Monday, December 18, 2006

EU to Israel: Stop violating int'l law

European Council urges Israel to release detained Hamas ministers alongside release of abducted IDF soldier Shalit; ‘Israel must put an end to all activities which are contrary to international law, including settlement activities and construction of barrier on Palestinian land
Ronny Sofer

The European Council called on Monday for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to meet in the near future.

The Council urged Israel to release the detained Hamas ministers and parliament members and at the same time called on the Palestinians to release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
Regional Threat

EU charges Iran with destabilizing Middle East / Reuters

Resolution slams Iran over nuclear program, threats towards Israel; condemns denial of Holocaust by Tehran
Full Story

The European Council reiterated its call for full and speedy implementation of the Roadmap.

The Council said in a statement, “As a first step, the following priorities should be pursued, following a calendar agreed between the parties and monitored by the Quartet: Full and speedy implementation of the Agreement on Movement and Access; full implementation of the Sharm-el Sheikh understandings, including the release of prisoners and resumption of security cooperation between the parties; parallel implementation by the parties of the obligations they have committed to under the first phase of the Roadmap.

“These, though important, are only initial steps, and must lead to meaningful negotiations on the final status, the ultimate goal of which is an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and the creation of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living side-by-side with Israel and its other neighbours in peace and security,” the statement said.

The Council added that, “Violations of the ceasefire must end and it should be extended to the West Bank. For the ceasefire to be meaningful and sustainable it must be consolidated through a political process.”


The Council further demanded that the parties “take concrete and immediate measures to put an end to all acts of violence, and to all activities which are contrary to international law, including settlement activities and the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land.”

“The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders other than those agreed by both parties,” the statement said
.

Preemptive Warfare: Building a Consensus in favour of Israel's Nukes

Global Research, December 17, 2006

The so-called slip of the tongue that Israel has nuclear weapons by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has conveniently occurred after Robert Gates, the new U.S. defence secretary’s statement that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Robert Gates' statement is part of a new foreign policy endeavor which purports not only to acknowledge but also to legitimize Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. The latter are slated to used on a preemptive basis in response to alleged Iranian threats directed against Israel. Although refuted by expert opinion, Iran is said to possess nuclear weapons capabilities.

Defence Secretary Gates also stated that the United States could not ensure Israel’s protection from potential Iranian nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel is claiming that it needs nuclear weapons to be used on a preemptive basis in response to the menace by Iran and its allies to allegedly liquidate it.

Public consensus is being slowly built in regards to Israeli weapons of mass destructions (WMDs). The admission regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal (almost simultanously by Washington and Tel Aviv) seems to be part of a carefully planned campaign to legitimize Israeli nuclear weapons as a necessary means of self-defense. These statements are also linked to a broader geopolitical and strategic project to create a “New Middle East,” controlled by the United States, Britain, and Israel in alliance with NATO.

Global Research, December 17, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNEX

Olmert's nuclear remark sign of weakness - Iran

Reuters

December 15, 2006

Iran said on Friday a remark by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, widely interpreted as an admission the Jewish state has nuclear weapons, was a sign of Israel's weakness.

Olmert, in a German TV interview shown on Monday, implied for the first time that his country had nuclear weapons. His aides quickly denied it constituted an admission or change of policy.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, visiting Kazakhstan, called on the world community to take action.

"Their prime minister has announced they have got nuclear arms. It does not show their strength. It shows their weakness. They are afraid," Mottaki told reporters in the Kazakh capital Astana.

"The international community should react to this in an appropriate way," he said.

Israel, which has accused Iran of having an atomic weapons programme, is believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.

In his interview, Olmert said: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Independent analysts believe Israel has built between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads since the late 1960s. Israel refuses to discuss the matter, under an "ambiguity" policy aimed both at deterring regional foes and avoiding an arms race.

Copyright Reuters 2006

America’s outrageous meddling in Palestine

From palestine-info.co.uk
Comment

By Khalid Amayreh
Dec 17, 2006, 23:19

At a time when the Bush administration is utterly unable or unwilling to get Nazi-like Israel to remove even a single roadblock in the West Bank, the US government appears hell-bent on stoking up the fire of civil war in Palestine.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she would ask Congress for “tens of millions of dollars” to “strengthen the security forces” of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

But strengthen Abbas against whom? Against Israel which is savaging Palestinians and occupying their country and gravely violating their human, civil, political and national rights? Or perhaps they want to strengthen him so that his ’ strengthened “security forces would force Israel to dismantle the gigantic wall it has built in the heart of Palestinian population centers for the purpose of stealing more and more Palestinian land for Jewish settlement expansion?

Well, everybody knows why the mendacious American administration is seeking to strengthen Abbas. It is simply trying to do in Palestine what it has done in Iraq , Lebanon , Somalia and Afghanistan to mention just a few countries.

America is seeking nothing short of sparking off the flames of civil war in Palestine in order to promote and expedite Zionist ambitions and, consequently, abort Palestinian aspirations for freedom and independence from Jewish imperialism.

It is very lamentable (and shameful), indeed, that Abbas and his coterie of sycophants and hangers-on are putting their trust where it shouldn’t be, namely in the Bush administration and this deceitful Rice.

When will they realize that the US , not Hamas, is the Palestinian people’s tormentor?

Didn’t Rice instruct John Bolton just two weeks ago to veto a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israeli massacres in Beit Hanoun?

Didn’t this callous, sadistic Rice, only a few weeks ago, publicly congratulate her Israeli counterpart, Tsipi Livni, on succeeding in pushing hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Palestinians to the brink of starvation?

And finally, didn’t these stupid so-called leaders understand the meaning of Rice’s incessant and aggressive demand that Abbas and Fatah not join any national unity government with Hamas?

My God, when will they realize that nothing good could ever come from America , the empire of evil that killed over a million Iraqi children in order to punish one man, Saddam Hussein. And just look what America has done in Iraq following its invasion and occupation and destruction of that Arab country.!!

America , as we all know, has been making so-called “peace initiatives” from the mid 1950s and classifying the leaders and governments in this Arab-Muslim Middle East into extremists and moderates.

But what have these so-called “moderates” got from America in return for acting as mercenaries and betraying their own people? Did the successive American administrations ever succeed in getting Israel to remove one Jewish settlement outpost from our land, to stop the demolition of even one Palestinian home, or to stop the bulldozing of even one Palestinian olive grove?

If Abbas and cohorts realize this, why are they then harrowing after the American mirage? Why are they so blindly and so willfully stepping on the same trap that smashed our feet and broke our backs many times? Are they so gullible, so stupid and so demoralized that they are allowing themselves to be duped again and again and again by the American devil?

America doesn’t want peace in Palestine , America , which is controlled from head to toe by diabolical Zionist lobbies, can’t really achieve peace in Palestine . America has had more than fifty years to achieve peace, even when Israel was weaker and the Arab world was stronger than they are now. In short, America is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am sure that Abbas and company understand this in the bottom of their hearts. But, if so, why are they placing all their eggs in the American basket? Haven’t they learned the lesson of Yasser Arafat’s experience with the Americans and Israel .

Arafat recognized Israel, revoked the Palestinian National Charter, kissed the hands of Yitzhak Rabin’s wife’s hands, and established “state security courts” in his police state without a state in order to swiftly punish the “enemies of peace” with Israel. He even ordered these “enemies of peace” tortured and imprisoned, all for the sake of obtaining a certificate of good conduct from the criminals and thieves in Tel Aviv and their supporters, protectors and allies in Washington .

And what did he receive in return for all this “good will” which bordered on hypocrisy and sycophancy? They besieged him in his own office in Ramallah for three years before finally killing him by poison.

I am not asking Abbas to fly in the face of America , or even Israel . He is too coy and too obsequious to do so. However, He must at least uphold the Palestinian constants and refuse to be at America ’s beck and call at the expense of our enduring cause and our inalienable and legitimate rights.

He must resist and reject all this American meddling in Palestinian internal affairs, including American money and American weapons that everyone knows are meant to set Palestine on fire, a fire that would, God forbid, cause civil war in every Palestinian town, every Palestinian street, if not in every Palestinian clan and family.

Yes, Mr. Abbas. The White House and State Department spokespersons would wholesomely praise you for “showing leadership” and “strength” vis-à-vis Hamas? But then what would you do with all the praise in the world if you lost your people and killed their cause, while making Israel, the occupier of our national patrimony and tormentor of our people, truly gleeful and mesmerized with satisfaction at seeing Palestinian blood, a lot of Palestinian blood, shed by Palestinian hands.

© Copyright 2003 by palestine-info.co.uk email: webmaster@palestine-info.info

Iraq's Kangaroo Courts

December 17, 2006

Iraq’s Legal System Staggers Beneath the Weight of War

BAGHDAD — In a cavernous room that once displayed gifts given to Saddam Hussein, eight men in yellow prison garb sat on the floor facing the wall, guarded by two American soldiers.

Among them was Abdulla Sultan Khalaf, a Ministry of Industry employee seized by American troops who said they found 10 blasting caps and 100 sticks of TNT. When his name was called, he stood, walked into a cagelike defendant’s box and peered over the wooden slats at a panel of three Iraqi judges of the central court.

The judges reviewed evidence prepared by an American military lawyer — testimony from two soldiers, photographs and a sketch of the scene.

The evidence went largely unchallenged, because Mr. Khalaf had no lawyer. The judges appointed one, but Mr. Khalaf had no chance to speak with him. Mr. Khalaf told the judges that the soldiers were probably chasing a rogue nephew and denied that the explosives were his or ever in his house. “Let me examine the pictures,” he insisted. The judges ignored him. His lawyer said nothing, beyond declaring Mr. Khalaf’s innocence. The trial lasted 15 minutes.

By MICHAEL MOSS

U.S. Funds Taleban

US Hearts and Minds Cash Goes to Taleban

Funds distributed by US forces to civilians in a southern province find their way to the Taleban.

By Mirwais Atal in Ghazni (ARR No. 236, 28-Nov-06)

When United States troops in the southern province of Ghazni handed out cash to village elders, they must have thought they were winning friends. The money, intended for bridges, wells, drinking water, irrigation systems and other infrastructure projects, was supposed to convince the local Afghans that the foreign presence would benefit their country in general and themselves in particular.

After distributing the funds to villagers in Ghazni’s Andar district in early October, the US soldiers departed, having done their best to get the district on side.

Their hearts and minds campaign is part of a major anti-Taleban offensive codenamed Operation Mountain Fury, which US-led coalition forces launched in mid-September in conjunction with the Afghan National Army, ANA.

But the resources intended to combat Taleban influence ended up doing just the opposite. Local people in several parts of Andar district told IWPR that almost as soon as the coalition forces left their villages, the money found its way into Taleban coffers to finance the jihad against the foreigners.

“American money is haram [unlawful in Islam],” said Abdul Jalil, an elder in one village. “We could not use it to improve our lives. So we decided to give it to the Taleban. The most important thing we could do with this money was help the Taleban to pursue the jihad.”

At a gathering in the local mosque, mullahs exhorted the faithful to reject foreign blandishments and contribute to the insurgency, said Jalil. The elders agreed, so the Taleban were summoned and the money handed over.

An elder in another village called Lashko, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told IWPR that the villagers were well aware that they could not use the funds without Taleban consent.

“It’s the Taleban who are with us in the night-time,” he said. “They are powerful: they can enforce their rules and punish those who violate them. One day, the US troops gave us 50,000 afghani [1,000 US dollars] for a construction project, but the Taleban came to us that evening and asked us what we were going to do with it. We told them it was their decision. They took the money and left.”

According to this man, US troops arrived a few days later to see what had been accomplished with their donation. At a loss to reply, villagers told them that the Taleban had taken the money by force.

“The soldiers were angry and threatened that they would not help us against the Taleban,” he said.

Cash disbursements and distribution of goods were part of a special drive carried out in the course of military operations in areas where support for the Taleban has been strong. The fact that the aid was distributed by soldiers from an “occupying force” seems to have particularly angered the militants.

Other reconstruction projects administered by donors and carried out by contractors have had more success, although in places like Ghazni, implementing partners are becoming increasingly scarce, leaving assistance money and projects vulnerable to pressure from insurgents.

Asked about the military’s cash handouts, Larry Falkenhausen, a spokesman for the Provincial Reconstruction Team, PRT, in Ghazni, acknowledged there had been problems, but said such incidents were few and far between.

“The Andar district chief told us it happened in one village,” he told IWPR.

District chief Muhammad Rahim Disiwal, however, suggested that a number of villages were involved, though he suggested the aid money was extorted from the civilian population rather than given freely.

“We have received such reports from some villages,” he said. “The Taleban have used force to take aid materials distributed to villagers, which shows how they are robbing poor people and that they won’t even let other people help them.”

IWPR has received varying reports as to the level of force used by the Taleban to confiscate the aid. According to villagers, a combination of intimidation and persuasion seems to have been employed to get the residents of Andar district to refuse to cooperate with the coalition forces.

Ghazni had turned into a hub from which militants would spread into other areas, and Andar found itself at the centre of Operation Mountain Fury, designed to combat the increased “Talebanisation” of southern Afghan provinces.

Government officials in Andar were unable to venture beyond their district centre, and police were afraid to turn off the main highways. The fighters, who had developed a well-organised intelligence network with the help of local residents, would mine secondary roads and target any government convoys travelling along them.

More worrying still, sympathy for the insurgency has been growing among villagers frustrated with the slow pace of reconstruction as well as by government corruption and the deteriorating security situation.

The Taleban have made inroads in the province over the past several months, and now are beginning to bring back their own form of justice.

Ghazni has suffered a spate of armed robberies, and crime has been rife. The Taleban has claimed responsibility for eliminating one prominent bandit, Bismillah Khan, who was shot along with several others on the main Kabul-Kandahar road.

During the summer, the Taleban distributed so-called “night letters” in villages prohibiting residents from taking their legal problems to government courts. Instead, they set up Taleban courts to hear disputes, and villagers in Andar say the results have been welcomed by locals.

Organising a shura or council in a mosque or home, a Taleban judge settles disputes according to Sharia law. Villagers see the process as quick, fair, free of corruption and enforceable, since the Taleban have armed men all over the area.

Operation Mountain Fury was supposed to rid the region of the Taleban, but in some cases it only made things worse, say Ghazni residents.

Some people complain that ANA troops deployed to protect them robbed their homes when they came to their villages. Reports of brutality against local residents by ANA men increased sympathy for the Taleban and hostility towards the coalition forces who were seen to be in league with the Afghan government military.

Maulavi Abdul Hakim, an influential religious scholar in Andar district, delivered a blistering sermon on the Eid holiday in November condemning those who had accepted cash and goods from the coalition forces.

“Giving this aid to our people is intended to win our support and justify their invasion,” he told a crowd of villagers, after turning off the loudspeakers so that his lecture could not be heard from the road. “Those who help them are criminals whom God will not forgive.”

While it is impossible to gauge with certainty the level of support enjoyed by the Taleban, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is considerable. During the hour or more that an IWPR reporter spent with a mid-level Taleban commander, the conversation was interrupted numerous times by phone calls, which the commander said were from ordinary people sharing intelligence.

When coalition forces enter a village, said the commander, local residents alert the Taleban by cell phone. The Taleban then have time to stage an ambush or mine the road leading away from the village.

Andar residents told IWPR that while the American forces were visiting villages to distribute aid, the Taleban were conducting a shadow campaign to discourage people from accepting anything from the foreigners.

Nasrullah Khan, a resident of the village of Bakhshi, said that the Taleban came into the mosque to warn the community that if they accepted money and goods from the soldiers, it would be their own fault if the militants conducted suicide attacks against the coalition forces in the village.

According to Nasrullah, a group of Taleban would go to every village right after the US troops left, confiscating and burning any materials that had been given to the villagers and not yet divided up among people. They would make a public bonfire and destroy everything, he said.

“No one could object or stop them,” he said.

Mullah Nasir Kakar, the Taleban's representative in one Ghazni district, with dozens of combatants under his command, said his men were harboured by villagers, and insisted that the cooperation was voluntary.

“We burn things that the foreign soldiers have distributed to try and win people’s sympathy. We also take the money given to them. This is by order of our leadership,” he told IWPR.

Mullah Naseer said that the money was used to buy supplies such as weapons, explosives, motorcycles and mobile phones.

“We are not allowed to keep a penny of that money for ourselves,” he said.

Operation Mountain Fury is now over in Andar, and the Taleban boast that they have come through largely unscathed. Many of them simply left the province at the height of the offensive. Since Ghazni is flat, without forests or mountains, they prefer to plant mines and stage hit-and-run attacks rather than face a well-equipped enemy head on.

But according to residents, the situation is now “normalising” – meaning that once again, the Taleban are regaining control.

Mirwais Atal is the pseudonym used by a freelance reporter in Ghazni.

Bush Library: Scholarly Archive or Ideological Center?

Southern Methodist University has long been considered the front-runner in the competition to be the site of President Bush’s presidential library. Laura Bush is an alumna and trustee. Dick Cheney was a trustee before being elected vice president. And the university’s main challenge — a lack of space — may have been fixed this month when SMU won a court fight over its right to demolish a condo complex the university had purchased, in part to have land for the Bush project.

But now, as President Bush prepares to decide among SMU, Baylor University and the University of Dallas, a new issue has emerged. Professors at SMU are circulating an open letter calling for the university to have a full discussion of the implications of being host to the Bush library. Several recent press reports have quoted Bush advisers as saying that SMU has the edge and that the library’s affiliated think tank will encourage scholarship with a specific political agenda.

An article in the New York Daily News — much discussed on the SMU campus — quotes a “Bush insider” as saying that the center would hire conservative scholars and “give them money to write papers and books favorable to the president’s policies.” Other articles have said that the center will be designed to spread the president’s ideas about “compassionate conservatism.”

Faculty critics say that although many of them disagree with Preside nt Bush’s policies, they would not object to a library-oriented archive and museum — and they say that in discussions with professors, the university has discussed a vision for such a Bush center. But creating an academic center with a specific goal of boosting the Bush image and agenda strikes many professors as antithetical to a university’s academic values.

A letter drafted in SMU’s theology school that organizers said was attracting support from dozens of professors in less than 48 hours states that “there are two distinct, irreconcilable visions” being put forth for the library — one for the campus and another for those being asked to contribute the hundreds of millions of dollars being raised for the project. “In the first vision, the library will be a neutral space. Using archived artifacts and documents from President Bush’s administration, scholars will do non-partisan, academic inquiry into his presidency. They will attempt objective, balanced assessment of the president’s thought, legacy and impact on our country and the world,” says the letter.

“In the second vision, the library will be a partisan space. Going by various terms, such as conservative think tank, institute or policy center, the library will hire conservative scholars to pursue a partisan agenda in favor of the president’s policies and programs.”

The letter doesn’t call for the university to withdraw from the competition, but to have a full discussion of the library’s goals — with the clear implication that the university must agree to be host only to a library without an agenda. The Bush administration’s record, the letter says, has seen “erosion of habeas corpus, denial of global warming, disrespect of international treaties, alienation of long-time U.S. allies, environmental predation, disregard for rights of gay persons, a pre-emptive war based on false premises, and other perceived disrespect for the created order and global community.” Such issues, the letter says, “beg for the kind of space” where “historians and scholars can fairly assess the years of George Bush’s presidency and its forms of impact on our nation and the entire globe.”

Presidential libraries — which are built with private funds and then maintained by the federal government — typically include both museums and archives, and frequently policy centers as well. Several are located at universities, and all attract researchers from all over the world. Many political scientists and historians pay little attention to the public exhibits, but they attract so many visitors that they make the libraries important economic institutions in the cities where they are located. In other cases, scholars have worried about the messages conveyed or potentially conveyed by their institutions’ associations with presidential libraries.

In 1981, Duke University held negotiations to create a Nixon presidential library at the institution, where Nixon earned his law degree. Faculty objected — particularly to the plans for a Nixon museum — and amid the controversy, the library ended up in California. Democratic presidents’ libraries can also be controversial. Emory University played up its association with President Carter and his library when he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But Kenneth W. Stein, who heads two Emory research programs on the Middle East and has also been involved with the Carter Library, severed all ties to the library this month in a dispute over the former president’s new book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the debate at SMU, critics of the library plans are trying hard to frame the question as about academic standards for open research and debate, not about Bush-bashing. Susanne Johnson, an associate professor of Christian education, said that she would understand the value of an archive of the Bush administration, and sees how many SMU scholars would benefit from having such a collection on campus. But she said that the campus has been left “uninformed and naive” about President Bush’s plans to create a policy center to promote his view of the world.

Johnson said that earlier drafts of the letter — some of which have been publicized in Texas — were more critical of President Bush. Organizers of the letter decided to keep the document more focused on the library’s mission, she said, to build support and to emphasize possible erosion of academic values, not politics.

Despite those efforts, some critics say that Bush’s record itself should be disqualifying for the university to want to be home to his papers. The United Methodist Reporter this month published a letter from two Methodist ministers, both SMU graduates, saying that if the university ends up as the home of the library, Methodist leaders should try to have the word “Methodist” removed from the university’s name. The authors say that Bush’s support for the use of torture is too inconsistent with Methodist teachings to justify keeping the name.

Some faculty members are not happy generally to be associated with the library of a president who — his librarian wife notwithstanding — isn’t seen as a big fan of intellectual life. When the reported price tag of $500 million for the library was publicized last month, professors didn’t like their institution being linked to the jokes being told. (Conan O’Brien: “President Bush is putting together his presidential library and apparently the library is going to cost $500 million, which will work out to $100 million a book.")

Johnson said that there are also real problems with the message the library could send. SMU historically has had a reputation for attracting wealthy students — a reputation that the university has tried to fight in recent years by offering generous scholarship to low-income students. “I think it might be a setback in terms of trying to attract a different constituency among students,” Johnson said. “Children of wealthy, leading Republicans in this state come to SMU, and then they are groomed here to become Republican leaders in all sectors of society. We shouldn’t be in the business of just replicating Republicans.”

Brad Cheves, vice president for external relations at SMU, said Sunday evening that officials couldn’t comment on the faculty letter, when it hasn’t been delivered and it is unclear how many people have signed. Likewise, he said he couldn’t comment on the Daily News article because the university was communicating on library matters strictly with the selection committee working with President Bush.

However, Cheves stressed that “SMU has and continues to celebrate a diversity of thought.”

Efforts to attract the Bush library have excited students, most of whom want SMU’s bid to be accepted, said Taylor Russ, president of the student body. “We’re very excited about it,” Russ said, adding that the only thing he was anxious about was whether SMU would win.

Russ predicted that if SMU sets up the Bush library, “the buzz about the politics will pass.” He said that he sees the project as “not about politics, but education.”

“Students view the library as part of history and as a way for us to expand our education,” he said. “It would bring prestige and politics to the campus.”

— Scott Jaschik

Junior Draws a Line in the Ear

Dec 18. 2006

On the pathetic self-stroking in Junior's Saturday Morning Reading Class, trying to generate some enthusiasm over an anemic economy.


To me, the mind-bending disconnect in Junior's address was his courageous stand against earmarks in legislation. Duck under the fold and let's listen to the Decider for a sec:

. . .over the last decade, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of earmarks has exploded -- increasing from about 3,000 in 1996 to 13,000 in 2006.

Nice work there. Somebody actually got him to successfully pronouce a four-syllable word and accurately relay a set of two numbers. But the dates that bracket those numbers hide a glaring fact, one that can be easily deduced by looking at the CRS report: Earmarks have exploded since the Bush administration took office. With both houses of Congress under GOP control and a president who cannot bring himself to veto a single bill, earmarks have gone stratospheric since 2000.

Two examples from the CRS report:

Agriculture Appropriations
Summary of Estimated Earmarks
(millions of current dollars)
FY Earmarks
1994 313
1996 211
2000 359
2005 704

Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Summary of Estimated Earmarks
(millions of current dollars)

FY Earmarks
1994 253
1996 171
2000 361
2005 1,772

Those two examples serve to illustrate that, under the Clinton administration, with a Congress under pressure to do something about deficits, earmarks were largely checked, and even reduced. They began to creep back up as the deficit eased, but nothing like the syrup-in-the-petri-dish growth we've seen under "conservative" GOP government.

Okay, back to Remedial Reading Class:

I respect Congress's authority over the public purse, but the time has come to reform the earmark process and dramatically reduce the number of earmarks.

Reforming earmarks is the responsibility of both political parties. Over the past year, the Republican Congress succeeded in eliminating virtually all earmarks for three major Cabinet departments. And I'm pleased that Democratic leaders in Congress recently committed themselves to support reforms that would restore transparency and accountability to earmarks. For this year's budget, they pledged to maintain current levels of spending and not include any earmarks. And they agreed to a temporary moratorium on earmarks.

You see, it's really Republicans who've led the way on reducing earmarks. Three whole Cabinet-level departments. As the three departments aren't specified, we can assume they do not include Transportation, where bridges to nowhere continue to roll on, or Homeland Security, or Ag, or. . .

Junior does give a hat tip to Democrats who, in contrast to the Republicans' "success," have "pledged" to support spending reforms. Nice touch that, but bi-partisan bonhomie soon evaporates with a stamp of the Decider's foot:

This is a good start, but Congress needs to do much more. My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Ah, you see? Even my loyal Republican minions can only do so much. And can we really trust Democratic "pledges?" No, it will take the firm hand of restraint that only my administration can provide.

After all, look at all the frivolous spending I've already vetoed. Look at all the naked profiteering I've stopped in Defense and Homeland Security. Why, just look at all the pork I've cut from Agriculture.

Yeah, well. . .

The idea that the administration of George Junior Bush will somehow provide the guidance neccessary to curtail congressional excess, in the interest of reducing federal spending and curbing the deficit is, flatly, absurd.

Unless of course the Decider is simply drawing a line in the sand against the Democrats. We will hold the line against earmarks, now that we've lost the majority and aren't in the position to simply toss 'em into legislation in all-Republican conference meetings.

I am, in this as in so many virtuous pronouncements of our Decider, reminded of Claude Rains in "Casablanca," so "shocked, shocked" to discover there's been gambling going on in the place, as he pockets his winnings.

--Lou@LouLost.com