By Sam Bahour
The Israeli occupation is alive and well, although you may not be hearing much about it. See attached pics from our front page today... the words under the picture from left to right say, "Rafah", "Beit Hanoun", and Beit Lahya," all cities in the Gaza Strip. Just enough destruction to not make the world's headlines, and just enough to make sure Palestinian see no hope for the future! ... and these 3 pics are just from Israeli actions last night!!
Pdf - see the top images for November 18, 2006
http://pdf.alquds.com/
Sam Bahour, MBA, is a Palestinian-American businessman, originally from Youngstown, Ohio, who lives in Al-Bireh, the sister city of Ramallah. He may be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The Olive Picker
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Felicity Arbuthnot
When Bristol, U.K., based, Ed Hill's elderly mother persuaded him to accompany her on a 'Holy Land Tour', as a committed atheist, he was underwhelmed. He returned from Palestine a changed man, in love with the place and people, enraged at their plight.
He joined solidarlity movements, campaigned, with Bristol Palestine Solidarity campaign helped raise money for for an orphanage in the northern town of Tulkarm, to which Bristol mosques conbtributed generously. Then Palestine's life blood, olives, touched his heart. He had learned of olive groves, some over a hundred years old, bulldozed by the Israelis.
Then he heard of the Zaytoun Co-operative, formed by a group who put their scant savings, student loans, unemployment money, to export olive oil to the U.K. He started selling Zaytoun's oils and the project became a passion: 'I had crossed the line, I became a Zaytoun Zealot!', says Hill.
Last year, Zaytoun organised an olive harvest trip. Farming families now depend almost entirely on their land for survival and the olive harvest has anyway, ever been one of the year's key events for every Palestinian villager.
Now Israeli settlers and soldiers harrass, attack and deter villagers travelling by cart, donkey and battered pick-up, armed just with tarpaulins and blankets, to catch the olives as they fall and whatever celebratory picnic they can afford at a time celebrated over millenia.
Zaytoun had decided to ask those from other countries for the occasion in the hope that, as with the 'internationals' that travel with ambulances, there might be less harrassment. Hill needed no urging, but, he says, a lot of advice on convincing the Israeli authorities to let him in and persuade them of his reasons for visiting Palestine.
Ironically this self confessed non-believer, now on a different kind of 'Holy Land Tour', decided that donning a large cross and declaring himself a born again Christian would be convincing. It worked.
In the old city of Jerusalem, where Zaytoun had arranged to meet their guests, he quickly discovered reality under occupation. Walking through Damascus Gate and : 'suddely in a mediaeval maze of narrow streets and alleyways', he encountered a: 'gang of incredibly young, arrogant and undisciplined Israeli soldiers', and was struck by how big their guns were.
Later he learned that someone had thrown a stone at soldiers in the area that day, who had exacted revenge by: 'throwing sound grenades into groups of school children, injuring some.'
And he discovered the separation wall: 'As tall as a house', being built to separate Israel from Palestine, separating families, farmers from their land and destroying swathes of ancient citrus orchards, figs, olives. 'The apartheid system from South Africa, is being perfected in the West Bank', concludes Hill.
Travelling to the first picking venue, the town of As Sawiya: 'We passed the settlement town of Ariel, with swinming pool, fountains, lawns with sprinklers.
The water comes from aquafers under the West Bank, supplied cheaply to settlers - the Palestinians have to buy their own water back at inflated prices - and rationed so that on average they only get half the U.N. (considered adequate) quota.'
Below Ariel, is the little town of Marda, the wall snaking round, looking likely to completely maroon it. Settlers, learned Hill, from the Head Mistress of a girls high school, sometimes come in to the school, attack students, break windows and furniture, steal computers and also block children from getting to school.
Teachers are turned back at checkpoints. The Head Mistress described a pregnant woman at one, who had become so distressed she had struck a soldier - who shot her and left her to bleed to death. 'Between September 2000 and December 2004, sixty one women gave birth at checkpoints, thirty six babies died as a result, according to the UN', says Hill, adding : 'Near Jenin, Israeli soldiers even forced residents to undress at a roadblock.'
As Sawiya (population two thousand) had lost twenty eight percent of its farm land to the illegal settlement of Eli and farmers have been attacked,says Hill, with sticks, guns and dogs. Fields of fruit have had to be abandoned. Hill's group, with the enduringly courageous Rabbis for Human Rights: 'Provided protection so the villagers could gather at least one more harvest.
Olive picking is convivial, with teams working on each tree, the blankets and tarpaulins spread to catch the handfulls of olives, pulled from the branches.' Later, tablecloths are spread on the ground and "eat,eat" urge the hosts, "you are our guests", as pitta bread, hummous, olives, diced cucumbers and tomatoes are spread out.'
Hill talks of the 'privelige' he feels at knowing these extraordinarily resilient people, who have lost and suffered so much. 'Aren't you angry' he asked one man who had lost swathes of land : 'Anger is for mad people', he replied : 'All we want is to live in peace.'
After As Sawiya, Hill's group moved on to Mada, a village originally without about ten thousand dunums of land. 'The Ariel settlement stole three thousand, the Wall took a further eight hundred - and three thousand olive trees - and a highway will take more. Further all exits except one have been closed off, which the Israelis seal at will,sometimes for days.
Farmers cannot get to their land children their schools. It was possibly the last harvest before the Wall completely enclosed the land'. comments Hill. (At Anata School in Jerusalem, this obscene apartheid symbol, goes straight through the playground, he discovered.)
Currently, Hill is back in Mada and presented his eighty minute documentary 'Our Sufferings in this Land', filmed throughout last year's visit, to the Mayor, Sadeq Kufash.
'The Wall is now complete', says Hill: 'When the gate is closed, fields just across the road cannot be reached, this little town is ghettoised. People rely entirely on their land and their olives. There are nightly raids between midnight and dawn by Israeli soldiers.On 6th November they raided the house of a women psychologist, asleep with her children aged three and one and her mother. They held them at gunpoint in the garden for an hour.
A fourteen year old boy was arrested for gong near the wall.' During one late night attack, the word went round the village: "ring for the olive pickers." 'Last Friday', Hill continues: 'Israeli soldiers attacked the olive harvesters, when we, the internationals tried to intervene, one soldier said: "The only good Arab is a dead Arab." '
'This regular attrition against the ordinary people of Palestine never reaches the main stream media. This little town has done no harm to anyone.
But it is obvious the nearby settlement wants to drive the people out and eventually bulldoze their town to grab the land and recources. I think it is criminal and I want the world to know about it,' he says, adding, that when he saw their plight: 'I felt like crying.'
Hill seeks donations for computers and cameras for school. For his video and informative, resource packed booklet : 'Bristol to Tulkarm' : www.BristolComputers4Palestine.co.uk
For oil and more on Zaytoun: www.zaytoun.org
http://baqaacamp.blogspot.com/2006/11/olive-pickerfelicity-arbuthnot-when.html
Felicity Arbuthnot
When Bristol, U.K., based, Ed Hill's elderly mother persuaded him to accompany her on a 'Holy Land Tour', as a committed atheist, he was underwhelmed. He returned from Palestine a changed man, in love with the place and people, enraged at their plight.
He joined solidarlity movements, campaigned, with Bristol Palestine Solidarity campaign helped raise money for for an orphanage in the northern town of Tulkarm, to which Bristol mosques conbtributed generously. Then Palestine's life blood, olives, touched his heart. He had learned of olive groves, some over a hundred years old, bulldozed by the Israelis.
Then he heard of the Zaytoun Co-operative, formed by a group who put their scant savings, student loans, unemployment money, to export olive oil to the U.K. He started selling Zaytoun's oils and the project became a passion: 'I had crossed the line, I became a Zaytoun Zealot!', says Hill.
Last year, Zaytoun organised an olive harvest trip. Farming families now depend almost entirely on their land for survival and the olive harvest has anyway, ever been one of the year's key events for every Palestinian villager.
Now Israeli settlers and soldiers harrass, attack and deter villagers travelling by cart, donkey and battered pick-up, armed just with tarpaulins and blankets, to catch the olives as they fall and whatever celebratory picnic they can afford at a time celebrated over millenia.
Zaytoun had decided to ask those from other countries for the occasion in the hope that, as with the 'internationals' that travel with ambulances, there might be less harrassment. Hill needed no urging, but, he says, a lot of advice on convincing the Israeli authorities to let him in and persuade them of his reasons for visiting Palestine.
Ironically this self confessed non-believer, now on a different kind of 'Holy Land Tour', decided that donning a large cross and declaring himself a born again Christian would be convincing. It worked.
In the old city of Jerusalem, where Zaytoun had arranged to meet their guests, he quickly discovered reality under occupation. Walking through Damascus Gate and : 'suddely in a mediaeval maze of narrow streets and alleyways', he encountered a: 'gang of incredibly young, arrogant and undisciplined Israeli soldiers', and was struck by how big their guns were.
Later he learned that someone had thrown a stone at soldiers in the area that day, who had exacted revenge by: 'throwing sound grenades into groups of school children, injuring some.'
And he discovered the separation wall: 'As tall as a house', being built to separate Israel from Palestine, separating families, farmers from their land and destroying swathes of ancient citrus orchards, figs, olives. 'The apartheid system from South Africa, is being perfected in the West Bank', concludes Hill.
Travelling to the first picking venue, the town of As Sawiya: 'We passed the settlement town of Ariel, with swinming pool, fountains, lawns with sprinklers.
The water comes from aquafers under the West Bank, supplied cheaply to settlers - the Palestinians have to buy their own water back at inflated prices - and rationed so that on average they only get half the U.N. (considered adequate) quota.'
Below Ariel, is the little town of Marda, the wall snaking round, looking likely to completely maroon it. Settlers, learned Hill, from the Head Mistress of a girls high school, sometimes come in to the school, attack students, break windows and furniture, steal computers and also block children from getting to school.
Teachers are turned back at checkpoints. The Head Mistress described a pregnant woman at one, who had become so distressed she had struck a soldier - who shot her and left her to bleed to death. 'Between September 2000 and December 2004, sixty one women gave birth at checkpoints, thirty six babies died as a result, according to the UN', says Hill, adding : 'Near Jenin, Israeli soldiers even forced residents to undress at a roadblock.'
As Sawiya (population two thousand) had lost twenty eight percent of its farm land to the illegal settlement of Eli and farmers have been attacked,says Hill, with sticks, guns and dogs. Fields of fruit have had to be abandoned. Hill's group, with the enduringly courageous Rabbis for Human Rights: 'Provided protection so the villagers could gather at least one more harvest.
Olive picking is convivial, with teams working on each tree, the blankets and tarpaulins spread to catch the handfulls of olives, pulled from the branches.' Later, tablecloths are spread on the ground and "eat,eat" urge the hosts, "you are our guests", as pitta bread, hummous, olives, diced cucumbers and tomatoes are spread out.'
Hill talks of the 'privelige' he feels at knowing these extraordinarily resilient people, who have lost and suffered so much. 'Aren't you angry' he asked one man who had lost swathes of land : 'Anger is for mad people', he replied : 'All we want is to live in peace.'
After As Sawiya, Hill's group moved on to Mada, a village originally without about ten thousand dunums of land. 'The Ariel settlement stole three thousand, the Wall took a further eight hundred - and three thousand olive trees - and a highway will take more. Further all exits except one have been closed off, which the Israelis seal at will,sometimes for days.
Farmers cannot get to their land children their schools. It was possibly the last harvest before the Wall completely enclosed the land'. comments Hill. (At Anata School in Jerusalem, this obscene apartheid symbol, goes straight through the playground, he discovered.)
Currently, Hill is back in Mada and presented his eighty minute documentary 'Our Sufferings in this Land', filmed throughout last year's visit, to the Mayor, Sadeq Kufash.
'The Wall is now complete', says Hill: 'When the gate is closed, fields just across the road cannot be reached, this little town is ghettoised. People rely entirely on their land and their olives. There are nightly raids between midnight and dawn by Israeli soldiers.On 6th November they raided the house of a women psychologist, asleep with her children aged three and one and her mother. They held them at gunpoint in the garden for an hour.
A fourteen year old boy was arrested for gong near the wall.' During one late night attack, the word went round the village: "ring for the olive pickers." 'Last Friday', Hill continues: 'Israeli soldiers attacked the olive harvesters, when we, the internationals tried to intervene, one soldier said: "The only good Arab is a dead Arab." '
'This regular attrition against the ordinary people of Palestine never reaches the main stream media. This little town has done no harm to anyone.
But it is obvious the nearby settlement wants to drive the people out and eventually bulldoze their town to grab the land and recources. I think it is criminal and I want the world to know about it,' he says, adding, that when he saw their plight: 'I felt like crying.'
Hill seeks donations for computers and cameras for school. For his video and informative, resource packed booklet : 'Bristol to Tulkarm' : www.BristolComputers4Palestine.co.uk
For oil and more on Zaytoun: www.zaytoun.org
http://baqaacamp.blogspot.com/2006/11/olive-pickerfelicity-arbuthnot-when.html
The coming U.S. withdrawal from Iraq
Martin van Creveld
Tribune Media Services
Now that the American people have recognized that the war in Iraq is hopeless, what comes next? The United States is going to cut its losses and withdraw. Most likely, the withdrawal will start within months and be more or less complete by autumn 2007. If not, then the war will dominate the next U.S elections as it has the recent ones, and that is something neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want.
Withdrawing 140,000 men with all their equipment is a very complex operation. In 1945 and 1973, America simply evacuated its troops, leaving most of its equipment to its West European and South Vietnamese protégés respectively. This time things are different. So precious is modern defense equipment that not even the largest power on earth can afford to abandon large quantities of it.
Second, whatever equipment is left in Iraq is likely to fall into the hands of America's enemies. Thus the Pentagon will have no choice but to evacuate millions of tons of war matériel the way it came - in other words, back at least as far as Kuwait. Doing so will be time-consuming, enormously expensive and dangerous, as road-bound convoys making their way south are attacked.
The Iraq that the American forces leave behind them has been devastated. Its infrastructure has been wrecked. The oil industry, which used to account for 90 percent of its income, is in ruins. A recent estimate puts human losses at 150,000 dead. Worst of all, a government that can master the situation is not in sight. In its absence, Shiites and Sunnis are almost certainly going to fight each other for a long time to come; Shiites may also fight other Shiites. The beneficiaries are going to be the Kurds, who have been quietly expelling Arabs from northern Iraq, laying the foundation for their own state.
A reunited Iraq will take a long time to rise, if it ever does. A fragmented Iraq will greatly strengthen the position of Iran. To make sure some future American president does not get it into his or her head to attack Iran, the Iranians are going to press ahead as fast as they can in building nuclear weapons.
A powerful Iran presents a threat to the world's oil supplies and should therefore worry Washington. To deter Iran, U.S. forces will have to stay in the region for the indefinite future, probably divided between Kuwait, Oman, and other Gulf states. One can only hope that the forces in question, and the political will behind them, will be strong enough to deter Iran.
Some countries in the Middle East ought to be even more worried about Iran than the United States is. While turning to America for protection, several of them will almost certainly take a second look into the possibility of starting their own nuclear programs. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Syria may all end up with nuclear arsenals.
An Iraq that is in a state of chronic civil war will present an ideal breeding ground for terrorists of every sort. Most will probably operate within Iraq, but some will almost certainly take on the regimes of neighboring Arab countries, such as Jordan and Kuwait. Some may reach Lebanon, others Israel. Others still will try to extend their activities into the West. Another Osama bin Laden, setting up his headquarters somewhere in Iraq and directing his operations from there, is a distinct possibility.
Before 2003, many people looked at the United States as a colossus that was bestriding the earth. Whatever else, the war has left America with its international position weakened. The first task confronting Robert Gates, nominated to be the new secretary of defense, and his eventual successors must be to rebuild U.S. forces to the point where they may again be used if necessary.
Above all, America must take a hard look at its foreign policy. What role should the strongest power on earth play in the international arena, and just what are the limits of that role? How can U.S. power be matched with its finite economic possibilities and under what circumstances should it be used? If American power is used, what should its objectives be?
The answers to these questions may well have to wait until the 2008 elections sweep what remains of the Bush administration into the dustbin of history.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/16/opinion/edcreveld.php
Tribune Media Services
Now that the American people have recognized that the war in Iraq is hopeless, what comes next? The United States is going to cut its losses and withdraw. Most likely, the withdrawal will start within months and be more or less complete by autumn 2007. If not, then the war will dominate the next U.S elections as it has the recent ones, and that is something neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want.
Withdrawing 140,000 men with all their equipment is a very complex operation. In 1945 and 1973, America simply evacuated its troops, leaving most of its equipment to its West European and South Vietnamese protégés respectively. This time things are different. So precious is modern defense equipment that not even the largest power on earth can afford to abandon large quantities of it.
Second, whatever equipment is left in Iraq is likely to fall into the hands of America's enemies. Thus the Pentagon will have no choice but to evacuate millions of tons of war matériel the way it came - in other words, back at least as far as Kuwait. Doing so will be time-consuming, enormously expensive and dangerous, as road-bound convoys making their way south are attacked.
The Iraq that the American forces leave behind them has been devastated. Its infrastructure has been wrecked. The oil industry, which used to account for 90 percent of its income, is in ruins. A recent estimate puts human losses at 150,000 dead. Worst of all, a government that can master the situation is not in sight. In its absence, Shiites and Sunnis are almost certainly going to fight each other for a long time to come; Shiites may also fight other Shiites. The beneficiaries are going to be the Kurds, who have been quietly expelling Arabs from northern Iraq, laying the foundation for their own state.
A reunited Iraq will take a long time to rise, if it ever does. A fragmented Iraq will greatly strengthen the position of Iran. To make sure some future American president does not get it into his or her head to attack Iran, the Iranians are going to press ahead as fast as they can in building nuclear weapons.
A powerful Iran presents a threat to the world's oil supplies and should therefore worry Washington. To deter Iran, U.S. forces will have to stay in the region for the indefinite future, probably divided between Kuwait, Oman, and other Gulf states. One can only hope that the forces in question, and the political will behind them, will be strong enough to deter Iran.
Some countries in the Middle East ought to be even more worried about Iran than the United States is. While turning to America for protection, several of them will almost certainly take a second look into the possibility of starting their own nuclear programs. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Syria may all end up with nuclear arsenals.
An Iraq that is in a state of chronic civil war will present an ideal breeding ground for terrorists of every sort. Most will probably operate within Iraq, but some will almost certainly take on the regimes of neighboring Arab countries, such as Jordan and Kuwait. Some may reach Lebanon, others Israel. Others still will try to extend their activities into the West. Another Osama bin Laden, setting up his headquarters somewhere in Iraq and directing his operations from there, is a distinct possibility.
Before 2003, many people looked at the United States as a colossus that was bestriding the earth. Whatever else, the war has left America with its international position weakened. The first task confronting Robert Gates, nominated to be the new secretary of defense, and his eventual successors must be to rebuild U.S. forces to the point where they may again be used if necessary.
Above all, America must take a hard look at its foreign policy. What role should the strongest power on earth play in the international arena, and just what are the limits of that role? How can U.S. power be matched with its finite economic possibilities and under what circumstances should it be used? If American power is used, what should its objectives be?
The answers to these questions may well have to wait until the 2008 elections sweep what remains of the Bush administration into the dustbin of history.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/16/opinion/edcreveld.php
War on Terror + Enron Accounting = Massive Fraud: Bonddad
Nov 18, 2006
By Bonddad
bonddad@prodigy.net
President Bush has asked for more money for the global war on terror.
The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.
The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.
The problem is we have no idea how we have spent most of the money Congress has already appropriated.
As a result, neither DOD nor the Congress reliably know how much the war is costing and how appropriated funds are being used or have historical data useful in considering future funding needs.
On July 18 2006, the General Accounting Office released a report titled Global War on Terrorism: Observations on Funding, Costs, and Future Commitments. (See link above) This report indicated the government's accounting of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is at best shoddy. Let's go through the report's main findings to see exactly what is going on.
DOD has reported incremental costs of about $273 billion for overseas GWOT-related activities through April 2006. This amount includes almost $215 billion for operations in Iraq and almost $58 billion for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere.
This is not chump change - it's a sizeable amount of money.
However, our prior work [the GAO's] has found numerous problems with DOD's processes for recording and reporting costs for GWOT, including longstanding deficiencies in DOD's financial management systems and business processes, the use of estimates instead of actual costs, and the lack of adequate supporting documentation.
The GAO has found major problems. Let me translate the business jargon. "Financial management systems and business processes" is business lingo for how the inner-workings of the Pentagon deal with costs. For example, suppose department A is responsible for buying ammunition. That department would either have an accounting section to deal with the costs or there would be a central accounting section of a larger department that would perform the same function. All of these accounting departments are overseen at some level to make sure all the departments comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), communicate with each other using similar terminology etc... The GAO found that the internal account departments of the DOD had "longstanding deficiencies". This is business talk for "there are REALLY BIG PROBLEMS IN THE WAY WE PERFORM ACCOUNTING". In other words, the DOD is ripe for accounting abuse. Think Enron and you'll get the idea.
[T]he use of estimates instead of actual costs. This is a classic government problem. An agency will usually overestimate costs to allow for a financial cushion in projects. Now - this is not in and of itself fraudulent. Businesses do this all the time. It gives them financial wiggle room, especially when they are developing new products. However, once a business knows the actual cost of a product, they use the actual cost. The GAO found the Pentagon is continuing to use the estimated costs - even if they know the actual cost - in a variety projects. This means the Pentagon is probably overestimating the cost of many things - again, a situation ripe for abuse.
[T]he lack of adequate supporting documentation. This is great. We don't even have documents to understand the internal cost structures of the Pentagon. Let's just say -- NOT GOOD, BOYS. NOT GOOD AT ALL.
Ladies and gentlemen - I bring you Enron style accounting, courtesy of the GWOT, Donald Rumsfeld and the Republican's "we're the party of business" leadership. If the GWOT were a private, ongoing business concern, they would have to declare bankruptcy to reorganize this mess they have created. This is the result of Republican style rule.
By Bonddad
bonddad@prodigy.net
President Bush has asked for more money for the global war on terror.
The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.
The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.
The problem is we have no idea how we have spent most of the money Congress has already appropriated.
As a result, neither DOD nor the Congress reliably know how much the war is costing and how appropriated funds are being used or have historical data useful in considering future funding needs.
On July 18 2006, the General Accounting Office released a report titled Global War on Terrorism: Observations on Funding, Costs, and Future Commitments. (See link above) This report indicated the government's accounting of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is at best shoddy. Let's go through the report's main findings to see exactly what is going on.
DOD has reported incremental costs of about $273 billion for overseas GWOT-related activities through April 2006. This amount includes almost $215 billion for operations in Iraq and almost $58 billion for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere.
This is not chump change - it's a sizeable amount of money.
However, our prior work [the GAO's] has found numerous problems with DOD's processes for recording and reporting costs for GWOT, including longstanding deficiencies in DOD's financial management systems and business processes, the use of estimates instead of actual costs, and the lack of adequate supporting documentation.
The GAO has found major problems. Let me translate the business jargon. "Financial management systems and business processes" is business lingo for how the inner-workings of the Pentagon deal with costs. For example, suppose department A is responsible for buying ammunition. That department would either have an accounting section to deal with the costs or there would be a central accounting section of a larger department that would perform the same function. All of these accounting departments are overseen at some level to make sure all the departments comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), communicate with each other using similar terminology etc... The GAO found that the internal account departments of the DOD had "longstanding deficiencies". This is business talk for "there are REALLY BIG PROBLEMS IN THE WAY WE PERFORM ACCOUNTING". In other words, the DOD is ripe for accounting abuse. Think Enron and you'll get the idea.
[T]he use of estimates instead of actual costs. This is a classic government problem. An agency will usually overestimate costs to allow for a financial cushion in projects. Now - this is not in and of itself fraudulent. Businesses do this all the time. It gives them financial wiggle room, especially when they are developing new products. However, once a business knows the actual cost of a product, they use the actual cost. The GAO found the Pentagon is continuing to use the estimated costs - even if they know the actual cost - in a variety projects. This means the Pentagon is probably overestimating the cost of many things - again, a situation ripe for abuse.
[T]he lack of adequate supporting documentation. This is great. We don't even have documents to understand the internal cost structures of the Pentagon. Let's just say -- NOT GOOD, BOYS. NOT GOOD AT ALL.
Ladies and gentlemen - I bring you Enron style accounting, courtesy of the GWOT, Donald Rumsfeld and the Republican's "we're the party of business" leadership. If the GWOT were a private, ongoing business concern, they would have to declare bankruptcy to reorganize this mess they have created. This is the result of Republican style rule.
Take Back Gaza, Israeli Official Says
This was Sharon's plan from day one. His apparent conversion led to a swap of the West Bank for Gaza. Just a deke to secure the West Bank and then reinvade Gaza.
---
Saturday November 18, 2006 1:01 PM
By KARIN LAUB
Associated Press Writer
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel should ignore moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, wipe out the Hamas leadership and walk away from the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan, Israel's new deputy prime minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said Saturday.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert forged an alliance with Lieberman, one of Israel's most divisive politicians, last month to shore up his shaky coalition. The appointment of Lieberman as minister of strategic affairs raised concern that Olmert's government, weakened by the summer's war in Lebanon, would freeze all peace efforts.
Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, had no comment Saturday on Lieberman's latest remarks laying out his views on the conflict with Palestinians.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a top Abbas aide, said Lieberman is stuck in the past and that his ideas ``are a recipe for the continuation of bloodshed, violence, extremism and hatred between the two sides.''
In an interview with Israel Radio, Lieberman proposed a series of measures, based on what he said is his belief that the Palestinians are not interested in setting up their own state, but rather in destroying Israel.
Israel must walk away from interim peace deals, the so-called Oslo Accords, and from the U.S.-backed ``road map'' plan, which envisions the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel in several stages, he said.
``A continuation of Oslo, of the road map ... will lead us to another round of conflict, a much more bloody round, and in the end to an even deeper deadlock, and it threatens our future,'' he said.
He dismissed Abbas, elected president in 2005, as an ineffective leader and said he should be ignored, in favor of closer coordination with the Jordanian government about the fate of the West Bank.
``We have a reliable partner there which is Jordan,'' he said. ``We have to coordinate with Jordan. We have to say that Abbas is simply not relevant, we have to ignore him ... He has no authority, no power.''
Israel also needs to get tougher with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, particularly their leaders, Lieberman said. ``I see the entire leadership of Hamas and Jihad walking around freely, and it's continuing to incite,'' he told the radio. ``They ... have to disappear, to go to paradise, all of them, and there can't be any compromise.''
The leader of the Hamas bloc in the Palestinian parliament, Mushir al-Masri, said any attack on the group's leaders would trigger immediate retaliation.
Israel has killed a series of Hamas leaders in targeted missiles strikes in recent years, including the group's founder, but has not targeted members of the Hamas government elected nine months ago.
Lieberman also proposed that Israel take back control of the Gaza-Egypt border to stop weapons smuggling.
Israel ceded the border in a U.S.-brokered agreement, after leaving the Gaza Strip last year.
Since then, the border has repeatedly been closed over security alerts, and Israel troops have raided the area in search of weapons-smuggling tunnels. The Israeli military has expressed concern about weapons flowing into Gaza. The border's Rafah crossing is controlled by Egypt, the Palestinians and EU monitors.
Lieberman said Israel cannot rely on others to prevent the influx of weapons.
``We have heard about tons of weapons, of missiles, we have heard about the smuggling of hundreds of millions of dollars into Gaza, and this is the fuel driving this entire war,'' he said. ``They have all failed, the international observers who are sitting at the Rafah crossing, the Egyptians.''
Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party (Israel is Our Home) has 11 seats in Israel's 120-member parliament, and gives Olmert a comfortable safety net in parliament votes.
The government expansion was roundly criticized by Israeli doves and Arab activists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6223995,00.html
UN chief: Nato cannot defeat Taliban by force: Nato forces 'failing'
Official says alliance failing in Afghanistan as Blair admits Iraq is a 'disaster'
Declan Walsh in Kabul and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian
Nato "cannot win" the fight against the Taliban alone and will have to train Afghan forces to do the job, the UN's top official in the country warned yesterday.
"At the moment Nato has a very optimistic assessment. They think they can win the war," warned Tom Koenigs, the diplomat heading the UN mission in Afghanistan. "But there is no quick fix."
In forthright comments which highlight divisions between international partners as Nato battles to quell insurgency, Mr Koenigs said that training the fledgling Afghan national army to defeat the Taliban was crucial. "They [the ANA] can win. But against an insurgency like that, international troops cannot win."
He spoke to the Guardian as Tony Blair came the closest so far to admitting the invasion of Iraq had been disastrous.
When Sir David Frost, interviewing the prime minister for al-Jazeera TV, suggested that western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster", Mr Blair responded: "It has. But, you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Downing Street tried to play down the apparent slip last night. A spokesman said: "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions. His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that [the belief that it is a disaster] is not one of them." However, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems, commented: "At long last, the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister. Surely parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology?"
British commanders have argued that UK troops should be withdrawn from Iraq to allow the military to focus on Afghanistan. But Nato commanders on the ground have pleaded for 2,000 more troops, helicopters and armoured vehicles, to little effect. Last night Nato secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said countries should lift restrictions on what their troops could do."My plea to governments would be: 'Please help us in lifting those caveats as much as possible ... because in Afghanistan it is a problem."
Des Browne, the defence secretary, made clear yesterday that the future of the alliance was now bound up with the future of Afghanistan. "The Afghan people, our own people and the Taliban are watching us. If we are indecisive or divided, the Taliban will be strengthened, just as all of the others despair," he said.
Attacks have increased fourfold this year and 3,700 people have died, mostly in the south. The US has made 2,000 air strikes since June, against 88 in Iraq.
Last week Acbar, an umbrella group of Afghan and international aid agencies, said the crisis highlighted the "urgent need" for a rethink of military, poverty-reduction and state-building policies.
Nato commanders maintain the Taliban have been on the "back foot" since Operation Medusa, a battle which killed more than 1,000 insurgents in Kandahar in September, and talk of gaining "psycho logical ascendancy". However, Mr Koenigs said any claim of victory was premature. "You can't resolve it by killing the Taliban. You have to win people over. That is done with good governance, decent police, diplomacy with Pakistan, and development," he said. Otherwise the Taliban would regroup in Pakistani refugee camps and madrasas and return in greater numbers next spring.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1951224,00.html
Intervention in Iraq 'pretty much of a disaster' admits Blair, as minister calls it his 'big mistake'
· Downing Street plays down slip in TV interview
· Hodge criticises 'moral imperialism' in speech
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair conceded last night that western intervention in Iraq had been a disaster. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV station, the prime minister agreed with the veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost when he suggested that intervention had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".
Mr Blair said: "It has, but you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Downing Street tried to downplay the apparent slip. "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions," said a spokesman. "His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that is not one of them."
Mr Blair's remarks came hours after his trade and industry minister, Margaret Hodge, was reported to have described Iraq as his "big mistake in foreign affairs" and criticised his "moral imperialism".
John McDonnell, the leftwing MP who has pledged to challenge for Labour's leadership, said the prime minister's concession was "staggering" and urged him to bring forward Britain's exit strategy.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister."
Earlier, Ms Hodge had told a private dinner organised by the Fabian Society that she had doubted Mr Blair's approach to foreign affairs as far back as 1998, because of his belief in imposing British values and ideas on other countries. According to the Islington Tribune, she said she had accepted Mr Blair's arguments on the threat posed by Iraq because "he was our leader and I trusted him" - before adding: "I hope this isn't being reported."
Ms Hodge was unavailable for comment yesterday, but a spokesman told the Evening Standard that she had not made the remarks. Asked if they reflected her opinions, he added: "I'm not in a position to comment on her private views."
A Downing Street spokesman said he knew nothing of the reported comments. "Margaret Hodge voted for military action in Iraq. Since then, she has always spoken in favour of it. We have a prime minister, a government, that is trying to bring the country together," he said, but added that nobody was disputing "the difficulties there are in Iraq". The Islington Tribune said its editor, Eric Gordon, had taken a shorthand note of the meeting in London, and it had checked the story thoroughly.
Pat Haynes, secretary of the Islington Fabian Society, did not recall the word "mistake", but added: "She said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war." He did not realise a journalist was at the meeting, he added. But Chris Roche, the Labour member who took Mr Gordon to the meeting, told Sky News: "Everyone knew there was a journalist there."
In May Ms Hodge was criticised by Labour activists after telling a newspaper that eight out of 10 of her constituents were considering voting for the BNP.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1951267,00.html
· Hodge criticises 'moral imperialism' in speech
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair conceded last night that western intervention in Iraq had been a disaster. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV station, the prime minister agreed with the veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost when he suggested that intervention had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".
Mr Blair said: "It has, but you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Downing Street tried to downplay the apparent slip. "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions," said a spokesman. "His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that is not one of them."
Mr Blair's remarks came hours after his trade and industry minister, Margaret Hodge, was reported to have described Iraq as his "big mistake in foreign affairs" and criticised his "moral imperialism".
John McDonnell, the leftwing MP who has pledged to challenge for Labour's leadership, said the prime minister's concession was "staggering" and urged him to bring forward Britain's exit strategy.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister."
Earlier, Ms Hodge had told a private dinner organised by the Fabian Society that she had doubted Mr Blair's approach to foreign affairs as far back as 1998, because of his belief in imposing British values and ideas on other countries. According to the Islington Tribune, she said she had accepted Mr Blair's arguments on the threat posed by Iraq because "he was our leader and I trusted him" - before adding: "I hope this isn't being reported."
Ms Hodge was unavailable for comment yesterday, but a spokesman told the Evening Standard that she had not made the remarks. Asked if they reflected her opinions, he added: "I'm not in a position to comment on her private views."
A Downing Street spokesman said he knew nothing of the reported comments. "Margaret Hodge voted for military action in Iraq. Since then, she has always spoken in favour of it. We have a prime minister, a government, that is trying to bring the country together," he said, but added that nobody was disputing "the difficulties there are in Iraq". The Islington Tribune said its editor, Eric Gordon, had taken a shorthand note of the meeting in London, and it had checked the story thoroughly.
Pat Haynes, secretary of the Islington Fabian Society, did not recall the word "mistake", but added: "She said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war." He did not realise a journalist was at the meeting, he added. But Chris Roche, the Labour member who took Mr Gordon to the meeting, told Sky News: "Everyone knew there was a journalist there."
In May Ms Hodge was criticised by Labour activists after telling a newspaper that eight out of 10 of her constituents were considering voting for the BNP.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1951267,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)