Pro-peace lobby is needed

By Emad Omar

Jimmy Carter, the previous American president who received the Nobel Peace Prize and initiated putting human rights on the US agenda during his term, was the first to break the state of hostility between Israel and the Arabs with the first peace treaty in the history of this conflict. In 1978, the famous peace treaty between the Egyptians and the Israelis was a great opportunity for Israel to obtain recognition and end the state of war. Yet in spite of this, the pro-Israel lobby in US raised hell against Carter after publishing his latest book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.” In the book, he told of the successive Israeli governments that have routinely undermined the peace process through obstinate aggressive and illegal occupation of the territories seized in 1967. The lobby’s reaction confirmed what Carter mentioned in his book and in a number of his press interviews, that “the Jewish general public is more eager for peace than their political leaders.”

The former American Secretary of the State, James Baker, was the engineer of the second reduction in hostility between Israel and Arab states. Baker sponsored the direct negotiations between Israel and neighboring Arab countries in 1991, giving Israel an historic opportunity to be recognized and accepted in the region. Despite that, a considerable wing of the lobby, during that time, led a campaign against him. They accused him of vilifying the Jews in a private meeting when he claimed that they do not vote for the Republicans. Recently, Baker, with his colleague Lee Hamilton, in the Bi-partisan Iraq study group, found that “the United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict,” he was attacked by this wing that seems careless about American interests in the region and sees only the strategic bi-lateral relation between Israel and US as its only concern.

Carter and Baker are among the most respected American politicians when it comes to American foreign policy. Their careers in diplomacy are behind them now and they can afford to tell the truth and focus on the real and possible solutions.

George Soros, a rich American Jew, experienced suffering in eastern Europe during the fascist reign and the Holocaust, which gave him extreme sensitivity towards the oppressed. As such, he supported black students in South Africa against the Apartheid regime and the dissident movements in Eastern Europe against the communist tolatarian regimes. “I have a great deal of sympathy for my fellow Jews and deep concern for the survival of Israel,” Soros says. Lately, he criticized in an article published in the New York Review of Books, dated April 12, 2007, saying, “Recently, the pro-Israel lobby has gone on the offensive, accusing the so-called progressive critics of Israel’s policies of fomenting anti-Semitism and endangering the very existence of the Jewish state.” He warned that “There is the growing danger of a regional conflagration in which Israel and the US could well be on the losing side.” Supporters of the pro-Israel lobby attacked Soros by comparing his criticisms to the so-called blood libels directed against Jews in medieval Europe.

President of the esteemed Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas recently noted, “Diplomacy also needs to be revived in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is still the issue that most shapes (and radicalizes) public opinion in the region…The United States should articulate those principles it believes ought to constitute the elements of a final settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines.” Pro-Israel lobby has publicly disagreed with Haas's conclusions.

One year ago, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two prominent academics from Chicago and Harvard universities respectively, prepared a joint research paper about the lobby supporting Israel in America. In a documented and scientific way, they criticized the negative role played by the Israeli lobby today in American democratic life and in America’s foreign policy. In a joint essay published in the London Review of Books, they wrote that, “The Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists.”

As a result of this, they were targeted by a fierce campaign that made it almost impossible for both to publish their research in US.

The pro-Israel lobby in America that has attacked any sort of criticism of Israeli policies is like the father who exaggerates in protecting his children and spoils them, turning them into a troublemakers in the neighborhood and bringing their parents a bad reputation. This lobby’s policy contributes to maintaining the dangerous stagnation and status quo, the very problem King Abdullah II of Jordan warned of in his historical speech to the American Congress last March, when he said, “The status quo is pulling the region and the world towards greater danger... The cycle of crisis is spinning faster.”

The Arabs today are promoting their historic peace initiative, which is an historical opportunity, and the Israeli lobby in the US should push for a positive Israeli response in order to transform it into a regional peace plan instead of indulging in blindly defending the status quo and thus taking Israel, the region, and American interests into an endless hell that it may not recover from for many decades to come.

* Emad Omar is a conflict resolution and media expert based in Amman, Jordan.

Behind the scenes of the economy

Willem Middelkoop on the economy - April 18th, 2007

A series of conversations between economics reporter Willem Middelkoop and Daan de Wit on current economic affairs.

--MORE--

Olbermann: Truth little, truth late on Iraq

Truth little, truth late on Iraq

Obama Bows to the American Military

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

Does America really need a larger military?

If the United States got out of Iraq, and refocused its counter-terrorism efforts to stress non-military as well as military tools, bolstered its diplomacy, improved its alliances and pushed further burden-sharing, would it still need to expand the Army and Marine Corps?

Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) thinks so, ignoring the implications of his own foreign policy intentions, which would alleviate much of the current strain on America's armed forces.

Obama's foreign policy and defense plan was unveiled earlier this week, with all of the beautiful and hopeful words and vision we have grown to expect from the candidate.

But when it comes to the military, Obama seem hesitant and confused. I know that supporting the troops is American catechism: it would just be nice if the Senator asked why there is such a crisis in the armed forces today and then followed by questioning whether we have the military we need to pursue his foreign policy agenda.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Monday, presidential hopeful Barack Obama described a five point plan to enhance U.S. security and restore America's reputation, influence and respect around the world.

Obama says we need to "show the world" that America is the last, best hope on Earth, offering what he calls "a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national security" based upon the view that "the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people."

Obama denounces the current American foreign policy as being based on a "flawed ideology" and "a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision" saying that the Iraq war was "based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light."

He calls for a phased withdrawal of American forces "with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008." Obama's plan "allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists" and would include "an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region."

Iraq, he says, was and is "an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists." He calls instead for the United States to "refocus ... on the critical challenges in the broader region" and says that more "American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop [Afghanistan] from backsliding toward instability."

There are all the requisite and conventional words about Iran and North Korea ("we must never take the military option off the table") and reducing the threat of weapons of "mass annihilation" ("rises above all others in urgency"), about a more "nimble intelligence community," and freeing the United States from "our oil addiction."

Where Obama's heart is though is in articulating a different vision, and he speaks of a "common humanity" and there's lots of talk of leadership ("by deed and example") and "reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world's forgotten corners."

The spread of democracy and freedom are indeed America's larger purpose, but "this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box," he says. "The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice."

Rhetorically, Obama is soothing and poetic, and he calls for a massive infusion of U.S. foreign assistance and aid to push his soft power agenda and improve the lives and circumstances of America's potential enemies.

Obama tells the story of a visit to the Horn of Africa and some time he spent with the U.S. military Joint Task Force that has been deployed there since 2003. U.S. military forces might have initially been sent to launch counter-terrorism operations, he said, but now they are spending most of their time "working with our diplomats and aid workers on operations to win hearts and minds."

Obama recounts: "One of the Navy captains who helps run the base recently told a reporter, 'Our mission is at least 95 percent civil affairs. It's trying to get at the root causes of why people want to take on the U.S.' The Admiral now in charge of the Task Force suggested that if they can provide dignity and opportunity to the people in that region, then, 'the chance of extremism being welcomed greatly, if not completely, diminishes.'"

This seems to be the military he most admires, and Obama calls for greater investments "in our men and women's ability to succeed in today's complicated conflicts," including, specifically, greater foreign language capability.

On the armed forces overall, Obama calls for "building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people."

This includes, Barack Obama says, the current plan to expand the overall size of the U.S. military by nearly 100,000 (65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines), and "recruiting the best and brightest to service, ... keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve."

America's military, Obama says, should be "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats." He specifically supports "sustaining our technological edge."

"I say that if the need arises when I'm President, the Army we have will be the Army we need," Obama says, taking a poke at Donald Rumsfeld.

Sure in the end, Obama says that the United States must show "wisdom in how we deploy" our military, and says that "our first line of offense ... must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy." When the United States sends forces into harm's way, he says they must have a clearly defined mission and "concrete political and military objectives," supported by sound intelligence and a "plan" and, of course, the consent of U.S. military commanders.

It sounds an awful lot like John Kerry, with shades of Bill Clinton. A kinder, gentler military will be valued by President Obama; the big, bad military needed for Iran and North Korea (and the completely unmentioned China) will be fed to make space for the president's non-martial trifles.

It's not as if anyone could get elected president in 2008 arguing that we need a smaller military. I just wish that the visionary Senator had followed his own instincts and asked whether our "technological edge" and "armor" and equipment -- the military we now have and the one he says we need -- points us in the right or needed direction.

By William M. Arkin | April 26, 2007; 9:46 AM ET

When Seeing Is Disbelieving

By Shankar Vedantam

Monday, April 30, 2007; A03

Four years ago tomorrow, President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and dramatically strode onto the deck in a flight suit, a crash helmet tucked under one arm. Even without the giant banner that hung from the ship's tower, the president's message about the progress of the war in Iraq was unmistakable: mission accomplished.

Bush is not the first president to have convinced himself that something he wanted to believe was, in fact, true. As Columbia University political scientist Robert Jervis once noted, Ronald Reagan convinced himself that he was not trading arms for hostages in Iran, Bill Clinton convinced himself that the donors he had invited to stay overnight at the White House were really his friends, and Richard M. Nixon sincerely believed that his version of Watergate events was accurate.

Harry S. Truman apparently convinced himself that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan in the fading days of World War II could spare women and children: "I have told Sec. of War to use [the atomic bomb] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children," Truman noted in his diary.

Nor are U.S. presidents alone when it comes to deluding themselves: Successful politicians may just be more skilled at self-deception than the rest of us. Most people, perhaps all, seem hard-wired to be able to interpret reality to suit their ends.

Self-deception has been uncovered in a wide range of situations, says Robert L. Trivers, an evolutionary biologist at Rutgers University who has studied the phenomenon. Before the Challenger explosion, for example, NASA engineers noticed that one of the O-rings on the space shuttle had been eaten a third of the way through. Since the shuttle had flown and returned to Earth, the engineers concluded that it was not a problem. Surveys show that four in five high school seniors believe they have exceptional leadership ability, and nearly every single professor in the country believes he or she is above average.

During Colonial times, there were even people who managed to convince themselves that slavery was in the best interest of slaves; later on, some maintained that colonialism was in the best interest of poor countries.

War provides especially fertile soil for self-deception. Societies at war do not look kindly at derogatory assessments of their own fighting ability and motives, and they do not encourage talking up an enemy's strengths. This explains why both sides in many conflicts believe they are morally and militarily superior. (Each believes the other is deluding itself.)

Self-deception seems to be a universal trait, which presents an interesting problem for science, especially for scientists who study behavior from an evolutionary perspective. It makes sense for deception to abound in nature -- viruses find ways to sneak into our bodies, predators stealthily stalk prey, and countless species use camouflage to hide themselves from their attackers. But why would nature, after spending millennia evolving highly sophisticated senses to perceive the world, build in a psychological capacity that allows us to ignore what is right in front of our eyes?

Trivers says the primary use of self-deception appears to be that it aids people in deceiving others.

"Self-deception evolves in the service of deceit for two reasons," he said. "It improves your ability to fool others and, second, it reduces the cognitive costs of deception."

The thing to keep in mind, Trivers says, is that even as evolution rewarded deceivers, it also punished deceivers who got caught. (The ability to spot deception evolves along with the ability to deceive.)

Deliberate deception among humans, furthermore, requires effort. It requires you to hold both the truth and the untruth in your mind, and consciously suppress the truth. This is why the stereotype of liars depicts them with sweaty palms, croaking voices and shifty eyes -- lying can be hard work, and liars are often nervous about getting caught.

Self-deception, said Trivers, who has studied the phenomenon in contexts ranging from the Challenger explosion to a plane crash in Florida, offers a way around this psychological hurdle. If you can make yourself believe the untruth, for example, by marshaling evidence that supports your view and ignoring evidence that contradicts your position, it becomes that much easier to persuade others.

Like many other aspects of brain functioning, self-deception does not require people to sit down and decide they are going to lie to themselves. (That would actually defeat the point of self-deception.) No, it usually happens subtly, without the person even being aware of it.

"The costs of deception are being detected and punished," Trivers said. "There is definitely a downside to self-deception, and that is you are putting yourself out of touch with reality, but it cuts down the risk of getting caught."

Lyn Nofziger, a longtime adviser to Ronald Reagan, once said the same thing about his boss -- and about the utility of self-deception in politics: He could "convince himself that the truth is what he wants it to be. Most politicians are unable to do this, but they would give their eyeteeth if they could."

Fact and Fantasy

Comstock Partners, Inc.

April 26, 2007

While the market mindlessly climbs as it feeds on its own momentum, let’s take a look at the facts.

1) Global short rates have been rising for some time, and, according to ISI, there is a 62% correlation between that and a weak economy.

2) The yield curve has been inverted for the last few months. This condition has almost always been followed by recessions.

3) Year-over-year housing starts and permits are down by percentages always associated with recessions

4) The Conference Board Index of Leading Indicators is down 0.8% year-over-year. With one exception such negative readings on this indicator have consistantly been followed by recessions

5) Non-farm payroll employment is up only 1.4% over a year earlier. Over the last 50 years whenever this has happened, the reading has always dropped to negative territory, and has been followed by recession

6) The NAHB seasonally adjusted housing index dropped to its lowest level ever for the month of April—and all three components of the index were similarly at their all-time April lows. Significantly, this index is compiled by the home builders.

7) March new home sales were down 23% year-over-year, and the first quarter was down an annualized 45%. The absolute level of sales was the lowest since the 2^nd quarter of 2002. Available inventories are equal to an uncomfortable 7.8 months, and even this is understated since order cancellations are not reflected. The median number of months for newly completed houses on the market is 5.6 compared to 3.6-to-3.9 for much of last year.

8) Existing home sales were down 8% in March, the slowest since 2003, with single family homes down 9.5%, the largest decline since January 1989.

9) The Case-Shiller home price index dropped 1.5% year-over-year, the lowest since October 1993. The firm stated that "the declines in home prices are showing no signs of a turnaround."

10) Countrywide financial said that tighter banking regulation may push more homeowners into foreclosure by making it harder to finance sub-prime mortgages. Moody’s stated that losses on subprime home loans will be more than they expected. Mortgage delinquency and default rates are soaring.

11) Contrary to consensus views, the housing woes are already spreading, as the following items will indicate. Mortgage Equity Withdrawals (MEW) has declined 54%. A recent study by Greenspan and James Kennedy, issued by the Federal Reserve Board, estimated that home equity financed almost 4% of consumer expenditures from 2001 through 2005. That impetus is no longer there, while the household savings rate has been negative for almost two years.

12) General Motors said the mortgage meltdown would be worse than previously forecast and would have a serious impact on auto sales. Ward’s is forecasting a sharp decline in April light vehicle sales.

13) The four-week average of new unemployment claims is trending higher, and has been doing so since early 2006. Continuing claims are at the highest level since early 2006 with the exception of one reading in February. Surveys show that the jobs harder to get number is rising while the jobs plentiful figure is declining.

14) UPS said the softening economy hurt its package delivery volume in the first quarter.

15) Non-defense durable goods orders ex-transportation, a good indicator of capital goods expenditures, was down an annualized 15% in the 1^st quarter, after a drop of 4% in the 4^th quarter.

16) Industrial production has been flat since last August.

17) Year-over-year retail sales growth is less than half of what it was this time last year, and yearly growth of core retail sales is the lowest since May 2003.

The above-mentioned indicators of a weakening economy occurred before the newly issued tighter mortgage regulations were put into effect. The new rules will eliminate most of the non-traditional mortgages including no documentation, no interest, no down payment and waver of payments. This will drive housing demand down even more and spread to the rest of the economy. Even in more normal times, the housing industry was the main conduit through which credit tightening or easing was transmitted to the economy at large. Following this historic boom, the impact of housing is likely to be even greater than usual. In our view the probability of a hard landing is extremely high.

The current upward momentum in the stock market reminds us a lot about the situation near the market peak in March 2000 when we also bucked the consensus. At that time we had just started writing these commentaries, and began with a series of articles with titles such as "Bad Ending Likely"; "Stretched to the Breaking Point"; "A Game the Market Cannot Win"; Traditional Rules Still Apply"; and "Rally Not Soundly Based". Perhaps this time we’ll be wrong, but as we see it, the probabilities strongly favor a hard landing.

All the World's a Bubble

Follow the Money

Jeremy Grantham: All the World's a Bubble

By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds Columnist
4/27/2007 10:07 AM EDT

How high will the Dow go? 15,000? 20,000?

How about 36,000?

While euphoria sweeps stock markets here and worldwide, there are at least a few voices of dissent.

One, unsurprisingly, is legendary value investor Jeremy Grantham -- the man Dick Cheney, plus a lot of other rich people, trusts with his money. Grantham, chairman of Boston firm Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, has been a voice of caution for years. But he has upped his concerns in his latest letter to shareholders. Grantham says we are now seeing the first worldwide bubble in history covering all asset classes.

Everything is in bubble territory, he says.

Everything.

"From Indian antiquities to modern Chinese art," he wrote in a letter to clients this week following a six-week world tour, "from land in Panama to Mayfair; from forestry, infrastructure and the junkiest bonds to mundane blue chips; it's bubble time!"

"Everyone, everywhere is reinforcing one another," he wrote. "Wherever you travel you will hear it confirmed that 'they don't make any more land,' and that 'with these growth rates and low interest rates, equity markets must keep rising,' and 'private equity will continue to drive the markets.' "

As Grantham points out, a bubble needs two things: excellent fundamentals and easy money.

"The mechanism is surprisingly simple," he wrote. "Perfect conditions create very strong 'animal spirits,' reflected statistically in a low risk premium. Widely available cheap credit offers investors the opportunity to act on their optimism."

And it becomes self-sustaining. "The more leverage you take, the better you do; the better you do, the more leverage you take. A critical part of a bubble is the reinforcement you get for your very optimistic view from those around you."

It's something to think about the next time you hear someone tell you that the stock market will keep rising simply because the world economy is doing so well. That would make sense only if we were paying a constant price for each unit of world GDP, instead of higher and higher prices for one slice of that GDP -- equity.

Grantham concludes that every asset class is expensive today compared with historic averages and compared with the cost of replacing it. By his calculations, the only assets likely to beat inflation by any significant margin if you hold them for the next seven years are managed timber, "high-quality" U.S. stocks, and bonds.

As noted in this column several weeks ago, Grantham's U.S. "high-quality" stocks include Home Depot (HD) , Merck (MRK) , Wal-Mart (WMT) , AT&T (T) , Pfizer (PFE) , Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) , Exxon Mobil (XOM) , UnitedHealth (UNH) , Verizon (VZ) and Lowe's (LOW) .

"The bursting of [this] bubble will be across all countries and all assets, with the probable exception of high-grade bonds," Grantham warned. "Since no similar global event has occurred before, the stresses to the system are likely to be unexpected. All of this is likely to depress confidence and lower economic activity."

Ouch.

Grantham sees two big potential catalysts that might turn this bull market into a bear: a surge in inflation, leading to higher interest rates, and a squeeze on profit margins, which are currently running way above long-term averages.

As for timing, he concedes that's impossible to predict. But here's the kicker: Even Grantham thinks you probably need to be bullish right now. The reason? Most bubbles, he notes, go through a short but dramatic "exponential phase" just before they burst. Like Japan in 1989 or the Internet in early 2000.

"My colleagues," wrote Grantham, "suggest that this global bubble has not yet had this phase and perhaps they are right. ... In which case, pessimists or conservatives will take considerably more pain."

Bush Has Destroyed Iraq and America

by Paul Craig Roberts

Every American who voted Republican shares responsibility for the great evil America has brought to the Middle East.

The evil that America brought to Iraq transcends the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and maimed in the conflict. The evil goes beyond the destruction of ancient historical artifacts and the civilian infrastructure of a secular state and the decimation of the lives, careers, and families of millions of Iraqis.

The violence and killing that Bush brought to Iraq has spread antagonism between Sunni and Shiite throughout the Middle East with potentially draconian consequences. Bush’s war has turned Muslim hearts and minds against America and made terrorism an acceptable means to resist American hegemony. With his mindless war, Bush has created more terrorism than the world has ever seen.

The reasons given for the American invasion of Iraq have been exposed as lies, revealing America as either a country of fools and idiots or of war criminals. Worldwide polls show that America is no longer regarded as a guiding light but is tied with Israel as the second greatest threat to world stability.

The nuclear-armed Russians, alarmed by America’s gratuitous aggression and interference in Russian and Middle Eastern internal affairs and by Bush’s aggressive withdrawal on June 13, 2002 from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, no longer see the US as a partner in peace but as a dangerous militaristic aggressor. The chance for understanding and trust with Russia has been destroyed by the stupid Bush administration. The White House Moron, who cannot successfully occupy Baghdad, believes he can run over Russia.

Former CIA director George "Slam-Dunk" Tenet writes in a new book, At the Center of the Storm: My years at the CIA that Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives caused America to invade Iraq without ever holding a serious debate about whether Iraq was a threat. Tenet writes: "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."

The 2003 American invasion of Iraq is a war crime under international law. The invasion caused sectarian violence far beyond anything Iraq had ever experienced under Saddam Hussein. Tenet writes that "sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that US forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence."

Tenet says that Dick Cheney made him a scapegoat for the disastrous war by misrepresenting to media what he meant by "slam-dunk." Interviewed by "60 Minutes," Tenet said that the administration misrepresented his comment to mean that the case was air tight that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Tenet states that the Bush administration’s misrepresentation of what he said is "the most despicable thing that ever happened" to him.

The American people have never been told the real reasons that Bush-Cheney and the Republican Party rushed us to war in Iraq. Americans have only been fed a pack of transparent lies.

The war has brought no honor, no glory, and no tangible benefit. The war has brought shame upon America for routine torture of Iraqi detainees and for the routine slaughter of unarmed Iraqi civilians – mothers, fathers, children, grandparents – by trigger-happy American troops. There are even reports of US mercenaries having fun riding around taking pot shots at Iraqi civilians.

Billions of dollars in "aid" are missing. The stench of corruption is heavy in the air. There are myriad investigations of Bush administration and contractor corruption. Who can keep up with them all? Cheney’s Halliburton, the greatest hog at the trough, has not been indicted. The missing suitcases of cash have not been recovered. The earnest efforts of Congress have taken on a pathetic, plodding life of their own.

In an article just published in the Armed Forces Journal, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, one of the commanders of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, condemns American generals as " mild-mannered team players" who "are not worthy of their soldiers" and who "underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq’s government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."

Captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels are frustrated with the political cowardice of their general officers and are leaving the service in droves. The Army is trying to improve retention by offering $20,000 cash payments to the officers – another stupid Bush administration policy as any officer who sells his soul is demoralized.

Col. Yingling writes that Congress must step in and break up the way administrations use promotions to acquire compliant generals as accomplices in deceiving the American people.

The most frightening fact about the Bush administration is that not a single office is held by a competent or qualified person. Integrity is so rare among Bush appointees that integrity has been silenced.

That should concern all Americans. Even Republicans.

April 30, 2007

Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).

Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate

How much further do the bulls have to run on Wall Street?

By Stephen Foley in New York

Published: 27 April 2007

Hang out the bunting, prepare the sandwiches and the fizzy pop, get ready for a street party. A Wall Street party. The US stock market is very, very close to reaching an all-time high, and it could break the record at any moment.
Publish
But hang on, regular readers will be saying, didn't the Dow Jones Industrial Average power into virgin territory last autumn? Indeed, didn't it just shoot through the 13,000 barrier for the first time on Wednesday?

Yes and yes. The Dow is the most visible measure of the US stock market and has served well as a yardstick for 111 years, but it measures just 30 stocks. The much wider S&P 500 has claim to be the best measure of US equities, and it remains a tad over 2 per cent below its dotcom-era peak. It is this index that Wall Streeters measure their performance against, and it is a record on this index that will trigger the big party.

Either way, though, we are definitely into party season. The stock market is surging, whichever way you measure it. Company profits are growing faster than anyone dared hope. Their profit margins are at 50-year highs. The US economy continues to grow, too, albeit at a slower pace this past year, confounding the sceptics. Corporate executives are confident enough in the outlook to embark on brave merger-and-acquisition deals that boost the share prices of companies likely to be taken over. Lenders are confident, too, and are advancing plenty of money to companies to finance such deals and to hedge-fund investors to play the stock market. Wall Street banks are raking in more money than they ever have before.

And the best thing about this party is that there are so many party-poopers about.

David Tice, investment adviser to Prudent Bear mutual funds, is one. Share prices and other assets have been driven high because of "global liquidity and massive credit that comes from ignoring risks. Credit lending is going to be more restrained in the future. This market is going to go down".

Richard Bernstein, chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch, often sounds like another. "Valuations are fair, but nothing more. Investors who claim that stocks are immensely undervalued probably are not aware that S&P 500 earnings are the most cyclical in history. Low price/earnings ratios might simply reflect peak earnings rather than value. This was certainly true for the housing stocks during the past year or so."

There are so many warning voices, and they have a coherent case. They argue that the US consumer economy is teetering. House prices in many parts of the country have taken a dive and sales of existing homes fell at their sharpest rate in 18 years last month. Mortgage arrears and now repossessions have been rising steadily, and in the riskiest parts of the mortgage market - the so-called sub-prime market - defaults by the poorest homeowners are running so high that several lenders have gone bust.

Investment strategists at Citigroup, the US investment bank, have an intriguing tool for judging these things, an amalgamation of different measures of investor sentiment which it calls its "panic/euphoria model". It says the tool is very useful in predicting the future direction of the market and guiding what an investor should do: buy when it shows people are panicking about the economic and investment outlook, sell when there is euphoria. It has only recently crept back into neutral territory, after being in "panic" for most of the past six years.

Tobias Levkovich, the bullish chief investment strategist at Citigroup, came back from a tour of European investors this month, with a new list of their worries. "The primary investment concern relating to equities remains the direction of earnings, given that US corporate margins sit at 50-year highs. Investors often cite worries about geopolitics, oil prices, sub-prime credit contagion, housing, twin deficits, negative savings rates, protectionism, terrorism, inflation, jobs and the weak dollar as reasons for holding back from buying stocks, but these catalysts are not the issue by themselves - the issue at hand is that they all have earnings ramifications."

At the start of last month, it was the fear of "contagion" from the sub-prime market meltdown, the fear that major financial institutions would suffer destabilising losses from their dealing with sub-prime lenders, which contributed to the stock market's wobble.

Since then, though, giant banks have promised that their exposure is limited, that their own levels of bad loans are not growing as fast as investors had feared. As in the financial sector, so it is across the rest of corporate America. Most of the country's biggest companies have now reported their profits for the first three months of the year, and they have averaged growth of 11 per cent, exactly the same as in the fourth quarter of 2006. Analysts had predicted a growth rate of barely half that.

In short, the stock market's revival from its wobble in March, the Dow's 126-day progress from 12,000 to 13,000, and its 80 per cent surge since the bear market nadir in 2002 - all has been largely justified by improvements in corporate earnings.

The average S&P 500 stock is valued at a little below 16 times its reported earnings of last year, and at a little over 16 times the consensus estimate of the coming year's earnings. This does not take the market into territory that would be called irrational exuberance.

And the confidence that those estimates of future earnings are sound, if not even conservative, are based on a view of the Federal Reserve's ability to keep the economy on an even keel. A Treasury bond auction yesterday was priced with a yield lower than expected, another example of the market's belief in interest rate cuts soon to prop up a slightly weaker economy.

Even admitting clouds over the US economy, bulls argue that the addition of China, India and other emerging markets to the super-league of economic nations means that global growth can continue without it. More than half of the earnings of the Dow's 30 industrial giants come from overseas, so they are fatter in dollar terms and they are able to offset any US slowdown.

Richard Jeffrey, chief economist at Ingenious Securities in London, said: "Stock markets around the world are telling us two things. First, they are telling us that there is a high degree of confidence that the world's central banks will be able to successfully manage their way through the various issues they face without causing undue turbulence, without inflation becoming a problem or the US economy going into a recession. Second, there is also a recognition that the global economy is no longer so dependent on the US. The American economy is no longer the sole locus of growth, so the impact of a slowdown in the US is not as large as it once was."

There are other factors to be pulled into the mix to explain the outsize performance of the US stock market. The phenomenon of "de-equitisation" is one, which is adding a little scarcity value to equities. Massive share buy-back programmes by cash-rich companies are boosting earnings per share and returns on equity, and as a result reducing their number of shares in issue. And all the while, private equity funds are snapping up bigger and bigger chunks of corporate America. The past year has seen the 17-year-old record for the biggest ever private equity buy-out finally surpassed not once but several times.

Lest we contribute any temptation to euphoria, the final word should go to Merrill Lynch's Mr Bernstein, who adds a bum note related to the weakening US currency. "The dollar is falling, and much of the stock market's rally is simply 'money illusion' - that is, it takes more less-valuable dollars to buy the same asset. In euros, the Dow has been flat for six months. In a global sense, the US stock market's rally is not a growth story."

MARKET'S RISE TIED TO DOLLAR'S DIVE

HOLY DOW! MARKET'S RISE TIED TO DOLLAR'S DIVE

By TERRY KEENAN

April 29, 2007 -- THIS week the Dow Jones in dustrial average hit 13,000 for the first time ever, and the U.S. dollar fell to new record lows against the euro and the pound.

The former milestone was greeted with media fanfare and scores of headlines, while the latter garnered little attention at all.

But the two are closely connected - an anemic dollar means a lot more than pricey cappuccinos and hotel rooms for American travelers to Europe; it's also translating into powerful earnings for the very companies that make up the Dow - big blue-chip multinationals who get a large chunk of their profits from overseas.

It's also why Wall Street has clocked nearly 40 record closing highs in the last six months, despite sobering news from the housing market and a big deceleration in the domestic economy. The wall of worry that Wall Street has been climbing is the same one the dollar has been descending.

Stocks such as IBM tell the story. While Big Blue saw domestic sales rise a mere 1 percent last quarter, sales in Europe, Asia and the Middle East soared by more than 12 percent.

In fact, the incredible shrinking dollar is packing a powerful two-pronged boost for the Dow. Not only do the Dow 30 companies now derive a record 48 percent of their sales from overseas, the rest of the world is growing much faster than the U.S. In other words, it's a good time to be an exporter with a weak currency.

And the latest numbers bear that out: Of the 20 Dow stocks reporting for the first three months of the year, 17 noted the positive currency effects of the weaker greenback. It's the key reason S&P profits look to come in with gains of better than 7 percent - more than twice initial expectations.

But if the dollar becomes too cheap, our foreign friends could get uneasy and decide to park their money elsewhere, sending stocks into a swoon.

Wall Street loves a weak dollar, unless it becomes too weak, then it becomes a "dollar crisis."

Even with the once-almighty greenback at new lows, we're not there yet. But don't forget the dollar the next time you're checking out the Dow.

TERRY KEENAN is anchor of Cashin' In, an investing program that appears on Fox News Channel on Saturdays at 11:30 a.m. E-mail terry.keenan@foxnews.com.

A modern Orientalist view of Iran

by Shirin Saeidi (source: CASMII )

Friday, April 27, 2007

Editor's note: Shirin Saeidi is a member of the Editorial Board of CASMII.

In an article titled "A Nation of Nose Jobs, Not Nuclear War" by Peter Hitchens in Mail on Sunday is only one of many recent audacious pieces that amalgamates two favorite issues used to support the American propaganda machine against Iranian sovereignty: women and the nuclear energy program. In a disingenuously compassionate tone, and using literary chicanery for his aim, the author draws unsuspecting readers in by impersonating a wide-eyed, open soul in search of understanding an enigma.

The piece starts out like so many others of its genre, which, as the late Edward Said has comprehensively explained in his thesis on Orientalism, dates back to the 19th century: A curious, adventurous Westerner sets out to intellectually and sexually conquer the land of the Persians, friends and family warn him of the “mullahs,” chadors, and myriad other dangers and evils which await in this daring escapade; nevertheless, in the tradition of his colonialist forefathers Hitchens sets out on his journey exemplifying the masculinity that runs through the veins of conquerors and conjuring up images of tanks and artilleries which are its ultimate palpable manifestation.

Aside from shedding light on the fact that Hitchens obviously did not do his homework prior to departure (he does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of modern Iranian history), the article includes three main themes that are frequently propounded in writings of those who support the Western propaganda machine against Iran, including, native informant tourists and their personal memoirs.

These themes include the hyper-sexualization of Iranian women, derogatory references to Arabs with the aim of creating dissonance in the region, and finally, an implicit promotion of a class system through subtle yet aggressive descriptions of sophistication.

I respond to this article not only because of its orientalist approach to examining modern-day politics of an independent state, but because this form of writing – off-the-cuff, personal narration intended to head straight to the heart of the reader – is fast becoming one of the most effective tools of American empire, proposing in unequivocal terms that some forms of unequal interdependence are legitimate. Most importantly, this kind of writing further enhances a class-system which is adversely impacting the cultural and social fabric of Iranian society.

Before even beginning the article, readers encounter an imposing image of women licking ice cream cones, which does not obviously relate to the article title. However, upon a closer examination of the text, it becomes apparent that the subtly sexual nature of the photo works to frame one of Hitchens’ unstated aims: the sexual objectification of Iranian women. Hitchens makes the following statements throughout the text:

· “…in a park by a lake, some teenage girls are splashing each other…”

· “…and everyone knows that, once it is over [short-time summer crack down on dress codes] scarves will creep back a little further and heels will get a little higher…,”

· “…in the evenings, cinemas are popular places for some mild canoodling…”

· “…but there is plenty of extramarital and illicit sex in Iran…”

· “…women who wish to join the West’s drive for sexual equality also loathe the state..”

· “…the fashionable cafes are full of painted, un-Islamic butterflies, sipping milkshakes or coffee…”

· and finally: “…the desire among lovely Persian women to look like Snow White is strange…”

with Hitchens, in the final quote, grabbing from his tool box of orientalist discourse a child’s fairytale character to compare with the modern day Iranian women.

It quickly becomes clear that Hitchens is more concerned with objectification of Iranian women, dedicating over half of the article to the depiction of offensive imagery, rather then addressing the nuclear program.

Even more disturbing is the message behind these images, that somehow these real or imagined characteristics of Iranian women should be the basis of international dialogue. Even today, some prominent academics refer to the “exceptional” beauty of Iranian women and their embodiment of “modern” ethics as a reason why an invasion should be avoided.

In this process, international law, respect for national sovereignty, and political discourse become secondary. Furthermore, This contradiction also begs the question: What are readers to think, that those nations and people of the world who do not subscribe to neo-liberal standards of beauty and sexuality are suitable for extinction? Is sexual orientation the new marker for salvation from the American empire?

While readers might expect an analysis of the nuclear dispute, Hitchens instead elaborates racist theories of Arabs and Persians hoping the ruse approach of writing dissidence into mainstream discourse will lead to actual strife in the region.

For example, Hitchens writes: “…personally, I found Tehran much less oppressively Islamic than Kensington High Street in London, where an ever-growing number of women voluntarily go about in black shrouds, masks and veils,” “I have tried to understand the sweet, sad mystery of Iran's unique brand of Islam, quite unlike the hard, aggressive faith found in the Arab lands,” and, “…the last thing the ayatollahs need is for the peoples of Europe and America to know much about their country and its people, or to realise the truth - that Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East, a European civilization trapped by history and geography in the midst of Arabia. It does not belong there, culturally or religiously.”

This approach is commonly implemented by the Western propaganda machine aimed at geographically reconstructing the East. Hitchens panders to the colonized Iranian ego, the segment of Iranian society that views light skin, slender forms, and English spoken with an American accent to be markers of “civilization.” In the process, Hitchens (and the propaganda machine he represents) is in reality disintegrating Iranian sovereignty through cultural manipulation by creation of an “Other” in the image of an Arab.

The last dominant problem with the article lies in its articulation of what is deemed as “sophisticated” by the author, who imposes his views on Iranian society both in his writing and certainly during his presence in the country.

For example, Hitchens writes, “On the streets the women walk and stand like Parisians. Somehow, with a belt here and an adjustment there, they manage to make the modest 'manteau' jackets look chic.” Later, he notes that “About one in 50 seems to have had recent plastic surgery on her nose. They wear their bandages with pride and some even stick plaster on their faces to pretend that they have undergone this subversive surgery.” Finally, Hitchens observes that “in a bustling restaurant in north Tehran, where Iran's wealthy middle classes live, it is obvious that Islamic dress has been forced on the many women present and that they are determined to let everyone know it is not their choice.”

These statements imply that religiosity is significantly impacted by class, which is an oft-heard analysis in Western academia; however, an astute observer traveling in Iran will notice an eclectic and variegated understanding of religiosity embodied in neighborhoods throughout the country.

In fact, diversity in thought, political orientation, and religious adherence are dominant characteristics of both historical and contemporary Iranian society. Nevertheless, the theory advocated by Hitchens has been internationally imposed on the Iranian people, engendering social problems and cultural disintegration in the most aggressive way. Further, while Iranian women have been trying to dispel the myth that contemporary style clashes with Islamic-Persian identity for more than a century, Hitchens takes readers back to the early 1900s with the stroke of a pen, proposing a dogmatic understanding of Iranian society which the ulama, he aims to discredit throughout the text, argue against.

Although Hitchens never fully engages readers in an analysis of the nuclear program, his depiction of Iranian women and society is used as a mechanism for addressing the former point. By combining these two issues through real or imagined analyses, Hitchens argues that internally, the Iranian state is weak and unstable, and therefore a soft cultural invasion is a better option than an all-out military assault.

The article portrays the Iranian state as an indecisive, feisty yet weak female, ready to be disciplined and maintained by its beloved Western cowboy. Why bomb them, the author poses, when we can coerce them through other means, and in the process, enjoy the sight and senses of their women.

--------------------------------

Shirin Saeidi is a Ph.D. student in the Centre of International Studies at the University of Cambridge, UK, and a member of the Editorial Board of CASMII.

Rumbles in military hint at change

Published on: 04/30/07

Time and again, President Bush has tried to hide his incompetence behind our men and women in uniform. Repeatedly, criticism of his policies has been distorted into an attack on the troops; too often, questions about his strategy have been brushed aside with claims that his policy had been dictated by his generals.

Even now, with the House and Senate trying to force a change of direction, the White House accuses Congress of trying to "micromanage our commanders and generals," redefining the debate as a disagreement between Congress and the military, not with the president.

I think that game is about to end. I think President Bush is losing the American military, and that while he wrangles with Congress over deadlines, in the end it will be the military that forces dramatic changes in policy in Iraq.

Signs of that change abound. When the White House recently asked five retired four-star generals to serve as a so-called "war czar" overseeing our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, all five declined, a remarkable sign of disgust among those with a culture of service.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan said in explaining his refusal to consider the post.

That sense of a military establishment finally losing patience is also reflected in the behavior of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates has refused to toe the party line, asserting an independence that the Bush White House must find maddening. While the president was in Washington condemning Democrats for undercutting the troops, Gates was in Iraq announcing that the debate in Congress "probably has had a positive impact — at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Adm. William Fallon, the head of Central Command, signaled a similar change by banning use of the term "long war" to describe our struggle in the Middle East. "The idea that we are going to be involved in a 'Long War' at the current level of operations is not likely and unhelpful," a spokesman explained.

Perhaps the most telling signal, however, came in a devastating critique published last week in Armed Forces Journal by an active-duty Army lieutenant colonel, Paul Yingling.

The piece, headlined "A Failure of Generalship," is nominally an attack on today's military leadership, which itself is extraordinary. The main thrust of Yingling's argument is that too many generals have stood mute while civilian leaders misled the nation about what is really happening in Iraq, repeating a mistake that led to disaster in Vietnam.

"While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage," Yingling writes. "In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters," and even though that has begun to change, "they may have waited too long."

Yingling has served two tours of duty in Iraq. As a graduate of the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies, he had already been identified as one of the service's best and brightest, and he has made clear his intent to stay in the Army. With this critique, he has placed that career and his chance at a general's stars in severe jeopardy, but his willingness to take that risk will echo through the ranks as an example of the moral courage he finds absent in many of his superiors.

All these signs point to a storm gathering within the military, especially as the strains imposed on the Army by the surge become more apparent. In that regard, it is interesting to note that Army Gen. David Petraeus, commanding officer of U.S. forces in Iraq, has recently and repeatedly stressed his intention to provide the American public an honest assessment of progress or failure by September. By then, he suggests, the effects of the surge and the willingness of the Iraqi government to reform will be more apparent.

Last week, Petraeus was asked whether that assessment could conceivably include telling the president that things aren't working and the troops should come home.

"I have an obligation to some wonderful young men and women in uniform ... who are serving in Iraq, and who deserve a forthright assessment from the folks at the top ... and that's what I'm going to provide," Petraeus said.

Gates and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, have joined Petraeus in setting September as an crucial time of reassessment. In other words, while Congress and the president wrangle about deadlines, a deadline of sorts may already have been set.

• Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.

Why They Fight

by Anne Williamson

Watching Paul Wolfowitz, exposed in a sex and corruption scandal involving fellow World Banker and private squeeze, Shaha Ali Riza, grappling for several weeks now to save his super-cushy job at the World Bank has brought to mind the infamous quote Ron Suskind teased from a neocon senior aid to George W. Bush, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Regarding reality, Wolfowitz, it seems, has had to call in re-write (and not for the first time).

By requesting his resignation, the Bank's Board demonstrated to any clear-eyed neocon that they were not studying the correct material. Wolfowitz, instead of acting upon the Board's decision as he previously indicated he would, has hired lawyer-insider Robert Bennet to represent him before that same Board.

Wolfowitz knows the big script, history, clearly has him strategically placed at the World Bank, in control of $25 billion in lending per annum and holding a magic stick of "corruption charges" with which to prod borrowers and trim staff, thereby riding out the Bush administration's departure, especially with a second, possibly even a third, five-year appointment, thereby extending his own foreign policy impact well into the future.

Going forward, the job may prove only a fringe presence in the high-powered world of Washington policymaking, but for Wolfowitz, losing it would be a personal disaster. Bush's political clout is in decline, leaving little chance the president could deliver a comparable perch even if persuaded to expend some of his dwindling power trying. The man himself couldn't survive a hearing for congressional approval which the very best government jobs require, and he sure can't get himself elected. What to do? A sinecure at AEI? How very bleak.

Even were the deluded Wolfowitz to beat the unjustly-enriching-girlfriend-with-other-peoples'-money rap, his behavior in the breech insures he'll never salvage his job. (Today the ministers of the European Parliament have called for his ouster.) If the Bank were the corpse it deserves to be, it's president's current behavior would have it turning over in its grave.

Clumsily, Wolfowitz has attempted what he and his neocon pals managed to do to the Pentagon and the CIA, but unlike those weenies, World Bank staff fought back, proving the old saw, "The price of privilege is eternal vigilance." In an uncharacteristically noisy string of special meetings, memos, reports, internet message boards, chat rooms, public hissing displays and press leaks, they refused to be intimidated while their institution is made a shell and re-designed from within. No "Office of Special Plans Under Construction" sign on their premises!

What Wolfowitz wants – the re-politicization and militarization of the Bank on behalf of a neocon-inspired global imperium centered in Washington preferably no more than a short limo ride from his personal residence – is not what the 10,000 member World Bank staff want. Nor, it seems, is it what the majority of the184 other member nations of the World Bank want.

Just when the entire global gang was coming to town for the Spring Meetings, the damning details of Wolfowitz's years of living large spilled out in news reports along with his initial denials and, later, acceptance of the reported facts after a botched cover-up. Handing out territory and cash flows like a Mafia don, he saw to the girlfriend's interests, those of his favored defense department aides', along with his own, negotiating out-sized salaries, guarantees and privileges. In a nice Trotskyite touch, he further made the appointment of a Republican operative and White House pal as director of the Department of Institutional Integrity where, staff says, said agent is to function as Wolfowitz's personal spy on all of them.

A funny turn of events. Republican neocons pulled the congressional dogs off the international institutions just when the Republican Senate's Cox Committee was establishing the abject failure of both the Bank and the Fund in the Russian reform masquerade of the 1990s, which, in turn, threatened both institutions' future funding, possibly even their existence. Neocons, sensing the Republican 2000 victory for the White House, wanted both institutions along with the US bilateral foreign aid infrastructure available for their own use once they had control of the executive branch.

Lucky thing that – just when Iraq started to go south, James Wolfensohn's retirement from the Bank offered an ideal hiding place from an increasingly inquisitive congress and media. The candidate for the Bank's presidency did not require congressional approval, and traditionally the appointment has always been the American executive's. (How terrifying it must be for Wolfowitz to contemplate the current humiliation of Alberto Gonzales!)

Once installed, Wolfowitz decided to focus on Africa, a public relations success. Even now, it continues paying dividends as what support he has received to stay on at the Bank has mostly come from Africa. But as the Bank's very first priority Wolfowitz chose to expand on his predecessor's anti-corruption initiative.

The centerpiece of the policy worked out last September is a Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) under which firms, NGOs or individuals who work as contractors on Bank projects are to report their corrupt acts regarding Bank projects for the last five years. In return, the penitents receive confidentiality and the right to continue bidding on Bank projects, all of which actually immunizes wrong-doers while allowing the Bank to cover up its own negligence and/or political agenda.

Hmmm. Written confessions on file. Another nice touch that.

Practically speaking, the program is just dumb. Corruption is part of the organizing structure in the developing world. If you are opening a prenatal care center or a silver mine, doesn't matter which, and the local chief wants his palm greased to demonstrate to the tribe your desire to be part of the community, you are not going to waste the daily cost of labor, of maintaining site infrastructure, and of interest on business loans, to march back to the capital and file a complaint. You are going to darken that man's palm, viewing it not as a bribe but as a tax, and one with the advantage of being directly negotiated. Under Wolfowitz's plan, any rational expediency or opportunity cost could be labeled as criminal conduct.

Wolfowitz has cut off funds to Chad, delayed projects to Kenya, and ordered a stoppage of funds to the Congo and Ecuador (which expelled their in-country World Bank representative today) over various corruption issues and charges, which have mostly served to create confusion and resentment. Critics charge that his concerns regarding what are inarguably high levels of corruption in World Bank projects evaporated when considering lending for Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Money further flowed to the countries Wolfowitz once recruited to sign on to Washington's counter-terrorism agenda. In the same vein, he elevated nationals from Spain, from San Salvador, and from Jordan – all nations that strongly backed the US invasion of Iraq – to extremely sweet positions within the Bank hierarchy. In contrast, when Uzbekistan denied landing rights to American military aircraft he promptly suspended their Bank program.

By demonstrating that good things and huge streams of cash flow to those countries and individuals that sign on to U.S. aggressions, Wolfowitz is slowly laying the basis for a new exploitation, i.e. the option of contributing troops to US global adventures via an expanded Nato in return for grants. (Grants are flexible, they can be loaded with extraneous political conditions. Loans are precise, legal documents with troublesome consequences if defaulted.)

It might seem surprising but the bank has always had a problem with lending. It was never much of a force in the reconstruction of European industry. By the early '50s there was little demand for its lending, it should have been dismantled then.

Instead, to solve its problem, the Bank cooked up a new agency funded through the donations of wealthy nations that would subsidize credit at zero percent interest on 50-year loans! Thus was born the International Development Association (IDA) which is the funding that allowed the Bank to plunge into the developing world, where it has been disastrously wasting money and harming developing countries ever since, not to mention taxpayers, who are compelled to bail out the bankers cyclically.

The Bank is completely unnecessary. In a world in which central banks are pumping out money and global liquidity is at tsunami levels, there certainly is no need for preferential government-organized taxpayer-subsidized loans. The poor would have been much better served over the decades by arranging for loans on a commercial basis as the discipline required to fulfill standard obligations would represent an economic and political advance for a developing nation, the right of contract being essential to prosperity.

Currently the Bank is in an IDA donor drive, an every third year affair. Contributions are way, way down.

The U.S.'s 16% ownership of the Bank puts it in the institution's driver's seat. Wealthy countries are not eager to donate money for the as yet unknown specifics of what is now viewed as an alarming US foreign policy. Why should anyone sign on to possible future U.S. aggression indirectly through World Bank lending?

Wolfowitz's agenda puts at risk a very cozy world based on the post–World War II modus operandi in which dollar loans are extended to undeveloped and impoverished nations in order to grab control over their resources and governments. The main point is the loan, not the borrower's ability or commitment, but the lender's claim on national collateral. The corruption emerges from institutional action, action inherent in and according to the World Bank's design as a political lender masquerading as a humanitarian enterprise, and nothing effective can be done about it as long as the institution exists. Reform is not an option, only elimination.

For the well-positioned second-raters that people the Bank, there's no advantage in trading in a country club existence and perfumed reputation just to browbeat and bludgeon troops out of poor nations in return for dollar grants. It's so much more agreeable to posture as a helping-hand, hiding the nasty imperial bits in the loan covenants. True, the policies the loans require often lead to public riots, and to resource, land and territorial wars among their clients, but the mainstream media never connects the loans to their bloody consequences. At worst, details of the borrower's thievery leak out.

What's really at stake for staff is the richest, absolute best government plantation in the entire world. World Bankers, along with IMF, IFC and EBRD employees, enjoy a mem-Sahib lifestyle; tax-free six-figure salaries, foreign expeditions involving first-class travel, five-star hotels, generous per diems, lavish banquets, and – if one is obliged to "stay on" overseas for "mission" work – extensive local staff and personal aides, language tutors, tuition support for the children, numerous mandated vacations home per annum, residential rent subsidies, full insurance packages, diplomatic mail for those legally-dubious art acquisitions, the best address, and fancy invites.

If you are a foreign national lucky enough to escape your native backwater for an assignment in Washington, or London, or Paris, or Geneva – all the best places! – there is no treachery you wouldn't commit to stay in place. (The very best institutional reform scheme ever put forward was Christopher Fildes's suggestion to move the Bank's headquarters to Bangladesh.)

If you are a consultant, or an academic "adviser," you'll keep your honest opinions to yourself, and do the job, no matter how mad or useless. There's no way your university could, or your firm would, roll out a red carpet like the World Bank does.

If you are a Third World borrower and a government official and therefore advantageously-positioned to skim the loans and use the principal for purposes more useful to you and your continuing hold on power than to the nation, the World Bank is your literal lifeline. Without scads of dollars to hand out, an honest election or worse – open revolt – are always possibilities.

If you are a large, richly-endowed private corporation with an eye on the profit possibilities in some foreign hellhole, you'll play along, doing your bit to legitimize, publicize and generally support the Bank. After all, those giveaway loans may well be your critical leverage indirectly. Tit for tat. Loan for license.

Clearly, there's a lot of mouths to be fed. Luckily for the class of useless hors d'oeuvre eaters, there is China.

China is a rare creature in the World Bank firmament in that it is a large and paying customer, taking full advantage of the Bank's subsidized loans despite having an unprecedented $1.2 trillion in reserves. The income China represents to the World Bank is critical; already the Bank's sister institution, the IMF, an agency China does not patronize, is unable to make enough of a return on its international loans to pay its costs and is currently floating the idea of selling a portion of the Fund's contributed gold horde for cash to pay for their jobs and privileges.

The World Bank does not wish to be similarly indisposed.

There really wasn't much heat in the Shaha Riza story. After all, a couple of middle-aged parasites and public policy bores divvying up a big bag of other peoples' money while giving free reign to their shared delusions of bayonet democracy and the Middle East is somehow depressingly familiar.

But in the initial scandal data dump to the Washington Post on 12 April ("World Bank Chief's Leadership Role Called Into Question"), one sizzling fact leaked out apparently by mistake as it was never mentioned again in future reports. The maverick leak was an e-mail "noting that the bank had received a warning from China that it might halt future borrowings if Wolfowitz refused to curb anti-corruption investigations."

Wolfowitz is toast.

Alas, the Bank is not. Not yet, anyway.

If we must have a World Bank, and I am pained to write that it seems we must apparently right up until the very instant of our coming national insolvency, then let it be the redundant, inefficient, indulgent, corrupt waste currently on offer.

A militant, lean and mean neocon lending machine would be far worse.

April 28, 2007

Anne Williamson [send her mail] has been observing the international aid institutions since their arrival in Russia after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Currently she is expanding and revising her opus on the post-Cold War era, Contagion: The Betrayal of Liberty; the United States and Russia in the Post-Cold War World, to be published by Poor Richard's Press this coming autumn. She no longer lives in the United States. This article was originally published by Sanders Research Associates.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

The Iraq war is over. It is the moment for Democrats to show real leadership

If President Bush's veto is not challenged tomorrow, thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US troops are certain to perish

Gary Younge
Monday April 30, 2007
The Guardian

There is no overestimating the popular reverence Americans have for their men and women in uniform. A direct translation of "squaddie", a term steeped in class contempt which betrays as much antipathy and ambivalence as it does admiration in the UK, simply does not exist in the US. Fighting for your country is generally regarded as the ultimate form of public service.

Flight attendants will announce the presence of an active service man or woman to cheers from the rest of the plane. At anti-war demonstrations, protesters wave banners proclaiming "Support the troops, oppose the war." The nation may be irrevocably split on the moral value of any war, but when it comes to backing the people who are executing it, they speak as one.

If such widespread veneration for the military in a democracy is problematic, the reasons underpinning it extend beyond hyper-patriotism. Thanks to the draft during the Korean and Vietnam wars, many Americans have a close relative who is a veteran. The suburban myth that liberals abused soldiers returning from Vietnam has made progressives anxious to be vocal in their support for the military. And, whatever its reputation abroad, since the second world war the US military has been viewed domestically as an instrument of progressive social change. It was one of the first American institutions to formally integrate. Thanks to the GI bill, which gave housing or an education to those returning from the second world war, it was instrumental in creating the postwar middle class.

Finally, in a nation with no safety net, the military is one of the few government-backed means of advancement for the poor. "I was living in a trailer with my grandmother," says Darrell Anderson, 25, who earned a purple heart in Iraq and later went awol. "I was broke and I needed education and healthcare, and if I had to go to war for them that was just what I had to do. Going to the military was my last chance. My last option." If all else fails, you can yomp and shoot your way to the American dream.

So America's support for its military is as deep as it is complex. While that support may coincide with the backing for a given war, it may at times also contradict it. This may be one of those times. The showdown between the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress over the war in Iraq currently hinges on which side can claim ownership of the troops' interests, and harness that public affection to bolster their position.

President Bush has requested more money from Congress for the war. Congress has passed a bill that gives him more than he requested so long as he sets a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, effectively demanding a blank cheque for the war. The Democrats do not have enough votes to override the veto. Bush cannot get the money without Congressional approval. For as long as the stalemate continues no money can be earmarked for the war, and at some stage the cash will dry up. In these deliberations the plight of Iraqis, who are dying in their scores every day, is subordinated to more local concerns: which side can convince the public that they are standing their ground to protect the troops, and thereby force the other side to compromise before the money runs out.

You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the Democrats. With approval ratings in the 30s, Bush is deeply unpopular. So is his war. According to a Rasmussen poll last week, 57% of Americans support either an immediate withdrawal (37%) or a deadline for withdrawal (20%), while 60% believe that his "surge" has either made things worse in Iraq or has made no difference. As though that were not enough, he will most likely sign the veto tomorrow, on the fourth anniversary of his "mission accomplished" speech.

Not only is Bush weak, but so is his standing with the troops. Since he announced the surge, the US death toll has remained steady at around three a day, while the situation on the ground has deteriorated and the Iraqi government has disintegrated. Last month came the debacle at Walter Reed hospital, where wounded veterans testified to lying in rooms infested with mice and cockroaches, with mould on the walls.

Then last week came damaging testimony relating to two of the "war on terror's" greatest icons. The first, Jessica Lynch, was hailed as the plucky "Rambo from West Virginia" after she was captured in an ambush at Nassiriya early in the war and later rescued by US forces. "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary," said Lynch at a Congressional hearing.

The other was the family of Pat Tillman, a football star, who forwent a $9m contract to volunteer for the military. According to the defence department Tillman was killed by enemy combatants in Afghanistan in 2004 while leading an attempt to rescue US troops. Five weeks later they admitted he was killed by friendly fire. "We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," said Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother. "Pat's death was clearly the result of fratricide [friendly fire] ... the truth needed to be suppressed."

And so the world Bush occupies - where the war is justified, conditions on the ground are improving, and democracy in the Middle East will flourish - keeps getting smaller. Even those he cast as heroes no longer wish to share the stage with him.

All of this provides ample space for the Democrats to establish an alternative narrative for both supporting the troops and stopping the war. One that says the best way to support them is to remove them from a war they cannot win, and return them home where they will be cared for. An opportunity to represent the people who elected them, implement their mandate, and in so doing fulfil their constitutional duty to check and then balance executive power.

Like most acts of principle, making this move carries significant political risk. But not making it carries the certainty of thousands more dead Iraqis and hundreds more dead soldiers. A CBS-New York Times poll shows only 36% back withholding funds if the president uses his veto. That is where leadership comes in: the Democrats have yet to prove their ability to win people over to a course of action they believe is both justified and necessary. Who knows how many people would support them if they made the case for it. Who knows how many would have opposed the war if they'd been asked. The war is over. To postpone withdrawal is simply to prolong the agony.

Yet it seems the Democrats are set to cave in on their demand of setting a timetable, agreeing instead to "non-binding benchmarks" on the Iraqi government, an impotent body that lacks authority and legitimacy. That would not be compromise but capitulation.

This is only the second time Bush has used his veto. The first was six months ago, to stop a bill on embryonic stem-cell research becoming law. The bill, he said, "would support the taking of innocent human life ... and crosses a moral boundary our decent society needs to respect". Would that he lavished so much care on human life that has evolved beyond a collection of cells. Would that his moral boundaries stretched beyond the green zone. Would that he had an opposition worthy of the name.

g.younge@guardian.co.uk

EXCLUSIVE: DC Madam Customer List: Head of Think Tank, Prominent CEO, Lobbyists and Military Brass

D.C. Madam Wants Washington Clients to Testify

April 30, 2007 9:36 AM

Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz & Justin Rood Report:

The woman charged in a federal indictment with running a high-class Washington, D.C. call girl service says she plans to call her prominent clients to testify at her trial.

Jeane Palfrey, dubbed the D.C. Madam, says among those she will call to testify are Randall Tobias, who resigned Friday as deputy secretary of state after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of Palfrey's escort service.

Tobias said he "had some gals come over to the condo for a massage" but denied any sex was involved.

Tobias is the second prominent man to be identified as a customer of the Palfrey's "sexual fantasy service." Two weeks ago, Palfrey alleged that military strategist Harlan K. Ullman, creator of the "shock and awe" combat theory and now a scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was also a customer. Ullman has said that the claim was "beneath the dignity of comment."

Also on Palfrey's list of customers who could be potential witnesses are a Bush administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a prominent CEO, several lobbyists and a handful of military officials.

"I'm sure as heck not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, four to eight years, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever," Palfrey told ABC News correspondent Brian Ross in an interview to be broadcast Friday on "20/20." "I'll bring in every last one of them in if necessary," she said.

Palfrey is due in federal court Monday morning to ask the judge to replace her current lawyer, a public defender, with a lawyer who she says "will be more aggressive in fighting the government."

The indictment of Palfrey alleges she used more than 100 women over a period of 13 years "for the purpose of engaging in prostitution activity with male clients, including sexual intercourse and oral sex in exchange for money." She made more than $2 million running the operation, known as Pamela Martin and Associates, according to the federal indictment.

Palfrey, who ran the service by phone from her home in Sonoma County, Calif., is the only person charged. None of her male customers is named by the government.

"That's very hypocritical," she says. "Why aren't these people under arrest? Why just me?"

Palfrey claims she ran a legal operation that offered sexual fantasy but not "illegal sex" of the kind described in the indictment.

She says she hopes her prominent clients will testify they did not engage in actual sex when they hired her escorts.

"This was a sexual fantasy service," Palfrey told "20/20." "Occasionally a client would want to go to the Kennedy Center or go to dinner, but generally speaking they went straight to the homes, or they went straight to the hotels," she said.

Palfrey provided ABC News with phone records from her business going back four years.

Vote: Do you think the clients of the D.C. Madam should resign?

April 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (63)

Why There Was No Exit Plan

April 30, 2007

by Dan Hamburg

There are people in Washington … who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they’re looking for 10, 20, 50 years in the future … the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region, and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that 10 years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.

– former President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 3, 2006


For all the talk about timetables and benchmarks, one might think that the United States will end the military occupation of Iraq within the lifetimes of the readers of this opinion editorial. Think again.

There is to be no withdrawal from Iraq, just as there has been no withdrawal from hundreds of places around the world that are outposts of the American empire. As UC San Diego professor emeritus Chalmers Johnson put it, “One of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn’t intend to leave.”

The United States maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries across the globe. They exist for the purpose of defending the economic interests of the United States, what is euphemistically called “national security.” In order to secure favorable access to Iraq’s vast reserves of light crude, the United States is spending billions on the construction of at least five large permanent military bases throughout that country.

A new Iraq oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is planned for ratification by June. This law cedes control of Iraq’s oil to western powers for 30 years . There is major opposition to the proposed law within Iraq, especially among the country’s five trade union federations that represent hundreds of thousands of oil workers. The United States is working hard to surmount this opposition by appealing directly to the al-Maliki government in Iraq.

The attack upon, and subsequent occupation of, Iraq can be seen as a direct result of the 2001 National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as vice president Cheney’s energy task force) that was comprised largely of oil and energy company executives. This task force — the proceedings of which have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of “executive privilege” — recommended that the U.S. government support initiatives in Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sector to foreign investment.” As Antonio Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International wrote last month in the New York Times, “One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve.”

The people of the United States have indicated, in the national election last November and in countless polls, that they no longer support the Bush administration’s war. The Scooter Libby trial revealed that top administration officials, including the vice president, “cherry-picked” and distorted intelligence in order to sell a “pre-emptive” war to a spooked public. The squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars, some billions of which, according to Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker, is being siphoned into “black-ops” programs being run out of Cheney’s office (a stunning redux of Iran-Contra carried out by many of the same actors), has also strained the patience and credulity of the American people.

Another betrayal is the “contracting out” of “war-related activities” to corporations such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Chemonics and Blackwater. Halliburton, Vice President Cheney’s previous employer, calls itself an “energy services company” but has tentacles reaching into nearly every aspect of the war (originally dubbed Operation Iraqi Liberation until some bright bulb among the Bushies realized that “OIL” might not be the best handle for this venture). Halliburton has also profited handsomely from no-bid government contracts awarded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the construction at the national embarrassment known as “Gitmo,” and most recently, from the fiasco at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, all this corruption, mayhem and death are good for some (or it wouldn’t go on).

The U.S. military budget, larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world’s nations combined, continues skyward, even without all the “supplementals” passed regularly by Congress to fight the “war on terror.”

The question we must ask as citizens is this: Is the United States a democratic republic or an empire? History demonstrates that it’s not possible to be both.


Dan Hamburg, a former U.S. representative, is executive director of Voice of the Environment.

© 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle

400 K Wolfowitz Resignation Deal in the Works

April 30, 2007
Wolfowitz Resignation Deal in the Works

Behind the scenes of the gladiatorial battle that will take place between Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank Board today are efforts by his lawyer, Robert Bennett, and the Bank staff to negotiate terms of Wolfowitz's departure.

According to some insiders, Wolfowitz wants "some acknowledgment" of the Bank Board's complicity in the messy circumstances surrounding his and Shaha Riza's situation.

Secondly, allegedly on June 1st, Wolfowitz becomes eligible for some large financial bonus -- for performance and time on the job. One estimate puts this figure at about $400,000. Wolfowitz wants to make sure those funds are credited to his private bank account before saying farewell to an institution that has come to despise him.

Both sides have threatened each other with slow, painful, drip-drip approach to the release of damaging information that each side has about the other.

One blast in the battle are revelations that it costs the Bank a whopping $5 million per year to pay for Wolfowitz's security detail. Others have told me of Wolfowitz's failure to discipline aide Kevin Kellems for equally whopping violations of Bank protocol -- particularly while traveling on Bank business.

Wolfowitz is angry at the Bank at all those other than his closest spear-carriers. At one level, he does not want to resign and wants to tear the World Bank apart by forcing escalation in this war. But others -- particularly Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson -- have made it clear behind the scenes that a negotiated outcome that saves some face for Wolfowitz will give all sides an opportunity to push what one Paulson insider calls "the reset button."

-- Steve Clemons

Cheney, Libby 'sold out the world for an F-16 sale'

'They sold out the world for an F-16 sale'

04/30/2007 @ 11:25 am

Filed by Luke Ryland

Onetime CIA analyst alleges Cheney, Libby lied to Congress about Pakistani nukes

In the era of Ronald Reagan, intelligence officer Richard Barlow was an analyst for the CIA, monitoring Pakistan's nuclear program. In 1989, he moved over to the Pentagon, where he worked for then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. Barlow lost that job when he raised objections to his bosses about senior Pentagon officials allegedly lying to Congress concerning Pakistan’s emerging nuclear program.

In a series of interviews with RAW STORY conducted over several weeks, the onetime intelligence officer revealed new details about intelligence on Pakistan’s nuclear program—and efforts by the US to quash attempts to stop development. Barlow's story also casts light on recent efforts by the current administration to keep information from Congress on Iraq and other matters.

Pakistan gets the bomb

In 1975, Pakistani scientist AQ Khan “acquired” nuclear blueprints from his Dutch employer and was immediately put in charge of Pakistan's nuclear program. In 1988, Pakistan would detonate its first atomic bomb.

Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers has said that the CIA was monitoring Khan from the beginning. He asserts that the US turned down offers to detain Khan in 1975 and 1986 because they wanted to “gain more information” about the scientist’s activities.

Intelligence information later showed that the US and its allies allowed Pakistan to clandestinely acquire most of the technology for its nuclear program from abroad, unwittingly facilitating the spread of nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya over the past several decades.

When Richard Barlow joined the CIA in 1985 as a counter-proliferation intelligence officer with particular expertise on Pakistan, he quickly realized that Pakistan was continuing to develop its nuclear program, and that some of its clandestine and illegal procurement activity was occurring within the US.

It didn't take Barlow long to realize that US officials knew what Pakistan was doing. According to Barlow, individuals at the State Department later actively facilitated procurement, tipping off targets of sealed arrest warrants in undercover operations and illegally approving export licenses for restricted goods.

Naturally, this situation created problems.

In 1985—following the arrest of a Pakistani agent in the US who attempted to procure specialized switches for nuclear detonators—Congress took steps to prevent Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons, passing bills that would cut off economic and military aid to Pakistan if it were found to be involved in nuclear activities.

One amendment declared that all overt aid to Pakistan—which came to over $4 billion in 1986—must cease unless the President certified annually that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Another prohibited aid to any “non-nuclear” nation found to be illegally exporting nuclear materials from the US.

Given Pakistan's proliferation activities, this meant the ongoing aid to Pakistan was illegal. However, President Reagan wanted military and economic aid to continue flowing to Pakistan to ensure its ongoing support of his covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan.

The countervailing view, held by many at the CIA, was that proliferation was an important threat in its own right and shouldn’t take a back seat to fighting communism. In addition, Barlow and others believed that Pakistan would continue to assist in the covert war against the Russians, regardless of sanctions against its nuclear program.

Barlow sparks a firestorm

In 1987, Barlow engineered the arrest of some of Khan’s agents in the US as part of an undercover operation. He says the arrests came with the full support and knowledge of the highest levels of the CIA and the Reagan administration.

The arrest sparked a firestorm. Proof of Pakistan's proliferation activities would trigger the provisions of the the so-called Solarz Amendment and put an end to Pakistani aid.

The amendment’s author, Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Chairman Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY), called for a top-secret briefing by the CIA. Barlow was sent to represent the agency, armed with talking points.

Under orders from the CIA, Barlow told Solarz’ Subcommittee the truth: There were “scores” of illegal transactions that should have triggered the Solarz Amendment, and the Pakistanis involved—including a retired general—were agents of the government of Pakistan.

Pakistan, Barlow said, had been breaking US nuclear export laws regularly since 1985, and the responsible individuals in the US intelligence and law enforcement communities knew it. Having just approved a multi-billion dollar aid package, Solarz and others in Congress—including Senator Larry Pressler, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee—were outraged to learn about Pakistan's violations of their laws. Solarz was appalled that information had been hidden from Congress.

In contrast, those who had willfully misled Congress were horrified that Barlow had told the truth. They tried to undercut Barlow's testimony but to no avail. Barlow’s classified testimony was unimpeachable.

The pressure on Barlow continued

Barlow was a marked man. While those in his part of the CIA (the Directorate of Intelligence), the State Department non-proliferation staff, and the law enforcement agencies considered him a hero, those running the covert Afghan war—the Directorate of Operations, the former National Intelligence Officer for Proliferation who had been responsible for briefing Congress, and the State Department's regional office—tried to get him fired for engineering the arrest and spilling the beans.

Barlow, however, was soon vindicated. A US court convicted the Pakistani agents and President Reagan triggered the Solarz Amendment for the first and only time.

Immediately afterward, Reagan invoked a national security waiver provision in the law, nullifying the amendment. In the words of veteran intelligence reporter Seymour Hersh, "The President was telling Pakistan that it could have its money—and its bomb."

"These people were determined that nothing like this was ever going to happen ever again—no more arrests, no more truth to the Congress," Barlow recalls. "I had people giving me awards at the same time as other people were trying to fire me—it was unbelievable.”

“I was targeted by some in the Directorate of Operations; they made my life miserable,” he continues. “Nobody at the agency actually tried to destroy my life, but they did make my life miserable and damaged my career prospects.”

“I left of my own free will, relatively speaking,” he adds. “I could have stayed—but I wasn't going to put up with that shit. I was caught in the middle of a massive battle between the cold warriors and the counterproliferation forces in the CIA.”

“The cold warriors were a bunch of arrogant bastards,” he remarks.

F-16s or bust

In early 1989, after George H.W. Bush became president, Barlow joined the Pentagon’s Office of Non-Proliferation Policy—working under then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Stephen Hadley, and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Scooter Libby.

Barlow says he continued to be engaged in trying to arrest more Pakistani nuclear agents. He also claims there were other examples of officials lying to Congress about Pakistan's nuclear program in order to keep aid flowing, but now there was a significant difference: The Afghan war was over, so there was no Cold War “justification” for continuing to shovel money at Pakistan. This time, he believes, it was simply about profit.

"They sold out the world for an F-16 sale," Barlow says.

By then, Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons.

"They had nuclear weapons at the time, and we knew they did,” Barlow remarks. “The evidence was unbelievable. I can't go into it—but on a scale of 1 to 10, in terms of intelligence evidence, it was a 10 or 11. It doesn't get any better than that.”

Barlow asserts that in 1988 and 1989, Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush illegally certified that Pakistan was free of nuclear weapons in order to keep funds flowing.

In the late eighties, Pakistan, trying to outmuscle India by injecting nuclear and air power steroids into their arms program, was seeking to buy 60 new F-16s worth $1.6 billion.

F-16 manufacturer General Dynamics desperately wanted the sale.

Unfortunately for the firm, Rep. Solarz and others in Congress expected assurances that the planes couldn't be used to drop nuclear weapons.

This was problematic: American intelligence knew that Pakistan had already made the minor modifications to their existing fleet of F-16s so that they could carry, and drop, nuclear weapons.

In fact, US and foreign intelligence and news reports indicated that the Pakistanis had in fact modified their F-16’s for nuclear delivery and had been conducting training exercises where they practiced dropping nuclear weapons from the F-16s. Nonetheless, Barlow says, Pentagon officials lied to Congress under oath, saying that the planes couldn't be used for nuclear purposes without a radical overhaul well beyond the industrial capabilities of Pakistan.

Barlow says he then learned that Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Hughes had delivered testimony willfully falsified by officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He realized that Hughes had lied to Solarz' committee because earlier in 1989 he had prepared a comprehensive paper on this very issue for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.

“All the top experts had looked at this question in detail for years, and it was a cold hard engineering question,” Barlow says. “There was no question about it—the jets could easily be made nuke-capable, and we knew that Pakistan had done just that."

Barlow says he tried again to inform his bosses that the congressional testimony was false. He was effectively fired two days later.

“They tried to destroy my life”

They've also continued retaliating against him ever since, more than a decade later, including by invoking the State Secrets Privilege—a blunt legal tool that enables the government to shut down cases which they claim might damage national security—to block the evidence in a court case initiated by the entire US Senate.

“They viciously tried to destroy my life, personally and professionally” says Barlow. “Not just my career, but they went after my marriage, my livelihood, and smeared my name in truly extraordinary ways that no one had ever seen before or since—at least not until the Wilsons were victims of the same people years later.”

“In my case, they suspended my security clearances and engaged in the most vicious abuses of security powers that anyone in the Congress had ever seen. They had nothing on me, so first they secretly fabricated the allegation that I was an ‘intended’ Congressional spy. Once that was found to be false, they then the secretly accused me of being an alcoholic, of not paying taxes, of adultery and more. Then they accused me of being psychotic and used that to invade my marital privacy, including that of my now ex-wife who also worked at the CIA, and sought to destroy my marriage as punishment.” He adds, “Of course, I was cleared of all of these charges, but the damage was done, as intended.”

Three years later, Rep. Solarz told Sy Hersh, “If what Barlow says is true, this would have been a major scandal of Iran-Contra proportions, and the officials involved would have had to resign.”

After two decades of investigations by the CIA Inspector General, the Department of Justice Inspector General, the State Department Inspector General, a General Accounting Office investigation, and the public record, we now know that what Barlow was saying was true.

The officials involved didn't resign. They’ve been running the country for the last six years.

Is There a Muslim Lobby in the US

By Alexander Gainem

No real unified Arab or Muslim lobbying platform can be considered to be functional in the United States. When John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a report highlighting the efficacy of the Israeli lobby in molding US domestic and foreign policy, charges of malpractice and academic dishonesty were leveled at the authors. Their paper, "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy," cited the organizational prowess of pro-Israel groups in marrying the media, think tanks, and numerous politicians into a unified front that muzzles criticism of the Jewish State. However, in the vitriol exchanged by supporters and detractors of the paper, an illuminating section is overlooked. Mearsheimer and Walt, in comparing the existence of the Israeli lobby to the likelihood of the existence of a similar Muslim or Arab grouping, say "pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israeli lobby's task even easier." Although there is no national consensus data on the number of Muslims in the United States, estimates put the figure between six and seven million, equal to the number of Jews in the country. Each religious group accounts for two percent of the US population. While the global population of Jews is some 15 million, there are nearly 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. "There is a plethora of often competing Arab and Muslim groups and organizations, which do not adhere to the same agenda." If the logic of strength in numbers is applied, why then is there no Muslim lobby to balance the strong influence of other lobby groups? There are multiple answers to this question, often directly mirroring the status quo in Arab and Muslim countries, but chief among them is the lack of a unified socio-political platform. Diverse Muslim Groups Muslims in the United States are primarily derivative of an immigrant community and belong to a number of diverse ethnic groups. From a religious and sectarian point of view, American Muslims comprise Sunni, Shiite, Ismaili, and Ahmadi sects, to name a few. Most sects do not see eye to eye and often do not intermingle. The Ahmadi sect, for example, is considered an apostate group by mainstream Islamic theologians, while other sects have complained of repression in their home nations at the hands of other Muslim sects. As'ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus, says Arabs and Muslims in the United States are far from being united and are in a state of disagreement over many issues. "Just as the Turkish lobby acts on behalf of one Turkish government, the Arab or Muslim lobbies can't mirror a single agenda that represents the interests of all Arab or Muslim governments," AbuKhalil says. "Arab and Muslim governments often conspire against one another, and their rivalries, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, were mirrored in the competition and rivalries between Arab and Muslim organizations in the United States," he adds. The deep divisions in the Arab world (along sectarian and ethnic lines) only impair the effectiveness of those groups. "In the case of the Arab and Muslim lobbies, there is a plethora of often competing groups and organizations, which do not seem to adhere to the same agenda," AbuKhalil remarks. AIPAC's Shadow The Muslim community doesn't possess the required prerequisites to make a difference in the US political arena. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper points to the Jewish Americans' skillfulness in setting up an impressive array of influential organizations, of which the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful and best known. AIPAC operates in near unison with several think tanks, such as the Washington Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and others who share a common denominator: pro-Israel policies. They produce monthly reports culled from "experts" in Israel as well as journalists on the ground. These are then used in a unified assault on the US Congress to influence policy to tilt in favor of Israel. Similar media exercises from Muslim groups are minimal to none. Fawaz A. Gerges, who holds the Christian Johnson Chair in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence University in New York, and is a senior analyst for ABC Television News, says the Israeli lobby is well-organized, well-endowed, and well-recognized as a powerful influence by friend and foe. "It is taken seriously by the foreign policy establishment," he asserts. On the other hand, "[T]he Muslim community does not possess the political, institutional, and financial prerequisites to make a difference in the American political arena. It takes time, organization, and institutional building to do so." Coining the Term If no effective organization resembling an influential lobby represents Muslim or Arab interests in the United States, where did the term Muslim lobby originate? In researching the above question, the author of this article came across several references to the term specifically in news journals, publications, and blogs with a clear pro-Israel, anti-Muslim slant. In fact, the term Muslim lobby is an artificial construct, with the word lobby being rather misleading. "References to Arab or Muslim lobbies occur only in the Arab and Muslim press, or in the propaganda of pro-Israeli groups," says Abukhalil. The term "Muslim lobby" is an artificial construct, with the word "lobby" being rather misleading. Worldnetdaily.com, a website that has featured commentary by writer Joseph Farah urging the killing of 100 non-combatant Palestinian adults for every slain Israeli, regularly uses the term Islamic or Muslim lobby to refer to advocacy groups trying to combat Islamophobia through education and awareness campaigns. One such advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has been sufficiently targeted by journalists and pro-Israel groups. When CAIR contacted FOX network to raise the issue of negative stereotyping of Muslims on the popular TV thriller "24," journalist Cliff Kincaid accused it of being a "lobby" attempting to intimidate the media. CAIR says its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. It does not lobby senators and congressmen to affect pro-Muslim tilt in US foreign policy. Compare that to AIPAC's mission statement as follows: Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress — at home and in Washington — AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. From procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel's security, to funding joint US-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons, AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel. Consequently, labeling CAIR and other advocacy groups as "lobbies" is an exercise in journalistic inequity and willful disinformation. Yet, both John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have been accused by Ami Isseroff, executive secretary of MidEastWeb for Coexistence, of being part of an Arab US lobby. "The Arab and Muslim lobby and the lobbies of Arab and Muslim countries, and the lobby of US oil interests in those countries are together certainly far more powerful than the 'Israel Lobby,'" she recently wrote. Fueling Islamophobia In his book Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, journalist Paul Sperry uses the term Muslim lobby to refer to an "Islamic terrorist" conspiracy to infiltrate the US leadership and influence policy. Sperry links what he terms Muslim lobby groups, faith-based charities, and a wide network of mosques throughout the United States as a unified subversive front. He stipulates that this grand lobby of Muslim interests is connected to foreign groups like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. "It's a syndicate, a Muslim mafia, and law enforcement is only starting to get their arms around it. The base of their operations is in Northern Virginia, where I live — right in the shadow of the nation's capital. I call it The Wahhabi Corridor," he said in an interview with Frontpage Magazine in April 2005. Given that the term Muslim lobby is so loosely used by pundits to elicit Islamophobia and wax paranoid of a misconceived and undue influence of Arab and Muslim interests in US policy-making, the term should be abolished from the Arab and Muslim lexicon. Not doing so would cater to a demonization of all Arab- and Muslim-American political participation, a right that is enshrined in the US Constitution. To Build a Lobby While no real unified Arab or Muslim lobbying platform can be considered to be functional in the United States, the need remains for such a group to be formed. In late October 2001, former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel Edward Walker urged Arab governments to set up measures to counter Israel's influence in America's policy-making. "But you, the Arabs, can no longer afford to just ignore Washington. Arab governments and institutions should start considering how to affect public opinion in the US," he told a political discussion forum hosted by the University of Jordan. However, 5 years later, Walker's advice may have fallen on deaf ears. What scant lobbying there is usually depends on the behest of individual Muslim governments. "One can say that there never was a serious attempt to create an Arab or Muslim lobby, and that whatever organizations that exist today under that umbrella of a name have only succeeded in effectively representing the interests of ruling Arab dynasties," AbuKhalil says of Saudi Arabian initiatives to influence US foreign policy regarding the Kingdom. "But those dynasties don't even rely on those loyal groups and organizations when they wish to advance a particular issue: Instead, they hire 'purely' American public relations and lobbying firms in order not to allow the Arab or Muslim stigma to hurt their lobbying efforts." With individual Middle Eastern nations opting to choose public relations firms to represent their interests in Washington, the prospect of a Muslim lobby ever consolidating its efforts in the future remains murky. Gerges says that while an Arab and Muslim lobby in the United States does not exist, Arab and Muslim voices are laboring hard to be heard and recognized. And those are steps in the right direction, say many Arab and Muslim Americans. "It has taken the Israeli lobby half a century to arrive at this historical juncture," Gerges said. "It will likely take the Muslim community as long, if and when the community decides to organize itself politically and institutionally." "The key word is institutional building, which is in its infancy."

Alexander Gainem is a freelance journalist who has written extensively on Middle East issues.

California Democratic Party Passes Resolution Demanding Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Another Historic Step on Impeachment

April 30, 2007, San Diego, CA

Sparked by an insurgency among delegates, the California Democratic Party has taken an historic step forward on the issue of impeachment. In a resolution affirmed by the full state party convention Sunday, the Democrats called on the U.S. Congress to use its subpoena power to investigate misdeeds of President Bush and Vice President Cheney – and to hold the Administration accountable “with appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.” The delegate insurgency was coordinated by Progressive Democrats of America and its allies.

While Speaker Pelosi had declared impeachment “off the table,” the Democratic Party rank-and-file has demonstrated its commitment to putting the issue “on” the table. And it’s no longer just the rank-and-file: Even among the members of the convention’s Resolutions Committee (appointed by the California Party chair), the impeachment resolution was the top vote-getter (tied with one other resolution).

Coming on the heels of mass actions and resolutions across the country in support of impeachment, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s introduction of Articles of Impeachment against Cheney, this action by the powerful California Democratic Party builds on the pro-impeachment momentum.

The resolution refers to Bush and Cheney having acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . .

1. using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq
2. authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war”
3. “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant”
4. “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative”
5. suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants”
6. “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes”
   

The resolution ends by calling for “vigorous investigation” and “appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.”

This action represents the successful culmination of PDA’s one-month, eleven-city barnstorming tour across California – aimed at putting impeachment and ending the occupation of Iraq at the top of the Party’s agenda.

There is possibility of impeaching Bush: Murtha

There is possibility of impeaching Bush: lawmaker

Washington, April 30 (PTI): A top US lawmaker and a leading war critic has held out the possibility of the Democrats impeaching the President George W Bush stressing that this is perhaps one way of influencing a President.

The Democrat in the House of Representatives John Murtha, a top conservative turned critic of the Iraq war, has said that if the President vetoes the current spending legislation as he has promised to the Democrats will send him one more and this would perhaps take the route of Democrats insisting on a two month funding first before looking at a year's timetable.

"... in the first place, we gave the president everything he asked for and then some. We gave him USD four billion more...If he vetoes this bill, he's cut off the money. But obviously, we're going to pass another bill. It's going to have some stringent requirements. I'd like to see two months.

I' d like to look at this again in two months... Fund it for two months instead of a year. And then look at it again," Murtha said on CBS' Face The Nation programme.

Murtha stressed that the White House has not been in a compromising mood and that Congress has done everything it can to accomodate the wishes of the White House.

"But the White House has said no to everything. They say we're willing to compromise, and then we don't get any compromise. We've compromised on waivers for the requirements for the troops, which is their own requirements, and also goals instead of requirements for the benchmarks. So, we've already compromised," the law maker said.

"And we need to make this president understand, Mr. President, the public has spoken. There's three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is, and fourth is the purse," Murtha remarked.

Pressed on the issue the Congressman merely replied "... what I'm saying, there's four ways to influence a president... And one of them's impeachment".

"...I'm just saying that's one way to influence a president. The other way is through the purse. And the purse is controlled by the Congress, who's elected the by the public. In the last election, the public said, we want the Democrats in control" he said.

For its part the administration sent out Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the Sunday Talk Shows Circuit. She put out the standard opposition to the Congressional legislation.

"The president has said he will not accept anything that constitutes a timetable for American withdrawal," Rice said on ABC's This Week.

"To begin now to tie our own hands and to say we must do this if they don't do that doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward," she said.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Takes a Bullet in Israel

April 30th, 2007

By Eileen Fleming

On April 21st, 2007, in the Village of Bil’in, Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Northern Ireland, was shot with a rubber-coated steel bullet by Israeli Forces an hour after delivering this message at a peace press conference:

“Thanks to the media here for telling the truth… Bring this truth to whatever country you come from. Non-violence will solve the problems here in Israel and Palestine. Often, the world sees only violence. But Palestinians are a good people, working towards non-violence. This Wall must fall! It is an insult to the human family and to the world that we are building Apartheid Walls in the 21st Century! More than forty years of Occupation and Land Appropriation.”

Since 2004, in Bil’in, every Friday afternoon after prayers at the mosque, Palestinian farmers, workers, mothers, and students, together with Israeli and International volunteers, have been braving teargas, beatings, bullets, arrest, and even death to rise up against the well equipped Israeli army with nothing more than their own bodies.

Last Friday afternoon after prayers at the mosque in Bil’in …

Blocking the path with armed soldiers about 100 meters before the Wall, soldiers began to fire tear gas into the crowd of 400 or so protesters. The crowd would disperse, covering their faces with bandannas and onion slices to dilute the suffocating gases. But the crowd would regroup and continue, Ghandi-style, their non-violent procession to the Apartheid structure.

Israeli forces kept this up for quite some time, but as demonstrators reached closer to their goal, the occupiers added more ingredients to their recipe– this time using rubber-coated steel bullets. Several patches of demonstrators in different parts of the olive grove were screaming in Arabic, Spanish, Hebrew, English, and others, ‘Don’t shoot! We’re non-violent!’

But the triggers of the occupier’s guns pulled anyways– the weapon of non-violence needed to be dismantled…It is illegal under Israeli military law to shoot rubber bullets from a distance under 40 meters. They are considered lethal otherwise…I saw Tomas from Denmark fall to the ground, Dawood from the UK hit on the inner thigh near his groin, Ali from Palestine hit in the leg, and tear gas canisters were oozing with white smoke from what seemed like every inch of the land. Suddenly, Ms. Maguire, the Irish Nobel Peace prize winner was shot in the leg. Two other street medics carried her to safety and the army continued to fire into the non-violent crowd.

The resilience was astounding. The demonstrators kept regrouping. Even Ms. Maguire, after being shot and with red, watery tear-gassed eyes — she rejoined the march.…An estimated 25 people were either hit with rubber bullets, soldier batons, or received medical care from tear gas inhalation.

Máiread once wrote: “Hope for the future depends on each of us taking nonviolence into our hearts and minds and developing new and imaginative structures which are nonviolent and life-giving for all. Some people will argue that this is too idealistic. I believe it is very realistic. I am convinced that humanity is fast evolving to this higher consciousness. For those who say it cannot be done, let us remember that humanity learned to abolish slavery. Our task now is no less than the abolition of violence and war…. We can rejoice and celebrate today because we are living in a miraculous time. Everything is changing and everything is possible.

While Governments can make a difference, in the final analysis it is the individual — that is each one of us — that will bring the dream of a nonviolent world to reality. We, the people must think and act nonviolently. We must not get stuck in the past as to do so will destroy the imagination and creativity which is so n a new future together…

To change our world we need a spiritual and a political evolution. The political steps are often very obvious: uphold Human rights, and International Laws, demand our Governments meet their obligations under these Laws, support and reform United Nations, etc., However, all the legislation, resolutions, and fine talk will be of no use, if we do not as men and women evolve and become transformed, so that we, the human family, achieve a more enlightened and humane way of living together, and solving conflicts.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that The Wall is a violation of International Law because it cuts through the West Bank appropriating Palestinian land and destroying Palestinian villages and economy to make way for further Israeli illegal settlements.

My first trip to Bil’in, where Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maried Maguire was shot, was in January 2006; my second time upon the potholed unpaved roads to this agricultural village near Ramallah was on November 10, 2006.

Bil’in is one of many villages in the occupied Palestinian territories where locals, Israelis and Internationals have been nonviolently and creatively resisting “The Wall” which in Bil’in is an electrified fence and miles of rolled barbed wire.

The electric fence and the Israeli army prevents the indigenous people to care and harvest their olive groves and 2,003 dunums of land have already been confiscated for The Wall/Fence and 750 settlers apartments have been built and are now occupied which the indigenous people are forbidden to enter.

In Bil’in, the Green Line is five miles from The Wall/electric fence and the Popular Committee in Bil’in has been nonviolently fighting the illegal actions of the Israeli government with nonviolent demonstrations and legal actions. Three court cases have been filed regarding the route of The Wall, the illegal settlements and land ownership. The Israeli government uses the Ottoman Law that states if the landowner doesn’t tend his land it can be confiscated by the State. The Israeli army and the electrified fence have effectively prevented the indigenous people from accessing and caring for their olive tree crop, depriving them of food and income.

The indigenous people of Bil’in brought their case to the Israeli Municipal Court and the High Court. Both courts agreed the building of the settlement dwellings was indeed illegal and ordered the construction to cease in January 2006. Construction continued and now that the settlers have moved in, the High Court has chosen to accept these “facts on the ground” and the colonists have been allowed to remain and the indigenous people have not received any compensation.

Abdullah and Mohammod, the local Coordinator’s of The Popular Committee Against The Wall in Bil’in informed me that 1,700 people live there and legally own 4,000 dunums of property. By erecting The Wall on Palestinian land, the Israeli government has effectively confiscated 2,003 dunums of prime agricultural land.

Beginning in 2004, every Friday afternoon in Bil’in after prayer at the mosque the ritual is for locals, Israelis and Internationals to march in solidarity to The Wall/Electric Fence while singing and chanting in Arabic slogans such as: “The wall will fall in Bil’in; the wall will fall like in Berlin!”

On November 10, 2006, I was one of over 40 internationals from the UK, France, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Netherlands and the US who marched with dozens of Israeli Anarchists Against the Wall and over 300 locals down the dirt road to The Wall/Electric Fence. Soldiers hid behind trees to the right and to the left of us while over five dozen well armed soldiers stood on the other side of The Wall/Fence while one videotaped us. Jonathan Pollak, an Anarchist Against the Wall/AAtW, that I met during his USA speaking tour was also there.

After chanting a while in front of the soldiers, Jonathon was the first down the steep rocky hill and over a metal railing to grab the roll of razor sharp barbed wire that is in front of the electrified fence in order to shake it. He was immediately joined by a few dozen locals and other AAtW who were swiftly greeted by the first of dozens of sound bombs-thick orange plastic grenades that hit the ground with a deafening sound.

I was half way down the hill when a teenager next to me threw a rock at a soldier and I know that action alone can get one killed or arrested, so I headed back up the hill before the tear gas assaulted the crowd at the barbwire.

By the time I made it up the hill the first of hundreds of rubber bullets were being shot into the crowd. Only two internationals were hit that day, but last Friday in Bil’in, an estimated 25 people were either hit with rubber bullets, soldier batons, or received medical care from tear gas inhalation.

PHOTOS of Maried and the FULL story of April 20, 2007 demonstration:

Other Source:

Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory

Mystery of the Missing Meters: Accounting for Iraq's Oil Revenue

by Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch March 22nd, 2007

The line of ships at the Al Basra Oil Terminal (ABOT) stretches south to the horizon, patiently waiting in the searing heat of the Northern Arabian Gulf as four giant supertankers load up. Close by, two more tankers fill up at the smaller Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT). Guarding both terminals are dozens of heavily-armed U.S. Navy troops and Iraqi Marines who live on the platforms. These two offshore terminals, a maze of pipes and precarious metal walkways, deliver some 1.6 million barrels of crude oil, at least 85 percent of Iraq's output, to buyers from all over the world. If the southern oil fields are the heart of Iraq's economy, its main arteries are three 40-plus inch pipelines that stretch some 52 miles from Iraq's wells to the ports. Heavily armed soldiers spend their days at the oil terminals scanning the horizon looking for suicide bombers and stray fishing dhows (boats). Meanwhile, right under their noses, smugglers are suspected to be diverting an estimated billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers because the oil metering system that is supposed monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT - has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Officials blame the four-year delay in repairing the relatively simple system on "security problems." Others point to the failed efforts of the two U.S. companies hired to repair the southern oil fields, fix the two terminals, and the meters: Halliburton of Houston, Texas, and Parsons of Pasadena, California. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) is scheduled to publish a report this spring that is expected criticize the companies' failure to complete the work. Smuggled Three Ways Oil smuggling is believed to be occurring in three different ways in Iraq: 1. Iraqi crude. At ABOT, officials at Iraq's state-owned South Oil Company (SOC) that extracts the crude, and at the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) that pipes the crude to the terminals, would have to know about smuggling, even if they were not benefiting from the scheme. Buyers from Brazil to India, from Thailand to the United States, purchase crude from Iraq at ABOT. The tanker operators would also have to be part of smuggling schemes. They would sign receipts for a lower quantity than they actually receive, and pay the extra directly to the smugglers. The most likely collaborators are either Iraqi or U.S. officials who supervise the production and delivery. Or both. 2. Imported fuel. Iraq spends a small fortune to buy fuel from neighboring countries including Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Much of this fuel goes to local drivers at a subsidized rate, and constitutes possibly the single most expensive item in the national budget after government salaries. In 2005 Iraq spent $4.2 billion of its $24.2 billion gross domestic product (GDP) on imported oil; the bill for 2006 is expected to exceed $5 billion. Smugglers siphon off a significant amount of the government subsidized fuel to sell back overseas at full price: The Ministry of Oil estimates the value at $800 million. 3. Theft of locally-produced gasoline. Iraqi gasoline is stolen from refineries or illegal taps on pipelines and resold within the country or smuggled abroad. Another $800 million worth of black market fuels is sold within Iraq, in places from Penjwin in the far north, to Abu al-Khasib in the south. (see next box) The U.S. military believes that the money from these operations funds insurgent operations, although evidence suggests that some also goes to straightforward petty corruption. In mid-March 2007, the U.S. military launched "Operation Honest Hands" which brought the Beiji refinery under control of the 82nd Airborne Division. The U.S. government paid to install video cameras, digital weighing machines for the trucks, and "sophisticated data-sifting methods" to identify senior Iraqi officials with ties to black-market oil rings, according to the Wall Street Journal. Two senior officials have been arrested so far: Ibrahim Muslit, who ran the Beiji refinery's oil-distribution operation and allegedly allowed 33 tankers in a single day to receive fuel without any paperwork. Ahmed Ibrahim Hamad, a senior transportation official at the refinery who allegedly tried to help smuggle out seven tankers of heavy fuel oil. Soldiers are also checking up on trucks and gasoline stations in the neighborhood around the refinery to try and catch smugglers in the act. Rumors are rife among suspicious Iraqis about the failure to measure the oil flow. "Iraq is the victim of the biggest robbery of its oil production in modern history," blazed a March 2006 headline in Azzaman, Iraq's most widely read newspaper. A May 2006 study of oil production and export figures by Platt's Oilgram News, an industry magazine, showed that up to $3 billion a year is unaccounted for. "Iraqi oil is regularly smuggled out of the country in many different ways," an oil merchant in Amman told the Nation (U.S.) magazine last month. "Emir al-Hakim [the head of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq] is spending all his time in Basra selling oil as if it were his own. People there call him Uday al-Hakim, meaning he is behaving the same way Uday Saddam Hussein was acting. Other merchants like myself have to work through him with the big deals or smuggle small quantities on our own. The petroleum is now divided among political parties in power." The Resource Curse The smuggling and black market operations bear striking parallels to Saddam Hussein's tactics for circumventing the UN embargo. Saddam was accused of selling some $5.7 billion worth of petroleum products on the black market over the six years of the Oil-for-Food program while United Nations inspectors turned a blind eye. Today, his successors stand accused of similar abuses. Iraq sits on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada). From a society that once used its oil revenue to create a social welfare state that provided education, health care and social services, the country has plummeted into the ranks of the poorest countries of the world. Economists call this the "resource curse." Those blessed with non-renewable resources often benefit the least, because a few wealthy people control the resources, or war prevents almost anyone from the benefiting. Iraq's main revenue source – earnings from the export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas – is currently managed by the Development Fund for Iraq. DFI's May 21, 2003 document, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, assigns this money to benefit the Iraqi people. The resolution replaces the previous United Nations-run Oil-for-Food scheme that lasted from 1997 until the March 2003 invasion. Almost four years after the DFI was created, officially logged crude sales have generated more than $80 billion. The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) managed the DFI from the immediate aftermath of Saddam's removal until June 28, 2004, when the CPA was disbanded. During those 14 months, the CPA spent $19.6 billion of Iraq's DFI funds. The three succeeding governments have been officially in charge of the DFI revenues, although the influence of the U.S. military and political advisors has remained significant throughout. In the 32 months after the CPA left, the three governments spent $47 billion more. Three Kinds of Gasoline A ten-foot-high hill of empty jerry cans is all that remains of a recent unauthorized gasoline delivery. The green plastic containers sit by the side of a road leading out of the town of Penjwin, high up in the Kurdish mountains, a stone's throw from the border of Iran. A little further down the road that winds through some of the most heavily mined countryside in Iraq, boys and men openly hawk smuggled gasoline. A smiling boy runs up to drivers who slow and stop. He quickly produces a funnel and up-ends full jerry cans into their gas tanks. This is Iraqi's unofficial version of a gas station or petrol pump. Authorities are well aware of the smuggling, but there is nothing they can do. "They bring it over the border from Iran," says a police officer pointing east to the mountain pass just a couple of miles away. He continues to direct traffic nearby and asks not to be named, The official price of gasoline in Iraq today is about 300 dinar a liter for regular and 350 dinar for diesel (about $1 a gallon). Official gasoline supplies are in short supply and heavily rationed. Drivers often queue for more than a day for a meager allotment. This situation is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein's Iraq where new cars were rationed to wealthy or well- connected individuals, and subsidized gasoline sold for five cents a gallon. Today at many busy street corners in Iraq, black market fuel is readily available. In northern Iraq, for example, three kinds of gasoline are available to buyers: a plastic 20 liter jerry can of the cheapest transparent Iraqi gasoline retails for 12,000 dinar. It comes from the northern Iraqi refinery of Beiji. Better quality yellowish Iraqi gasoline retails for 15,000 dinar and comes from the Baghdad refinery of Daura. The best stuff, pale red Iranian gasoline, has been trucked over the mountain and sells for 17,000 dinar for a smaller 16 liter jerry can. This is two to three times the official price, and five times more expensive than in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Paradoxically, while Iraqis have to buy smuggled gasoline from Iran, some of their own reserves are being trafficked in the opposite direction, from Iraq to Iran. Some 600 miles to the south of Penjwin, in the riverside town of Abu al-Khasib, near Basra, a small flotilla of fishing boats sets sail every morning. The boats, filled with fuel supplied by the Iraqi government at the specially subsidized price of just 10,000 dinar a ton (about $7.50), return every night, empty of fish, but stocked with cash. The source of their wealth is Iranian vessels that deliver freight to the harbor of Abu Floos, where prices are almost 100 times higher. Ironically, Colonel Najim Abdulla, the commander of coast guard patrols in Basra, told a reporter that his force is denied enough fuel to pursue the scofflaws. "I can't chase smugglers who are well aware of our shortages," he said. Halliburton & Parsons U.S. contractors have played a key role in the repair and upgrading of Iraq's oil infrastructure and expected the industry to pay for reconstruction. In January 2004, under project Restore Iraqi Oil II (RIO II), the Bush administration contracted with Halliburton to fix southern Iraq's oil fields and with Parsons to handle the northern fields. The two companies were supposed to be supervised by yet another contractor, New Jersey-based Foster Wheeler. (The first RIO contract was the infamous, secret no-bid contract issued to Halliburton before the invasion of Iraq. Although RIO II was competitively bid, Sheryl Tappan, a former Bechtel employee wrote a book criticizing the award as unfair.) Halliburton and Parsons have long histories in Iraq, going back more than 40 years. Brown & Root, which is now part of Halliburton , began work in Iraq in 1961, while Parsons dipped into Iraq's oil sector in the 1950s. Foster Wheeler dates its work in Iraq to the 1930s. These companies have a lot of experience at the terminals where the black market now thrives. Indeed, Halliburton built the ABOT terminal, then known as Mina al-Bakr, in the early1970s. After it was damaged during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Halliburton repaired the terminal, before it was bombed yet again during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The Khor al-Amaya oil terminal also saw a similar cycle of destruction and rebuilding. Built with Halliburton 's help in 1973, it was heavily damaged by Iranian commandos during the Iran-Iraq war, then again during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and most recently in May 2006 by a major fire that destroyed 70 percent of its facilities. During the sanctions, Ingersoll Dresser Pump Company, a Halliburton subsidiary, had a secret contract to sell Iraq spare parts, compressors, and firefighting equipment for the refurbishment. ( Halliburton also a long history near the Turkish port of Ceyhan, from where Iraq sells oil produced at Kirkuk in northern Iraq. Halliburton runs the nearby U.S. military base at Incirlik, which was the staging ground for Operation Northern Watch that provided air protection for the Kurds during the 1990s.) Measuring the Oil With billions of dollars to spend and extensive experience with oil infrastructure and Iraqi ports, Haliburton and Parsons seem unable to deal with the routine problem of broken meters at the Southern Iraq terminals. The kinds of meters they were supposed to repair or replace at ABOT are commonly found at hundreds of similar sites around the world. Because they are custom-built, shipped, then assembled and calibrated on site, the process can take up to a year. But the probelm has persisted for four years. After the 2003 invasion, the meters appear to have been turned off and there have since been no reliable estimates of how much crude has been shipped from the southern oil fields. (The northern oil fields in Kirkuk, which supply the Beiji refinery in Iraq and export crude to the Turkish port of Adana, has reliable metering but little oil to measure since insurgent attacks largely shut down the facility.) Oil Meters Three kinds of meters are used around the world today: positive displacement meters, turbine meters and ultrasonic meters. A displacement meter measures the rate at which compartments of known volume are filled with the liquid or gas; a turbine meter is simply a pipe with a spinner that measures the volume that passes through it; while an ultrasonic meter uses sound frequencies to measure flow rates. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Before the 1991 Gulf War, ten turbine meters were installed on ABOT's platform A, while ABOT's platform B got 16 positive displacement meters. In January 2007, the U.S. government installed ultrasonic meters to verify the older meters. In the late 1990s, the United Nations hired Saybolt International, a Dutch company, to make sure that Saddam Hussein was only selling crude under the Oil-for-Food program. However CorpWatch interviews indicate that the inspectors could not rely on the meters at the time because they were not calibrated. Instead Saybolt relied on a simple and effective way of determining how much was being shipped: It measured the amount of crude loaded into the tankers. Lieutenant Aaron Bergman, the U.S. Navy officer in charge of Mobile Security Squadron 7 at ABOT, says export authorities have "guesstimated" how much is being sold, with a back-of-the-envelope formula: Every centimeter a tanker lowers into the water equals 6,000 barrels of oil cargo. "So you can imagine," he said earlier this month to Stars & Stripes, a newspaper serving the U.S. military, the numbers could be off, "A couple of inches could equal 180,000 barrels of fuel." "I would say probably between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day is probably unaccounted for in Iraq," Mikel Morris, who worked for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Organization (IRMO) at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, told KTVT, a Texas television station. Neither US officials nor contractors have provided good reasons why, four years into the US occupation, the meters have not been calibrated, repaired, or replaced. One excuse is that the job of calibration requires special devices to assess the current meters and security issues make importing these devises problematic. Yet that and other security-related explanations fall apart given that the oil terminals are under 24 hour high security guard, lie more than 50 miles off-shore, and are accessible only by helicopter or ship. There are two possible explanations: that the project has been delayed by bureaucracy or that vested interests benefiting from the lack of oil metering (such as smugglers or corrupt officials) have prevented the project from moving forward. Skyrocketing Costs The RIO II project, which includes the meter repair work, has come under much criticism, although specific details are scarce. For example, the Bush administration issued Halliburton the RIO II order in January 2004 and gave detailed task orders in June. But despite not starting work until November 2004, the company charged the government millions of dollars for engineers who sat idle. Halliburton 's $296 million bill included at least 55 percent overhead. (In an estimate due later this month, SIGIR may predicts even higher overhead costs.) A Parsons joint venture (with Worley of Australia), was also issued a contract in January 2004, given detailed task orders in June, and started work in July 2004. It has also been accused of charging high overhead costs while idle, although not as much as Halliburton . SIGIR estimate pegs its overhead at 43 percent. In addition, in a series of scathing internal reports uncovered by Congressman Henry Waxman, supervisors Foster Wheeler criticized Halliburton 's cost. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a "cure" notice on January 29, 2005, ordering Halliburton to do a better job or else. After Halliburton did improve its cost controls, the military turned over the southern oil work to Parsons in mid 2005. When Parsons took over the contracts, two years after the invasion, it hired a Saudi Arabian sub-contractor, Alaa for Industry, to help repair or replace the meters. The turbine meters were shipped to Kuwait for repairs but do not appear to have been fixed in a timely manner, although some have been fixed and re-installed earlier this year. Unofficial sources suggest that the Kuwaiti bureaucracy delayed the repair work: "The real reason for the hindrance to work at the ABOT is because Kuwait has a vested interest in minimizing Iraqi oil exports," an anonymous source who worked on the project told CorpWatch. His claim could not be verified. In mid-September 2006, the Iraqi oil ministry abruptly announced that it would pull the plug on the oil metering project, making future monitoring even less certain. Asim Jihad, the oil ministry spokesman, told Al Hayat: "The American company had failed in keeping its promise to finish installing these meters; also, refusing to reveal the exact cost, except for saying that it is executing it within the American grant to Iraq and the sum of that grant is unknown to us too. This relieves the ministry from its obligation to it. Besides, many international companies presented good offers to implement the project in a record time due to its importance." The oil ministry then invited British Petroleum and Shell to plan a comprehensive national metering project that would cover not only the oil terminals, but also the productions wells and the even the refineries. A SIGIR team traveled to ABOT in November 2006 to check on progress. Its unpublished report suggests that the work was less than half complete. Suddenly, in December 2006, a high-level U.S. team traveled out to ABOT to inspect the meters. In a little-noticed announcement issued on a Saturday just before Christmas, John Sickman, the resident oil expert at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the meters had been fixed and were working fine. "The measurement using the existing turbine meters and displacement meters at the offshore terminal at ABOT is transparent and the measurement devices are more than adequate," Sickman was quoted in the press release. "Furthermore, the crude oil vessels have measurement and quality samplers." Indeed this is how the Dutch company Saybolt measured oil export under the United Nations Oil for Food program. The problem even today, according to experts consulted by CorpWatch, is that the meters have yet to be calibrated, so the data are basically useless. Even if the meters are working properly, smuggling could still occur. "It's easy to steal crude if you knew what you were doing," Don Deaver, a petroleum metering expert who worked for Exxon for 33 years, told CorpWatch. "If you meaure too low or too high, someone will lose and some will one gain. It's why you need professionals who understand how the meters work to make sure that nothing is being lost or stolen." U.S. government officials claim that little is being stolen. SGS (a British consultancy) "is providing independent third party loading certifications onsite for the customers. This, coupled with the recent installation of ultrasonic meter provides more than redundant measurement capability," said Sickman in December. Days after the press release, in early January 2007, Parsons began work on the meters under a $57.8 million U.S. government-funded contract supervised by Major Dale Winger of the Joint Contracting Command in Basra. Almost as soon as work started, Winger was replaced by Lieutenant Commander Brian Schorn. When CorpWatch reached Schorn, he said he was not up to speed on what work had been done, and referred questions to his "front-office" in Baghdad at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Parsons Iraq Joint Venture spokesman Don Lassus also refused to comment to CorpWatch. The contract with the military does not permit the release of "any unclassified information," he said, without prior approval of the military. Today no government officials have been able to establish conclusively whether oil is being smuggled or not. Even the future of the oil metering remains unclear. The latest report issued by SIGIR in January 2007 notes that repair and rehabilitation work at ABOT is scheduled to be finished by May 2007, but "it is unclear whether this project will be completed because of de-obligation requirements" that is to say that the funding could be cut. This is the second in a series on the failure of reconstruction in Iraq. The first article, on healthcare in Iraq, may be read here: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14290 To contact the author, e-mail pratap@corpwatch.org

Why Housing Is So Important To the US Economy

April 30, 2007

By Bonddad

One of the main reasons I have focused a great deal of attention on housing is its primary role in the current US expansion. From jobs to consumer spending money, housing have been the driver. Below I will explain how this works.

These paragraphs are from an interview in Barron's with Bennett Goodspeed of Inferential Focus (subscription required):

We've been talking about housing for 2½ years. The anomaly of the 2001-2002 recession following the dot-com blowup was that consumer spending never slowed down and personal debt never slowed down. At the same time, real incomes were not increasing. It was the first time in decades where there were five years straight in which real incomes did not increase. Cash-out refinancing and home equity loans filled the gap. This is the first time in the postwar period that the housing market has fueled the economy. It has regularly gone through the cycles with the economy, but it hasn't ever fueled the economy and supported consumer spending. A lot can ripple out from the housing market. We're seeing the first wave. We are suggesting to clients that corporate reactions to protecting earnings might be a hidden factor that could lead to other shock waves involving housing.

Corporate managements have been so well-trained to cut back on expenses to protect earnings that it might be the catalyst that trips the next wave. There's been a huge increase in housing supply on the market, turnover is way down, but prices have plateaued after going down a slight amount. That's because we haven't had any forced sales. If there are corporate layoffs, there will be forced sales. There has been a lot of leverage created in the housing market and it could lead to a significant decline. About 40% of the new jobs in the last four years are housing-related. Housing is 23% of the overall economy. While there are offsets -- commercial real estate is doing well and the government is hiring -- this has the potential to tip the scales. It could lead to the Fed lowering rates, and if we've got to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, it takes the incentive out of owning dollars. That becomes tricky when you consider it's important for the Chinese to help support our economy by continuing to buy dollars.

In the first paragraph Goodspeed is talking about the relation between incomes, consumer spending and household debt. What he's basically saying is incomes didn't increase for a few years but consumer spending continued to increase. That means the money for consumer spending had to come from somewhere, and housing provided the funds in the form of home equity withdrawal (HEW).

Let's coordinate several pieces of data to see what Goodspeed in talking about. (This information is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). In November 2001, the average hourly earnings of production workers was $14.74. This number was $17.22 in March 2006 for an increase of 16.82%. Over the same time, the inflation gauge increased from 177.4 to 205.352 for an increase of 15.756%. That means for the duration of this expansion, wages have increased 1.06%.

At the same same time consumer spending has continued unabated. Personal consumption expenditures were $7.188 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2001 and $9.589 trillion in the first quarter of 2007 for an increase of 33.4%. Using the inflation number from above (15.75%) we get an increase of 17.65% in consumer spending. Yet, wages only increased 1.06%. Where did the extra money come from?

It wasn't from savings. The US savings rate was about 2% of disposable income in November 2001 and has been negative for the last 8 quarters. That means consumers have been dipping into savings to pay for their expenditures. However, the decrease in savings isn't enough to make-up for the increase in consumer spending. Here's a chart.

So let's review. Wages haven't increased much beyond inflation for the duration of this expansion. Yet consumer spending has increased. But consumers aren't dipping into their savings. Where is this extra-money for consumption coming from?

Debt. According to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds Report household debt (mortgage + credit card debt) has increased in a big way during this expansion. In 2000, household debt was 97% of disposable income; at the end of 2006 it was over 130%. over the same period, household debt increased from 74% of GDP to over 90% of GDP.

Let's look at jobs.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there total private employment was 130,883,000 in November 2001 and 137,622,000 in the latest survey. That's a total gain of 6,739,000. over the same period, construction employment was increased from 6,784,000 to 7,713,000 for a gain of 929,000. The BLS classifies real estate jobs under financial services, which increased from 7,845,000 to 8,451,000 over the same period. About 20% of these jobs are real estate related, or 121,000. In addition, over the same period professional services increased from 16,094,000 to 17,829,000 or a gain of 1,735,000. Let's assume that 20% of these are in some way related to real estate (appraisers, architects, lawyers etc..), which is 279,400 jobs. Adding these rough estimates, we get 1,329,000 jobs, or about 20% of the total jobs created. It's important to remember that Goodspeed has a group of talented number-crunchers on his staff who have access to far more detailed information. In other words, comparing his methods to my rough guestimates, I'd be inclined to take his analysis over mine. However, regardless of who's right, even 20% of total jobs is a ton of jobs created by a single industry. The point of all of this is simple: housing has created a ton of jobs in this economy.

SO, as a source of funds to fuel spending and as a driver of employment gains, housing is very important. So far we've seen the housing slowdown hit GDP for 4 quarters in a row. There hasn't been a big hit to employment yet. But with the slowdown in home construction, I wouldn't count on that lasting.

For economic commentary and analysis, go to the Bonddad Blog

Hagel's Stand

By Robert D. Novak

Monday, April 30, 2007; A15

Sen. Chuck Hagel returned from his fifth visit to Iraq to become one of two Republicans to join Senate Democrats in voting Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was not an easy vote for a conservative GOP regular and faithful supporter of President George W. Bush's other policies. A few days earlier, Hagel sat down with me and painted a bleak picture of the war and U.S. policy.

Over a dozen years, I have had many such conversations with Hagel, but not for quotation. This time, I asked him to go on the record about his assessment of what the "surge" has accomplished. In language more blunt than his prepared speeches and articles, he described Iraq as "coming undone," with its regime "weaker by the day." He deplored the Bush administration's failure to craft a coherent Middle East policy, blaming the influence of deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams.

Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision -- whether to run for president, to seek reelection next year or to get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush's war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet that message faces rejection from GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the right at home in Nebraska (with Jon Bruning, the state's 38-year-old Republican attorney general, threatening to run against him).

After his latest visit to Iraq, with stops in Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi, Hagel told me: "This thing is really coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister] Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt, top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can't get anything through the parliament -- no hydrocarbon law, no de-Baathification law, no provincial elections," which are needed to bring Sunnis into the governing process.

The regional problem, as described by Hagel, is a U.S. policy breakdown with the failure to engage Iran and Syria. "I do know that there are a number of Israelis who would like to engage Syria," said Hagel. "They have said that Elliott Abrams keeps pushing them back." He quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former U.S. officials as saying that they believe Abrams "is making policy in the Middle East."

Hagel certainly is no peace-now zealot. "We're not going to precipitously pull out," he told me. "We have [national] interests in Iraq." While he asserted that "we can't get out by the end of the year," he called for "pulling some of our guys out -- not all of them, but you've got to get them out of [Baghdad] at least, get them out of the middle of civil war." If not, Hagel said, "then the prospects of the Republican Party are very dim next year."

What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

"That's nonsense," Hagel replied. "I've never believed that. That's the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neocons used to get us into this mess and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would."

It is "nonsense," Hagel said, because "Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today." Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited "national intelligence" attributing "maybe 10 percent" of the insurgency and violence to al-Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al-Qaeda: "They don't like the terrorists. What's happened in Anbar province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al-Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al-Qaeda."

"So," said Hagel, "when I hear people say, 'Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos' -- what do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous."

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska's Republican Party and who has earned a lifetime conservative voting rating of 85.2 percent from the American Conservative Union. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats' personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.

2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Did Murdoch Bribe Tenet?

April 29, 2007

by RJMac

The heavily promoted George Tenet interview on 60 Minutes was good television. He was combative and defensive, so hyper flailing about in his chair that the cameraman had to work to keep him in the shot.

Beyond the frenetic body language, Tenet made two points which seem to make sense on the surface. He claims he was giving dire warning to Condoleezza Rice about Al Qaeda threats in the summer of 2001 and the warnings apparently went over her head. And he claims launching the war in Iraq never made sense to him.

Both those things are probably true. But Tenet didn't do much to change things at the time, and he waited years to tell the American public.

In the meantime he accepted the Medal of Freedom from the president, and also accepted a book advance said to be $4 million from Harper Collins, a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch.

More than ten years ago, Harper Collins drew fire when it announced it was paying $4.5 million to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House. It looked like a bribe from Murdoch, and Gingrich wound up having to forfeit the massive advance. Tenet doesn’t work for the government now and doesn’t have to give back the millions he’s getting from Murdoch.

A number of former CIA people have started a campaign demanding that Tenet give back the Medal of Freedom that Bush gave him. They’re excoriating him for not speaking up back when it might have done some good.

And people have started to find factual problems with Tenet’s memories. In the 60 Minutes interview Tenet talks about Richard Perle talking to him on the day after 9/11 and already starting the push to go to war against Iraq. Perle’s defenders are already saying tonight that he wasn’t even in the US on 9/12/01; they claim Perle was in France, where he was stranded for several days during the ban on air travel.

And Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst who has several axes to grind, wrote a piece for the Washington Post headlined "Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It." Scheuer notes that some of what Tenet is saying today about Rice's negligence in the summer of 2001 is substantially different than what he told the 9/11 Commission.

As the book gets out to the public this week, you can bet on a fact checking feeding frenzy.

Tenet’s game seems obvious enough: salvage some of his reputation, settle a few scores, and make some money.

The more interesting question is whether Murdoch and his people are just making some money publishing a book or whether they are playing a deeper game.

It’s hard to imagine that anything George Tenet says at this point will really change any opinions about the Bush administration.

But whenever Murdoch made the deal for Tenet’s book, it might have looked like a smart move to lock up the memoirs by the CIA chief during 9/11 and the launching of the Iraq war.

Some fast research indicates that Tenet actually signed with a division of Random House to write a book back in late 2004, but that deal was canceled just a few months later. The deal with Murdoch's Harper Collins then came along in 2005, and the publication date was postponed several times, according to articles in Publishers Weekly.

However the book deal happened, Tenet is suddenly highly visible after being out of public view for a few years. Murdoch’s company is promoting the book heavily, buying full page ads in papers and booking Tenet all over television this week.

And while Tenet is critical of members of the Bush administration, Bush himself seems to be immune from any criticism. On 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley asked if receiving the Medal of Freedom is why Bush gets a “free pass.” Tenet appears uncomfortable and evasive, suddenly looking off to the side, and says, “That’s the most outrageous thing I’ve ever heard.”

Tenet today claims he wasn’t convinced there was a need to go to war with Iraq. Yet there he is in the videotapes, sitting right behind Colin Powell at the UN as Powell lied his ass off before the world.

Tenet comes off as a sycophant who was telling Bush what he thought Bush wanted to hear. And who is now making up stories to justify his own incompetence and spinelessness at a time when he could have prevented disasters from taking place.

And that’s actually helpful to Bush’s defenders. Murdoch has put Tenet right where he wants him. People can point to Tenet, catch him in lies, note (of course) that he was Clinton’s CIA chief first, and argue the point that it's no wonder the president was misled on the intelligence. Look at the guy who was head of the CIA.

Tenet is left holding the bag. But at least he finds $4 million bucks in it.

Posted by RJMac at 7:54 PM | Permalink

Rice: Imminent Threat Doesn't Mean a Threat That Someone Will Strike Soon

Interview on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
April 29, 2007

QUESTION: Welcome back to This Week.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Good morning, George.

QUESTION: So I've talked to many Republican and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Here's what the possible compromise looks like: the Democrats drop the deadline timeline for withdrawal, but benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet are written into the bill. Can the President accept that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President has said that he will not accept anything that constitutes a timeline for American withdrawal. And he certainly, after he gets the bill that's there, he's going to veto it, and then he said that he wants to invite the leadership down to the White House to talk about how we move forward together, because everyone would like to move forward together.

Now, as to benchmarks, let's remember that these are benchmarks that the Iraqi Government set for itself. We are doing everything we can to impress upon the Iraqi Government the importance of getting their national reconciliation --

QUESTION: So you have no objection to them being in the law?

SECRETARY RICE: The problem is that if you try and make consequences about these benchmarks, you're tying the hands of General Petreaus and the hands of Ambassador Crocker. We shouldn't tie our own hands in using the tools that we have to help the Iraqis along with national reconciliation. It's quite possible to send a strong message to the Iraqis, as Secretary Gates did, as the Congress is doing, that the American people do not have limitless patience in this. And the President himself, in every conversation with Iraqis, is telling them exactly that.

QUESTION: Yet it doesn't seem to be working. You say the Iraqis want to meet these benchmarks -- a new oil law, a de-Baathification law, constitutional reforms. But The Washington Post reported this week that little or no progress was being made on these benchmarks. It quotes the Administration's old ally, Ahmed Chalabi. He says, "They're all up in the air. They are certainly not going to be produced in any timetable that is acceptable within the context of the current political climate in the United States."

General Petraeus said we're going to reevaluate everything in September. Must the Iraqis meet the benchmarks by then?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, clearly we're going to be evaluating along the way, but given that this plan is really just underway, the plan that the President launched in January, we believe it prudent and right to take a hard look in September. I don't think we'll wait till September, by the way, to begin to look at how we're doing and how the Iraqis are doing. But I would say this, George: It is not just the American context that's important here; it's the Iraqi context. Iraqis will lose patience with their own government if they can't move forward on reconciliation. This is a point that Ambassador Crocker, that General Petraeus is making to the Iraqis every day. They are making some progress.

QUESTION: So Prime Minister Maliki will lose his job; is that what you're saying?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I'm just saying that the Iraqis themselves -- we support Prime Minister Maliki and I think he is trying to do what is best for his country. But he also needs help. He needs help from Sunni leaders. He needs help from Kurdish leaders. The oil law, for instance, is very close to being completed. They need to complete it. We're making that case. And I think they will finally make progress on that.

QUESTION: This summer? Will they complete it this summer?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think they have to. The --

QUESTION: What happens if they don't?

SECRETARY RICE: If they don't, then they're not going to be making the kind of progress on national reconciliation that gives the Iraqis a view of a future together.

QUESTION: But how about the Americans? How much longer can Americans sacrifice if the Iraqis aren't going to make the decisions they need to make?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Iraqis are sacrificing, too, George. They're dying in large numbers. Every day, Iraqis get up to face terrible circumstances because groups like al-Qaida continue to blow up innocent people. Members of this Iraqi Government have lost many members of their own families, sacrificing to make a national unity government work. This is very, very difficult.

But you're right; the United States is paying in blood and treasure. Iraqis -- the Iraqi leadership is being told and I think they understand that the kind of Iraq that there is going to be is up to them. We can't give them a united Iraq. Everyone needs to pull together in that country and there are examples where it is happening. In Ramadi, in Anbar, a province that used to mean by its very name that the terrorists were in control, is a province now where the sheikhs, the leadership, the tribal leadership is coming together not just to fight the foreign fighters and the al-Qaida but also to start to rebuild the province.

QUESTION: That may be true, but American casualties are up 53 percent this year over the first quarter of last year and civilian casualties, even though we're not getting the full picture from the Iraqis, are also up this year.

SECRETARY RICE: There's no doubt that the violence post-Samarra bombing of February 2006 has been very dramatic. And frankly, the al-Qaida idea there, the al-Qaida strategy under Zarqawi to set Iraqis against one another was a strategy that had some success. But you're seeing now with the President's plan efforts to give the Iraqis some breathing space using American forces along with their Iraqi counterparts to try to provide population security --

QUESTION: How much time do they have?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we need to give it some time to work. But the President and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker talk every -- practically every -- certainly every week about how these timelines have to move forward. What we don't want to do, George, is to tie our own hands so that we cannot act creatively and flexibly to support the very policies in Iraq that we're trying to support.

QUESTION: This week you'll be traveling to the Middle East --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- to Sharm el-Sheikh for an international conference on Iraq. We just learned this morning from the Iraqi Prime Minister that the Iranians, the Iranian Foreign Minister, will attend this meeting. Will you meet directly with the Iranian Foreign Minister?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I wouldn't rule it out because this is not a meeting about the United States and Iran; this is a meeting about Iraq and about what Iraq's neighbors and interested parties can do to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. If indeed everyone at that table believes that a stable Iraq is indeed in their interest, then there are steps that they need to start to take to help stabilize Iraq.

QUESTION: What will you ask the Iranians to do and what can you offer them in return?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, this is not a negotiating session between the United States and Iran. If I have the opportunity, if the opportunity presents itself, then perhaps --

QUESTION: Will you seek it out?

SECRETARY RICE: -- perhaps we'll have a chance. I would --

QUESTION: Well, that's up to you, isn't it?

SECRETARY RICE: I won't -- I won't rule --

QUESTION: You can go up to him and say let's meet.

SECRETARY RICE: I will not rule out that we may encounter one another. But what do we need to do? It's quite obvious: Stop the flow of arms to foreign fighters; stop the flow of foreign fighters across the borders; stop using advanced IED technology to kill American soldiers; stop stirring up trouble among militias that then go and kill innocent Iraqis. It's quite clear what needs to be done.

QUESTION: CIA Director George Tenet -- former CIA Director George Tenet has a book coming out tomorrow called, At the Center of the Storm. A lot of news in that book. Probably the most startling two sentence of the book go like this. He says, "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the Administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat, nor was there ever a significant discussion regarding enhanced sanctions or the costs and benefits of such an approach versus full-out planning for overt and covert regime change."

Is that true?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, George served very well and we all worked together in very difficult times and I respect him as a colleague. The truth of the matter is the President started a discussion practically on the day that he took power about how to enhance sanctions against Iraq. You may remember that in his first press conference he said the sanctions have become Swiss cheese. We then went through an extended period of what we called smart sanctions review, trying to tighten the sanctions, trying to take off the tables ones that didn't really have to be enforced. We then went -- Colin Powell went to the UN and we had a new committee to try to put together tighter sanctions. We even went so far as to go to certain countries in the neighborhood -- Syria, for instance -- and say tighten down on the illegal oil shipments that are coming in under the sanctions. Don Rumsfeld led a review of trying to tighten the no-fly zones so that we could better police Saddam Hussein's forces.

QUESTION: So it's not true?

SECRETARY RICE: This went on for a very long time. I was very involved in it.

QUESTION: Was there discussions though about whether or not Iraq posed an imminent threat?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, there was certainly a discussion of whether or not the totality of the picture of Iraq -- and yes, the intelligence was very critical here, but it was also that he was challenging us in no-fly zones all the time. It was that we had gone to war against him in 1998 to try to deal with his weapons of mass destruction. It was that the intelligence showed, or it thought, that he had reconstituted his biological and chemical weapons programs and was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program.

The question was how long were you going to wait given that it appeared that the situation was getting worse.

QUESTION: And looking back, do you think Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States?

SECRETARY RICE: I think that -- an imminent threat. Certainly, Iraq posed a threat and the question was was it going to get worse over time or was it going to get better. And our assessment was that it was getting worse because of the way that the intelligence talked about his programs, because he was very aggressive in the no-fly zones, because he continued to talk about Kuwait as a province of Iraq. We had gone to war against him in 1991. We'd gone -- used military force against him in 1998. The idea that somehow Iraq was a benign presence in the Middle East that could continue without weapons inspectors on their territory, just to move along, it seems to me that this makes no sense.

QUESTION: Not an imminent threat?

SECRETARY RICE: George, the question of imminence isn't whether or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow. It's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with a threat or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow. And it was the President's assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse from our point of view, and we do know that of course Saddam Hussein was subverting the sanctions. The Oil-for-Food program had become a scandal. The Iraqi people were living under Draconian sanctions that were making life more difficult even as Saddam Hussein was putting more and more people in mass graves. This was a threat that needed to be dealt with.

But it was the totality of the picture against Saddam Hussein that led the President to the decision that he made, but only after he had gone to the United Nations yet again in September of 2002 to get another resolution to try to compel Saddam Hussein to finally demonstrate to the world that he was complying with the multiple resolutions under which he was acting.

QUESTION: You received a subpoena this week from the House Committee on Government Oversight. They want to look into how the White House -- you were National Security Advisor at the time -- handled prewar intelligence. And Chairman Waxman said at the hearing that one of the things he wants to look at is a statement you made on this program back in June 2003. I had asked you about the famous 16 words in the State of the Union about Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa. Here's what you said:

SECRETARY RICE (from video tape): "We actually do go through the process of asking the intelligence community, 'Can you say this, can you say that, can you say this?' The intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this --

QUESTION (from video tape): Well, let me show you something --

SECRETARY RICE (from video tape): -- that there were some serious questions about this report."

QUESTION: That statement wasn't true. You and your Deputy had both received memos in October 2002 from the CIA about this intelligence and they had raised serious questions about it.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, George, I have answered these questions for Congressman Waxman by letter and also in the questions for the record as a part of my own confirmation hearing. The fact of the matter is that we have made very -- we made very clear at the time that the Niger issue was in the National Intelligence Estimate. I've said, and I said in my letter to Chairman Waxman, that I did not remember, didn't recall, that there had been a memorandum from the CIA at the time, three and a half months before the State of the Union, saying that this should be taken out of the Cincinnati speech. And Steve Hadley has attested to the same thing. Maybe we should have remembered. We didn't.

But the fact is that this is one of the most investigated issues that I can remember. It was investigated by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. It was investigated by the bipartisan commission of Larry Silberman and Chuck Robb.

QUESTION: Neither one of those groups looked at how the White House handled the intelligence.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, indeed, how the intelligence was gotten to policymakers, how it got into the speech -- all of these things have actually been examined by Robb-Silberman, by the Senate Intelligence Committee. We've commented on it on the record. Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley went through an exhaustive discussion of how it happened.

Look, I was National Security Advisor. I feel responsibility for the fact that something got in the President's speech that in retrospect probably shouldn't have. But the fact of the matter is we all thought at the time that it was in the State of the Union that it was a credible claim. It was in the National Intelligence Estimate. It had been in the British report which the President cited and --

QUESTION: George Tenet writes that it had been taken out not out of one speech, not just the October speech. He writes in this book it had also been taken out by you from a September speech.

SECRETARY RICE: George, this claim has been investigated and investigated and investigated. I would just ask people to go back and read the multiple reports about this particular incident. Go back and read all that is on the public record. Go back and read my answers to --

QUESTION: If that's all true, why not just testify? Why not comply with the subpoena?

SECRETARY RICE: Because, George, there is an important principle here and this is a White House matter now. It is the case that the compellence of White House staff -- it's a separation of powers issue to testify before a congressional committee is an important constitutional issue.

QUESTION: But dozens of White House staffers have testified to Congress, including Admiral Poindexter for President Reagan.

SECRETARY RICE: And many, many, many have not on the same principle. I testified before the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the President made clear that he did not consider that a precedent, but that the overwhelming concerns about 9/11 did make it necessary. We're talking about something here that has been investigated and examined and talked about and where I think if people look at the record they will see that the answers are there.

QUESTION: Chairman Waxman says he's going to move to find you in contempt.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, that's the Chairman's prerogative. I respect the oversight responsibilities of Congress, but I frankly think this one has been looked at and looked at and looked at.

QUESTION: So you're not going to comply.

SECRETARY RICE: And what I'm going to do is to concentrate on what I need to do, which is to prepare for this very important meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh a couple of days from now.

QUESTION: One final question. The front page of The Washington Post this morning: "After Katrina, U.S. Did Not Accept Most Offers of Aid." It said that allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash, but only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction. According to U.S. officials and contractors, most of the aid went uncollected including $400 million worth of oil.

How can that be?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, the fact is that we received a lot of very generous offers from people at the time of Katrina. It was a new circumstance. The United States is, frankly, not accustomed to receiving large-scale foreign assistance offers. We did tell people on a number of occasions that it might be useful to have this assistance go to private concerns like, for instance, the Bush-Clinton effort for Katrina. We thought that that and the Red Cross might be the most efficacious way for people to get their aid there.

But we used a lot of the aid. Some of it couldn't be used. Some of it was in-kind in ways that the United States could not use it. But a lot of it was used and a lot of it is still being used to help the victims. I've been particularly proud of some of the work that's been done with historically black colleges and schools in Louisiana and Mississippi.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much.

2007/336

Released on April 29, 2007

Israel's Citibank Fischer to World Bank! Turkey and Estonia Explode

Sunday, April 29, 2007

The Citibank circle expands. Wolfowitz goes, not so quietly, so that Citibank Executive Stanley Fischer, our man in Israel, can replace him at the World Bank! www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853148.html
To understand this happy coincidence of events, see my blog entry from December 7, 2006, www.karlmarxwasright.blogspot.com/2006/12/our-man-in-lebanon-citibank-exec-fouad.html
Following forward from this previous blog entry of December 7, 2006 with more information not included in it, I linked to an article which said Turkey's Akbank is now partnered with Citibank and Iran's Parsian and, in turn, Akbank is bidding for Turkey's second largest state bank, Halkbank. Here's the direct link regarding this from a previous blog, www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=64417
Further on, recently, "Turkey's Halkbank Launches IPO" www.referansgazetesi.com/haber.aspx?HBR_KOD=65578&KO5_KOD=82&ForArsiv=1
Unfortunately for them all, Turkey's political volatility continues, a story I've been following, and "the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray..." Over a million demonstrated in Turkey today, and, as well, Turkey's military has issued more warnings to the Islamist forces in government, www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=173637 Reporting about this abounds on the internet.

Now, flowing forward, regarding the World Bank, IMF, the UN and all of their upcoming roles in Iraq, at the following website you will find all the information labelled the "International Compact with Iraq," and the UN sponsored upcoming conference in Egypt on May 3, www.iraqcompact.org/AboutCompact.asp
About this, just this morning, I happened to listen, that is, monitor, on C-Span, a call-in program with director of Iraq's Red Crescent, another from the bottomless pit of Iraq expatriates and anti-Saddamists, Dr. Said Hakki, discussing the necessity for international intervention and collaboration on Iraq's humanitarian crisis, the origins of which he managed to attribute to Hussein. For more in addition to all the material I have/had on my blogs on the economic, political and military formula to internationalize Iraq, altho you can't access the full stories without a subscription, nonetheless, go to www.noozz.com/Iraq/Index.aspx
And in the south of Iraq, related to all of the above, "Basra Factions Gear Up for Fight," www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news/2007-04-28/kurd.htm Lots more available on this from multiple sources. The dispute surrounding Iraq's new oil law continues, "Iraq's Oil Deals Must Only be Signed by Central Government," www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16884.html In regard to resolving the above, once more, you can expect Maliki's disappearance along with Allawi's reappearance and the World Bank, IMF and UN.

While all this is happening, riots, protests and death occured in Estonia. rioting and death which received almost no media attention in the US. People to whom I've spoken, here, those NOT on the internet, are completely unaware of these explosive Estonian developments, much less its meaning and significance. I've had lots and lots of information on my previous blogs regarding the relationship of the US Congressional Baltic Caucus, Kucinich, PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) and their equation of Nazism with Communism, the recent unanimous US Congress's NATO Expansion Act, missile defense in Eastern Europe, the interlocking relationships of those above with the folks and position of progressivegovernment.org, their role in internationalizing Iraq, "Washington's Geostrategic Shift and Silent Coup," etc. Not only is the American corporate and commercial media predictably silent about all this, or, spinning it as they will, but, as well, a deafening, pall like conspiracy of silence permeates those who present themselves in a totally unprincipled manner as the official spokespersons for the "peace movement," the "Left," liberals, organized labor, alternatives, opposition, and on and on. Well, ALL of them bear the ENORMOUS historical consequences, repercussions and implications of what follows from their unprincipled, opportunistic silence, complicity, duplicity, lack of courage, outrage, protest and "righteous indignation."

To understand the real meaning of my blog, I will end with an eloquent blog entry about Iraq from someone else. The author of this blog is too young, (she has stated her age in a previous blog) to recall WWII, directly. That is fortunate for her. Unfortunate for her, and, all of us, however, is that her horrors are not historically new ones. They are a continuum of WWII, which never really ended, but, morphed, instead, into "Cold War" policies. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they are now official policy and Hot War. So, her piece, "Something About Liberation..."www.uruknet.de/?p=m32492&hd=&size=1&l=e

posted by karlmarx at 6:00 PM

Don't call it discrimination

Arab citizens of Israel have an inferior status and face a separate and unequal reality.

April 30, 2007 10:30 AM

Nimer Sultany

Imagine the following situation in the United States:

The US amends the constitution to define itself as a "White Evangelical and democratic state" and leaves "equal protection of the laws" outside the constitution; a federal organ called the White Evangelical National Fund promotes settlement and allocation of land for White Evangelicals only; a federal organ called White Evangelical Agency encourages and helps White Evangelicals all over the world to immigrate to the US since it is the Promised Land for Whites; a federally-funded Center for Demography working to increase the birthrates of White Evangelicals to ensure their status as a majority and discusses ways to "persuade" non-white citizens to have less children; a federal Immigration and Absorption Department dedicated exclusively for White Evangelicals; a law prohibiting mixed marriages inside the US between American citizens and non-White-Evangelical foreigners (the Supreme Court upholds the law since Earl Warren is no longer on the bench); an immigration law providing automatic citizenship and financial government benefits for White Evangelicals only; the administration declares most of the private lands as public domain owned collectively by white people, and non-whites are denied any rights in these lands; the president appoints a Chief Evangelical Priest for the US, the administration funds his office as well as dozens of White Evangelical religious schools and institutions, and the Congress starts its session after the elections by reading Biblical verses; the head of the FBI publicly states that non-white citizens are "strategic threat" and "demographic threat" to the White Evangelical character of the country; some members of the Congress publicly and routinely demand the expulsion of the non-white citizens; 65% of the white majority regularly expresses in public opinion polls its demand from the administration to encourage the emigration of non-whites outside the country; and 60 years of constant official state of emergency with Emergency Regulations invoked occasionally to prevent non-white leaders from leaving the country and to close their newspapers and NGOs.

Unfortunately this is the daily reality of the Palestinian-Arab citizens in Israel (18% of the total population). All the above-mentioned elements, and more, exist in the Israeli law and political culture: Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency, etc. Yet, many pro-Israelis defy the facts and still argue that Israel is a democracy where Jews and Arabs have equal rights.

Conversely, Israeli NGOs, international human rights organisations and UN committees regularly expose and protest about the situation of the Palestinian citizens in Israel. The UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights, to mention one example, expressed in 1998 and 2003 its concern that the "excessive emphasis upon the state as a 'Jewish State' encourages discrimination and accords a second-class status to its non-Jewish citizens".

A recent study has revealed that the Human Development Index (a measure for standard of living, poverty, and progress) of the Arab minority in Israel ranks in the 66th place out of 177 countries - very similar to Libya, and 43 slots below the general ranking of Israel, which is 23rd. The GDP per capita for the Arab minority is a third of the GDP per capita of the Jewish majority, and is identical to the GDP per capita of Romania and Iran. The level of health amongst the Arab population is lower than countries like Costa Rica and Cuba.

Various studies have shown that: 60% of the Arab families in Israel are poor; 60% of the poor children in Israel are Arab; 90% of the Arab citizens live in communities ranked in the bottom three clusters of local communities in economic terms; 92% live in separate Arab communities; dozens of Arab villages lack any basic services (water, electricity, sewage, health care, education system, etc), and their homes are constantly threatened by demolition and frequently demolished. These villages are unrecognised by Israeli law in spite of the fact that they had existed long before the law was enacted, or even before the state existed.

Six hundred Jewish communities have been established since 1948, but not a single Arab community; 85% of the Arab citizens' lands have been confiscated since 1948; 96% of the land in Israel is owned by the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Agency. Arab citizens are virtually prohibited from buying, leasing or using these lands.

Sometimes people think that separation walls exist only in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, separation walls exist also inside Israel separating between Arab and Jewish citizens. Here are three examples:

In the city of Led between the Arab neighborhood Pardes Shnir and the Jewish Nir Zvi, Sharon's government and Led's local municipality built a wall more than four metres (13 ft) high and 1.5 km long.

In the city of Ramleh between the Arab Jawarish and the Jewish Ganei Dan, there is a wall 4 meters high and 2 km long.

Between the wealthy Jewish city of Caesarea and the poor Arab village of Jisr Az-zarka a dirt mount six metres (20 ft) high and one kilometre long was built by the Jewish city.

Moreover, routinely in places like Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jerusalem, Led, Migdal, Safed, Ramleh, Karmiel, Yerocham, and Rakefet organised groups call for expelling Arab students, workers or residents or blocking them from residing in Jewish cities. Sometimes this is done with the help of the local municipality or the government. The "arguments" are familiar: they corrupt our women, they contaminate our spiritual life, they bring crime and noise, they are unpleasant, and they lower the value of our apartments.

Sometimes it is argued that the analogy to South African apartheid in false since Arab citizens have the right to vote as well as to be elected to the parliament. However, Coloureds and Indians were able to vote in South Africa after the constitutional reforms in 1983, and nobody claimed that this stopped the apartheid from being apartheid. The same goes for Israel.

In sum, the Palestinian-Arab citizens are granted an inferior citizenship and face a separate and unequal reality. Hence the false argument that "Arabs and Jews are equal citizens" amounts to either ignorance or ideological blindness (or both). The fact that most of the Jewish citizens perceive Israel as a democratic state is unsurprising. In fact, this is another similarity between Israel and South Africa under apartheid: the privileged whites argued all the time - until the collapse of the regime - that it was a "democratic" system.

Nimer Sultany is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and currently a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School.

He has worked as a human rights lawyer in the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as the head of the political monitoring project
at Mada al-Carmel (the Arab centre for applied social research).

SUPER-IMPERIALISM: The Shameful Legacy Of Liberal Democrats

April 29, 2007

By Carolyn Baker

It is a war against the globalization of the market, against the destruction of nature adn the confiscation of resources, against the termination of indigenous peoples and their lands, against the growing maldistribution of wealth and the consequent decline in standards of living for all but the rich.

Andrew Kopkind

Professor Michael Hudson, an independent Wall St. financial economist, has written an extraordinary book entitled Super Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals Of U.S. World Dominance. I first heard of Michael Hudson when browsing Bonnie Faulkner’s “Guns And Butter” website, and as I listened to him, I knew that I needed to read Super Imperialism for many reasons, not the least of which is that I am not an economist and am only beginning to educate myself on how the money works in the domestic and world economies. For this reason, I have been reluctant to write a review of Hudson’s book; I am still learning, as are many of my readers, about dysfunctional and oppressive economic systems and how they work, as well as learning about how a healthy economy might function to meet the needs of its citizenry without harming them or the ecosystem. That said, as an historian, I believe that in order to fully appreciate the current tyranny of centralized financial systems, it is necessary to understand how they evolved within the past six decades.

While reading Hudson’s book I quickly realized that it is a crucial companion to Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy of books on U.S. imperialism, namely, Blowback, The Sorrows Of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson’s emphasis is primarily on the military aspects of U.S. imperialism since the end of World War II, with much less focus on American economic imperialism during that era.

In the current milieu of blatant neo-conservative world domination rhetoric and behavior, it is oh so tempting to believe that the Republican Party and political conservatism have been historically at the forefront of an imperialist foreign policy. What is crucial to understand is that from an historical perspective, the economic imperialism engineered by the United States was overwhelmingly the brain child of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Bretton Woods

Hudson takes us back to 1945 when the United States was the most powerful creditor nation on earth, having lent billions to other nations during and after World War II. Today, the U.S. is the most powerful debtor nation on earth, and Super Imperialism describes and documents superbly how such a stunning reversal of economic positioning occurred.

Although corporations and centralized financial systems were the means by which economic imperialism was implemented, …it is not to the corporate sector that one must look to find the roots of modern international economic relations as much as to U.S. Government pressure on central banks and on multilateral organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization….At the root of this new form of imperialism is the exploitation of governments by a single government, that of the United States, via the central banks and multilateral control institutions of intergovernmental capital rather than via the activities of private corporations seeking profit. What has turned the older forms of imperialism into a super imperialism is that whereas prior to the 1960s the U.S. Government dominated international organizations by virtue of its preeminent creditor status, since that time it has done so by virtue of its debtor status. (23-24)

The genesis of this re-positioning was the International Monetary and Financial Conference of 1944 held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire out of which was born the Bretton Woods System of “international monetary management for commercial and financial relations among the world’s industrial states.” It was there that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were established, and as Hudson notes, “The U.S. economy was enabled to draw the finances of other governments into an international cartel directed by its own policy-makers, dominated by U.S. officials and their appointees.” (139)

As I have noted in my recent book U.S.HISTORY UNCENSORED: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You, the ultimate “cure” for the Great Depression was not the New Deal and its economic programs, but World War II, out of which the U.S. emerged not only as the most powerful nation militarily, but economically as well. A number of modern historians have speculated that one reason Franklin Roosevelt’s administration failed to intervene economically to undercut Hitler’s rise to power was Roosevelt’s ultimate dream: that the U.S. would emerge from war as the most powerful nation on earth economically and militarily, forever precluding, in Roosevelt’s mind, the possibility of another Great Depression. FDR’s dream was realized, making possible the economic supremacy of the United States during and subsequent to the Bretton Woods conference, without which the U.S. could never have achieved the commanding position it assumed at the momentous gathering of nations.

Hudson seems unable to overemphasize the auspiciousness of America’s post-war preeminence:

What occurred after World War II was nothing less than an inversion of the law of nations as it had been evolving for centuries, at least on the part of Europe if not that of the United States. The most basic principle of international law is that nations are equals with regard to their rights and policy-making autonomy. In addition to this legal principle is a basic behavioral law of diplomacy: in a world of nation-states it is unnatural for any nation to abrogate its international position voluntarily….Europe demurred from pressing its self-interest at any point where this conflicted with that of the United States. Exhausted by war, it voluntarily abrogated what had been more than four centuries of imperial ambitions. (265)

To American diplomats the United States simply was living up to its historic destiny as world leader when they formulated their plans for the postwar world at Bretton Woods. In their idealism they anticipated that the breakup of nationhood—at least on the part of foreign countries—would inaugurate a world economy of peaceful interdependence and perhaps even altruism. They did not ponder how alien this concept was to the basic principle of nationhood, that no nation can be expected to relinquish its independence with regard to economic policy-making. Nonetheless, American now asked, and received, European capitulation on every major point of postwar relations. (265)

Pegging international currency to the dollar, backed by the gold standard, the U.S. continued to exert economic supremacy throughout the Cold War era. Although the Bretton Woods system “officially” collapsed in 1971 when the U.S. suspended convertibility from dollars to gold, America’s economic dominance did not subside with abandonment of the gold standard.

In fact says Hudson, “The key to understanding today’s dollar standard is to see that it has the form of gold bullion. While applying creditor-oriented rules against Third World countries and other debtors, the IMF pursues a double standard with regard to the United States. It has established rules to monetize the deficits the United States runs up as the world’s leading debtor, above all by the U.S. government to foreign governments and their central banks.” (35)

Everyone got something as a result of Bretton Woods, but ultimately the cost was untenable. Europe received resources it could have never acquired otherwise and assistance in rebuilding after the World War II, but its war debts remained on the books. Developing nations, particularly the agriculturally backward ones, received resources as well, but the price they have paid has been nothing less than brutal. Hudson states that the United States “simply anticipated that these countries would increase their purchases of American farm products, which they could have produced for themselves if only they had set out to restructure their agricultural sectors.” (186) The World Bank and IMF were “protectionist” in the sense that they protected U.S. investors against foreign commercial nationalism. Any movement by developing countries toward industrial and agricultural self-sufficiency was halted and reversed, leading to increased impoverishment of developing countries since World War II. (187)

Throughout the book, Hudson is perhaps kinder than he should be. Although he does not use the term, what he is superbly describing and documenting in his book is economic warfare far more brutal and merciless than the limited-hangout offered by John Perkins’ Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man on which Catherine Austin Fitts comments:

In the process of providing a colorful account of a 1970s whodunit (complete with low tech strategies devoid of the dazzling technology toolkit that is now an essential part of the economic hit man's weaponry of economic warfare), Perkins delivers to readers the "big lie": he reveals the secret that there is no greater conspiracy. This is simply globalization run amok, he would have us believe. Somehow, this particular conspiracy theory seems charmingly credible as part of a "confession." Perkins admits to what is known and then uses the credibility created by his "limited hangout" to further obscure the reality of who's who in the real governance of global investment and risk management. We are to presume that the investment networks in and around the Harvard Corporation, the City of London, the Vatican and investment managers and bankers for the proceeds of transnational organized crime are simply good-hearted fellows who let things get out of hand.

What the United States never addressed in developing countries, and still is not addressing, are the oppressive and corrupt institutions of those nations that manage inequity in land distribution, tax structures, and the allocation of natural resources. One consequence of refusing to do so was “to draw population from the countryside to the cities in search of employment. But the growth of industrial hiring was insufficient to absorb this rural exodus.” (207)

In recent years, living as I do near the U.S./Mexican border, I have observed firsthand the myriad ways in which this destructive pattern plays out. Hundreds of thousands of dispossessed people from rural Mexico, particularly its southern regions, migrate to Mexican border towns where if they are fortunate, they find jobs in maquiladoras which are overwhelmingly owned and managed by U.S. corporations. Currently, many of these corporations are leaving Mexico and moving their operations to China or Southeast Asia where labor is even cheaper and tax loopholes even sweeter than they are in Mexico. As they do so, they leave behind environmental devastation and a large number of unemployed, dispossessed people who end up on the streets or make desperate attempts to enter the U.S. illegally. Saul Landau’s excellent documentary on these issues, “Maquila, A Tale Of Two Mexicos”, may be watched online.

When super-imperialism is fully understood, the “mystery” of illegal immigration will immediately be resolved. It is as if the international corporatocracy of world dominance functions like a giant broom sweeping the dispossessed into the United States where they are greeted by the domestic corporatocracy and further exploited as wage-slave laborers with all the accoutrements of “the good life, huaraches exchanged for vinyl sandals made in China and corn tortillas supplanted by “happy meals.” One can only wonder what this government’s policy will be when the dire consequences of Peak Oil and climate-chaos drought hit the fan. What then will be America’s border policy? Today, gorging itself on cheap labor, the corporatocracy sucks up taxpayer money to build meaningless border fences that it knows will not deter the illegal workers it needs, but when Walmarts have weeds growing in their parking lots and thousands of meat packing plants have shut down because only the very wealthy can afford to remain carnivorous, we will see how many new immigrants will be allowed to inhabit the U.S. and consume the last drops of its water and oil.

As a result of the mass exodus to cities, food prices have soared in numerous developing countries so that people who have relocated in cities are working primarily to get the money to buy the food they eat. Thus, says Hudson, the World Bank has been “pauperizing the countries it had been designed, in theory, to assist.” (208)

According to Hudson, “Freeing debtor, food-deficit countries from their yoke of obsolete political and social systems therefore must entail not only a re-education of U.S. strategists, but at some point direct political action by the developing countries to thwart their strategies. The ultimate action would be for these countries to withdraw from the World Bank, GATT, and the IMF altogether and to form a new set of development institutions run by themselves and in their own interests.” (209)

Increasingly, Latin American countries, whom Hudson asserts have been intentionally managed and contained by the World Bank and IMF in order to prevent their autonomous departure from the economic control and management of the U.S., are doing exactly what he prescribes. Venezuela has taken the lead in rejecting World Bank and IMF carrot and stick economics, and more recently, Ecuador and Bolivia have joined Hugo Chavez in working to create Latin American self-sufficiency apart from the control of the U.S. Just this week, Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa banned a World Bank official from the nation. Currently, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil are discussing the creation of a Southern Bank, operated by and for Latin Americans, as an alternative to the World Bank.

The Power of Debt

Today, the United States, through the issuing of treasury bills and various forms of borrowing from other nations, has risen to the status of Planetary Debtor In Chief, and in stark contrast to its position of planetary creditor sixty years ago, it now rules the world economically. Hudson comments:

In sum, the United States is able to rule not through its position as world creditor, but as world debtor. Rather than being the world banker, it makes all other countries the lenders to itself. Thus rather than its debtor position being an element of weakness, America’s seeming weakness has become the foundation of the world’s monetary and financial system. To change this system in a way adverse to the United States would bring down the system’s creditors to America. (386)

But changing that system is indeed what America’s myriad creditors intend to do, and many are strategically working toward economic self-sufficiency in order to walk away from the stranglehold that the World Bank and the IMF have held on them for six decades.

Neoliberalism: The Offspring Of Liberalism

Overwhelmingly, Latin American nations and their leaders are rejecting neoliberalism and speak freely of doing so. One of the most informative and succinct primers on neoliberalism can be found at Corpwatch where Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia explain that:

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

It is extremely important to understand that the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt which gave birth to the Bretton Woods system were engineered by Democrats, Cordell Hull and Harry Dexter White, the two principal architects of the system and two of the most powerful bureaucrats close to Roosevelt. Further left of center than Hull, White was an avid internationalist and was later accused during the McCarthy Era of being a member of the Communist Party.

During the Great Depression the New Deal unarguably brought economic relief to millions of Americans and their families who otherwise might have starved. It is also true that just as the so-called “reforms” of the Progressive Era under another President Roosevelt (Teddy), were legislated from a fundamental underpinning of social control, the essential intention of the New Deal’s framers was to ward off a revolution in the United States that, left unchecked, could easily have spiraled out of control, driving an increasingly desperate populace into the arms of Soviet-style Marxism.

Since the United States Civil War, reform in America has always been wedded to the principal assumptions of the capitalist economic system, namely, that corporate capitalism, the maintenance of order, and the passage of laws that enforce the predominance of the business class and contain the unruly have-nots, is preferable to any possible alternatives. To succinctly describe this, historian Gabriel Kolko in The Triumph Of Conservatism uses the term political capitalism to define a political system engineered to meet the needs and serve the interests of business. Of the Progressive movement he states that: “Progressivism was initially a movement for the political rationalization of business and industrial conditions, a movement that operated on the assumption that the general welfare of the community could be best served by satisfying the concrete needs of business. But the regulation itself was invariably controlled by leaders of the regulated industry, and directed toward ends they deemed acceptable or desirable.” (3)

The Bretton Woods system was yet another milestone of political capitalism in which, in the name of world peace and “stability”, the United States would dominate the world economically. As with domestic political capitalism, it was motivated by the necessity of restraining the influence of the Communist bloc and managing impoverished nations that were likely to align with it as a result of their fundamental survival needs. The engineers of that system were not ideological conservatives but liberal members of the Democratic Party.

Whereas the Bretton Woods system was constructed largely by New Deal liberals, the resultant policies of the IMF and World Bank have transmuted into the current neoliberal paradigm, bolstered by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) of which Harry Dexter White was a member, embracing an internationalist, globalist perspective which shares more than less in common with the neoconservative ideology of blatant geostrategic hegemony as typified by the Project For The New American Century (PNAC). Differences in rhetoric between the two organizations imply a divergence in policy, yet historical functioning reveals otherwise. The endgame of both is geopolitical dominance politically, economically, and militarily by the United States. Whereas the neoconservative agenda envisions an ever-expanding military to accomplish blatant conquest and subjugation of nations, the neoliberal vision would be realized by the dissolution of nation-states altogether under the economic administration of transnational corporations.

Thus, we should not be surprised by the close ties developed in recent years between the Bush family and the Clintons. The Bush crime family has multigenerational experience in waging super-imperialist economic warfare on the world and on American citizens, and it appears that the Clintons have become two of their most prodigious pupils—their “entrance examinations” being the creation of NAFTA and throwing masses of welfare-dependent individuals into “welfare to work” jobs on which no one in America could survive.

In the current political milieu, no candidate who is not committed to a policy of super-imperialism has the slightest chance of ascendancy to the Presidency of the United States. Echoing her CFR colleagues, Hillary Clinton states, “First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century.” And Barack Obama chimes in with, “Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.”

I am not suggesting that the United States become an isolationist country in the sense that we have nothing to do with all of the other nations with whom we reside on planet earth. What I am declaring is that I support no leader who is unwilling to radically alter the super-imperialist trajectory on which the United States has traveled since World War II. Having said that, I am well aware that no one who would do so could ever be nominated, let alone elected President of the United States.

Inextricably tied to the super-imperialism project is the $4 trillion dollars stolen from the U.S. Treasury in the past decade, the unanswered questions regarding September 11, 2001, the USA Patriot Act, Peak Oil, the privatization of water and other resources, the cesspool of corruption surrounding government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the domination of U.S. money supply and fiscal policy by the Federal Reserve and other centralized financial systems.

Each of these issues is beyond the scope of any president or party to thoroughly remediate. Only one thing is absolutely certain regarding super-imperialism—its collapse. Whether collapse occurs suddenly or gradually, before, during, and after, there will be many opportunities for those of us residing in the belly of the beast to create new economic and social structures. The pivotal question is: Will we be prepared to do so?

Did I watch the Democratic candidates’ debate, April 26? No, I was sitting in a local movie theater watching the film “Shooter” which, in my opinion, rips the mask off the current political landscape and ventures into territory where no candidate anointed by the corporatocracy is willing to travel. “Shooter” is the real deal; presidential debates, yet another distracting soap opera. A line from that film now comes to mind, depicting the essence of super-imperialism: “There is no Sunni or Shia, no Democrat or Republican—only the have’s and have-not’s.”

One lie leads to another

April 28, 2007

'IN THE battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." So declared President George Bush on May 1, 2003, in a nationally televised address from the majestic splendour of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished".

On May 14 in the rather less telegenic surroundings of the Australian House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, John Howard, formally advised Parliament that "the coalition's major combat operations in Iraq have been successfully concluded". The media generally shared the political leaders' euphoria.

On the day Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad, the US cable news network CNN played some variation of this symbolic event once every 7.5 minutes while Rupert Murdoch's Fox News network replayed it on average every 4.4 minutes.

Two months later Bush was still in macho mode, telling the Iraqi insurgents to bring it on. Four years and at least 100,000 fatalities later, the triumphalism looks hollow.

Now the news focus has naturally moved to the continuing killings and chaos in Iraq, but four years after the proclamation of victory, it is interesting to trace the path to war, and especially the claims that were made about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction that justified the war.

Eventually no weapons or programs were found, despite the absolute certainty with which Howard, his Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and other Australian, American and British leaders spoke of their threat.

In those four years a series of books and articles have illuminated the road to war and the problematic claims - sometimes fictions - on which it was based. Some, such as Michael Isikoff and David Corn's Hubris and Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold particularly illuminate the role of various small players - true believers, conmen, victims - whose contributions have largely remained publicly unknown.

Rocco Martino, an Italian who described himself as a security consultant, scrabbled around the fringes of the intelligence world until he got in touch with one of Italy's sources in the Niger embassy in Rome, later dubbed La Signora. Together they forged documents purporting to show that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq, and then tried to peddle these to contacts in the intelligence world. They found their way to the CIA and British intelligence.

Although US intelligence bureaucracies were sceptical, it was included in an intelligence briefing which the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, demanded be followed up.

The CIA sent a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, who had served in Iraq and West Africa, in February 2002 to investigate. He realised the documents were fairly crude forgeries, with some wrong titles, wrong names and so forth. (A companion document was even less credible, alleging a secret meeting between rogue states and others to advance their anti-Western agenda.) In addition, the logistics of the large export operation were improbable and impossible to keep secret.

After interviewing relevant officials, Wilson concluded there was no basis to the claim. The State Department had reached the same conclusion, as had the US embassy in Niger. France, the former colonial power, still largely controlled Niger's uranium exports, and it also advised that no such transaction had occurred and could not have happened without its knowledge.

Despite this refutation of the claim that Iraq imported uranium from Niger, it could not be killed. It was included the following September in Britain's white paper on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It was included by Bush in his state of the union address in January 2003, despite four earlier explicit warnings by the CIA that it was problematic. Cheney, with the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, and other Administration figures had also used the claim. Howard used it in a speech to Parliament justifying military action against Iraq.

In mid-2003, thanks partly to the energetic efforts of Wilson, the US Government retracted the Niger claim. Downer, in an article in the Herald, made a similar retraction. As in the pattern of such reversals, Howard stressed the claim had been made in good faith and, anyway, was not central to the coalition's case for war.

Joe Turner, a CIA analyst, is perhaps the central bureaucratic player in the other main thread alleging Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. It was the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iraq, perhaps giving weapons to terrorists, that constituted what Downer and the then defence minister, Robert Hill, called the ultimate nightmare, the sum of all our fears.

To the extent that there was any intelligence basis for asserting Iraq had a nuclear program, beyond the false claims about uranium imports, it involved its importation of aluminium tubes. Western intelligence agencies, including Australia, had tracked these activities, and even intercepted one shipment in early 2001. There was dispute over the purpose of these tubes. Turner was the most persistent and vociferous advocate of the view that the tubes were for a gas centrifuge to enrich uranium; others said it was improbable as they would have needed extensive and expensive modifications to make them suitable.

After a debate inside government circles for the best part of a year, the State Department and the US Energy Department, the group with the strongest expertise on the subject, had concluded the tubes were not for a centrifuge program. British and Australian intelligence seem to have reached a similar view.

For whatever reason, Turner's view prevailed inside the CIA and several reports were sent to government leaders, without the knowledge of the technical experts in State and Energy, who thought the issue was closed. Political expedience trumped technical expertise.

Suddenly the issue burst into public view in early September 2002, the start of the US Administration's campaign to win a congressional resolution authorising action on Iraq. A leaked report appeared in The New York Times, and immediately was referred to on television by the then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and others as evidence of the Iraqi threat.

It was included in Bush's September 12 address to the United Nations. In Australian and US official rhetoric, the theme of aluminium tubes kept recurring over the next several months. After Iraq allowed access to UN weapons inspectors, from late 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency was able to see the tubes being used in hundreds of rockets, as Iraq had said. Turner still said they had to be for a centrifuge but the agency found him unconvincing.

On January 9 the agency reported the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear centrifuge. The New York Times, whose front-page report had begun the public career of this claim and which had carried many prominent references since, reported this on page 10.

The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, made his final prewar report to the UN in early March 2003, concluding it had no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq, that the Niger documents were not authentic, and that the aluminium tubes were for conventional rockets not a nuclear program.

The Western media, preoccupied with the countdown to war, largely ignored his announcement. In one of the few official responses, Cheney simply said: "I think Mr ElBaradei frankly is wrong", without bothering to address the evidence laid out by the agency.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi had been a major figure in al-Qaeda, and was picked up by Pakistani forces in December 2001 and handed over to the Americans. He was being interrogated in Afghanistan by the FBI, and his interrogator had made good rapport and was gaining excellent information from him about al-Qaeda.

Al-Libi denied any contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Then in a bureaucratic turf war, the CIA prevailed and al-Libi was taken out of the FBI's hands and flown to Egypt as part of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, a program that has been associated with widespread suspicions of torture.

Al-Libi now maintained that Iraq had given training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda. Some in the US intelligence community were sceptical, noting the lack of specificity in his claims, and suspicious that he was saying what his debriefers wanted to hear.

Bush included the training claim in a major speech in October 2002, and Rice, the then defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell, all included it in public statements. Later al-Libi told the FBI that the claims were false: "They were killing me. I had to tell them something." Once removed from the danger of further torture, and after the war had begun, he retracted the claims, and the reversal was reported in The New York Times in July 2004. Eventually the CIA formally recalled all its reporting based on them. To my knowledge, none of the US leaders has ever publicly recanted their use of these claims.

Curveball was the name given to an Iraqi defector who was living in Germany and who was the major source for claims that Iraq had built a fleet of mobile biological labs. German intelligence would not allow the Americans to question him directly on the grounds that he was strongly anti-American. The official position of both intelligence agencies was that Curveball was reliable, but unofficially there was growing concern he had become unstable, was alcoholic and probably fabricating. He had defected to Germany in 1999, and after first saying he was in trouble for embezzlement, then said he worked on mobile weapons labs.

From January 2000 to September 2001, the US Defence Intelligence Agency disseminated almost 100 reports based on Curveball's claims, and the US Government was soon reporting the existence of mobile biological weapon agent production plants as established fact. Powell, much to the horror of some American officials, included Curveball's claims to great dramatic effect in his major speech to the UN in February 2003.

After the invasion, the discovery of two of these vehicles was hailed as a breakthrough. Bush proclaimed the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, and Downer crowed in Parliament that although "it is disappointing for the Opposition to hear this, it is true". But the trailers proved to be for launching hydrogen balloons for weather forecasting, as the Iraqis had said.

In December 2003, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, who had at first been a strong believer that Iraq had such weapons, but eventually concluded the opposite, reported back to George Tenet, the CIA director, on Curveball. He said his team's investigations had shown Curveball was a liar; that he had been last in his class, not first; that he was a low-level trainee engineer, not a project director; that he had been sacked in 1995, and from then on drove a taxi. The Survey Group reported that the idea that he was an informer caused great laughter among the Iraqis who knew him. No doubt Powell also sees the humour in it all.

John Rendon is the head of the Rendon Group, and describes himself as an information warrior and a perception manager. But the line between perception management and reality creation is often thin. When Kuwait was liberated in 1991, the crowds waved hand-held flags of America and other allied countries, making great television. The flags had been distributed by Rendon.

The Rendon Group is not a shoestring operation. An article in Rolling Stone in November 2005 says the company made nearly $US100 million in the five years after the first gulf war, while between 2002 and 2004 its US Defence Department contracts totalled between $US50 million and $US100 million.

Moreover, sums of money at least as large were paid by the Americans over the years to the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite who had been exiled since his teens and was wanted in Jordan for allegedly embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars, was the neo-cons' choice to be the next president of Iraq.

Chalabi is a very controversial figure in American politics, with the CIA and State Department both regarding him as a fraud. Moreover, his role in false stories in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion has become very controversial. What fewer people know is that the Iraqi National Congress, including its name, was the creation of Rendon, as part of the anti-Saddam contract he received following the first Gulf War.

In the deliberations on Iraq, Rendon was a regular participant in White House strategy sessions on managing the politics of the war. Few details of his perception management activities have emerged, but one documented case is revealing.

In Pattaya, Thailand, in December 2001, the CIA administered a lie detector test to an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. Al-Haideri told a dramatic tale that he had helped Saddam's men secretly bury tonnes of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in sites around Baghdad.

But the polygraph suggested he had made up the entire story. Nevertheless as the CIA official was flying back to America, Al-Haideri's story was making front-page news in The New York Times, and became the first big post-September 11 news offensive against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The allegations were repeated in media and provided more embroidery for official rhetoric against Saddam, his public claims appearing in various government documents while the CIA's finding of his lack of credibility remained confidential. After the war al-Haideri was returned to Baghdad and unable to identify any of the sites he had alleged.

With a nod to Oscar Wilde: one error might be unfortunate, two carelessness, but a whole series of them shows a flawed and reckless political process.

Rod Tiffen is professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

War on Terror in Campaign 08

BLOG | Posted 04/30/2007 @ 12:20am

Ari Melber

The most significant moment in last week's Democratic presidential candidate debate came during the evening's most simplistic question. Moderator Brian Williams asked for a show of hands on whether the candidates "believe" there is a Global War on Terror, yielding a four-to-four split. It was a silly choice, since Williams was technically asking if the candidates believe that Bush's foreign policy exists, but it could still spark an important discussion. John Edwards was the only one of the "top three" candidates to vote no, which swiftly brought him praise, scorn and ridicule. After saying the U.S. must strongly deal with "dangerous leaders in the world," Edwards emphasized the need to use all the tools of foreign policy, not simply hard military power. His argument was not really a denial of the existence of Bush's Global War on Terrorism, but a nod towards an alternative.

There is really no denying that President Bush has organized U.S. foreign policy around an endless Global War on Terrorism (or "GWOT" in government circles). As he declared in his historic address to a joint session of Congress after 9/11, even if Al-Qaeda is destroyed, Bush envisions a war that "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." He means that literally. It is a war that targets a tactic instead of an enemy; like declaring war on war, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted. Without a defined enemy, of course, it is a war that can creep far from our vital security interests. In 2002, administration officials claimed Bush could invade Iraq without any congressional authorization at all, based on GWOT, and Condi Rice made the same claim about Syria in 2005. The administration invokes the same endless war to justify imprisoning American citizens without trial; suspending habeas corpus; illegally spying on American citizens; and detaining hundreds of people for years without charges in the lawless Gitmo prison. The policy is built on the twin fallacies that the best defense is a reckless offense, and the world wants (and hates) our freedom. In the name of fighting terror, President Bush aims to advance democracy abroad while restricting it at home, treating Congress and the Courts as barriers to national security. The 2005 National Defense Strategy report even argues American "judicial processes" can be a weapon of choice for our enemies.

Yet as everyone knows, GWOT has resulted in a total security failure. A new State Department report shows terrorism is up 29 percent; Bin Laden remains at large; Iraq is in a civil war, draining resources from counterterrorism and Afghanistan; and Gitmo, which has generated no major terrorist convictions, is such a failure that Defense Secretary Robert Gates made shutting it down one of his first priorities in office. Meanwhile, it is only through congressional and judicial oversight, which Bush derides as counterproductive to his endless global war, that the public has learned about critical vulnerabilities exploited by the 9/11 hijackers; false intelligence regarding WMDs; wasteful defense spending; and the failed detention system at Gitmo, to name a few items.

The question is not whether people "believe" these facts. The question is what the U.S. can do to change them.

Any credible presidential aspirant must present a detailed alternative to Bush's Global War on Terrorism. On the merits, it's hard to understand why candidates (in either party) would try to attach themselves to such a discredited policy from a very unpopular president. For too long, the Global War on Terrorism has been presented as little more than a tough slogan that all mainstream figures must support. By daring the candidates to doubt its existence in a show of hands, Brian Williams cracked the door just wide enough for simplistic protest. Now it's up to the candidates to elaborate on their proposed alternatives. And it's up to activists and voters to make sure this consequential issue stays on the agenda.

To that end, some Democratic bloggers are cheering Edwards and pressing other candidates to challenge the GWOT. MyDD's Matt Stoller writes that Edwards' opposition was a welcome "departure from the bipartisan consensus" backing GWOT. Writing on the same blog in 2004, Chris Bowers called on Democrats to abandon the war on terror frame. This argument is not confined to bloggers or liberal critics, either. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, an influential foreign policy adviser to Democrats across the political spectrum, argued in 2005 that while GWOT had "entered the English language" as the "way our highest national priority is described by almost everyone," it was simply "not an accurate description of America's enemy or of what we are engaged in." He called for jettisoning GWOT and adopting a more focused attack on Al Qaeda.

The public should demand leadership and bold policies from these candidates who would be president. So how about a show of hands of voters who believe in this position: Any candidate who cannot outline an effective alternative to Bush's failed Global War on Terrorism does not deserve to be president.

----

NOTES AND FURTHER READING

Zbigniew Brzezinski repeated his opposition to GWOT in an essay this weekend.

I elaborated on GWOT in this op-ed about the President's authority under the 2001 authorization of force, coauthored with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and these remarks at last year's YearlyKos convention.

It's also worth noting that even the Bush Administration has conceded flaws in the GWOT framework, and it briefly experimented with a different concept in 2005. The Christian Science Monitor summarized responses to that effort at the time, and Democracy Arsenal's Suzanne Nossel proposed several alternative priorities.

Brian Williams felt that the NBC organizers were too restrictive with the debate time limits, which forced him to "suppress" his "instincts to challenge candidates on unanswered questions" almost a dozen times.

For a thorough analysis of whether GWOT is a sustainable foreign policy, check out this 2003 report by Dr. Jeffrey Record of the U.S. Army War College.

Living Under the Guillotine's Blade

April 27, 2007

Imagine you see a man on his knees, arms outstretched, with his head resting on a wooden block. Ten feet above his head, the sharp edge of a guillotine blade hangs suspended. The blade is held back by a rope that is visibly frayed and weak. It appears the rope might snap at any moment, and the blade will descend to plunge through the man's neck. Blood will spurt over the platform on which the guillotine sits, and the man's head, brutally shorn of the rest of his body, will thud onto the darkened platform below, onto the wood stained with the blood from earlier victims. This scene has been enacted many times before.

One aspect of the drama playing out before you is exceptionally strange. No one is forcing the man to remain on his knees, with his head calmly resting on the block. He could get up and walk off the platform at any moment. Yet he doesn't. He appears to be entirely unconcerned about the fatal danger above him, the blade that hangs there with infinite patience, silently waiting for its moment. There are others watching this scene with you. Some of them, like you, shout out warnings to the man. Still he does not get up. You and the others have been unable to move the man, or to disable the blade. Only the man with his head on the block can save himself. He won't. He stays on his knees, with his head on the block. With every moment that passes, the rope holding the blade back weakens. You know, as the man himself knows, that the rope will break eventually.

Yet he stays there. Warnings continue to be shouted; he continues to ignore them. The rope frays still more. Some people in the gathered crowd finally leave. The tension had become unbearable to them. But you and a few others remain. Surely, you think, the man will get up eventually, before the rope breaks. Why would he remain there, when he knows that will mean his certain death? And still he doesn't move.

The minutes pass, and turn into hours. Nothing changes. The man remains in position. The blade waits. The only unknown is the precise moment when the blood will begin to flow, the moment when another life will be brutally destroyed, as so many have been destroyed before.

You feel compelled to remain, and to watch. You are unable to turn away. Death hangs in the air.

********************

This is how we live in America today. The final destruction of liberty, and of life itself, could begin at any moment. Yet we act like the man with his head resting on the block. We seem to believe there is nothing especially unusual in our circumstances, nothing that requires us to take action. Life goes on as it always did. Like the man under the blade, we could choose to alter our fate. We will not. We believe, as perhaps the man under the blade believes, that our situation isn't that bad; we'll be able to get through this, just as we always have. We forget all those who have gone before us, all those who have died bloody and painful deaths. But, we may tell ourselves, we are different from all those others. Their fate will not be ours, because we are special and unique. We forget that all the earlier victims thought the same.

Perhaps it is the case that the man with his head resting on the block isn't very intelligent. It is possible he doesn't understand that the rope holds the blade back, and that when the rope breaks, the blade will descend and cut through his flesh. At this moment in history, it is indisputably the case that Americans generally, and the political class and most of those who write about politics (including almost all bloggers), are not very intelligent. They appear to understand almost nothing about political principles, or how they operate. Gathering dangers hold no reality for such people. They will understand the guillotine's purpose only when the blade first touches their necks, and the blood finally gushes out. Yes, they will certainly comprehend the danger then, when all possibilities for action have been destroyed.

The man in my story has only one blade suspended above him; we have at least four blades hanging over us, any one of which could be fatal.

The first blade, probably the most dangerous one, is the Military Commissions Act. What is it that people fail to understand about this abomination? I know that I and others have explained its immense dangers and its fatal implications numerous times; perhaps we haven't explained it very well. But I don't know how to say it any more plainly than this:

There is no question that the Military Commissions Act, given the language it now contains, grants -- in principle -- full dictatorial powers to the executive. As I explained in the earlier essay, the executive and certain entities it controls can designate anyone, including any American citizen, as an "unlawful enemy combatant." That person can then be imprisoned for the rest of his life, with no recourse whatsoever. Period.

...

The critical point is what, in principle, the grant of power includes. As noted, the grant is absolute: it includes everything. As I have pointed out, the determination of the Bush administration to achieve absolute power has been indisputably clear since shortly after 9/11. And this is hardly the first time that I and others have noted that the mechanisms for a complete dictatorship have now been put in place.

...

With proper preparation, and with the requisite understanding that freedom itself was imperiled, the Democrats could have achieved these aims. All of us would be forever in their debt. Surely liberty itself is worth such a battle, isn't it? But the Democrats did none of these things, so the bill passed. Thus, they share in the guilt and responsibility. The guilt and responsibility that accrues to the Democrats is not as great as that of the Republicans, but it is surely great enough. And when your freedom, and that of your family and friends, and that of every single one of us, is destroyed in this manner, how do you even go about measuring degrees of guilt? How do you say this failure is worse than that one? The bill passed. They all failed, Republicans and Democrats alike. In principle, torture was enshrined and liberty was destroyed.

...

Some argue that the Supreme Court will find the act, or at least certain key provisions, unconstitutional. That, too, is a hope, but I myself am far from certain that the Court will rule in such a manner. In any event, we do not know what the ultimate outcome will be as far as the judicial system is concerned.

So we are confronted with one stark certainty, opposed by fragile and uncertain future hopes. We know the Military Commissions Act destroys liberty at its very foundation. We do not know if this fatal injury will ever be ameliorated. The Act should have been stalled at the very least. It was not.

Destroying the very basis of liberty is not an event that occurs every day. Mark the date. Historians may well have cause to note it.

The Democrats have proposed the "Restoring the Constitution Act," although its passage hardly appears to be a matter of great urgency to them. If they do not view the destruction of the foundation of liberty as a genuine emergency requiring almost instantaneous action, what would constitute an emergency? Beyond this, proposing new legislation to "fix" the original bill is precisely the wrong way to fight this battle, as I explained in "America, Now Without the Revolution":

If we genuinely seek to walk the long road back to a constitutional republic, the Act must be repealed. It must be wiped from the books completely. Instead, the Democrats propose to enact another bill, "correcting" the errors in the first. Inevitably, this will lead to endless debates, in Congress, in the courts and everywhere else, about how the two bills should be construed in relation to each other. These debates and confrontations will go on for years -- and all the while, the Military Commissions Act will remain the law of the land, a law that destroys the very concept of law in terms of what it had once meant.

You do not "fix" evils of this kind. You obliterate them as required. It is required here. At long last, let the Democrats understand the nature of this battle, as I discussed it in the earlier essay. Let them educate themselves, other members of Congress, and the American public. Let them attempt to mobilize Americans to demand that the Act be repealed, on a scale and in a manner that cannot be ignored. All our political leaders endlessly praise those who give their lives in defense of liberty, as they should when it is true. (It is not true in Iraq.) If they are sincere in that praise to any degree at all, can't they fight a legislative battle to restore the basis of liberty? They are being asked to take up only intellectual arms. For God's sake, they can do it sitting down the entire time.

But, you say, Bush will veto legislation repealing the Military Commissions Act. I initially note that Bush is equally likely to veto any attempt to "fix" that Act. But if the Democrats waged the necessary campaign and enlisted a significant part of the American public on their side, then let him. He will stand alone, revealed as the enemy of liberty and civilization that he is.

But here is where stupidity enters the picture. Just as the man does not grasp the operation of the guillotine or the fact that, if he does not move, the blade will kill him, our political class (and most writers and bloggers) appear not to understand the profound dangers of the Military Commissions Act because of only one fact: its full powers have not yet been implemented. In an earlier essay, I quoted Jacob Hornberger on this point. Hornberger deconstructs two common objections to the statement of fact that the Executive now possesses full dictatorial powers. With regard to the second objection, he writes:

"Well, then, where are the mass round-ups, and where are the concentration camps?"

Again, people who ask that type of question are missing the point. The point is not whether Bush is exercising his omnipotent, dictatorial power to the maximum extent. It's whether he now possesses omnipotent, dictatorial power, power that can be exercised whenever circumstances dictate it — for example, during another major terrorist attack on American soil, when Americans become overly frightened again.

I went on to note:

I've made this point repeatedly over the last several years, and it is only a measure of the remarkably primitive quality of our national conversation that so many Americans seem incapable of grasping it.

To put the point the other way, which will hopefully penetrate the wall of resistance erected by so many people: the only reason you aren't in a concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn't decided to send you to one -- yet. But he claims he has the power to do so -- and there are almost no voices of any prominence to dispute the contention. What is even worse than the loss of liberty is the fact that most Americans aren't even aware that the loss has occurred. If there are any national leaders who understand these issues and have the courage to fight for our freedom here at home, they ought to realize that the battle must be waged now. Given the hysteria that followed 9/11 -- and the hysteria that would certainly follow another terrorist attack in the U.S. of the same or even greater magnitude -- protesting against round-ups at that point would be entirely futile, and would come far too late.

Hornberger's comments and mine on this issue were written before passage of the Military Commissions Act. Bush had asserted these dictatorial powers earlier and utilized them, but only very selectively. The Military Commissions Act codified those powers, and made dictatorship and torture the law of the land.

But to watch the actions of our political class and to read most political writers, none of this requires urgent action. The guillotine has no reality for us; it will become solid only when we feel the touch of the blade. You may be certain of one fact: when powers of this kind are granted to political leaders, men and women prepared to use them in full will come along sooner or later, probably sooner in our case and almost certainly after another major terrorist attack within our own shores The round-ups will come, as will the concentration camps, as will comprehensive censorship. The executions without trial will come, as well. The torture is already here, and has been for some time.

The second blade is related to the first one; it could be fatal on its own, and it would certainly be fatal in conjunction with the Miitary Commissions Act. I will let one of the rare writers who grasps these dangers consistently, whether they are proposed and supported by Republicans or Democrats, explain it. In a new article, Jim Bovard writes:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

...

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition"—and such "condition" is not defined or limited.

These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur, and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster (and awards more farm subsidies) when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist "incident" could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days.

...

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it.

...

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent.

...

This expansion of presidential prerogative illustrates how every federal failure redounds to the benefit of leviathan. FEMA was greatly expanded during the Clinton years for crises like the New Orleans flood. It, along with local and state agencies, floundered. Yet the federal belly flop on the Gulf Coast somehow anointed the president to send in troops where he sees fit.

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. "Martial law" means obey soldiers’ commands or be shot.

...

Some will consider concern about Bush or future presidents exploiting martial law to be alarmist. This is the same reflex many people have had to each administration proposal or power grab from the Patriot Act in October 2001 to the president’s enemy-combatant decree in November 2001 to the setting up the Guantanamo prison in early 2002 to the doctrine of preemptive war. The administration has perennially denied that its new powers pose any threat even after the evidence of abuses—illegal wiretapping, torture, a global network of secret prisons, Iraq in ruins—becomes overwhelming. If the administration does not hesitate to trample the First Amendment with "free speech zones," why expect it to be diffident about powers that could stifle protests en masse?

Note the crucial dynamic identified by Bovard, one I have noted on many occasions: the government is granted massive powers "for our own good," and to "protect us." An emergency arises, and the government abjectly fails to protect us. The failure is used to argue that the problem is that the government didn't have enough power, so it is granted still more expansive powers. Then the government fails again, at which point it is given still further powers. This has been the pattern in the United States since the late nineteenth century, as it has been the pattern in many other countries in the past. At every step, almost all politicians and writers cheer as the leviathan state grows, and as individual liberty is destroyed. The number of times this pattern can be successfully repeated depends upon how hungry for power the political class is, and how ignorant (or stupid, if you will) the public is. Our political class has a boundless hunger for power which will remain unsatisfied until its power is absolute, and the American public adamantly refuses to learn a single damned thing. Our road to Hell is open and unobstructed.

The reaction to the first two blades on the part of politicians and most political writers is also the same: there is next to response at all. As Bovard notes, the president can declare martial law because of "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- which means he can declare martial law whenever he wants. Since we have a press that primarily acts as a handmaiden to the powerful and which, with very rare exceptions, transmits government propaganda to a degree that effectively makes it another branch of government, who would challenge the president's assertion of such powers? And we have seen the public's ready acceptance of grievous restrictions of freedom in the hysteria following 9/11, and that acceptance continues today. When is the last time you heard of anyone seriously protesting the government's idiotic search protocols at an airport, or objecting to any of the much more serious incursions into what had once properly been regarded as a citizen's zone of privacy? We have become a nation of whining, sniveling cowards. When we are sufficiently scared, and when the government tells us it acts only to "make us safe," we will do whatever we are ordered to do. If we ask any questions at all, it will only be much later, when the liberties we have so blithely surrendered cannot be recovered.

That the president can declare martial law whenever he wishes, on a whim or to finally realize his dreams of absolute power (and I know this may shock you, but such dreams do not belong only to Republicans), causes virtually no one to think that action to prevent such a catastrophe must be taken -- and that it must be taken now. Many Americans don't even know this blade is there; most of those who do see it appear not to care at all that it exists. When the troops appear in your city and on your street, and when some of your neighbors and friends begin to disappear (remember the first blade), why, then you might care, when there is nothing whatsoever to be done about it, lest you too be spirited away in the dead of night.

The third and fourth blades are forged in the realm of foreign affairs, but their effects extend to the United States on the domestic front. Stupidity puts in another appearance here. Most Americans, including our governing class and our commentators, cannot grasp the operation of political principles when they are confined here at home. When connections must be made between events overseas and domestic politics, our brains are entirely incapable of making the integrations. In addition, our narcissism is almost perfect: when death and chaos are visited upon peoples abroad -- peoples who are almost without exception darker than we are (or at least, darker than most of our leaders are), poor, and largely defenseless -- we barely notice. It's not as if Americans were being killed; even then, as the death toll of Americans in Iraq continues to rise, we see no reason to bring matters to a quick conclusion. As long as it's over there, what do we care?

Every prominent politician, Democrat and Republican, agrees that we have the "right" to attack Iran if Iran does not conduct itself in accordance with our demands. The source of this "right" has never been explained, since it cannot be explained. This is an axiomatic truth for our governing class, and it applies to every country in the world that cannot respond to a U.S. attack in a serious, large-scale manner. Note Hillary Clinton's comments only a couple of days ago about Iran, and our "right" to take "offensive military action." I have explained in some detail why an attack on Iran in the current circumstances and in the foreseeable future would be a monstrous crime; see "Morality, Humanity and Civilization: 'All that remains...are memories.'" But keep the possible consequences in mind: many thousands dead, and millions dead if we were to use even "tactical" nuclear weapons; spreading chaos across the Middle East and very likely beyond; possible economic calamity, which could lead to a significant collapse of the U.S. economy, as well as the economies of many other nations, and on and on. The consequences would spread around the globe, and would be felt for decades to come.

There is still a further result, beyond the fact that an attack on Iran would make us the equivalent of Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland. I discussed it in the second part of my "Dispatch from Germany" series, where I again quoted Jim Bovard:

Attacking Iran will put American civilians in the terrorist crosshairs, with little or no federal Kevlar to protect them. The key question is not whether terrorists will attack but how the American people will likely respond and how politicians could exploit the situation.

There is no reason to expect the American people to be less docile than they were after 9/11. The percentage of Americans who trusted the government to do the right thing most of the time doubled in the week after 9/11. It became fashionable to accuse critics of Bush administration policies of being traitors or terrorist sympathizers. ...

The Bush administration has a record of exploiting terrorist attacks to seize nearly boundless power. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration effectively temporarily suspended habeas corpus, railroaded the Patriot Act through Congress, authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps, and nullified restrictions on torture by the CIA and U.S. Military. The Bush administration now claims that the Authorization to Use Military Force resolution passed by Congress in September 2001 raised the president’s power above the Bill of Rights.

If there are new terror attacks at home, how much more latent presidential power will administration lawyers claim to discover within the penumbra of the Constitution? How broad would the roundup of suspects be? How many years would it be until Americans learned of how much power the government had seized? Is there any reason to expect that a series of attacks would not quickly result in attempts to proclaim de facto martial law?

...

If Bush does bomb Iran, the chain reaction could wreck American democracy. The Bush administration shows no signs of developing either an allergy to power or an addiction to truth. The American republic cannot afford to permit a president to remain above the law and the Constitution indefinitely. Anything that raises the odds of a terror attack reduces the odds of reining in the government.

So you see how the third blade, an attack on Iran, ties into the second blade, the president's unlimited ability to impose martial law, which ties into the first blade, the Executive's ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state on any basis or no basis at all, and then to imprison and torture them for the rest of their lives.

I have suggested a number of actions that might be taken in an attempt to prevent an attack on Iran. A few people have noted that post, and some have followed through on some of those suggestions individually. But no one and no organization in this country is trying to motivate a sufficient number of people to take action on the scale required. Given the frequency with which our politicians announce that the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is too great a danger to "civilization" to be "tolerated," most of us have to know this blade is there. We see it, and we don't care. The blade hangs over our heads, and over the entire world. We will not move.

If we are fortunate enough to make it through the remainder of Bush's term without a U.S. attack on Iran, it will not be because of anything anyone has done to prevent it. No one has done anything to prevent it. It will simply be because we were lucky. But as the remarks from Hillary Clinton and every other leading Democrat make clear, the danger will not pass away with Bush's exit from the national stage. As long as our governing class and the foreign policy establishment remain committed to American global hegemony as our foundational foreign policy goal (see "Dominion Over the World"), I consider it certain that the U.S. will attack Iran at some point, if not during this administration, then probably during the next one.

The fourth blade is, of course, the unending occupation of Iraq. As I explained yesterday, it will be unending, even if the number of American troops is reduced to 50,000 or 70,000 in the next few years. We will be there for decades into the future; no prominent politician, Democrat or Republican, opposes that plan, which was the plan from the outset. As a number of knowledgeable people predicted prior to the Iraq invasion, Iran has been the primary victor in this imperial disaster. The episode with the British sailors recently demonstrated, as have any number of other incidents, that the longer we remain in Iraq, the greater the likelihood that some incident, real or manufactured, will lead to open conflict with Iran, and to the attack on Iran that every leading politician seems to long for. Our ruling elites are determined to effect "regime change" in Iran in any case, but a border incident or one of some other kind might hasten the schedule, and make a U.S. attack easier to "sell" to a gullible American public.

So we see how the fourth blade connects to the third, and how all the blades interconnect and multiply the dangers. We have already destroyed Iraq, and we may yet destroy Iran and much of the Middle East. We may cause an international economic collapse, or severe economic dislocation at a minimum. We may see the final end of liberty here at home, and the installation of a dictatorship via a declaration of martial law.

And almost no one speaks of the incomprehensible catastrophes that lie in wait. Almost no one takes action to prevent even one of them. Our lives proceed as if nothing at all unusual is transpiring in our world, either abroad or at home. Occasionally, a few people shout warnings. They are almost entirely ignored.

The blade is suspended above us. With every moment that passes, the rope that holds it back frays and weakens still more.

Death hangs in the air.

We will not move.

posted by Arthur Silber at 10:54 AM

A Democratic Sell-out on Bush's Mercenaries

Tomgram: Scahill, A Democratic Sell-out on Bush's Mercenaries

Let's be clear about what it is -- when it comes to "withdrawal" from Iraq -- that the President will veto this Wednesday. Section 1904(b) of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon, H.R. 1591, passed by the House and Senate, mandates that the Secretary of Defense "commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days." If you've been listening to network TV news shows or reading your local newspaper with less than an eagle eye, you might well be under the impression that -- just as the phrasing above seems to indicate -- a Democratic-controlled Congress has just passed a bill that mandates a full-scale American withdrawal from Iraq. (Reporters and commentators regularly speak of the Democrats' insistence that "American troops be withdrawn from Iraq.") But that's only until you start reading the exceptions embedded in the bill.

Here are the main ones. According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:

1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.

2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this striking point Jeremy Scahill has much to say -- and he should know. He's the author of the surprise national bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which will shake you to your combat boots when it comes to the nature of the mercenary age -- sorry, the age of "private security contractors" -- that we've now entered. No personal library that claims to make sense of our messy, bloody planet should be without his book. Tom

Who Will Stop the U.S. Shadow Army in Iraq?

Don't Look to the Congressional Democrats

By Jeremy Scahill

The Democratic leadership in Congress is once again gearing up for a great sell-out on the Iraq war. While the wrangling over the $124 billion Iraq supplemental spending bill is being headlined in the media as a "show down" or "war" with the White House, it is hardly that. In plain terms, despite the impassioned sentiments of the anti-war electorate that brought the Democrats to power last November, the Congressional leadership has made clear its intention to keep funding the Iraq occupation, even though Sen. Harry Reid has declared that "this war is lost."

For months, the Democrats' "withdrawal" plan has come under fire from opponents of the occupation who say it doesn't stop the war, doesn't defund it, and insures that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond President Bush's second term. Such concerns were reinforced by Sen. Barack Obama's recent declaration that the Democrats will not cut off funding for the war, regardless of the President's policies. "Nobody," he said, "wants to play chicken with our troops."

As the New York Times reported, "Lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable" for (partial) withdrawal, which the White House has said would "guarantee defeat." In other words, the appearance of a fierce debate this week, Presidential veto and all, has largely been a show with a predictable outcome.

The Shadow War in Iraq

While all of this is troubling, there is another disturbing fact which speaks volumes about the Democrats' lack of insight into the nature of this unpopular war -- and most Americans will know next to nothing about it. Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq -- and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military "contractors" who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active duty U.S. forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel that currently come from companies like Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration. Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing U.S. troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future "surge" in Iraq.

From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq. While many of them perform logistical support activities for American troops, including the sort of laundry, fuel and mail delivery, and food-preparation work that once was performed by soldiers, tens of thousands of them are directly engaged in military and combat activities. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are now some 48,000 employees of private military companies in Iraq. These not-quite G.I. Joes, working for Blackwater and other major U.S. firms, can clear in a month what some active-duty soldiers make in a year. "We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of Defense," said House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. "How in the hell do you justify that?"

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman estimates that $4 billion in taxpayer money has so far been spent in Iraq on these armed "security" companies like Blackwater -- with tens of billions more going to other war companies like KBR and Fluor for "logistical" support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of the House Intelligence Committee believes that up to forty cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors.

With such massive government payouts, there is little incentive for these companies to minimize their footprint in the region and every incentive to look for more opportunities to profit -- especially if, sooner or later, the "official" U.S. presence shrinks, giving the public a sense of withdrawal, of a winding down of the war. Even if George W. Bush were to sign the legislation the Democrats have passed, their plan "allows the President the leeway to escalate the use of military security contractors directly on the battlefield," Erik Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies points out. It would "allow the President to continue the war using a mercenary army."

The crucial role of contractors in continuing the occupation was driven home in January when David Petraeus, the general running the President's "surge" plan in Baghdad, cited private forces as essential to winning the war. In his confirmation hearings in the Senate, he claimed that they fill a gap attributable to insufficient troop levels available to an overstretched military. Along with Bush's official troop surge, the "tens of thousands of contract security forces," Petraeus told the Senators, "give me the reason to believe that we can accomplish the mission." Indeed, Gen. Petraeus admitted that he has, at times, been guarded in Iraq not by the U.S. military, but "secured by contract security."

Such widespread use of contractors, especially in mission-critical operations, should have raised red flags among lawmakers. After a trip to Iraq last month, Retired Gen. Barry McCaffery observed bluntly, "We are overly dependant on civilian contractors. In extreme danger--they will not fight." It is, however, the political rather than military uses of these forces that should be cause for the greatest concern.

Contractors have provided the White House with political cover, allowing for a back-door near doubling of U.S. forces in Iraq through the private sector, while masking the full extent of the human costs of the occupation. Although contractor deaths are not effectively tallied, at least 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq and at least another 7,700 injured. These numbers are not included in any official (or media) toll of the war. More significantly, there is absolutely no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations, nor is there any effective law -- military or civilian -- being applied to their activities. They have not been subjected to military courts martial (despite a recent Congressional attempt to place them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice), nor have they been prosecuted in U.S. civilian courts – and, no matter what their acts in Iraq, they cannot be prosecuted in Iraqi courts. Before Paul Bremer, Bush's viceroy in Baghdad, left Iraq in 2004 he issued an edict, known as Order 17. It immunized contractors from prosecution in Iraq which, today, is like the wild West, full of roaming Iraqi death squads and scores of unaccountable, heavily-armed mercenaries, ex-military men from around the world, working for the occupation. For the community of contractors in Iraq, immunity and impunity are welded together.

Despite the tens of thousands of contractors passing through Iraq and several well-documented incidents involving alleged contractor abuses, only two individuals have been ever indicted for crimes there. One was charged with stabbing a fellow contractor, while the other pled guilty to the possession of child-pornography images on his computer at Abu Ghraib prison. While dozens of American soldiers have been court-martialed -- 64 on murder-related charges -- not a single armed contractor has been prosecuted for a crime against an Iraqi. In some cases, where contractors were alleged to have been involved in crimes or deadly incidents, their companies whisked them out of Iraq to safety.

As one armed contractor recently informed the Washington Post, "We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night." According to another, U.S. contractors in Iraq had their own motto: "What happens here today, stays here today."

Funding the Mercenary War

"These private contractors are really an arm of the administration and its policies," argues Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has called for a withdrawal of all U.S. contractors from Iraq. "They charge whatever they want with impunity. There's no accountability as to how many people they have, as to what their activities are."

Until now, this situation has largely been the doing of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House. No longer.

While some Congressional Democrats have publicly expressed grave concerns about the widespread use of these private forces and a handful have called for their withdrawal, the party leadership has done almost nothing to stop, or even curb, the use of mercenary corporations in Iraq. As it stands, the Bush administration and the industry have little to fear from Congress on this score, despite the unseating of the Republican majority.

On two central fronts, accountability and funding, the Democrats' approach has been severely flawed, playing into the agendas of both the White House and the war contractors. Some Democrats, for instance, are pushing accountability legislation that would actually require more U.S. personnel to deploy to Iraq as part of an FBI Baghdad "Theater Investigative Unit" that would supposedly monitor and investigate contractor conduct. The idea is: FBI investigators would run around Iraq, gather evidence, and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions in U.S. civilian courts.

This is a plan almost certain to backfire, if ever instituted. It raises a slew of questions: Who would protect the investigators? How would Iraqi victims be interviewed? How would evidence be gathered amid the chaos and dangers of Iraq? Given that the federal government and the military seem unable -- or unwilling -- even to count how many contractors are actually in the country, how could their activities possibly be monitored? In light of the recent Bush administration scandal over the eight fired US attorneys, serious questions remain about the integrity of the Justice Department. How could we have any faith that real crimes in Iraq, committed by the employees of immensely well-connected crony corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton, would be investigated adequately?

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively monitor 126,000 or more private contractors under the best of conditions in the world's most dangerous war zone, this legislation would give the industry a tremendous PR victory. Once it was passed as the law of the land, the companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations. Yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Not surprisingly, then, the mercenary trade group with the Orwellian name of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) has pushed for just this Democratic-sponsored approach rather than the military court martial system favored by conservative Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. The IPOA called the expansion of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act -- essentially the Democrats' oversight plan -- "the most cogent approach to ensuring greater contractor accountability in the battle space." That endorsement alone should be reason enough to pause and reconsider.

Then there is the issue of continued funding for the privatized shadow forces in Iraq. As originally passed in the House, the Democrats' Iraq plan would have cut only about 15% or $815 million of the supplemental spending earmarked for day-to-day military operations "to reflect savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of contracts in the military departments."

As it stood, this was a stunningly insufficient plan, given ongoing events in Iraq. But even that mild provision was dropped by the Democrats in late April. Their excuse was the need to hold more hearings on the contractor issue. Instead, they moved to withhold -- not cut -- 15% of total day-to-day operational funding, but only until Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submits a report on the use of contractors and the scope of their deployment. Once the report is submitted, the 15% would be unlocked. In essence, this means that, under the Democrats plan, the mercenary forces will simply be able to continue business-as-usual/profits-as-usual in Iraq.

However obfuscated by discussions of accountability, fiscal responsibility, and oversight, the gorilla of a question in the Congressional war room is: Should the administration be allowed to use mercenary forces, whose livelihoods depend on war and conflict, to help fight its battles in Iraq?

Rep. Murtha says, "We're trying to bring accountability to an unaccountable war." But it's not accountability that the war needs; it needs an end.

By sanctioning the administration's continuing use of mercenary corporations -- instead of cutting off all funding to them -- the Democrats leave the door open for a future escalation of the shadow war in Iraq. This, in turn, could pave the way for an array of secretive, politically well-connected firms that have profited tremendously under the current administration to elevate their status and increase their government paychecks.

Blackwater's War

Consider the case of Blackwater USA.

A decade ago, the company barely existed; and yet, its "diplomatic security" contracts since mid-2004, with the State Department alone, total more than $750 million. Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration's well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the U.S. ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting Congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, setting up a "command and control" center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Since September 11, 2001, the company has invested its lucrative government pay-outs in building an impressive private army. At present, it has forces deployed in nine countries and boasts a database of 21,000 additional troops at the ready, a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world's largest private military facility -- a 7,000 acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. It recently opened a new facility in Illinois ("Blackwater North") and is fighting local opposition to a third planned domestic facility near San Diego ("Blackwater West") by the Mexican border. It is also manufacturing an armored vehicle (nicknamed the "Grizzly") and surveillance blimps.

The man behind this empire is Erik Prince, a secretive, conservative Christian, ex-Navy SEAL multimillionaire who bankrolls the President and his allies with major campaign contributions. Among Blackwater's senior executives are Cofer Black, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA; Robert Richer, former Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA; Joseph Schmitz, former Pentagon Inspector General; and an impressive array of other retired military and intelligence officials. Company executives recently announced the creation of a new private intelligence company, "Total Intelligence," to be headed by Black and Richer.

For years, Blackwater's operations have been shrouded in secrecy. Emboldened by the culture of impunity enjoyed by the private sector in the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater's founder has talked of creating a "contractor brigade" to support US military operations and fancies his forces the "FedEx" of the "national security apparatus."

As the country debates an Iraq withdrawal, Congress owes it to the public to take down the curtain of secrecy surrounding these shadow forces that undergird the U.S. public deployment in Iraq. The President likes to say that defunding the war would undercut the troops. Here's the truth of the matter: Continued funding of the Iraq war ensures tremendous profits for politically-connected war contractors. If Congress is serious about ending the occupation, it needs to rein in the unaccountable companies that make it possible and only stand to profit from its escalation.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Copyright 2007 Jeremy Scahill

A Democratic Sell-out on Bush's Mercenaries

Tomgram: Scahill, A Democratic Sell-out on Bush's Mercenaries

Let's be clear about what it is -- when it comes to "withdrawal" from Iraq -- that the President will veto this Wednesday. Section 1904(b) of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon, H.R. 1591, passed by the House and Senate, mandates that the Secretary of Defense "commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days." If you've been listening to network TV news shows or reading your local newspaper with less than an eagle eye, you might well be under the impression that -- just as the phrasing above seems to indicate -- a Democratic-controlled Congress has just passed a bill that mandates a full-scale American withdrawal from Iraq. (Reporters and commentators regularly speak of the Democrats' insistence that "American troops be withdrawn from Iraq.") But that's only until you start reading the exceptions embedded in the bill.

Here are the main ones. According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:

1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.

2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this striking point Jeremy Scahill has much to say -- and he should know. He's the author of the surprise national bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which will shake you to your combat boots when it comes to the nature of the mercenary age -- sorry, the age of "private security contractors" -- that we've now entered. No personal library that claims to make sense of our messy, bloody planet should be without his book. Tom

Who Will Stop the U.S. Shadow Army in Iraq?

Don't Look to the Congressional Democrats

By Jeremy Scahill

The Democratic leadership in Congress is once again gearing up for a great sell-out on the Iraq war. While the wrangling over the $124 billion Iraq supplemental spending bill is being headlined in the media as a "show down" or "war" with the White House, it is hardly that. In plain terms, despite the impassioned sentiments of the anti-war electorate that brought the Democrats to power last November, the Congressional leadership has made clear its intention to keep funding the Iraq occupation, even though Sen. Harry Reid has declared that "this war is lost."

For months, the Democrats' "withdrawal" plan has come under fire from opponents of the occupation who say it doesn't stop the war, doesn't defund it, and insures that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond President Bush's second term. Such concerns were reinforced by Sen. Barack Obama's recent declaration that the Democrats will not cut off funding for the war, regardless of the President's policies. "Nobody," he said, "wants to play chicken with our troops."

As the New York Times reported, "Lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable" for (partial) withdrawal, which the White House has said would "guarantee defeat." In other words, the appearance of a fierce debate this week, Presidential veto and all, has largely been a show with a predictable outcome.

The Shadow War in Iraq

While all of this is troubling, there is another disturbing fact which speaks volumes about the Democrats' lack of insight into the nature of this unpopular war -- and most Americans will know next to nothing about it. Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq -- and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military "contractors" who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active duty U.S. forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel that currently come from companies like Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration. Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing U.S. troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future "surge" in Iraq.

From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq. While many of them perform logistical support activities for American troops, including the sort of laundry, fuel and mail delivery, and food-preparation work that once was performed by soldiers, tens of thousands of them are directly engaged in military and combat activities. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are now some 48,000 employees of private military companies in Iraq. These not-quite G.I. Joes, working for Blackwater and other major U.S. firms, can clear in a month what some active-duty soldiers make in a year. "We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of Defense," said House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. "How in the hell do you justify that?"

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman estimates that $4 billion in taxpayer money has so far been spent in Iraq on these armed "security" companies like Blackwater -- with tens of billions more going to other war companies like KBR and Fluor for "logistical" support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of the House Intelligence Committee believes that up to forty cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors.

With such massive government payouts, there is little incentive for these companies to minimize their footprint in the region and every incentive to look for more opportunities to profit -- especially if, sooner or later, the "official" U.S. presence shrinks, giving the public a sense of withdrawal, of a winding down of the war. Even if George W. Bush were to sign the legislation the Democrats have passed, their plan "allows the President the leeway to escalate the use of military security contractors directly on the battlefield," Erik Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies points out. It would "allow the President to continue the war using a mercenary army."

The crucial role of contractors in continuing the occupation was driven home in January when David Petraeus, the general running the President's "surge" plan in Baghdad, cited private forces as essential to winning the war. In his confirmation hearings in the Senate, he claimed that they fill a gap attributable to insufficient troop levels available to an overstretched military. Along with Bush's official troop surge, the "tens of thousands of contract security forces," Petraeus told the Senators, "give me the reason to believe that we can accomplish the mission." Indeed, Gen. Petraeus admitted that he has, at times, been guarded in Iraq not by the U.S. military, but "secured by contract security."

Such widespread use of contractors, especially in mission-critical operations, should have raised red flags among lawmakers. After a trip to Iraq last month, Retired Gen. Barry McCaffery observed bluntly, "We are overly dependant on civilian contractors. In extreme danger--they will not fight." It is, however, the political rather than military uses of these forces that should be cause for the greatest concern.

Contractors have provided the White House with political cover, allowing for a back-door near doubling of U.S. forces in Iraq through the private sector, while masking the full extent of the human costs of the occupation. Although contractor deaths are not effectively tallied, at least 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq and at least another 7,700 injured. These numbers are not included in any official (or media) toll of the war. More significantly, there is absolutely no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations, nor is there any effective law -- military or civilian -- being applied to their activities. They have not been subjected to military courts martial (despite a recent Congressional attempt to place them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice), nor have they been prosecuted in U.S. civilian courts – and, no matter what their acts in Iraq, they cannot be prosecuted in Iraqi courts. Before Paul Bremer, Bush's viceroy in Baghdad, left Iraq in 2004 he issued an edict, known as Order 17. It immunized contractors from prosecution in Iraq which, today, is like the wild West, full of roaming Iraqi death squads and scores of unaccountable, heavily-armed mercenaries, ex-military men from around the world, working for the occupation. For the community of contractors in Iraq, immunity and impunity are welded together.

Despite the tens of thousands of contractors passing through Iraq and several well-documented incidents involving alleged contractor abuses, only two individuals have been ever indicted for crimes there. One was charged with stabbing a fellow contractor, while the other pled guilty to the possession of child-pornography images on his computer at Abu Ghraib prison. While dozens of American soldiers have been court-martialed -- 64 on murder-related charges -- not a single armed contractor has been prosecuted for a crime against an Iraqi. In some cases, where contractors were alleged to have been involved in crimes or deadly incidents, their companies whisked them out of Iraq to safety.

As one armed contractor recently informed the Washington Post, "We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night." According to another, U.S. contractors in Iraq had their own motto: "What happens here today, stays here today."

Funding the Mercenary War

"These private contractors are really an arm of the administration and its policies," argues Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has called for a withdrawal of all U.S. contractors from Iraq. "They charge whatever they want with impunity. There's no accountability as to how many people they have, as to what their activities are."

Until now, this situation has largely been the doing of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House. No longer.

While some Congressional Democrats have publicly expressed grave concerns about the widespread use of these private forces and a handful have called for their withdrawal, the party leadership has done almost nothing to stop, or even curb, the use of mercenary corporations in Iraq. As it stands, the Bush administration and the industry have little to fear from Congress on this score, despite the unseating of the Republican majority.

On two central fronts, accountability and funding, the Democrats' approach has been severely flawed, playing into the agendas of both the White House and the war contractors. Some Democrats, for instance, are pushing accountability legislation that would actually require more U.S. personnel to deploy to Iraq as part of an FBI Baghdad "Theater Investigative Unit" that would supposedly monitor and investigate contractor conduct. The idea is: FBI investigators would run around Iraq, gather evidence, and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions in U.S. civilian courts.

This is a plan almost certain to backfire, if ever instituted. It raises a slew of questions: Who would protect the investigators? How would Iraqi victims be interviewed? How would evidence be gathered amid the chaos and dangers of Iraq? Given that the federal government and the military seem unable -- or unwilling -- even to count how many contractors are actually in the country, how could their activities possibly be monitored? In light of the recent Bush administration scandal over the eight fired US attorneys, serious questions remain about the integrity of the Justice Department. How could we have any faith that real crimes in Iraq, committed by the employees of immensely well-connected crony corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton, would be investigated adequately?

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively monitor 126,000 or more private contractors under the best of conditions in the world's most dangerous war zone, this legislation would give the industry a tremendous PR victory. Once it was passed as the law of the land, the companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations. Yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Not surprisingly, then, the mercenary trade group with the Orwellian name of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) has pushed for just this Democratic-sponsored approach rather than the military court martial system favored by conservative Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. The IPOA called the expansion of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act -- essentially the Democrats' oversight plan -- "the most cogent approach to ensuring greater contractor accountability in the battle space." That endorsement alone should be reason enough to pause and reconsider.

Then there is the issue of continued funding for the privatized shadow forces in Iraq. As originally passed in the House, the Democrats' Iraq plan would have cut only about 15% or $815 million of the supplemental spending earmarked for day-to-day military operations "to reflect savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of contracts in the military departments."

As it stood, this was a stunningly insufficient plan, given ongoing events in Iraq. But even that mild provision was dropped by the Democrats in late April. Their excuse was the need to hold more hearings on the contractor issue. Instead, they moved to withhold -- not cut -- 15% of total day-to-day operational funding, but only until Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submits a report on the use of contractors and the scope of their deployment. Once the report is submitted, the 15% would be unlocked. In essence, this means that, under the Democrats plan, the mercenary forces will simply be able to continue business-as-usual/profits-as-usual in Iraq.

However obfuscated by discussions of accountability, fiscal responsibility, and oversight, the gorilla of a question in the Congressional war room is: Should the administration be allowed to use mercenary forces, whose livelihoods depend on war and conflict, to help fight its battles in Iraq?

Rep. Murtha says, "We're trying to bring accountability to an unaccountable war." But it's not accountability that the war needs; it needs an end.

By sanctioning the administration's continuing use of mercenary corporations -- instead of cutting off all funding to them -- the Democrats leave the door open for a future escalation of the shadow war in Iraq. This, in turn, could pave the way for an array of secretive, politically well-connected firms that have profited tremendously under the current administration to elevate their status and increase their government paychecks.

Blackwater's War

Consider the case of Blackwater USA.

A decade ago, the company barely existed; and yet, its "diplomatic security" contracts since mid-2004, with the State Department alone, total more than $750 million. Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration's well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the U.S. ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting Congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, setting up a "command and control" center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Since September 11, 2001, the company has invested its lucrative government pay-outs in building an impressive private army. At present, it has forces deployed in nine countries and boasts a database of 21,000 additional troops at the ready, a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world's largest private military facility -- a 7,000 acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. It recently opened a new facility in Illinois ("Blackwater North") and is fighting local opposition to a third planned domestic facility near San Diego ("Blackwater West") by the Mexican border. It is also manufacturing an armored vehicle (nicknamed the "Grizzly") and surveillance blimps.

The man behind this empire is Erik Prince, a secretive, conservative Christian, ex-Navy SEAL multimillionaire who bankrolls the President and his allies with major campaign contributions. Among Blackwater's senior executives are Cofer Black, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA; Robert Richer, former Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA; Joseph Schmitz, former Pentagon Inspector General; and an impressive array of other retired military and intelligence officials. Company executives recently announced the creation of a new private intelligence company, "Total Intelligence," to be headed by Black and Richer.

For years, Blackwater's operations have been shrouded in secrecy. Emboldened by the culture of impunity enjoyed by the private sector in the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater's founder has talked of creating a "contractor brigade" to support US military operations and fancies his forces the "FedEx" of the "national security apparatus."

As the country debates an Iraq withdrawal, Congress owes it to the public to take down the curtain of secrecy surrounding these shadow forces that undergird the U.S. public deployment in Iraq. The President likes to say that defunding the war would undercut the troops. Here's the truth of the matter: Continued funding of the Iraq war ensures tremendous profits for politically-connected war contractors. If Congress is serious about ending the occupation, it needs to rein in the unaccountable companies that make it possible and only stand to profit from its escalation.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Copyright 2007 Jeremy Scahill

Another Economic Disconnect: PAUL KRUGMAN - Profit Gusher

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Another Economic Disconnect

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 30, 2007

In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.

Last fall Edward Lazear, the Bush administration’s top economist, explained that what’s good for corporations is good for America. “Profits,” he declared, “provide the incentive for physical capital investment, and physical capital growth contributes to productivity growth. Thus profits are important not only for investors but also for the workers who benefit from the growth in productivity.”

In other words, ask not for whom the closing bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Unfortunately, these days none of what Mr. Lazear said seems to be true. In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.

--MORE--

Sen. Durbin Drops Bombshells on the Senate Floor

And they call this oversight....
---
By: SilentPatriot on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 1:18 PM - PDT

Senator Dick Durbin, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee during the lead up to the war, fills us in on what was going on behind the intel scenes in 2002-2003 and how accurately it matched up with what we were being told publicly. Unfortunately for all of us, he was sworn to secrecy back then…

Download (11183) | Play (15851) Download (5368) | Play (11367)

---

Filed Under: Countdown/Keith Olbermann, Iraq, Liars, Intelligence Gathering, The Senate
Permalink