer Frank Gaffney's message is, "Some Muslims aren't bad." You remember the neocons? Those rat basteds that lied Amerika into war.

PBS programming that old Adolf would approve of.
---
MEDIA-US:
Public Broadcaster Pulls TV Documentary on Islamism

Khody Akhavi

WASHINGTON, Apr 18 (IPS) - The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has dropped a documentary film purporting to show the struggles of U.S. "moderate" Muslims against Islamic extremists from a television series airing this week on more than 300 U.S. public television stations.

No sooner had PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) excluded "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Centre" from the series "America at a Crossroads" than the film's producers accused the station of suppressing their views as part of "an ideological vendetta."

"This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have a different agenda don't get on the air," said Frank Gaffney, one of the film's producers, as quoted in the conservative Washington Times. "The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn't want them to see."

"Islam vs. Islamists" was one of 21 documentaries commissioned by the CPB, a private, congressionally charted agency that administers federal money for public radio and television. The effort provided 20 million dollars in grants for independent filmmakers to develop films about the "challenges and opportunities America faces in the wake of the September 11 attacks," according to CPB website.

The film was not selected because of what PBS executives described as editorial deficiencies.

"In fairness to Mr. Gaffney, we recognise that he believes his film is completed," CPB spokeswoman Louise Filkins told IPS. "Public broadcasting officials have expressed concerns that the film may not comply with established PBS standards."

Executives at WETA, the Washington D.C. TV station overseeing the series for PBS, say the documentary was cut because its agenda was irresponsible and lacked the obligation of fairness.

"The writing is alarmist and overreaching without adequate context and specific information to justify the tone and degree of generalisation," wrote Crossroads series producer Leo Eaton to Gaffney in an evaluation of the documentary's final cut. "There are awkwardly phrased assertions, convoluted reasoning, and implications of connections between subjects without evidence."

A series of written exchanges between PBS and Gaffney, posted on the right-wing website familysecuritymatters.org, underscores the fundamental conflict between the station and the film's producers. According to Gaffney, the problem is not that his film has "a point of view."

"Rather, it is that mine is perceived to be other than a left-wing one," he wrote in a memo to Michael Pack, senior vice president of television programming at CPB.

Aminah Beverly McCloud, the director of the Islamic Studies program at DePaul University in Chicago, who advised WETA on the Crossroads Initiative, told IPS that "Islam vs. Islamists" touched on a topic little explored in the media, but that the film lacked coherence and ultimately did not fit with Crossroads main theme.

"It's not about America, and it's not about the war on terror. It's basically the experiences of individuals, with no real explanation of what the topic is," McCloud said.

"It's not about a left bias or a right bias, or else Richard Perle's film wouldn't have been there," she added, referring to "The Case for War: In Defence of Freedom," a film by Bush administration official Perle, that advocates neoconservative policies and was one of those selected by CPB.

The Crossroads initiative developed amidst Republican efforts to diversify the voices in public television by financing more conservative programming to balance a schedule that former CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson saw as overly liberal. Tomlinson resigned in November 2005 after the agency's inspector general released a report critical of his leadership, including evidence that he had violated the organisation's ethical code by using "political tests" in the hiring of high-level candidates.

Gaffney, who is also the president of the hawkish Centre for Security Policy, and his co-producer Alex Alexiev, CSP's vice president, approached Canadian novelist and filmmaker Martyn Burke to make the film with 675,000 dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds.

The right-wing Washington-based think tank seeks to "undermine the ideological foundations of totalitarianism and Islamist extremism," according to its website. CSP's advisory council also includes current and former high-level aides in the George W. Bush administration, such as Eliot Abrams and Douglas Feith.

The think tank's initiatives include "The Islamist Project," which aims to research and raise awareness about "the threat of Islamofascism." CSP views "non-Islamist Muslims" as natural allies in the fight against "the repressive, totalitarian ideology of Islamists," according to its website.

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Burke argued that his film became the target of "almost hysterical critiques" from WETA.

"What PBS/WETA attacked us on was they wanted us, in our opinion, to become virtually apologists for the Islamists, those who are the fundamentalists in this world," he said. "They demanded I fire my two partners (Frank Gaffney an Alex Alexiev), who brought me into this film, because my partners were conservative."

Crossroads series producer Leo Eaton called Burke's claims that he was asked to fire Gaffney and Alexiev because of their political opinions "totally misleading." In a letter to the editor published in the Washington Times, Eaton wrote that both PBS and CPB expressed initial concerns that the editorial focus of the film "too closely echoed" the opinions of the producers, who hold official positions at the Centre for Security Policy.

"It is how Messrs. Gaffney and Burke choose to frame and structure their characters and stories that hasn't yet met PBS standards," Eaton wrote. "[They] have chosen to 'attack the messenger' rather than trying to correct the message."

In an op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Times, Gaffney reiterated his complaint that "Islam vs. Islamists" was being suppressed and went on to equate PBS's refusal to air the film with the recent repression by government riot police of Russian protesters in Moscow's Pushkin Square. More than 200 protesters, including former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, were arrested during the clashes.

"I have watched with horror as techniques out of Mr. [Vladimir] Putin's playbook have been applied to prevent the telling of the story of freedom-loving Muslims who -- like the Kasparovs of Russia -- warn about the ominous rise of totalitarian ideologies in their communities, and what that portends for the rest of us," said Gaffney.

Government has list of anti-depressant users!: Virginia Tech killer NOT on it

"Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search."

From

Killer's Note: 'You Caused Me to Do This'

Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays

By NED POTTER, DAVID SCHOETZ, RICHARD ESPOSITO, PIERRE THOMAS and the staff of ABC News

April 17, 2007

A Thousand Words

Related
Gates in Israel on third leg of Mideast tour
Gates: U.S. committed to maintaining Israel's military edge over neighbors
---

--well, you know what they say about pictures, don't you ?

The Word According to Kos

Put forth on April 17, 2007 by XicanoPwr

We all know the meaning when someone mentions liquid courage - those who consume it “gain” confidence and lose discretion. Well, I prefer to think Internet courage is where an individual who enjoys the benefit of hiding behind the Internet and because like liquid courage, a person tends to “gain” confidence and lose discretion whenever they are on the Internet and will oftentimes take advantage of it by using it as a bully pulpit. Once they muster up their “Internet courage” the answer for them is just a few taps of the keyboard and suddenly the fantasy world is set right. Make no mistake, it is a fantasy world because rarely do they ever accept any responsibility for what they promote. That is exactly what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, better known as Kos of Daily Kos, has done again.

This time around, Markos thinks that if a blogger were to get a death threat, we should suck it up because “most of the time” they “don’t even exist.” Or, as Kalifornia’s Govnator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would say, “Don’t be a girlie man.” For Kos, courage is used to taunt people into doing something stupid. Sure it is easy to say suck it up if your only threat is that someone tells you “I hope you catch AIDS” but it is another, when you get comments or emails that say “we’re moving to send your sorry asses back over the border” or “hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo” for speaking truth to power. It is not that easy to “suck it up.” Especially for many people across the country who have already been assaulted and even killed by some psychopath cyber-stalker they did not take seriously.

However, Kos’ behavior isn’t really new really. Sadly, this Berkeley faux liberal whose ideology better matches that of Reich wingers has duped a large majority over at the Big Orange Mothership Daily Kos and the Democratic Party into thinking he is a true Dem. Kos has and will always be a pompous asshole beyond compare, a fraud, a phony and a seasoned snake oil salesman. All anybody has to do is just go over to Marisacat’s blog. She has been warning people long before this consequence. The irony, she has been harassed and is considered to be a pariah among some of the B-listers who are now complaining about King Koz.

Very interesting, as wilfred and I had been banned the last weekend of August (Madman was personally banned by Kos, October 2005, for complaining about tired Red State Dems run as effing heroes before they do anything, yes that is Tester, Webb and Casey and others)… we were banned as individuals, not as part of a purge. I still to this day have never read the Hunter FP piece on the banning..

The Boyz, or whatever they are, have been slamming me and a lot of other people for years now.

People saying what they think that does not conform to what they want said, well, it really pisses them off. And their Box Car Site Minions and others on the Treats and Sweets Rez….

Who FP intellectually dishonest, numbers grabbing bullshit (Outing Bloggers, “Marisacat”, Paparazzi at the Box Car Site, BMT), lectures and drooling “erotica” attended by Maryscott with her tongue hanging out… Voyeurs, original and Maryscott’s reconstruction among other FP slams at MLW. In a sad, public loss of any grip on reality, METAmorphosis at MLW. Not to forget this gem. Eugene and Armando with others, did stand up routines at MLW thru 2005/06, parsing my banning over and over for the little hordes. In case you think there is something new in BlahgTown.

(Oh and as a chocolate on the pillow or extra vodka in your OJ: don’t miss the BMT proprietaire being cute with his hints.)

I won’t be stopping. And I am so amused at the lately landed stress and anger, sturm and drang, directed at Kos. Sure did ramp up after the BlogRoll trim…

However, if your inner-kindergarten self still insist she has cuddies and anybody else who associates with her has cuddies, then all one has to do is do a simple Google search on “banned by Kos” to see what Kos is all about. I genuinely understand when people have an agenda of trying to find a common ground among the more conservative wing (AKA centrist) of the Democratic Party. However, the deal with Markos, there are those who continue believing he is Dem. The reality is, he started off as Republican and changed sides roughly around the same time when other Republicans switched sides because they realized the Religious Right successfully infiltrated their Republican Party and were able to exert considerable influence on policy and lawmaking. Instead of fight them off; they have opted to take over the Democratic Party. That is why we are the big tent party. The central problem is this: there are those in the progressive blogosphere who believe it is wrong to criticize. Nevertheless, if the progressive blogosphere is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what is the proper arena? By keeping things inside it will only fester for so long before it finally explodes.

However, there is a double standard. Markos consistently criticizes whomever he elects to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives. For him to try to use his muscle and personal connections to squelch criticism of himself and his opinions is very Orwellian - “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” It is not surprising that the chickens came, home to roost. The more Markos and his followers stopped others from challenging his opinions throughout the blogosphere, it was inevitable that revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses are taking place. Just look below this post on the number of people who are speaking out (courtesy of Wampum).

Regardless of whether it is coming from the left or right, totalitarianism is just as brutal and will repeatedly have to have a need to justify its so-called “goodness” to the world. Even worse is when mindless followers are complied to remain mindless in the face of over whelming evidence. Terror is used to keep the faithful from straying and indoctrination to imprison the mind. Fear of change, the outside world, of not having a strong ruler are amplified to increase their need on the totalitarian regime.

Given the state that we are in, we have voluntarily surrendered our freedoms that we once held to be essential. Do we even care that homes are being bugged, our emails being read, our letters being opened? Where we have feared the ominous presence of Big Brother constantly gazing through the multiple security cameras around us, we are have now become oblivious to them and worse, we have become a voyeuristic society while our constant need to check a person’s background has become second nature. As we continue to be force-fed shadows on the wall of Plato’s Cave, people are disappearing right before our very eyes, vanished without a trace in the name of the “border security.” Is all this just an Orwellian dress rehearsal in preparation for the larger scale version?

Instead of running away from living in the world Orwell feared, the modern world celebrates it. When we hear Bush and our war hawk Democrats begging people to give war a chance, are these signs we are embracing the language of doublespeak and newspeak, “War is Peace?” If so, then it should not come as a shock that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is the poster boy for “progressive is conservatism.”

People who have spoken out
brownfemipower at Woman of Color Blog
Zuzu at Feministe
Jessica at Feministing
Belledame at Fetch Me My Axe
Echnide of the Snakes
Mark at Norwegienty
Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast
Bitch PhD
Chris at Creek Running North and Pandagon
Kip at Long Story, Short Pier
Bruce at Crablaw
Melissa at Shakesville
Jeff at Blog of the Moderate Left
Interrobang
Stephen at The Thinkery
Amp at Alas, A Blog
Amanda at Pandagon
Lindsey at Majikthise
Dan at Fitness for the Occasion
Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican
Natasha, at Pacific Views
Kevin at Slant Truth
Aaron at Faithfully Liberal
Ntodd at Dohiyi Mir
Trifecta at New PairODimes
Steven D at Booman Tribune
Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Myra at Reno and Its Discontents
twoluvcats at a wealth of semi-useless information!
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money
PZ at Pharyngula
skippy the bush kangaroo
Mickle at The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller
WebWeaver’s World
Renee at the Independent Bloggers’ Alliance
Terrance at The Republic of T
Vox Aemeliae

Technorati Tags: Kos, Markos, Marisacat, Republican, Democratic Party, progressive blogosphere

The Perils of Pragmatism

Remi Kanazi, The Electronic Intifada, 19 April 2007

The latest back and forth between Israel and the Palestinian unity government (and its regional interlocutors) will not bring peace to fruition. Many respected commentators in the Middle East have accused Israel of rejecting peace, primarily due to its refusal to fully embrace the Arab peace initiative. Yet this initiative, when entered into the international community's trash compactor of "pragmatism," will leave the Palestinian people with nothing more than an old, albeit neatly packaged, version of the Oslo Accords. These commentators' near-sighted, almost desperate view, which is predicated on the notion that anything is better than what the Palestinians are currently enduring, will only further devastate the Palestinian people. It is one thing to compromise on the implementation of the rights of Palestinians, but it is quite another to diverge from one's principles based on "new realities" imposed on the conflict by one's adversary. We must never forget the lessons of the Oslo period, nor can we forget that after 40 years of compromise and conciliatory action, Palestinian suffering has been exponentially magnified. The professed pragmatist line only diminishes the rights of the oppressed, strengthens the oppressor's position, and makes a mockery of institutions (i.e. the United Nations) whose many functions ostensibly include the protection of persecuted peoples.

Many proponents of Palestinian rights naively argue, as is laid out in the Arab peace initiative, that all will be well once there is a full withdrawal from the occupied territories. But territorially, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and yet the conditions inside Gaza reflect how autonomy alone does not mean independence. Israel continues to control Gaza's imports and exports, its territorial waters, and its airspace -- leaving 1.4 million people to suffocate in an open-air prison. Compounded by the sanctions slapped on 3.8 million occupied people, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem continue to economically wither away, while the world sits idly by. It is not enough to demand autonomy, the preservation of the right to self-determination, and the right of return. Policy must be put in place by Israel and the West that ensures the economic sustainability for the Palestinian people. No people should be expected to recover after 40 years of imposed suffering without eventual restitution.

Assuming that full withdrawal is deemed unrealistic, what would semi-withdrawal mean for Palestinians? If Israel were to keep parts of the West Bank settlements (supposing the Apartheid wall was torn down), Israel would claim it to be "necessary," as it did at Camp David in 2000, to effectively control half of the West Bank. If even one settlement were to remain, Israel, for "security" purposes, would not give up control of the Jordan Valley, and surely would maintain the "need" for Jewish-only roads, checkpoints, and a complete army apparatus that would further subjugate the Palestinian people to the oppressive measures of occupation. Israel is right on one point: a long-term hudna (cease-fire), as proposed by various Hamas officials, is insufficient, because the two peoples will never get passed a hudna if there is not an end to Israel's matrix of control.

Detractors of the Palestinian plight have continued the tired policy of blaming the victim. Capitalizing on US President George W. Bush's "war on terror" and the fight against "Islamic fundamentalism," a multitude of pro-Israel commentators have criticized the rising religiosity in Palestinian society. Yet this rush to conservatism emanated from the failure of Fatah, which led a corrupt secular government that had done little for its people or the political establishment. Furthermore, the significant alternative forces within Palestinian society, which preach non-violence, an end to corruption, and a democratic environment that ensures the rights of all its citizens (socially, religiously and economically), have been silenced and stunted by their compatriots (namely Fatah during the Oslo years). Disturbingly, these alternative voices remain purposely ignored by Israel and the West. The impetus for this outright rejection stems from the fact that recognition of the Palestinian people, under the tenets of equality, is seen as a cancer for Israel's "Jewish democracy." For far too long, Yasser Arafat and his corrupt thugs in the Palestinian Authority, toed the line for Israel and cowered to the demands of the West, squandering the social energy and political capital of the first Intifada.

There is a direct correlation between the rise of conservatism in Palestinian society and Israel's heightened policy of starvation and collective punishment, a policy that intensified during the Oslo years. During this period, like Ariel Sharon's subsequent policy of "disengagement," Israel passed off its actions to the international community as "peaceful" and "propitiative" measures that gave Palestinians autonomy. The separateness policy of Oslo, however, further ghettoized the Palestinian economy. A concerted effort was made to hinder Palestinian exports, stunt their labor force, increase travel restrictions, and back a corrupt Fatah force, which effectively operated as a proxy police force for Israel. The post-Oslo period, which was followed by economic instability and communal anger due to the "peace process" being exposed as a hoax, saw conservative groups continue to gain popular support within Palestinian society. Furthermore, the Fatah led government became evermore corrupt, while Israel and the West increasingly cultivated a hard-line approach to the conflict.

This leads back to the Arab peace initiative. There are already signs of Hamas being corrupted by the pragmatist line to ensure its power in the occupied territories. This is not to say that negotiations can't and shouldn't take place, but at this point, on all five sides (Hamas, Fatah, Israel, the US, and the Quartet), intention substantively matters more than words and action. The "disengagement" of Gaza led to widespread suffering, settlements doubled during the Oslo years, and after free and fair democratic elections, sanctions were placed on the Palestinian government. This goes to show how seemingly positive actions, when combined with sinister ulterior motives, can be even more damaging than the status quo. If steps are taken to improve the lives of Palestinians on a permanent basis, it should be welcomed, but neither Hamas nor Fatah should be tempted by calls for negotiations in return for, what would be, short-term political capitalization.

The Palestinian government will be facing some tough decisions in the coming months. While Olmert has rejected the totality of the Arab peace initiative, he has embraced its concept and seems willing to engage with the region diplomatically. Nonetheless, why would Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the strongman who rationalized the devastating bombing campaign of Lebanon, want to engage in any kind of peace process with the Palestinians and its regional partners? Simply put, this is Israeli politics par excellence -- if hard-line policy fails, champion supposed "peacenik" politics; if "dovish" policy fails, champion hard-line politics. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is an apt example. The once "peacenik" turned hard-liner is feverishly trying to revert back to his "dovish ways."

While the world craves a quick resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is just not realistic. Without reconciliation based on justice for both peoples, peace will just be an idea pushed for by so-called pragmatists and the politically weak: both groups who have done more damage to the conflict than hard-liners on either side.

Edward Said wrote in his book, Peace and its Discontents: "[W]e must restore Palestine to its place not simply as a small piece of territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River but as an idea that for years galvanized the Arab world into thinking about and fighting for social justice, democracy, and a different kind of future than the one that has been imposed on it by force and by an absence of Arab will." His words, eleven years later, still ring true, yet they do not apply only to the people of Palestine, but rather for both peoples, Israeli and Palestinians: for if we are to see this conflict resolved, it must be based on mutual understanding and acceptance as well as a breakdown of racism and supremacy in all its forms.

Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American poet and writer based in New York City. He is the co-founder of www.PoeticInjustice.net and the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets for Palestine. He can be contacted at Remi@PoeticInjustice.net

The Protocols of "Progressive Zionists"

More duplicity that characterizes the modern Zionist movement since it was conceived by Herzl.
---
What Progressive Zionists should be doing
"Within the Jewish community, progressive Zionists have a winning case. We are uniquely positioned to defend Israel and Zionism, because we can present a humanistic and progressive view of Zionism and win back those who have turned away from Israel owing to extremist advocacy and settler Zionism. To the general public and to foreign governments we also have a strong case, because we can argue for a pro-active peace solution that is based on real justice, a two state solution that is based on self-determination and freedom for two peoples, democracy and human rights."

Global Strike Still on Pentagon Wish List

April 2007

Picture a grim scenario: U.S. intelligence learns that terrorists in a remote location are preparing an attack against the United States . The window of opportunity to react is a few hours at most, and no U.S. air, ground, or sea forces are close enough to act. The only current options, according to Pentagon officials, are to do nothing or fire a nuclear-armed, long-range ballistic missile.

The commander in charge of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons, Strategic Command chief General James Cartwright, says neither option is attractive. He wants another alternative: long-range ballistic missiles carrying conventional warheads.

Lawmakers last year were largely unconvinced of the wisdom of such a step, however, fearing particularly that Russia might mistake the launch of a conventional ballistic missile for a surprise nuclear attack requiring instant retaliation. They trimmed funding for the project from $127 million to $25 million and called for further study of the concept. (See ACT, November 2006.)

The studies are unfinished, but Cartwright and the Pentagon are back this year, asking Congress for $175 million to proceed with the project as part of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The initial phase calls for substituting conventional warheads for nuclear warheads on two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) for each of the dozen deployed U.S. ballistic missile submarines. The boats would continue to carry 22 nuclear-armed SLBMs apiece.

Testifying March 8 before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Cartwright said the Pentagon still needed a way to hit targets worldwide with a conventional warhead in under an hour. Surveying both offensive and defensive military assets, Cartwright asserted that “where we have a hole…is in the prompt global strike side of the equation.” This void could be filled in two years with the SLBM conversion, according to Strategic Command.

In his prepared remarks, Cartwright noted that “use of a nuclear weapon system in prompt response may be no choice at all.” Cartwright later testified that something “below the nuclear threshold” was required for “fleeting, high-value, high-regret factor-type threats.”

Legislators remain wary. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), the subcommittee chair, told Cartwright that prompt global strike is a “powerful concept, but there are a number of important questions that need to be answered before moving forward with any particular program.”

Aside from the worry that Russia and, perhaps someday, China might misinterpret a U.S. conventional missile launch as nuclear, some analysts and congressional aides have expressed other concerns. For example, they note that a launch order would be heavily reliant on intelligence, which can be limited or faulty, as demonstrated by the incorrect allegations about Iraqi unconventional weapons. In particular, the skeptics dread that the possibility of error could be magnified by the abbreviated timeline in which military and political leaders might need to make a decision. They also fear that providing a new use for ballistic missiles might enhance their perceived utility at a time that the United States has been seeking to stop their spread.

Congress has tasked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the need for a prompt global strike capability and how best to achieve it in varying time frames: one to two years, three to five years, and more than five years. The academy's Naval Studies Board initiated the 15-month, $5 million study earlier this year. Lawmakers had requested a preliminary report by March 15, but one has yet to be submitted.

The Pentagon is exploring other prompt strike capabilities aside from converting SLBMs, but they are longer-term possibilities. Cartwright noted that Air Force Space Command is developing a long-range ballistic missile option for launch from the United States .

Lt. Col. Randi Steffy, chief of operations for U.S. Strategic Command public affairs, told Arms Control Today in a Feb. 21 e-mail that the SLBM conversion is “only the first step in a larger plan for prompt global strike.” Steffy added that the command supports the development of such capabilities “in whatever form is deemed appropriate by Congress.”

Wade Boese

RAQ: Thousands missing since war began

18 Apr 2007 11:23:46 GMT
Source: IRIN

More BAGHDAD, 18 April 2007 (IRIN) - BAGHDAD, 18 April 2007 (IRIN) - When 53-year-old Tina Abdallah celebrated the fall of deceased former President Saddam Hussein in March 2003, she had no idea that her suffering had just begun. Four years on, the mother of two is desperate for news about her sons who have disappeared in separate incidents following the US-led invasion of 2003.

"During Saddam's time, people were being arrested and sometimes families couldn't get any information about their loved ones. But the proposed democracy hasn't changed this reality. My two sons have disappeared and I can't get any information. I don't even know if they are dead," Tina said.

"I have gone to NGOs, the Ministry of Human Rights and police departments looking for them but no one could help me. My last attempt was in the US-run prisons, but it was even harder to get to speak with someone there because of the huge number of people with the same problem as me," she added.

Because of unrelenting violence hampering all efforts to collect data, the number of people who have disappeared in Iraq since 2003 is not known. But aid workers estimate the figure to be in the tens of thousands.

"Based on studies done by local NGOs, it is probable that at least 15,000 Iraqis have disappeared in the past four years of occupation," Mukhaled al-A'ani, a spokesman for local Iraqi NGO Human Rights Association (HRA), said.

According to Diar Hassnun, a spokesman for Iraq's Ministry of Human Rights, the ministry is working to come up with an official figure for a report it is compiling.

In February 2005, the ministry set up a National Centre for Missing and Disappeared Persons (NCMDP) to help relatives find out what had happened to their loved ones. The initial focus of the centre was to help recover mass graves and identify those who had gone missing since 1978. Now, because of the sheer number of concerned relatives, it is putting more emphasis on finding people who have recently gone missing.

"When this centre was first set up, we didn't expect to receive so many claims of recently disappeared Iraqis. There are hundreds of new missing people every year and since 2006 the situation has worsened in tandem with the sectarian violence," said Hassnun, adding that more than 200,000 people disappeared under Saddam's government, many of whom are still expected to be found in mass graves across Iraq.

Families ignored by the government

But families claim that they have been ignored by the government, and are left on their own to search for their missing relatives, hoping they are being held prisoners somewhere.

"I don't want to think my son is dead," said Abu Khalid, 58, whose 35-year-old son has been missing for the past two years. "I prefer imagining that he is being held in a prison somewhere, as was common during Saddam's time. But if he's not in a prison, I need to find his body at least and stop suffering and dreaming that one day he might come back. I should be able to tell his sons that their father is dead."

HRA's al-A'ani said there are daily reports of hundreds of missing Iraqis and that NGOs are doing there best to help relatives find them.

"We are working very hard with families who are trying to get information about their missing loved ones. Unfortunately, we can't get information in every place," al-A'ani said. "But compared to the number of missing people in 2005, figures for 2006 and 2007 have increased by at least 50 percent."

"Information on less than 10 percent of those missing has been conveyed to their families. Most of the time they [missing persons] had been killed," he added.

But Tina Abdallah clings to the hope that her two sons are alive and will never forget the days on which they disappeared.

Tina said that the first incident happened in August 2004. Aziz, her 28-year-old son, went to his work in a bakery, two weeks before his marriage, and never returned home. Her second son, 25-year-old Ibraheem, never came home from classes at Baghdad's Mustansiriyah University, where he was in his final year.

"I go to the morgue every two days but nothing so far. My husband died from cardiac problems 10 years ago and since then my boys had been taking care of me. Now, I don't even have anything to eat as well as being recently displaced and suffering emotionally from the disappearance of my beloved sons," Tina said.

as/ar/ed

McCain: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

McCain visits Murrells Inlet

By Scott Harper, sharper@gtowntimes.com April 19, 2007

Even though he was nursing a cold, Republican Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain spent nearly 90 minutes talking to nearly 500 people who crammed into the Murrells Inlet VFW Hall Wednesday morning.

The “Straight Talk” tour, as it’s called, included stops in Summerville and Charleston.
Many of the supporters of the Arizona senator were standing outside the VFW as McCain’s bus pulled into the parking lot right on time for the 9 a.m. start of the rally.

After being greeted by VFW member Lyn Dimery and his wife Cathy, McCain made his way inside the building where he was greeted with thunderous applause from the hundreds who had been waiting.

Before taking questions, McCain — who trails former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani by three points in the latest CNN poll — spent a few minutes talking about some of the issues facing the country. Most of his comments were about the war in Iraq.

“Many people in this room know the face of war,” McCain said to the mainly-veteran crowd.
He said he knows the war had been “badly mishandled” but “we are where we are now.”
He also acknowledged that his support of President George Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops has cost him some political points.

“We are seeing some small signs of success. I am not saying ‘mission accomplished.’ Am I guaranteeing there will be success? No. I am saying this plan gives us the best chance of success.”

He also repeated his denouncement of any bill that would set a date for military departure from Iraq, saying if such a bill were to pass it would be “disastrous.”

He also chastised Democratic Senator Harry Reed.

“He was on the Senate floor and said we will pick up senate seats because of this war. Is this war about winning seats? These are the most partisan and unpleasant times I have seen since the Vietnam war,” he said.

McCain said we will know the war has been successful when the people in that country have a secure environment where they have an efficient government and live normal lives.

When responding to a question, McCain spoke about the highly publicized conditions at the Walter Reed Medical Center. The facility has been under fire recently for poor treatment of injured soldiers.

“I am ashamed of Walter Reed. I apologize for not knowing about the conditions of the building,” he said.
When young people see the difficulty veterans have with getting proper medical treatment when it’s needed, it makes it hard to recruit, McCain said.

Another man — wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works — wanted to know when America is going to “send an air mail message to Tehran.”

McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song.

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann. “Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel.”

He stopped short of answering the actual question and did not say if he supports an invasion of Iran.

A woman in the audience said she has been disappointed President Bush has not spent more time addressing the American people about the issues. She asked McCain if he would be more accessible.

“If I am elected I will go on TV every two weeks, even if it’s only carried by C-SPAN, and detail what is going on in Iraq and with other issues,” he said.

One man then asked if McCain is elected, will he try to get Don Imus back on the radio.
“I knew I should have ended this before now,” McCain joked.

He never said if he felt CBS Radio did the right thing by firing the talk show host for making racist and sexist remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. After the controversy erupted McCain had said he would still be a guest on the show if invited.

“What he did was unacceptable and despicable but I believe in redemption,” he said.
McCain has yet to officially announce his bid for the presidency. He made an unofficial announcement on the Late Show with David Letterman in February. He told Letterman he would make an official announcement in April.

He has scheduled a two-day “announcement tour” for April 25 -26 which will include stops in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Arizona.

Flight from U.S. dollar gathers strength

Europe new magnet for higher investor returns

Jacqueline Thorpe

Financial Post, with files from Reuters

Thursday, April 19, 2007

CREDIT: Kieran Doherty, Reuters Foreign currency traders have been downgrading the U.S. dollar, as the belief is the outlook for corporate profits is higher in the eurozone.

The assault against the U.S. dollar intensifed yesterday as the greenback slumped to historic lows against currencies as diverse as the U.K. pound and the Polish zloty amid growing conviction among investors higher returns lie beyond U.S. borders.

While many analysts say the greenback will continue to fall against many currencies, a question mark remains over what it will do against the Canadian dollar. The loonie joined in the greenback assault yesterday, rising US0.19? to a five-month high of US88.66?.

"An IMF forecast that was released last week showed for the first time in 37 years you will get 5% global growth and the U.S. accounting for less than 10% of that growth -- half its normal share of global GDP," said Stefane Marion, assistant chief economist at National Bank in Montreal. "You've never seen the global economy growing at 5% with the U.S. growing ... only 2.2%."

The catalyst for this week's dramatic move was figures that raised chances for higher interest rates outside the United States, while cutting them at home.

Britain reported inflation soared to 3.1%, forcing Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, to write an explanatory letter to the U.K. Treasury and propelling the pound to US$2.0133 yesterday, its highest since 1992. In contrast, U.S. core inflation was weaker than expected.

The euro, meanwhile, shot up to US$1.3660, its strongest in two years, bringing it within 60 ticks of its December, 2004, record.

Europe is becoming an increasing attraction for investors.

"Within the last few weeks European equities have reached a greater market cap, when you include Russia in the equation, than the U.S." said Shaun Osborne, chief currency strategist at TD Securities in Toronto. "Certainly European bond markets are deep and liquid and offer a viable alternative to the U.S."

"Another factor might be this issue of [U.S.] protectionism that has come up," Mr. Osborne said.

A Merrill Lynch survey of global money managers released yesterday showed a net 38% believed the outlook for corporate profits was most favourable in the eurozone, while a net 42% believed the outlook to be the worst in the United States.

"This divergence between the two regions is the biggest since April, 2001," Merrill said. "What is more, investors see the eurozone as being the most undervalued equity market, and the U.S. as the most overvalued. So far this year, eurozone equities have outperformed the U.S. market by more than 6% on a common-currency basis."

The greenback not only wilted against the euro yesterday. It reached its lowest level against the zloty since November, 1996, and it fell to near two-year lows against the Hungarian forint and hit a 17-year low against the Australian dollar and a 22-year low against the New Zealand Kiwi.

While the United States has been worrying about a submerging housing market and slowing business spending, emerging Europe has been revelling in strong data and growing integration with Germany, France and Britain. Commodity currencies, like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, have been flying high on soaring prices for gold, and metals and renewed vigour in the oil price.

Underlying the weakness in the U.S. dollar has been its persistent current account deficit, which reached US$783-billion, or 5.8% of GDP last year. Foreign exchange markets are wary of current account deficits because it means having to borrow from abroad to fund the extra consumption.

"Our overall view is pretty much bearish the dollar structurally," said Steven Englander, head of G10 foreign exchange strategy for Merrill Lynch in New York. "We don't think U.S. assets are going to be attractive enough to get the kind of overfunding they need to have as large current account deficit that they have, plus to get the dollar to appreciate."

jthorpe@nationalpost.com

Ridiculous NYT and Pentagon claims of Shiite Iranian arms going to Sunnis

April 18, 2007

When all else fails, blame Iran (Part II)

Posted by Scott Harrop at April 18, 2007 11:47 PM

Matters must be really deteriorating in Afghanistan. Why else would the Pentagon brass now be darkly suggesting that Iranian arms have been "captured," supposedly on their way to the Taliban? It sounds suspiciously like the tired old formula; when matters go really bad somewhere in the Middle East, change the subject and blame Iran.

Michael R. Gordon today is competing yet again to be chief salesman for such ominous news. Media bloggers have taken to deeming him the resident "ghost of Judith Miller" at the New York Times, the journalist most willing to "take out Cheney’s trash."

Lately, Gordon has been quite active in reviving support for getting tougher on Iran.

Last week, I commented here on the Pentagon's odd claim that Iran was now not only supporting Iraqi Shia insurgents, but Sunni fighters as well. On February 10th, it was Michael R. Gordon who had started the latest round of Iran-as-the-source-of-trouble-in-Iraq" with a front-page "scoop" that breathlessly cited un-named US sources to contend that Iran was intentionally providing deadly munitions to kill Americans. Gordon's follow-up report generously allowed his sources to defend their claims amid the "controversy," which even a NYTimes editorial criticized. (Amazingly, that editorial neglected to mention that it was their own reporter - Gordon - who catalyzed the controversy).

Like Judy Miller, Gordon has long specialized in providing red meat for neoconservative circles.

Last November, it was Michael R. Gordon reporting that "Iran-backed" Hizbullah was training Iraqi Shia fighters. And throughout the fall, Gordon filed one “report” after another citing "experts" and "analysts" cautioning against quick withdrawal from Iraq, then condemning the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (particularly the idea to talk to Iraq’s neighbors), and then advocating a "surge" of more troops into Iraq.

Back in 2002, it was Michael R. Gordon who wrote regularly with Judith Miller about Iraqi WMD capabilities, most infamously about the aluminum tubes presumed for Iraq's nuclear program. The obvious intent of such articles was to drum up support for invading Iraq sooner rather than later.

The New York Times flagellated itself last year for such bad reporting, and specifically cited the Miller-Gordon "tubes" story as one of the worst examples. Yet Michael R. Gordon remains the Times' lead "military" correspondent.

In a contentious interview last year with Amy Goodman, Gordon curiously claimed that he was merely a recorder of the best intelligence and analysis available (pre-Iraq invasion) and that later "dissenters" had not contacted him.

That's a curious defense. Shouldn't the reporters be the ones casting about for different views?

Gordon may have thought himself funny when he told Goodman: "I'm actually not Judy Miller." !

Really?

Today, the NYTimes designates none other than Michael R. Gordon to tell us that Iran is supporting the Taliban (sic) in Afghanistan. That's right, Iran is now accused of sending arms to the Taliban, Iran's mortal arch-enemy.

In 2000, then Bush advisor Condoleze Rice well-illustrated her lack of Middle East credentials (coming into office) when she confidently told the Washington Post that the Taliban were "clients" of Iran. The media has largely forgotten that absurd gaffe.

Now, thanks to Michael R. Gordon, we have insinuations floating that by golly, maybe Condi Rice was “right” all along.

Not!

By Gordon's (very low) "standards," his report on the alleged Iran-Taliban link is relatively tame:

First, this time he has a named source at the top: Joint Chiefs’ Chair, Peter Pace, who said simply, “We have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran.” Gordon also included Pace's caution that, “It’s not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible.”

About half of Gordon’s report about Iran in Afghanistan repeats Gordon's claims about Iran's alleged involvement in Iraqi (sic) mayhem. But Gordon lamely notes that Iran's role in Afghanistan has been more "complicated," noting past Iranian clashes with the Taliban, Iran's support of the Afghan Northern Alliance (which resisted the Taliban), and Iran's firm, cooperative role establishing the current Karzai government.

Gordon manages to find one scholar, Barnett Rubin, to lend a plausible, yet highly speculative argument that Iran, or some element therein, might be consciously interested in supporting their mortal foe - the Taliban.

"The Iranians believe the No. 1 threat is an American attack to overthrow their government. They may do anything it takes to make the United States and its allies uncomfortable there.”

Gordon doesn't bother quoting any of those observers who would counter that Iran has little, if any, interest in supporting the Taliban or the Iraqi Sunni insurgents. No doubt Gordon might again disingenuously claim that no such "dissenters" contacted him.

AP even worse:

Robert Burns, an AP military correspondent, has the "distinction" for out-hyping Gordon. Burns cites two unreliable sources to magnify the Pace claim. First, Burns quotes Mohammad Mohaddessin, a spokesman for the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" (aka the "People's Mujahedin") who claims that,

"Export of fundamentalism and terrorism to neighboring and Islamic countries has been one of the pillars of the clerical regime's foreign policy - something that the Iranian resistance has warned about for the past two decades."

With respect to Iran's ties to Afghanistan, such a black and white statement is ridiculous -- as even Michael Gordon's report should demonstrate. Burns also doesn't mention that the NCR/PMOI is still on the State Department's terrorist list.

Burns also trots out Michael Rubin, now of the neoconservative bastion at the American Enterprise Institute. Rubin attempts to debunk any suggestion that Iran might have ever played a constructive role in Afghanistan, deeming any Iranian efforts to increase its influence in Afghanistan as nefariously aimed at America....

"Iran's leadership often strikes pragmatic relationships to further their influence at our expense... A lot of testimonials about Iranian assistance in Afghanistan are based more on wishful thinking than reality."

Rubin thus still sings the rigid tune of the neocon ideologue - that nothing good, by definition, can come out of Iran, short of regime change.

Not surprisingly, these reports from Gordon and Burns make no mention of far more likely and substantial sources of support for the Taliban – namely, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The Guardian Stands out...:

Curiously, the Washington Post hasn't even bothered to report on the Pace claim - perhaps they saw it for what it was. In my searches thus far, only Britain's Guardian (April 19th edition) has cast a skeptical eye on the intended insinuation. Writing from his base in Kabul, Declan Walsh reports Pace's charge and then (unlike Burns & Gordon) runs a reality check with locals in Afghanistan:

First, he quotes Afghan General Mohiyadeen Ghori, commander of the 205th Corps stationed in Helmand, who said his troops had recovered Iranian-manufactured weapons from insurgents in Farah province, and that Iran was funding insurgents in Garmser district, where several British soldiers have died in heavy fighting.

However, General Ghori also indicates that such funds were being channelled through drug smugglers based in Iranian Baluchistan, and "All they are interested in is money."

Walsh closes his report with the following telling observation:

"Some western officials in Kabul treated the allegations of Taliban support with scepticism yesterday. One said Iranian weapons had been freely available on the black market since the 1990s, when Tehran shipped arms to groups fighting the Taliban. "Out of every 10 Kalashnikovs, one is Iranian," he said. "This is all a war of words. It has very little basis in reality."

Walsh's story also cites western officials suspecting that such charges "coincided with mounting speculation about possible US air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities."

Tehran Radio

Tehran Radio (VOIR in Persian - trans. BBC monitoring) earlier today broadcast a dismissal of the Pace allegations. Apart from noting the strong cultural bonds between Iran and Afghanistan which made an active Iranian presence "inevitable," the commentary noted that,

Iran is one of the few countries that have fulfilled its financial aid promises for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the measures Tehran has taken for the reconstruction of Afghanistan have all been important and effective.

As for accusations from America to the contrary,

"The military machine of America is stuck in the Afghan mountains and quagmires. In order to justify this situation, American has to blame others and attribute its own problems to foreign countries. There was no mention of Iran up until yesterday, but the more America is frustrated in Afghanistan, the more it focuses its psychological warfare on Iran. The statement of America's chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday is an example of this.

In short, when all else fails, blame Iran.

Tehran Radio also dabbled a bit in analyzing American politics:

The claim is concurrent with the pressures exerted by the Congress and America's public opinion for withdrawal from [Iraq?] and having constructive interaction with Iran. This can be interpreted as a new attempt to cause the Democrats in the Congress to fail in their move to approach Iran.

So that's what it's all about. Senator Webb, take notes.

Video: Gonzales Hearing

The Chairman Committee Information Committee Rules Online Library Document Request

HEARINGS > APRIL 19, 2007

"Department of Justice Oversight "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee


DATE: April 19, 2007
TIME: 09:30 AM
ROOM: Hart-216
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:


Live video streaming courtesy of C-Span

April 18, 2007

NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE ROOM FOR RESCHEDULED OVERSIGHT HEARING HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 216 THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

The hearing on “Department of Justice Oversight” which was rescheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for Thursday, April 19, 2007, will take place in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.

By order of the Chairman.

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on “Department of Justice Oversight” Tuesday, April 19, 2007 Hart Senate Office Building Room 216 10:00 a.m.

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC

WEBCAST - CLICK HERE

One Prosecutor’s Ouster Central to Inquiry

April 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 18 — When Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales takes the witness chair on Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the dismissal of the United States attorney from New Mexico will be a topic of particular scrutiny, committee members and their staff said.

That case, perhaps more than any of the other ousters, demonstrates the interaction of the Republican Party, the White House, a prominent Republican senator and Mr. Gonzales that led up to the firings.

Investigators have already determined that Mr. Gonzales spoke directly three times with Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, about his complaints regarding David C. Iglesias, the state’s former top federal prosecutor.

Administration officials have confirmed that Mr. Gonzales also spoke with President Bush and Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, about the perceived lack of enthusiasm in Mr. Iglesias’s office, among others, for prosecuting voting fraud cases, a top Republican Party priority. And investigators know that Mr. Iglesias’s name was among the last to be added to the ouster list.

“On what precise date, why and by whom was Mr. Iglesias placed on the list of U.S. attorneys to be fired?” asked Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, in a list of questions he has presented to Mr. Gonzales.

Judiciary Committee staff members said Wednesday that given the repeated instances in which Mr. Gonzales was directly involved in discussions related to Mr. Iglesias, it might be hard for the attorney general to refuse to testify about these discussions or any follow-up conversations or to deny any recollection of them.

The attorney general’s appearance is regarded by lawmakers in both parties, by White House officials and by his own aides as the most important of his public life, with his job as the country’s chief legal officer hanging in the balance.

“His credibility is going to be an issue which is very much front and center,” Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Wednesday.

By ERIC LIPTON

--MORE--

Campaign against alleged voter fraud fuels political tempest

Posted on Thu, Apr. 19, 2007
U.S. ATTORNEYS By Greg Gordon McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON - For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates. The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won. Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association. Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could shed more light on the reasons for those firings when he appears Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Civil rights advocates charge that the administration's policies were intended to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats, and by filing state and federal lawsuits, civil rights groups have won court rulings blocking some of its actions. Justice Department spokesperson Cynthia Magnuson called any allegation that the department has rolled back minority voting rights "fundamentally flawed." She said the department has "a completely robust record when it comes to enforcing federal voting rights laws," citing its support last year for reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the filing of at least 20 suits to ensure that language services are available to non-English speaking voters. The administration, however, has repeatedly invoked allegations of widespread voter fraud to justify tougher voter ID measures and other steps to restrict access to the ballot, even though research suggests that voter fraud is rare. Since President Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, a former Republican senator from Missouri, launched a "Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Initiative" in 2001, Justice Department political appointees have exhorted U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases, and the department's Civil Rights Division has sought to roll back policies to protect minority voting rights. On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins. Joseph Rich, who left his job as chief of the section in 2005, said these events formed an unmistakable pattern. "As more information becomes available about the administration's priority on combating alleged, but not well substantiated, voter fraud, the more apparent it is that its actions concerning voter ID laws are part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens," he said. Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have: -Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election. -Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly. -Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million. -Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges. The administration's presence was felt last year in at least one state legislative battle over voter identification. In Missouri, where Republican Sen. Jim Talent was fighting to hang onto his seat and hold the U.S. Senate for the GOP, a Republican-backed photo ID requirement cleared the state House of Representatives by one vote in May 2006 after an intense lobbying effort in which backers alleged voter fraud in heavily Democratic St. Louis and Kansas City. "The White House was heavily involved" in the effort to win passage, state Rep. Bryan Stevenson, the Republican floor leader, said in a telephone interview. Stevenson said he wasn't privy to the details of the White House efforts. In late 2001, Ashcroft also hired three Republican political operatives to work in a secretive new unit in the division's Voting Rights Section. Rich said the unit, headed by unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Mark Metcalf of Kentucky, bird-dogged the progress of the administration's Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and reviewed voting legislation in the states. One member of the three-person political unit, former Georgia elections official and Republican activist Hans von Spakovsky, eventually took de facto control of the Voting Rights Section and used his position to advocate tougher voter ID laws, said former department lawyers who declined to be identified for fear of reprisals. Those former employees said that Spakovsky helped state officials interpret the Help America Vote Act's confusing new minimum voter identification requirements. He also weighed in when the Voting Rights Act required department approval for any new ID law in 13 states with histories of racial discrimination. In November 2004, Arizona residents passed Proposition 200, the toughest state voter ID law to date, which requires applicants to provide proof of citizenship and voters to produce a photo ID on Election Day. The Voting Rights Act state requires states to show that such laws wouldn't impede minorities from voting and gives the Justice Department 60 days to approve or oppose them. Career voting rights specialists in the Justice Department soon discovered that more than 2,000 elderly Indians in Arizona lacked birth certificates, and they sought their superiors' approval to request more information from the state about other potential impacts on voters' rights. Spakovsky and Sheldon Bradshaw, the division's top deputy and a close friend of top Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, a former Bush White House lawyer, denied the request, said one of the former department attorneys. Later in 2005, career lawyers wrote a memo recommending that the department oppose a new Georgia law requiring voters to present a $20 photo ID. They argued that the requirement would discriminate against poor blacks, but that was quickly rejected. Toby Moore, one of the five career lawyers who reviewed the memo, said the only dissenter to the recommendation was a new hire, Joshua Rogers, a member of the National Republican Lawyers Association, a partisan organization interested in election issues. Moore said that John Tanner, who'd just been appointed the new section chief, "doctored the memo ... reversing many of our findings," and used the occasion to change procedures so that he alone could make future recommendations. A Georgia state judge, acting on a suit by civil rights groups, struck down the law as unconstitutional. Moore, now the project manager for American University's Commission on Election Reform, said he believes that administration officials felt the Voting Rights Section was populated by "recalcitrant, embedded, liberal Democrats ... and they were determined to plant their DNA, change the institution and bring it to bear on behalf of Republican interests." Spakovsky, who declined to be interviewed, also played a role in an expansive interpretation of the new federal election law. The Help America Vote Act directed states to create central, computerized voter registration lists, to make a "reasonable effort" to remove ineligible names and to match new applicants' driver's licenses and Social Security numbers to those in state databases. A failure to match wasn't grounds for rejection: Tiny variations such as the inclusion of a middle name or misplaced figure could prevent a match. But when confused state officials asked the Justice Department about the requirement, Spakovsky offered a harsh reading of the law. In a letter on Sept. 8, 2003, he advised Judith Arnold, Maryland's counsel for election laws, that the application "must be denied" if an applicant's data failed to match that in driver's license and Social Security databases. He wrote that "the prudent course" would be to let those voters cast provisional ballots that would count only if their registration information were verified later. His guidance was posted on the Voting Rights Section's Web site. Some states, including California, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington, began to reject applicants whose credentials didn't match. The rejections prompted a lawsuit and protests by civil rights groups, which halted the practice. The practice was "a barrier to voting," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, whose suit in Washington state led to a court injunction. Catherine Blinn, Washington state's assistant elections director, said in a sworn statement last year that her state was merely following guidance from the Justice Department and cited Spakovsky's letter to Maryland. Just before the 2006 election, the California Secretary of State's Office rejected more than 20,000 registration applications, including 43 percent of Los Angeles County's new applicants. Those rejections were reversed before Election Day amid a public clamor. Former Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a moderate Republican, said in a phone interview that Justice Department officials reviewed his office's regulations and okayed the rejections, but gave no hint that they exceeded federal law. The Bush administration also has shifted enforcement priorities under the National Voter Registration Act, known as the "Motor Voter" law because it provides for registration at state vehicle licensing and public assistance agencies. In the last six years, the number of voters registered at state government agencies that provide services to the poor and disabled has been cut in half, to 1 million. Instead of forcing lax agencies to increase registrations, the Justice Department sued at least six states and sent threatening enforcement letters to others requiring them to scour their election rolls for potentially ineligible voters. Deputy Director Michael Slater of Project Vote, a national voter registration group, called this "selective enforcement. ... They've focused on purging of voters from registration rolls at the expense of enforcing provisions that encourage registration." He said that Kentucky eliminated 4,000 people from its list of voters, but "did it poorly, and took off people who lived there and tried to vote." One of the Justice Department suits was filed against Missouri's Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey in Jefferson City, the capital, threw out the suit, noting that the motor voter law was intended to increase voter participation and eliminate fraud. The judge wrote that the Justice Department had offered no evidence that anyone had been denied his right to vote as a result of deficiencies in voter rolls, and "nor has the United States shown that any voter fraud has occurred." For more information on the Georgia litigation, as well as other major election law litigation: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/common-cause.php

World Opposed to U.S. as Global Cop

POLITICS

Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON, Apr 18 (IPS) - The world public rejects the U.S. role as a world leader, but still wants the United States to do its share in multilateral efforts and does not support a U.S. withdrawal from international affairs, says a poll released Wednesday.

The survey respondents see the United States as an unreliable "world policeman", but views are split on whether the superpower should reduce its overseas military bases.

The people of the United States generally agreed with the rest of the world that their country should not remain the world's pre-eminent leader or global cop, and prefer that it play a more cooperative role in multilateral efforts to address world problems.

The poll, the fourth in a series released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org since the latter half of 2006, was conducted in China, India, United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia and the Palestinian territories.

The three previous reports covered attitudes toward humanitarian military intervention, labour and environmental standards in international trade, and global warming. Those surveys found that the international public generally favoured more multilateral efforts to curb genocides and more far-reaching measures to protect labour rights and combat climate change than their governments have supported to date.

Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, notes that this report confirms other polls which have shown that world opinion of the United States is bad and getting worse, however this survey more closely examines the way the world public would want to see Washington playing a positive role in the international community.

Although all 15 of the countries polled rejected the idea that, "the U.S. should continue to be the pre-eminent world leader in solving international problems," only Argentina and the Palestinian territories say it "should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems."

The respondents tend to agree that the US should do "its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries" in: South Korea (79 percent), United States (75 percent), France (75 percent), China (68 percent), Israel (62 percent), Peru (61 percent), Mexico (59 percent), Armenia (58 percent), Philippines (55 percent), Ukraine (52 percent), Thailand (47 percent), India (42 percent) and Russia (42 percent).

In a majority of countries -- 13 out of 15 -- publics believe Washington is "playing the role of world policeman more than it should," including France (89 percent), Australia (80 percent), China (77 percent), Russia (76 percent), Peru (76 percent), Palestinian territories (74 percent) and South Korea (73 percent).

Seventy-six percent of those polled in the United States also agree that their country plays too big a role as a global cop, but 57 percent of Filipinos disagreed with the statement, and Israelis were evenly split on the issue.

Majorities think that the United States cannot be trusted to "act responsibly in the world" in: Argentina (84 percent), Peru (80 percent), Russia (73 percent), France (72 percent) and Indonesia (64 percent). But majorities or large percentages in the Philippines (85 percent), Israel (81 percent), Poland (51 percent), and Ukraine (49 percent) say the superpower can be at least "somewhat" trusted to act responsibly.

Although most of the countries involved in the poll had majorities who believe the U.S. was too involved in policing issues of international concern, there were mixed views about whether it should reduce its military presence around the world. Only five out of 12 publics favoured decreasing the number of overseas U.S. military bases: Argentina (75 percent), Palestinian territories (70 percent), France (69 percent), China (63 percent) and Ukraine (62 percent).

Majorities in the Philippines (78 percent), United States (68 percent), Israel (59 percent) and Poland (54 percent) favour maintaining or increasing the current levels of U.S. military bases. Armenia and Thailand lean in favour of maintaining current levels or reducing base locations, while India was divided. No country favoured increases.

The survey clearly shows that the perception of the U.S. role in the world is negative and getting worse, but some publics did have significant numbers who felt relations between their country and the United States are getting better.

Most of the respondents in India (58 percent) and China (53 percent) felt relations were improving, while pluralities agree in Australia (50 percent), Armenia (48 percent), Indonesia (46 percent), and Thailand (37 percent). Majorities or pluralities in Poland (60 percent), South Korea (56 percent), Israel (52 percent), Ukraine (52 percent) and Russia (45 percent) say relations with the U.S. are about the same.

No countries had majorities or pluralities who say relations with the United States are getting worse.

Letter to My Children’s Children’s Children On the End of Republican Government

Commentary

By Marvin Chachere

In thinking about what I ought to tell you regarding these dark days various clichés come to mind: I see no light at the end of the tunnel. The American dream is a nightmare. The American experiment failed. Pride precedeth the fall.

To witness the death of our representative form of government is to feel some of the stages of grief identified by Dr. Kubler-Ross in her landmark study: disbelief, anger, despair… acceptance.

I found it unbelievable that our republic would spill out into the entire globe and, repeating the life-cycle of empires like Rome and Great Britain, our unmatched strength, confidence and conceit would lead to a sense of invincibility from which we stumbled, matured, grew old and collapsed.

Halfway through my eighth decade a surge of books came out that I encourage you to access on your PCs for they contain the reasons for my incredulity. Collectively they describe a nation in deep trouble; the ship of state constructed around the time of the first steam engine could not hold course in capricious modern winds driven by personal enrichment, societal neglect and king-of-the-hill foreign policies. For example, in a category on ominous forebodings of our global entanglements you can download Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy, Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis and in a different class you can scan Noam Chomsky’s densely crafted Hegemony or Survival in which sharp facts strip naked the current administration’s born-again royal clothing, or click onto Jeremy Scahill’s revelations that a large mercenary army assisted in the catastrophic occupation of Iraq, unregulated and unconstrained.

In general, the nation failed so often and so shamelessly to live up to the promises of its birth that it adjusted those lofty promises bit by bit to fit the nefarious goals it pursued on the back of an almighty “military-industrial complex.” Abandon republican ideals and you abandon republican government.

And if you go further into our past you will notice that our new way of governing—three separate and independent branches held together by checks and balances—though interesting and admirable was not effective or practical. The government prescribed by the Constitution failed its first critical test; it could not solve the problem of slavery peacefully, and thus we slipped into a civil war that nearly destroyed us. The residue of that bloodiest of all our wars still exists, and the Katrina disaster’s racial one-sidedness and the government’s ineptitude intensified my anger.

You might also notice that the impracticality of our new form of governing explains why most new nations formed after World War II did not copy us but formed governments of a parliamentary nature.

That the United States called itself America, contrary to geographical fact, foretells its overarching self-regard. We replaced the Monroe Doctrine with a program to convert the world to our ideals and eventually to dominate and rule it. Republicanism and imperialism are incompatible.

There were subtle warning signs. At the same time that terrorists replaced communists in the fear-mongering, “barbarians at the gates” instrument for tightening regulations and controls, the government’s infatuation with security caused unprecedented and pervasive secrecy, and secrecy is toxic because governance that is not open is not republican.

There were more explicit signs. Less than half of eligible voters bothered to do so, their customary indifference being validated when, despite having received half a million fewer votes than his opponent, the 43rd president attained office by virtue of one vote by a Supreme Court judge. Despair arrived the day Bush II was elected to a second term—“How could 59 million voters be so stupid?” headlined the UK Daily Mirror—and depression set in when international rules against torture were deemed “quaint” and outdated.

Other harbingers of danger included the expanding economic chasm—the poor grew poorer, the well-off grew richer and the rich got super rich. (CE0s of top companies were compensated 475 times more than their employees, on average.) Faith, more than deeds, became the hallmark of morality. Reason was subdued by religion, and science was subverted by it. Everything of value had monetary value. Lobbyists with deep pockets outnumbered legislators two to one. Every problem prompted a legislative solution and every solution was ultimately sanctioned, or not, by the courts. Any person with superior marketing apparatus and enough money could be elected to any office at any level (and thereby improve his/her lot, financially).

Every day my depression was deepened by the repeated and unqualified use of the term “war”—“war on terror,” “War Powers Act,” “war crimes,” “war zone,” etc. Sure, we have a well equipped military force occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Our troops are killing and being killed. But how could there be a war when the enemy had no uniform, no flag, no unified command and whose most devastating weapons were improvised human and home-made non-human explosive devises?

Finally, life and liberty, once believed to be unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, were destroyed by two laws enacted by the 109th Congress: the renewal of the perversely named Patriot Act and the barbaric Military Commissions Act; the former silenced domestic dissenters and the latter dealt with foreign dissenters as “enemy combatants” denying them both legal and human rights.

The early weeks of the 110th Congress, for a variety of political reasons, sounded the death knell of the republic. Let the following stand for the multifaceted disintegration I have just summarized; it is the source of my depression and the reason for this letter.

In early spring 2007, both houses of Congress passed resolutions, just barely, that urged but did not require the president to prepare to withdraw our troops from the catastrophe he’d created in Iraq. Democratic party leaders boasted that they were taking back powers ceded to Mr. Bush when his party held a majority of seats.

The media feigned alarm—a constitutional crisis! legislative branch versus executive branch!—and delighted in speculations regarding the high political price of confrontation—who will win, what are the loses? Meanwhile, Bush, on the defensive, bullied his opponents, called them irresponsible and accused them of interfering; they dishonored our soldiers, he declared, and emboldened our enemies.

Often appearances hide the truth and just as often a small victory hides a large defeat.

Properly understood, both the nay and yea votes on resolutions setting a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq implicitly concede that the nation’s honor (if there was any) was worth deaths and dismemberments in the tens of thousands, casualties bound to accumulate while Congress and the White House squabbled. Nothing in my time signaled the demise of the republic as surely as this, as if more blood would restore our honor.

Reviewing what I have written, I confess that I have not achieved acceptance, the final stage of grief, and, truth be told, I don’t ever expect to.

Marvin Chachere is a San Pablo resident.

‘US cannot be trusted to act responsibly’

CHICAGO: There is widespread global concern that the United States cannot be trusted to act responsibly in the world, according to a multinational poll released here Wednesday.

But while there is broad international frustration with how the United States conducts its foreign policy, few people around the world want the United States to completely back off its role as a global policeman, the poll found.

“There’s clearly a trend in terms of deepening negative attitudes to the US in how it executes foreign policy,” said Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs which helped coordinate the 18-country study.

The United States has long faced criticism internationally for its ‘interventionalist foreign policy’, Whitney said. This survey found that the frustration is broader in scope than previously thought and has deepened in the wake of the war in Iraq. But mixed with this frustration is an understanding that the US has a significant role to play internationally and should not withdraw completely, Whitney said.

He noted there was not consistent support for closing US military bases overseas and that many respondents felt that their bilateral relationship with the United States was improving. “It is not a consistent message of “we don’t want the US to be involved,’ it’s more nuanced,” Whitney said.

“They just want the US to play a more cooperative role and be a more constructive international player in terms of working through international organisations and listening to allies and friends when they have concerns.”

The starkest results were those showing a lack of trust that the United States would act responsibly and a sense that it had overreached on the global stage.

A majority of respondents in Argentina (84 per cent), Peru (80 per cent), Russia (73 per cent) France (72 per cent), Armenia (58 per cent), Indonesia (64 per cent), China (59 per cent), Thailand (56 per cent), South Korea(53 per cent) and India (52 per cent) and more than a third of those in Australia (40 per cent) and Ukraine (37 per cent) answered “not at all” or “not very much” when asked how much they trusted the US “to act responsibly in the world,” the poll found.

The Philippines and Israel proved the staunchest supporters with 85 per cent and 81 per cent of respondents, respectively, saying they trusted the US either a “great deal” or “somewhat,” followed by Australia at 59 per cent and Poland at 51 per cent.

More than three out of four Americans think their country tends to take on the role of international enforcer more than it should. Large majorities elsewhere also felt that way: France at 89 per cent, Australia at 80 per cent, China at 77 per cent, Russia at 76 per cent, Peru at 76 per cent, the Palestinian territories at 74 per cent, South Korea at 73 per cent, Indonesia at 68 per cent, Ukraine at 67 per cent, Armenia at 63 per cent, Argentina at 62 per cent and India at 53 per cent.

Only one country surveyed had a majority of respondents who disagreed: the Philippines with 57 per cent. Israeli respondents were split at an even 48 per cent. The study was conducted in 18 countries — China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia — plus the Palestinian territories. Not all questions were asked in each country. These represent roughly 56 per cent of the world’s population.

The random sample surveys were conducted by telephone and in person from June 2006 to March 2007, with margins of error ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 percentage points.

Gonzales: Firings Were Justified

Thursday April 19, 2007 3:01 PM

By LAURIE KELLMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - His job in jeopardy, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Thursday his decision to fire eight federal prosecutors was ``justified and should stand.''

In remarks prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also said that ``reasonable people might disagree'' with the decision. He said the process by which the eight were dismissed was ``nowhere near as rigorous or structured as it should have been.''

Gonzales began his turn as a witness after Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's chairman, delivered a tongue-lashing in the opening moments of the widely anticipated hearing.

``Today the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history,'' said the Vermont Democrat. ``There's a growing scandal swirling around the dismissal'' of prosecutors, he added.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's senior Republican, offered the attorney general no more comfort in his opening remarks.

He said the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the committee believes that Gonzales should remain in office. ``As I see it, you come to this hearing with a very heavy burden of proof,'' Specter said as Gonzales listened intently, lips pursed, a few feet away in the crowded hearing room.

``This is not a game of gotcha,'' said Specter. In a reflection of the stakes, he told the attorney general he faces the equivalent of a ``reconfirmation hearing.''

Gonzales himself has provided differing versions of the events, first saying he had almost no involvement in them and then later acknowledging that his role was larger - but only after e-mails about meetings he attended were released by the Justice Department to House and Senate committees.

Gunman Sent Video During Lull In Slaughter

Menacing Poses And Bitter Words In Mailing to NBC

By Michael E. Ruane and Chris L. Jenkins

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 19, 2007; A01

Cho Seung Hui paused Monday morning during the shootings at Virginia Tech to stop at a post office and mail to NBC News in New York a disturbing package of pictures, writings and video before returning to the rampage.

The communications sought to explain his actions but served mostly to display his anger and illness. With threatening images and in a menacing video, America's deadliest gunman photographed himself wearing black and a backward baseball cap and pointing handguns at the camera and himself. He blamed rich people and humanity at large for the perceived wrongs that drove him to kill.

A $14.40 U.S. Postal Service express parcel, which had the wrong Zip code and an incorrect street address, was sent from Blacksburg at 9:01 a.m. Monday, about two hours after Cho's first two killings at a dormitory, West Ambler Johnston Hall.

About 45 minutes after mailing the package, he went to Norris Hall and killed an additional 30 people before killing himself as police closed in. As if trying to justify his plot, Cho glared into the camera and in a rambling diatribe said: "You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," according to excerpts aired last night by NBC. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off." "Jesus loved crucifying me," he said at another point. "He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and ripping my soul all this time."

"I didn't have to do this," he said. "I could have left. I could have fled. But no."

Investigators have been mystified by the gap -- from 7:15 to 9:45 a.m. -- between the bursts of homicide Monday, and the university has been criticized for a perceived lack of urgency during the lull.

The Virginia State Police superintendent, Col. Steve Flaherty, said Cho's package "may be a very new critical component of this investigation. We are in the process . . . of attempting to analyze and evaluate its worth."

Cho, who has been described by classmates and teachers as brooding, withdrawn and silent, also left a rambling, angry, multi-page document in his dorm room. He wrote at least one bomb threat that police found, as well as a novel and some disturbing poems and plays.

Law enforcement sources said his letter to NBC was nearly identical to the ones found in his dorm room. All mention his disgust toward the privileged and contain the cryptic words "Ismael Ax," which also was tattooed on one of his arms. Authorities are trying to figure out what the words mean.

NBC received the package as fresh reports emerged yesterday of Cho's mental health issues and earlier interaction with Virginia Tech police.

The authorities had investigated Cho for bothering two female classmates in 2005, Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said at a news conference. Cho had hinted at suicide shortly afterward and was temporarily committed, against his will, to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.

There he was assessed as "mentally ill" but not an imminent danger to himself or others, according to court documents. Because he was not a threat, he was released, the documents say. Campus police said they had no more encounters with Cho.

Both pieces of news came as the school was still trying to regain its balance after the calamity.

But seeing Cho in his burst of anger on television brought many back to the horrors of Monday.

"It was very scary because it's the closest we're ever going to get to seeing what [the people at Norris Hall] saw," said Kristin Fleming-Dahl, a 19-year-old sophomore. "For some of them, that were their last moments. Seeing the pictures made it more real. It was like a slap in the face."

Fleming-Dahl said NBC was too quick to release the pictures. "It probably would have been better to wait," she said.

Michael A. Mason, who heads the FBI's criminal investigations division, said Cho's mailing "feeds into exactly what he wanted to accomplish by this heinous act."

The package includes one nightmarish photograph of a menacing, black-gloved Cho posing in a black baseball cap holding two black pistols at arm's length. He is wearing a black T-shirt and what appears to be a tan safari vest, resembling an apparition out of a violent video game.

In the excerpted pictures and video, Cho has a military-style haircut. Parts of the video seem to have been shot inside a car. Some look as though they might have been shot in a dorm room with white-painted cinderblock walls.

NBC said the package apparently was delayed by the flawed Zip code. It was noticed by a postal worker in New York who spotted the Blacksburg return address and what Cho wrote as his name in the sender's box: "A Ishmael," similar to the well-publicized "Ismael Ax." NBC News President Steve Capus said the network re ceived the package in Tuesday's mail delivery. It was not opened until yesterday and did not include any images of the massacre, Capus said in a written statement.

Among the materials are 23 QuickTime video files showing Cho talking to the camera, Capus said.

The production of the videos indicated that Cho had worked on the package for some time, because he not only "took the time to record the videos, but he also broke them down into snippets" that were embedded paragraph by paragraph into the main document on a CD-ROM, Capus said.

Before the video was released, officials in Blacksburg spoke of their previous encounter with Cho. In December 2005, he was declared mentally ill and was temporarily but involuntarily sent to a Christiansburg mental-health center, according court records.

The night at the mental-health facility came a few weeks after police had been contacted by a female student upset over e-mails Cho had sent her, said Flinchum, the Tech police chief.

The student declined to press charges, and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system, which took no action because the offense seemed too minor, the chief said.

The next month, a second female student complained to campus police, and within 24 hours, police got a call that Cho might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police visited him and urged him to seek counseling, the chief said.

On Dec. 13, 2005, a temporary detention order, instructing that Cho be taken to the Carilion St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Radford, was signed by a judge, according to court papers. The next day, a Virginia Department of Mental Health document recorded a mental-health professional's description of Cho as seeming blank and "depressed," but denying "suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment seem normal."

The form described Cho as mentally ill but added that he did not present an imminent danger to himself or others and did not require involuntary hospitalization.

It was not clear yesterday how long Cho spent in the hospital, but the documents indicate it was one day.

University officials stressed that there was no threat in the e-mails, and the two female recipients only considered them annoying. Neither of the two women was among Cho's victims Monday. "No criminal activities had taken place," Flinchum said.

Ed Spencer, a university associate vice president of student affairs, said the school would not comment on Cho's disciplinary record. "Even upon death, that record is still protected," he said.

Whether the university should have done more after having this contact with Cho will be part of the major review that will begin soon by an independent panel, officials said.

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) announced yesterday that former state police superintendent Gerald Massengill will participate in the review of the university's response to the shootings.

The incidents came to light at a time when Cho's conduct and writings had raised concerns among several of his teachers in the school's English Department.

Authorities also revealed yesterday what was seized in their search of Cho's university residence, at 2121 Harper Hall.

The search warrant, filed late Tuesday in Montgomery County, Va., Circuit Court, said the items taken included a "folding knife and combination pad lock," a Compaq computer, various documents and writings from Cho's computer, nine books and two notebooks.

Officials also said that before purchasing the 9mm Glock handgun or the Walther P22, which he used in the killings, Cho would have had to fill out a Virginia State Police eligibility form for an instant background check.

One question on the form asks: "Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?"

Once Cho's background check came back clean, he would have had to fill out federal form No. 4473 asking once again if he had been adjudicated "mentally defective" or committed to a mental institution.

Cho's 24-hour detention before a hearing on his mental status probably does not meet the definition of being involuntarily committed, legal experts said. But there is a question of whether the detention would meet the broader federal standard.

Back at Virginia Tech, the NBC video was the talk of the campus.

Maddy Barnes, a junior English major from Leesburg, had a British literature class with Cho in 2005, when he was briefly hospitalized.

"It's so disturbing," Barnes said of Cho's videos.

"It's horrifying," agreed Pete Hughes, a junior theater major. "It just showed how calculating he was. It definitely gave the answer that he woke up intending to do this."

But, he added, "It's comforting to a degree." Barnes, nodded, saying she understood that. It showed he was not a normal guy who just snapped, she said.

Both students thought the videos showed how narcissistic Cho was. He clearly knew this would bring him attention.

Others, though, said the video did not help them understand.

"I personally don't care what he has to say," said Daniel Frawley, a 2003 graduate, who lives in Blacksburg. "There is no possible good reason for anything that happened. No possible explanation he can offer."

Brad Pitt and the Girl Guerrillas

The celibates of Ocalan

Reese Erlich

March/April 2007 Issue

The green and brown scrub brush in the Qandil Mountains acquires a thick layer of snow by late fall. In happier times, these peaks at the border between Iraq and Iran would offer tourists spectacular views, but these days the only sightseers are men and women with AK-47s slung over their shoulders. They are Iranian Kurdish guerrillas based among their Kurdish brethren in northern Iraq, and at the moment, they may be the closest thing the Bush administration has to an ally in its confrontation with Tehran.

Kurdish and American sources say the United States has been supporting guerrilla raids against Iran, channeling the money through organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan; last fall, The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported that Israel is also providing equipment and training. When I arrived in Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdish city closest to the Iranian border, it was hard to miss the Green Berets in civvies walking down the main street. "Suli is like some Balkan city years ago," one U.S. officer told me. "You've got spies everywhere. Everyone wants to know what everyone else is doing." The seedy Ashti Hotel looked like something out of a Graham Greene novel, its smoke-filled lobby a meeting place for obscure diplomats, businessmen, soldiers, and spies. Men sat around staring at glasses of strong tea; every now and again they'd pour a bit of tea into their saucers, let it cool, and slurp it down. I met a Kurdish military adviser at the Ashti, and when the U.S. Army came to escort me for a story on its operations, Humvees pulled up by the hotel.

Getting to the actual guerrilla camps was relatively easy. Kurdish officials unconvincingly insisted they had no idea how to find the fighters, but cabdrivers had no trouble pinpointing the camps. As my four-wheel-drive vehicle climbed the mountainside, young women in green pants and the distinctive twisted Kurdish headscarf appeared along the road. They were fighters with the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or pjak, which claims its troops are almost 50 percent female.

Part underground movement, part cult, pjak requires its fighters to eschew sex and study the teachings of Abdullah Ocalan, a Nietzsche-quoting Turkish Kurd who is its spiritual leader. Ocalan's political organization, the radical Kurdistan Workers Party (pkk), is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. pjak's relationship with the party is supposed to be arm's length, but I had to pass through two pkk checkpoints on my way to the guerrillas' camp, each of them relaying information up the line via walkie-talkie. Finally, the fighters welcomed me into a room with a threadbare carpet on the floor and a kerosene stove blasting heat; posters of Ocalan hung on the wall along with the pkk flag. While waiting for their leaders to descend from the mountains, I asked one of the women what they did to stave off boredom. "We watch satellite TV," she said, insisting that they cared only for news programs before confessing, with a shy smile, "We like Brad Pitt and Mel Gibson."

That was about the only American influence anyone at the camp would admit to. The fighters' commander had recently died in a flash flood, and his replacement—a fortysomething man with prematurely gray hair who stood perhaps 5 feet 5 inches—introduced himself as Zenar Agri. He informed me that in 2006 the guerrillas had killed about 100 Iranians in their cross-border skirmishes. He said they were not getting U.S. help, then smiled, "But we would love to have American support." He also told me that before the pkk's emergence, "the Kurds didn't know about their history and how to struggle," but now Kurds could follow Ocalan's road to liberation.

Back in the valley, I found a different kind of Kurdish organizing at the University of Sulaimani, where many Iranian Kurdish activists have come to study. The scene could have been any U.S. campus; almost everyone wore blue jeans, and only a few of the women had their heads covered. I sat down with two Iranian students who said they had come to Iraq illegally, following smugglers' trails over the mountains. They talked openly about the competition between Iranian Kurdish parties to attract U.S. support. Hiwa, a film student who described himself as the future Stanley Kubrick of Kurdistan, told me Washington ought to be ecumenical: "All parties should have connections with the U.S."

So far, Washington seems to feel the same way. The two main Iranian Kurdish parties, Komala and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (kdpi), have been allowed to operate openly in northern Iraq; both say their focus is on political organizing within Iran. "We have not opposed armed struggle," Mustafa Hejri, leader of the kdpi, told me. "But for now we believe political activity benefits the party more." Hejri, along with other top kdpi and Komala officials, went to Washington last year for meetings at the State Department and on Capitol Hill. They "listened to us and asked questions," Komala leader Abdullah Mohtadi told me. "It was a step forward." Most other Iranian opposition leaders I spoke to were critical of U.S. policy toward Tehran and said the administration's allocation of $85 million to "promote democracy" in Iran had backfired by making the population rally around the embattled Islamist government. The Kurdish Iranian parties, on the other hand, told me they were looking forward to getting U.S. funding. "We're pragmatists," Mohtadi told me. The United States "can't make democracy by force, but it can topple dictators."

Reese Erlich's book, "The Iran Agenda: The Truth Behind US Policy and the Middle East Crisis," will be published in September 2007. See his interviews with Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and other Iranian opposition leaders at: motherjones.com/iran_dissidents.

Norman Finkelstein solidarity campaign will continue to take sigantures: take action

A reader responds to, "Noam Chomsky Accuses Alan Dershowitz of Launching a "Jihad" to Block Norman Finkelstein From Getting Tenure at Depaul University".

---

Marcy / مارسي said...

The Norman Finkelstein solidarity campaign will continue to take sigantures on our website until the struggle is over (i.e., until he receives tenure. We welcome all signers and all visitors to our website. We have many documents directly from DePaul University, that illustrate Alan Dershowitz's involvement in the process. We invite readers to download them and decide for themselves what is really going on and to take a stand for academic freedom and the silencing of voices in the U.S. who are critical of Israel.

Dr. Marcy Newman
Visiting Professor
Center for American Studies and Research
American University of Beirut
normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com

April 18, 2007 10:52:00 AM MDT

Post a Comment

'So Many Wrongs To Right': Helen Thomas

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

'So Many Wrongs To Right': Helen Thomas At McDaniel College

Helen Thomas got right to the point in her address at McDaniel College in Westminister, MD, last week, as you can see in this video:

William Hughes reported on the event for Media Monitors Network. Excerpts from his report follow:

“How primitive can you get to start a new century with a war--a war of choice? We have a President [George W. Bush Jr.] who decided to attack a country that did nothing to us. I say: ‘Cry the beloved country!’ So, we have so many wrongs to right before our country gets back its honor. Hopefully, the American people will not accept this President’s primitive drive for war without end. What can he be thinking? More than that: Why do Americans tolerate such a dumbing down of our country? The American people will soon say: Enough is enough! It is wrong to ask the ultimate sacrifice of friend and foe without a good reason--an acceptable reason. We have yet to hear the real reason why we went into Iraq. I say: Truth took a holiday!”
...

“President Bush struck a match across the Middle East, which is always known as a tinder box. He invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We now occupy that destroyed country and we’re warning them if they don’t shape up and do what we tell them to do, we might just pick up our marbles and go home. They should be so lucky. Who are we? What have we become? Whose war is this? Thousands are dead, thousands are wounded. And to this day, we can’t get a straight answer on why we attacked a Third World country. We had a choke hold on Saddam Hussein. He couldn’t make a move. We had the tightest economic sanctions, satellite surveillance. We were bombing Iraq, every other night in the ‘No-Fly’ zone--so-called. Now, we have had four years of this.”
...

“We know that terrorism has to be fought,” Ms. Thomas said. “We are the target. But, first we have to find out: What is terrorism? What causes it? Is it politics? Religion? Is it our foreign policy that has compelled this hostility against our country? It never existed before. We are no longer the most admired country, one to be emulated in the world. This is the time to begin thinking about peaceful solutions to set our world right again...You cannot shoot people in their own country to liberate them... As you can tell, I’m against the invasion and occupation of Iraq because it is illegal, immoral and unconscionable to wage a war against a country that did nothing to us. The war is in its fifth year, now, and the killing still goes on. I’m sorry to be such a downer. But, it is your world we are talking about. No man is an island.”

“We have a President more and more ‘isolated’ and ‘speaking of victory in Iraq.’ He has two years to go and he has a right to worry about his legacy...There is no other place to go, so one should always want to try to do the right thing. But, time is running out...The President is ignoring the will of the people to cut our losses. They are keeping up the charade at the White House that we were ‘invited’ into Iraq. I remember asking Ari Fleischer, Bush’s former White House press secretary: “If they asked us to leave, would we leave?”

Ms. Thomas emphasized: “There is no question that ‘9/11’ has brought on a dramatic change in our country. For alleged security, we seem willing to forego our privacy and our great sense of justice. We have allowed ourselves to go to war based on untruths. No WMD. No ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. No threat from a Third World country. We have permitted ourselves to be wiretapped, our e-mails pried into, our mail opened. We have tolerated torture of suspects and prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and at other prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, where human beings are humiliated. Surely, that is not worthy of a great country. We’ve allowed Congress to take away the ancient right of Habeas Corpus, which goes back to Magna Carta...We pickup people with dark skin. We imprison them. We never charge them or try them. We keep them in limbo and send them to secret prisons to be tortured and interrogated. Is that America?”
...

“We are spending our national treasury on war, while 48 million people in this country have no health insurance. Children go to school with no breakfast. Schools are falling down. Government programs to alleviate the suffering are being cut. And yet the biggest tax cuts go to ‘the richest people’ in our country. Surely, something is wrong with this picture.”

As a matter of fact, many things are wrong with this picture. And if we ever begin to put it right, we will owe no small debt of gratitude to Helen Thomas, who remained a journalist while most of the people around her were becoming stenographers.

Time to debate Israel

Posted: 6.49pm Tuesday 17 April 2007

Debate and Comment

Recent moves to define criticism of Israel as antisemitic have their roots in the growing questioning of the state among Jews, writes John Rose


An angry debate at the recent conference of the National Union of Students (NUS) failed to stop delegates adopting a dangerously misleading definition of antisemitism promoted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).

The part of the EUMC definition that declares antisemitism as the expression of hatred towards Jews, their property and Jewish community institutions and religious facilities was not in question.

The problem was with the EUMC’s inclusion that “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

This decision follows a similar one by the authors of the re cent All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.

MPs here also used an EUMC definition of antisemitism which includes the clause, “Denying Jewish people their right to self determination, by claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

Ruqayyah Collector, the NUS black students’ officer, told the Guardian that she was worried now that real debate would be stifled. She may be right.

These “legalistic” and authoritarian manoeuvres need to be understood in the context of the mounting crisis of legitimacy for the Israeli state.

Its defeat by Hizbollah in Lebanon last summer has shaken to the core Israeli public confidence in its army.

In addition, because the cynical encouragement of Israeli terror in Lebanon by George Bush and Tony Blair was given such unusually stark media exposure, Israel’s role as a militaristic tool of Western interests is far more widely understood.

At the same time, even Israel’s traditional liberal supporters doubt its seriousness to conclude a lasting and just peace with the Palestinians.

A book by former US president Jimmy Carter attacking Israel’s increasingly “apartheid” style regime is a bestseller in the US.

International financier George Soros is part of an independent, high-powered US initiative calling for pressure to force Israel to start proper talks with the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Serious splits are opening up in the Jewish communities. In Britain, Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) is backed by some of Britain’s top intellectuals and artists, such as Eric Hobsbawm and Harold Pinter.

The IJV is challenging the traditional leadership of the Jewish community, the Board of Deputies, and its craven support for Israel.

In the last two weeks a very public brawl has broken out between the Jewish Chronicle newspaper’s top columnists, Jonathan Freedland and the ultra-neoconservative Melanie Phillips.

Freedland has launched a blistering and well deserved attack on Phillips for renaming the IJV group as “Jews for Genocide” and her remark that while “individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project”.

The Union of Jewish Students may have put on a brave united front over Israel at the NUS conference, but the disarray among young Jews is, if anything, even greater.

I was recently a guest speaker at a brilliant event, organised in disused rail tunnels underneath London Bridge station by Jewdas, in their words a “rootless cosmopolitan youth movement”.

Jewdas first hit the headlines when Jewish community leaders called the police to remove them from Trafalgar Square during a recent “Celebrate Israel” rally!

The problem for the Zionists (supporters of Israel) is that far too much truth is now in the public arena and they have to resort to illiberal means to stop it.

The recent publication of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé, Israel’s leading anti-Zionist scholar, illustrates this point.

Pappé documents, Arab village by Arab village, the extreme violence used by Zionist militias in 1948 to “cleanse” the new Israeli state of its Palestinian Arab majority.

Pappé’s concluding argument is that peace in the region depends upon Israelis confronting the racist roots of their state. But the pro-Israeli Jewish community leaderships are concluding instead that laws must be used, and changed if necessary, to silence critics like Pappé.

Traditions of honest and democratic debate demand that those independent Jewish voices such as the radical US Jewish theologian Marc Ellis continue to speak out.

Ellis has written of a “civil war of conscience” over Israel, simmering under the apparent smooth surface of Jewish communities. As the surface breaks, the left must intervene.

Particularly on the campuses, we should not assume that the view of Israel held by leadership of the Union of Jewish Students is dominant among all Jewish students. It is not.

Many if not most of the thousands of Jewish students start their first year in university with very confused attitudes about Israel. What is required is a sensitive but sustained strategy of political and intellectual engagement with these students.

In every generation, a minority of Jews questions the narrow, pessimistic and bleak conservatism of the organised community’s leadership. We need to provide answers to those questions.

John Rose is the author of The Myths of Zionism, available at Bookmarks, the socialist bookshop. Phone 020 7637 1848 or go to www.bookmarks.uk.com

8 Million Iraqis Need Urgent Aid: UN

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

The United Nations warned on Tuesday, April 17, that nearly eight million Iraqis were in dire need of aid, while international relief groups urged world countries, particularly war allies Washington and London, to accommodate millions of Iraqis fleeing their violence-ravaged country.
---
"Up to eight million Iraqi civilians are in urgent need of humanitarian relief," UN humanitarian chief John Holmes told a conference on Iraq's displacement crisis in Geneva, reported Agence France Presse (AFP).
---
"That is around four million more than those who are internally or externally displaced."

There are also four million Iraqi refugees and displaced people, about 2 million in Syria and Jordan and 1.9 million inside the war-torn country.

Holmes asserted that millions of people are facing "a basic survival crisis" in oil-rich Iraq, urging the world to shoulder its responsibility towards traumatized Iraqis.

"Iraq is not just a deeply controversial political and security issue, but a profound and no doubt lasting humanitarian crisis affecting millions of civilians."

A poll conducted jointly by ABC News, the BBC, and German TV network ARD showed on Monday, March 19 that four year after the invasion, two-thirds of Iraqis see a gloomy picture for their future and have lost all confidence in their "liberators".

It found that basic necessities were lacking in Iraq, with 88 percent of respondents saying the availability of electricity was either "quite bad" or "very bad".

About 69 percent gave similar responses for the availability of clean water, and 88 percent for the availability of driving or cooking fuel.

The UN Development Program (UNDP) and an Iraqi government agency said on Sunday, February 18, that a third of Iraq's 26 million people live in poverty.

It added that the living standards of Iraqis have been deteriorating after a thriving economy in the 1970s and 80s.

Open Borders

In a related development, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged world countries Tuesday to keep their borders open to the growing flood of Iraqi refugees.

"I hope this conference will galvanize international support to provide them with more protection and assistance and I hope it will mobilize resources in establishing much needed protection space," Ban said in a video message.

"For neighboring countries this means keeping borders open and upholding the principle of no forced return," he elaborated.

Some 800,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since February 2006, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Up to 50,000 Iraqis their country every month.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the World's largest relief agency, praised Syria and Jordan for generous reception to Iraqis refugees.

But it warned that infrastructures in those countries have reached their limits.

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned Tuesday that some of Iraq's neighbors were "closing off escape routes" for refugees by introducing restrictions, including a seven-billion-dollar high-tech barrier Saudi Arabian was building on the border.

About 95 percent of fleeing Iraqis remain in the Middle East, but the number of Iraqis reaching industrialized countries, mainly Europe, surged by 77 percent (22,200) in 2006, according to UNHCR data.

The US-based HRW singled out the US and Britain for harsher criticism.

"The United States and the United Kingdom bear a particular responsibility to help people displaced in and out of Iraq," said Bill Frelick, refugee director at HRW.

"They undertook a war that has directly caused thousands of deaths, widespread fear and suffering, and forced displacement."

AMSI Net- Agencies

Israel urges tough diplomacy this year on Iran, warns of attack

INTERVIEW-Israel urges tough diplomacy this year on Iran
18 Apr 2007 20:32:26 GMT

By Sue Pleming and Carol Giacomo

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - There is still time this year to deal with Iran diplomatically to halt its nuclear program, but a military option may await if such pressure fails, Israel's envoy to the United States said on Wednesday.

In an interview with Reuters, Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor said it appeared Tehran was going "full speed" with its effort to have mastered the technology of enriching uranium needed to produce a bomb and that world powers must act.

"We are extremely concerned by Iran's continued effort to expand their enrichment activities," he said. "It seems that they are developing a large-scale centrifuge plan," he added,

A confidential U.N. nuclear watchdog document obtained by Reuters on Wednesday said Iran had begun making nuclear fuel in its underground uranium enrichment plant.

In addition, Tehran had 1,300 centrifuge machines, divided into eight cascades, or networks, in its Natanz complex, in a drive to lay a basis for "industrial scale" enrichment, said the document.

Iran argues its nuclear program is for civilian power purposes and is not intended at building a bomb.

Meridor predicted diplomacy had this year to run its course to pressure Iran to stop its enrichment program but he stressed Iran needed to know that all options, including the military one, were on the table if such diplomatic pressure failed.

"We hope, but we are not sure, that it will be not unsafe to assume that at least in '07 there is still time for diplomacy ... with the projection of all options on the table to have an impact."

A U.S. intelligence assessment estimates Iran could develop a bomb early into the next decade, between 2010 and 2015, but some experts say recent advances by Iran in enriching uranium could speed up that timeline prediction.

Asked whether he thought military action could ultimately be used against Iran, particularly as the United States is so bogged down in Iraq, the envoy said he hoped that would not be the case.

"But at the same time, it is critical that the Iranians understand that if other ways are not resulting in a positive result ... if all other measures fail, still a military option may be awaiting them," he said.

Asked whether Israel would act militarily without informing the United States, he said, "When we get to the bridge we will see what we do."

Iran has been slapped twice with U.N. Security Council sanctions in the past year in an effort to get Tehran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Meridor said there needed to be more determination in imposing those economic measures so Iran knew the world was serious.

"The more options they perceive viable, the higher the chances are that they would take it seriously," he said. (Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

Wolfowitz's girlfriend problem

Not only did the World Bank president find his companion Shaha Ali Riza a cushy job in the State Department, but she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Apr. 19, 2007 | Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank has turned into yet another case study of neoconservative government in action. It bears resemblance to the military planning for the invasion of Iraq, during which Wolfowitz, as deputy secretary of defense, arrogantly humiliated Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki for suggesting that the U.S. force level was inadequate. It has similarities to the twisting of intelligence used to justify the war, in which Wolfowitz oversaw the construction of a parallel operation within the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to shunt disinformation directly to the White House, without its being vetted by CIA analysts, about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaida and his weapons of mass destruction, and sought to fire Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, for factually reporting before the invasion that Saddam had not revived his nuclear weapons program. Wolfowitz's regime also uncannily looks like the occupation of Iraq run by the Coalition Provisional Authority, from which Wolfowitz blackballed State Department professionals -- instead staffing it with inexperienced ideologues -- and to whom Wolfowitz sent daily orders.

Wolfowitz's World Bank scandal over his girlfriend reveals many of the same qualities that created the wreckage he left in his wake in Iraq: grandiosity, cronyism, self-dealing and lying -- followed by an energetic campaign to deflect accountability. As with the war, he has retreated behind his fervent profession of good intentions to excuse himself. The ginning up of the conservative propaganda mill that once disseminated Wolfowitz's disinformation on WMD to defend him as the innocent victim of a political smear only underlines his tried-and-true methods of operation. The hollowness of his defense echoes in the thunderous absurdity of Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial: "Paul Wolfowitz, meet the Duke lacrosse team."

Superficially, Wolfowitz's arrangement for his girlfriend of a job with a hefty increase in pay in violation of the ethics clauses of his contract and without informing the World Bank board might seem like an all-too-familiar story of a man seeking special favors for a romantic partner. Wolfowitz has tried to cast the scandal as a "painful personal dilemma," as he described it in an April 12 e-mail to outraged employees of the World Bank, who have taken to calling the neoconservative's girlfriend his "neoconcubine." He was, he says, just attempting to "navigate in uncharted waters." But the fall of Wolfowitz is the final act of a long drama -- and love or even self-love may not be the whole subject.

Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia, educated at Oxford, who now has British citizenship. She is divorced; he is separated. Their discreet relationship became a problem only when he ascended to the World Bank presidency. Riza had floated through the neoconservative network -- working at the Free Iraq Foundation in the early 1990s and the National Endowment for Democracy -- until landing a position in the Middle East and African department of the World Bank. The ethics provisions of Wolfowitz's contract, however, stipulated that he could not maintain a sexual relationship with anyone over whom he had supervisory authority, even indirectly.

Back in 2003, Wolfowitz had taken care of Riza by directing his trusted Pentagon deputy, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- who had been in charge of the Office of Special Plans and had been Wolfowitz's partner in managing the CPA -- to arrange for a military contract for her from Science Applications International Corp. When the contract was exposed this week, SAIC issued a statement that it "had no role in the selection of the personnel." In other words, the firm with hundreds of millions in contracts at stake had been ordered to hire Riza.

Riza was unhappy about leaving the sinecure at the World Bank. But in 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised by $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be "outstanding." Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done.

Exactly how this deal was made and with whom remains something of a mystery. The person who did work with Riza in her new position was Elizabeth Cheney, then the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. And Riza's assignment fell under the purview of Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. But these facts raise more questions than they answer.

The documents released by the World Bank do not include any of the communications with the State Department. How did Elizabeth Cheney come to be involved? Did Wolfowitz speak with Vice President Dick Cheney, for whom he had been a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense in the elder Bush's administration?

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.

But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.

Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza's building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.

Wolfowitz's willful behavior, as though no rules bound him or facts constrained his ideas, should not have surprised anyone. At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz was an insistent force behind an invasion of Iraq, bringing it up at the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration, months before Sept. 11. For years he had been a firm believer in the crackpot theories of Laurie Mylroie, a neoconservative writer, who argued that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and even the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. After Sept. 11, Wolfowitz pursued his obsession by sending former CIA Director James Woolsey on a secret mission to attempt to confirm the theory. Woolsey came back with nothing, but Wolfowitz continued to believe. His beliefs are stronger than any evidence.

Surrounded by his Praetorian Guard, Wolfowitz insulated himself at the World Bank from the career staff. There, as at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz pushed aside the professionals and replaced them with a small band of politically reliable assistants. Wolfowitz rewarded them, too, on his own authority, with enormous tax-free salaries. Consider Kevin Kellems, his public affairs officer at the Pentagon, who had guided conservative media from that perch and is known as "keeper of the comb," for having been the person to hand Wolfowitz the infamous comb he licked before slicking down his hair in the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 9/11." Kellems was given a salary of $240,000, at least equal to what World Bank vice presidents with years of service earn.

Wolfowitz had spent his career staging neoconservative insurgencies against what he considered to be liberal establishments. But at the World Bank he tried to model himself after Robert McNamara, who had turned his presidency at the bank into his vehicle for redemption for his part in the Vietnam War. Wolfowitz, the chief intellectual and policy advocate for the Iraq war, no longer mentioned it. Now he pleads to the World Bank board that his corrupt dealings be overlooked for the greater good of his crusade against corruption. His refusal to resign discredits and paralyzes the institution he had hoped would vindicate him.

Maliki Orders Arrest of Colonel in Charge of Baghdad

Iraqi prime minister orders the arrest of an Iraqi army colonel

April 18, 2007 16:27 EDT

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister has ordered the arrest of the Iraqi army colonel in charge of security in the area around a Baghdad market that was hard-hit today by a deadly car bombing.

At least 127 people died in the blast and scores more were wounded. It was the second massive blast at the market since February.

The attack was one of four bombings that rocked the capital today, killing 183 people and making it the bloodiest day since a U-S troop surge began nine weeks ago.

The other attacks today involved a suicide car blast at a checkpoint, a parked car bomb near a hospital and a device on a minibus.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the bombings "horrifying" and accused al-Qaida of being behind them.

Nationwide, the number of people killed or found dead today was 233, which equaled the highest daily death toll since The Associated Press began keeping records in May 2005.

The Media in the Mud: Broder Gets Real

By David S. Broder

Thursday, April 19, 2007; A27

It pales in comparison to the carnage and loss of life this week at Virginia Tech. But last week the tattered reputation of journalism in this country saw severe damage. The role of the media in the phony Duke lacrosse rape story and the Don Imus firing left large parts of the so-called establishment press embarrassed and besmirched.

The Imus story involved the worse offense, for it was wholly gratuitous. CBS Radio and MSNBC fired the millionaire talk-show host only after criticism of his foul-mouthed assault on the Rutgers women's basketball team mounted and advertisers canceled their contracts. It showed no courage on the part of those organizations, which had put up with similar slurs for years and counted themselves lucky to have such a moneymaking act in their stable.

I had never heard Imus's broadcast, because I am a longtime fan of NPR's "Morning Edition," which is on at the same time. I was stunned to learn how many of the journalists I admire had been regular guests on the program. Many are now having a hard time explaining their association.

It turned out that many of them had heard Imus ridicule and insult women, gays, African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics and others. Some had been targets of his unfunny slurs and came back for more.

Their rationalizations are lame. Some said the "jokes" were just part of his exaggerated way of speaking, so they didn't take them seriously. Others said they found him a savvy, insightful interviewer, and they appreciated the time he gave them to express their thoughts. And some were honest enough to say that they valued his big audience, especially when they were promoting their books.

These are weak excuses for journalists' participation in this continuing offense to civility. Jokes are not jokes when they wound and humiliate. The claim that Imus's slanders were the price they had to pay in return for his providing a forum for their ideas doesn't wash. Big-name newspaper, magazine and TV journalists have no trouble finding places where they can voice their thoughts.

The simple lesson, which some stubbornly are not acknowledging, is that when professional journalists lend their credibility to entertainers or others whose standards are far lower than those of the news organizations for which those journalists work, they not only damage their credibility but also diminish the standards they are supposed to embody.

The Duke story -- the supposed gang-rape of a black woman by three white lacrosse players -- is more complex. The woman turned out to be unreliable, and the prosecutor persisted despite weaknesses in the case and even withheld evidence in order to bring charges. Now the charges have been dismissed, leaving the accused students to try to repair their reputations.

Rereading some of the coverage of the case is a painful journey into journalistic excess -- and one-sidedness. Early on, before charges had even been filed, Selena Roberts, a fine sportswriter at the New York Times, wrote that "players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account." The reason, she said, is that "the stigma as a traitor -- and the threat of repercussion and isolation -- is more powerful than the instinct to do what's right, a pattern perpetuated on every level of sports, from prep to pro."

The real reason, it turns out, was that the rape story was concocted and the lacrosse players were telling the truth when they said no such crime occurred.

The Times was not alone. In The Post, reporter Lynne Duke wrote a story that began: "She was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air. But whatever actually happened that March 13 night at Duke University -- both the reported rape and its surrounding details are hotly disputed -- it appears at least that the disturbing historic script of the sexual abuse of black women was playing out inside that lacrosse team house party."

It was playing out, too, in the pages of newsmagazines and in newspaper columns and editorials, all with the usual brief mention that no one had yet been convicted. But the claims of innocence that were made from the beginning were given little weight.

Now we know better. But how often do we have to relearn the lesson that leaks from prosecutors can be biased and unfair?

When will we start to think about the people who are hurt by our coverage? And when will we take our responsibilities seriously?

davidbroder@washpost.com

Peace Movement Must Take on AIPAC

AIPAC (the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) is the driving force behind America's uber-aggressive foreign policy. Unless the pro-peace movement takes them and their rhetoric -- not to mention their outright disloyalty on -- then we will not get anywhere in our efforts to stop future wars against Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East.

Posted by Paul Gessing on April 19, 2007 12:37 AM | Permalink

Top deputy tells Wolfowitz to quit

(Reuters)
Updated: 2007-04-19 10:14

WASHINGTON - A deputy to Paul Wolfowitz urged the World Bank chief on Wednesday to resign in the interests of the institution during a meeting of the bank's management, sources who participated in the meeting said.

The sources told Reuters that World Bank Managing Director Graeme Wheeler, a bank veteran named by Wolfowitz as one of his two deputies a year ago, raised the issue at a meeting of the bank's vice presidents.

Asked to comment, World Bank spokesman Marwan Muasher said: "I feel it is inappropriate to comment on private meetings."

Wheeler, a former World Bank treasurer who joined the bank from the New Zealand treasury, is widely respected in the institution.

He was one of the first career staffers Wolfowitz brought into his management team after he took the helm of the bank in 2005 and came under fire for surrounding himself with people he brought with him from the Pentagon and White House.

Wheeler could not be reached for comment.

The World Bank is reeling from a controversy over leaked documents that show Wolfowitz played a role in dictating the terms of a high-paying promotion for his companion and bank employee Shaha Riza, before she was moved by the bank in 2005 to the State Department because of their relationship.

Wolfowitz has said he does not intend to resign and has apologized for his handling of the matter, even as World Bank member governments worry that the matter had damaged the credibility of the poverty-fighting institution and dented staff morale.

The White House on Wednesday repeated that President George W. Bush still had "full confidence" in Wolfowitz, a key Iraq war architect who left the Pentagon in 2005 to become World Bank president.

"We still have full confidence, the president has full confidence in President Wolfowitz," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters.

The bank's 24-nation board is examining Wolfowitz's role in helping to arrange the promotion for Riza, while the organization representing bank employees has called for his resignation.

"I think the effort of the World Bank board should be to get to the facts, treat it with fairness and think of the long-term effectiveness of the institution," Fratto said.

Israel's Strategic Threat

Related
Knesset committee to consider revoking MK Bishara's benefits
Statement of Condemnation of the Israeli Campaign against The Palestinian Intellectual and National Figure Azmi Bishara
Hands off Azmi! The Dangerous Politics of "A State for All Its Citizens"
---
by NEVE GORDON

[posted online on April 17, 2007]

In early April the rumors about Dr. Azmi Bishara, the most famous Arab Knesset member, began circulating on the Internet: Bishara is afraid to return to Israel; Bishara intends to resign from the Knesset; the Israeli Security Agency has decided to accuse Bishara of treason and espionage. The gag order preventing the publication of any information about Bishara's actions made the rumors all the more intriguing. What did Bishara, in fact, do?

Bishara, a Christian Palestinian citizen of Israel from Nazareth, established the National Democratic Assembly known as Balad in 1995 and became a Knesset member in 1996. Since then he has been interrogated several times by the Israeli Security Agency, and has been charged and found not guilty twice: once for organizing visits to Syria for Israeli Arabs who wished to visit family members and a second time for speeches he gave in Syria and Israel praising Hezbollah's resistance in southern Lebanon and Palestinian opposition in the occupied territories. His visit to Beirut following last year's Lebanon war, alongside his claim that Israel was committing war crimes in Lebanon and carrying out genocide against Shiite Muslims, was, for many Israelis, yet another indication that Bishara has been using his parliamentary immunity to harm Israel. Many Jewish members of the Knesset have argued for years that Bishara is a fifth column and that Israeli democracy has a right and indeed an obligation to defend itself against the Bishara threat.

But what, one might ask, are Bishara's new offenses? It is, after all, highly unlikely that he is a spy on the payroll of a foreign entity. And while one may not like his uncompromising opposition to Israeli and American regional policies and his admiration for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's militancy and strategic intelligence, expressing such views does not in and of itself jeopardize Israel's existence. Bishara, it seems, is a threat not because of any particular action or statement but because he has become a symbol of a new kind of opposition within Israel.

During the past few months, political activists and members of the Palestinian intellectual elite within Israel, all of whom are Israeli citizens, have drafted four documents that articulate how they conceive the state's future. The underlying assumption of all of these documents is that as long as Israel is defined as a Jewish state, its laws will always fall short of basic democratic principles and, more particularly, the right of all its citizens to full equality.

The authors of the document called "The Democratic Constitution" maintain that the Arab citizens of Israel should be considered a "homeland minority" with national rights. The idea is to transform Israel into a bilingual and multicultural democracy for all its citizens, rather than a Jewish democracy, which they argue is an oxymoron. Such transformation would inevitably mean changing the laws of citizenship and immigration so that citizenship would no longer be granted automatically to any Jew wishing to immigrate but rather to anyone born within Israel's territory or whose parent or spouse is a citizen, or to people persecuted due to their political beliefs.

Not long after the documents' publication, Israel's second-largest newspaper, Ma'ariv, reported a meeting between the head of the security agency, Yuval Diskin, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. During the meeting Diskin warned Olmert that the radicalization of Israel's Arab citizens constitutes a "strategic threat to the state's existence." Diskin added that "the proliferation of the visionary documents published by the different Arab elites in Israel is particularly worrisome, [since] the documents are united by their conception of Israel as a state for all its citizens and not a Jewish state." The head of the security services concluded that "the separatist and subversive patterns represented by the elites might engender a new direction and mobilize the masses."

Balad sent a letter protesting Diskin's assertions, arguing that legitimate political activity whose aim is to change the state's character should not be considered subversive or dangerous. According to Ha'aretz, the Israeli Security Agency replied that it "would foil the activity of anyone seeking to harm Israel's Jewish or democratic character, even if that activity was carried out by legal means."

Diskin's words are telling. He admits not only that anyone who strives to alter the Jewish character of the state is considered an enemy and will be treated as such but that the secret service has no respect for democratic practices and procedures. It is precisely within the context of the four historic documents that one should understand the recent accusations against Bishara. More than anything else, Bishara constitutes a symbolic threat, since he personifies the recent demand of the Palestinian elite to transform Israel from a Jewish democracy to a democracy for all its citizens.

FBI searches Republican lawmaker’s home

FBI Ups Heat on Doolittle

Attorney: Wife Target of Raid By Rachel Van Dongen and Susan Davis

Roll Call Staff
April 19, 2007

The FBI raided the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle and his wife on Friday, though the Congressman’s lawyer contended the raid was focused on Julie Doolittle’s fundraising records rather than any of the California Republican lawmaker’s own activities.
---

FBI searches Republican lawmaker’s home

By Mike Soraghan and Susan Crabtree

April 18, 2007

The FBI searched the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) last Friday in its investigation into ties between the congressman and his wife, Julie, and disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to law enforcement and other Congressional and K Street sources.

The search took place on the same day that his former chief of staff, Kevin Ring, abruptly resigned from his lobbying firm. Ring left Doolittle’s office to work for Abramoff at the law firm Greenberg Traurig and may have played a role in Abramoff’s decision to hire Julie Doolittle’s consulting firm. After the Abramoff scandal broke, Ring went to work for the lobbying firm, Barnes and Thornburg.


Doolittle came within three percentage points of losing his election in November after facing months of scrutiny over his relationship with Abramoff, who is in jail for an array of fraud, bribery and money-laundering charges. The lawmaker has denied any wrongdoing.

Throughout his campaign, Doolittle refused to return an estimated $50,000 he received from Abramoff clients, mostly tribes, between 1999 and 2004. Abramoff also personally donated $14,000 between 1999 and 2004 to Doolittle’s congressional campaigns.

Doolittle used Abramoff’s luxury sports box for a fundraiser without initially reporting it to the Federal Election Commission.

Doolittle also has been under fire for paying his wife’s company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, a 15 percent commission on all contributions that the company raised for Doolittle’s campaign committee and leadership PAC. Her only other clients were Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig; Abramoff’s former restaurant Signatures; and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which Ed Buckham, a former chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), created.

The Justice Department previously subpoenaed Julie Doolittle’s files.

Doolittle also received contributions from indicted defense contractor Brent Wilkes and his associates, and investigators are probing whether those contributions are linked to any official action Doolittle took to help Wilkes’ company obtain millions of dollars in government earmarks.

Wilkes recently was indicted in connection with his investigation stemming from former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s (R-Calif.) bribery conviction and jailing.

Attempts to obtain a copy of the search warrant at the U.S. District Courthouse in Alexandria were unsuccessful. Of the 126 search warrants logged there since the beginning of February, 90 (or 71 percent) are “under seal.”

Democrats soften stance on Iraq

AFP
18/04/2007 19:30 - (SA)

Washington - Democrats softened their demands on Wednesday on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq ahead of talks with US President George W Bush on funding for the four-year-old war.

Leaders of the new Democratic majority said before a scheduled meeting with Bush they preferred to negotiate an exit strategy rather than try to impose a withdrawal timetable fiercely opposed by the White House.

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives, said Democrats were determined to reach out and say: "Mr. President, we must work together. We must negotiate an approach that will wind down this war."

Pelosi and senate majority leader Harry Reid conspicuously avoided a demand for the pullout of US troops starting next year that was contained in a funding bill Bush has sworn to veto.

Pelosi said: "It's not a question of 'back down'. It's a question of negotiate a winding down of this war.

"It's necessary that we do that because the course of action we are in is a war without end."

There are 145 000 US troops in Iraq, and the number should rise to 160 000 by June under a "surge" ordered by Bush to try to restore order in Baghdad.

Locked in a weeks-long standoff over a $120bn emergency funding package for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush and the Democratic leaders were to meet behind closed doors at the White House.

Rep. Murtha: President's Iraq war plan requires draft

Related
Experts: Draft May Be Necessary
---
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007

Murtha calls for responsibility on the part of the President

“If the President insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman John P. Murtha, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, issued the following remarks today while discussing Army personnel issues:

“I just returned from visiting three major army bases: Ft. Hood, Ft. Stewart and Ft. Bragg.

“What I found was that the President’s policy has forced the military to break its own rotation and deployment guidelines. Our forces have had to accelerate training, they have had to train on inadequate and insufficient equipment, and percentages have been deployed a third and fourth time.

“I discussed the length of deployments with a group of commanders who told me that more than nine months deployed in theater was harmful to them and their families. They were not complaining; rather they candidly acknowledged that after a certain amount of time, professional skills begin to diminish and extended tours could very well push soldiers and leaders beyond what is reasonable.

“I found a need for counseling for our military children and was told that the truancy rate is increasing while their academic performance is declining. A first sergeant commented, “We love being soldiers but we are also people with families and children. When we’re not soldiers we’re soccer coaches, Cub Scout leaders, and we’re involved in our local P.T.A.” Fifteen months from home significantly impacts the military family. Another soldier who had already served three tours said, “I just can’t bear to tell my kids that I am being deployed again and that my tour will be extended beyond a year.”

“Our Army will do what is asked of them, but it is unconscionable to ask the same men and women, who have deployed three or four times and who have already served a year in intensive combat, to now extend their time in theater for an additional three months. As one soldier put it, “after six months in Iraq, every day is another Groundhog Day.”

“Our military has done a tremendous job with what has been asked of them. They have juggled and balanced with what they have, but what they have is not enough. The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much. If the President insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do.”

(####)

Virginia Tech Gunman Sent Material to NBC

(ismail ax, cho seung-hui, gun control)

Va. Tech Gunman Sent Material to NBC

Posted Apr 18, 2007 03:06 PM PST
Category: CURRENT EVENTS

1. Shoot people
2. Make video.
3. Transfer to computer.
4. Burn disk.
5. Wrap package.
6. Go to post office.
7. Buy postage.
8. Put postage on package.
9. Mail package.
10. Shoot more people.

Oh yeah, that makes a whole lotta sense!

KILLING FIELDS AT THE VIRGINIA TECH - AN ANALYSIS

Fueling the agendas for the "Ban-Gun-Lobby" is the most remarkable factor here. Although, each experienced reader will recognize that there was a GUN BAN in effect on the whole area of the Virginia Tech campus. It failed to protect the victims, clearly - as it would fail to protect ANYONE OF YOU - if any "gunban" would be widened throughout the States.

It is interesting to watch the behaviour of the MSM - especially in the case of the killer at the Appalachian School of Law in January 2002. Three persons got killed before two ARMED students managed to subdue the aggressor and PREVENTED WORSE.

Posted Apr 18, 2007 02:44 PM PST
Category: CURRENT EVENTS

Virginia Tech killer's manifesto stuns students

Videos and photographs of an armed Cho Seung-Hui shock Virginia Tech's community.

Watch excerpts from Cho's video

Photos

AP Photo: This video frame grab image taken from a video aired by NBC News on Wednesday,...

• Slideshow: Virginia Tech Shootings

Va. Tech stunned by images of gunman

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago

Restaurant patrons cringed and mothers turned their children away from the television as the video came up of an armed Cho Seung-Hui delivering a snarling, venomous tirade about rich "brats" and their "hedonistic needs."

The self-made video and photos of Cho pointing guns as if he were imitating a movie poster were mailed to NBC on the morning of the Virginia Tech massacre. A Postal Service time stamp reads 9:01 a.m. — between the two attacks that left 33 people dead.

"This is it. This is where it all ends," Cho says in one videotape, in which he appears to be more melancholy than angry. "What a life it was. Some life."

Cho, 23, speaks in a harsh monotone in other videotaped rants, but it isn't clear to whom he is speaking.

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," he says in one, with a snarl on his lips. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

NBC said the package contained a rambling and often incoherent 23-page written statement, 28 video clips and 43 photos.

On NBC's "Today" show Thursday, host Matt Lauer said the decision to air the information "was not taken lightly." Some victims' relatives cancelled their plans to speak with NBC because they were upset over the airing of the images, he said.

"I saw his picture on TV, and when I did I just got chills," said Kristy Venning, a junior from Franklin County, Va. "There's really no words. It shows he put so much thought into this and I think it's sick."

The package helped explain one of the biggest mysteries about the massacre: where the gunman was and what he did during that two-hour window between the first burst of gunfire, at a high-rise dorm, and the second attack, at a classroom building.

"Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats," says Cho, a South Korean immigrant whose parents work at a dry cleaners in suburban Washington. "Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn't enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough. Those weren't enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."

Earlier in the day, authorities disclosed that more than a year before the massacre, Cho was accused of sending unwanted messages to two women and was taken to a psychiatric hospital on a magistrate's orders and was pronounced a danger to himself. But he was released with orders to undergo outpatient treatment.

The disclosure added to the rapidly growing list of warning signs that appeared well before the student opened fire. Among other things, Cho's twisted, violence-filled writings and sullen, vacant-eyed demeanor had disturbed professors and students so much that he was removed from one English class and was repeatedly urged to get counseling.

Some of the pictures in the video package show him smiling; others show him frowning and snarling. Some depict him brandishing two weapons at a time, one in each hand. He wears a khaki-colored military-style vest, fingerless gloves, a black T-shirt, a backpack and a backward, black baseball cap. Another photo shows him swinging a hammer two-fisted. Another shows an angry-looking Cho holding a gun to his temple.

He refers to "martyrs like Eric and Dylan" — a reference to the teenage killers in the Columbine High School massacre.

NBC News President Steve Capus said the package arrived in Tuesday afternoon's mail, but was not opened until Wednesday morning. It was sent by overnight delivery and apparently had the wrong ZIP code, NBC said.

An alert postal employee brought the package to NBC's attention after noticing the Blacksburg return address and a name similar to the words reportedly found scrawled in red ink on Cho's arm after the bloodbath, "Ismail Ax," NBC said.

Capus said that the network notified the FBI around noon, but held off reporting on it at the FBI's request, so that the bureau could look at it first. NBC finally broke the story just before police announced the development at 4:30 p.m.

It was clear Cho videotaped himself, Capus said, because he could be seen leaning in to shut off the camera.

State Police Spokeswoman Corinne Geller cautioned that, while the package was mailed between the two shootings, police have not inspected the footage and have yet to establish exactly when the images were made.

Cho repeatedly suggests he was picked on or otherwise hurt.

"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he says, apparently reading from his manifesto. "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."

A law enforcement official said Cho's letter also refers in the same sentence to President Bush and John Mark Karr, who falsely confessed last year to having killed child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak to the media.

Earlier Wednesday, authorities disclosed that in November and December 2005, two women complained to campus police that they had received calls and computer messages from Cho. But the women considered the messages "annoying," not threatening, and neither pressed charges, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Neither woman was among the victims in the massacre, police said.

After the second complaint about Cho's behavior, the university obtained a temporary detention order and took Cho away because an acquaintance reported he might be suicidal, authorities said. Police did not identify the acquaintance.

On Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans, a private psychiatric hospital. The magistrate signed the order after an initial evaluation found probable cause that Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness.

The next day, according to court records, doctors at Carilion conducted further examination and a special justice, Paul M. Barnett, approved outpatient treatment.

A medical examination conducted Dec. 14 reported that that Cho's "affect is flat. ... He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

The court papers indicate that Barnett checked a box that said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Barnett did not check the box that would indicate a danger to others.

It is unclear how long Cho stayed at Carilion, though court papers indicate he was free to leave as of Dec. 14. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said Cho had been continually enrolled at Tech and never took a leave of absence.

A spokesman for Carilion St. Albans would not comment.

Though the incidents with the two women did not result in criminal charges, police referred Cho to the university's disciplinary system, Flinchum said. But Ed Spencer, assistant vice president of student affairs, would not comment on any disciplinary proceedings, saying federal law protects students' medical privacy even after death.

Some students refused to second-guess the university.

"Who would've woken up in the morning and said, `Maybe this student who's just troubled is really going to do something this horrific?'" said Elizabeth Hart, a communications major and a spokeswoman for the student government.

One of the first Virginia Tech officials to recognize Cho's problems was award-winning poet Nikki Giovanni, who kicked him out of her introduction to creative writing class in late 2005.

Students in Giovanni's class had told their professor that Cho was taking photographs of their legs and knees under the desks with his cell phone. Female students refused to come to class. She said she considered him "mean" and "a bully."

Lucinda Roy, professor of English at Virginia Tech, said that she, too, relayed her concerns to campus police and various other college units after Cho displayed antisocial behavior in her class and handed in disturbing writing assignments.

But she said authorities "hit a wall" in terms of what they could do "with a student on campus unless he'd made a very overt threat to himself or others." Cho resisted her repeated suggestion that he undergo counseling, Roy said.

Questions lingered over whether campus police should have issued an immediate campus-wide warning of a killer on the loose and locked down the campus after the first burst of gunfire.

Police said that after the first shooting, in which two students were killed, they believed that it was a domestic dispute, and that the gunman had fled the campus. Police went looking for a young man, Karl David Thornhill, who had once shot guns at a firing range with the roommate of one of the victims. But police said Thornhill is no longer under suspicion.

___

Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed, Vicki Smith, Sue Lindsey and Justin Pope in Blacksburg, Va., Matt Barakat in Richmond, Va., Colleen Long and Tom Hays in New York, and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.

More Virginia Tech news