Saturday, December 30, 2006
Iraq:
Robert Fisk: A Dictator Created Then Destroyed by America
"Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold - that crack of the neck at the end of a rope - than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a 'great day' for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed - by the Iraqi 'government', but on behalf of the Americans - on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.
But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?
No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality..."
Robert Fisk: A Dictator Created Then Destroyed by America
"Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold - that crack of the neck at the end of a rope - than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a 'great day' for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed - by the Iraqi 'government', but on behalf of the Americans - on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.
But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?
No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality..."
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
War For Profit:
The U.S. military industrial complex will not be denied the tax dollars that it has become accustomed to receiving. Watch 'Why We Fight,' (2006) if you get the chance (available on DVD). In it, the 'guns or butter' debate is illustrated in very plain terms.
Robert Scheer: Ike Was Right
"...Military spending has skyrocketed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, returning to Cold War levels. A devastating report by the Center for Defense Information, founded by former top-ranking admirals and generals, reveals that in the most recent federal budget overall defense spending will rise to more than $550 billion. Compare that to the $20 billion that the United Nations and all of its agencies and funds spend each year on all of its programs to make this a safer and more livable world.
That U.S. military budget exceeds what the rest of the world's nations combined spend on defense. Nor can it be justified as militarily necessary to counter terrorists, who used primitive $10 box cutters to commandeer civilian aircraft on 9/11. It only makes sense as a field of dreams for defense contractors and their allies in Washington who seized upon the 9/11 tragedy to invent a new Cold War. Imagine their panic at the end of the old one and their glee at this newfound opportunity.
Yes, some in those circles were also eager to exploit Iraq's oil wealth, which does explain the abysmal indifference to the deteriorating situation in resource-poor Afghanistan, birthplace of the Sept. 11 plot, while our nation's resources are squandered in occupying Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.
Yes, some, like Paul Wolfowitz, the genius who was the No. 2 in the U.S. Defense Department and has been rewarded for his leadership with appointment as head of the World Bank, did argue that Iraq's oil revenue would pay for our imperial adventure. A recent study by Nobel Prize-wining economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard University's Linda Bilmes marked that absurdity by estimating the true cost of the Iraq adventure to U.S taxpayers at a whopping $2.267 trillion, in excess of any cost borne by the Iraqis themselves.
The big prize here for Bush's foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.
As Eisenhower warned: 'We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'
Too bad we no longer have leading Republicans, or Democrats, warning of that danger."
The U.S. military industrial complex will not be denied the tax dollars that it has become accustomed to receiving. Watch 'Why We Fight,' (2006) if you get the chance (available on DVD). In it, the 'guns or butter' debate is illustrated in very plain terms.
Robert Scheer: Ike Was Right
"...Military spending has skyrocketed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, returning to Cold War levels. A devastating report by the Center for Defense Information, founded by former top-ranking admirals and generals, reveals that in the most recent federal budget overall defense spending will rise to more than $550 billion. Compare that to the $20 billion that the United Nations and all of its agencies and funds spend each year on all of its programs to make this a safer and more livable world.
That U.S. military budget exceeds what the rest of the world's nations combined spend on defense. Nor can it be justified as militarily necessary to counter terrorists, who used primitive $10 box cutters to commandeer civilian aircraft on 9/11. It only makes sense as a field of dreams for defense contractors and their allies in Washington who seized upon the 9/11 tragedy to invent a new Cold War. Imagine their panic at the end of the old one and their glee at this newfound opportunity.
Yes, some in those circles were also eager to exploit Iraq's oil wealth, which does explain the abysmal indifference to the deteriorating situation in resource-poor Afghanistan, birthplace of the Sept. 11 plot, while our nation's resources are squandered in occupying Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.
Yes, some, like Paul Wolfowitz, the genius who was the No. 2 in the U.S. Defense Department and has been rewarded for his leadership with appointment as head of the World Bank, did argue that Iraq's oil revenue would pay for our imperial adventure. A recent study by Nobel Prize-wining economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard University's Linda Bilmes marked that absurdity by estimating the true cost of the Iraq adventure to U.S taxpayers at a whopping $2.267 trillion, in excess of any cost borne by the Iraqis themselves.
The big prize here for Bush's foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.
As Eisenhower warned: 'We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'
Too bad we no longer have leading Republicans, or Democrats, warning of that danger."
SEC: Investors Do Not Really Need To Know
NY Times: S.E.C. Changes Reporting Rule on Bosses’ Pay
"The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a move announced late on the last business day before Christmas, reversed a decision it had made in July and adopted a rule that would allow many companies to report significantly lower total compensation for top executives.
The change in the way grants of stock options are to be explained to investors is a victory for corporations that had opposed the rule when it was issued in July, and a defeat for institutional investors that had backed the S.E.C.’s original rule.
'It was a holiday present to corporate America,' Ann Yerger, the executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors, said yesterday. 'It will certainly make the numbers look smaller in 2007 than they would otherwise have looked,'..."
West-Bank Settlements:
The last time the U.S. actually acted on its 'concern' over settlements in Israeli-occupied territory was under George Bush The Wiser, when he declined to support $10 billion in loan guarantees. It is unlikely that we will see a repetition of such actions from 41's idiot son.
NY Times: First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension
"Israel announced plans on Tuesday to construct a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank for the first time in 10 years, prompting Palestinian anger and American concern..."
NY Times: S.E.C. Changes Reporting Rule on Bosses’ Pay
"The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a move announced late on the last business day before Christmas, reversed a decision it had made in July and adopted a rule that would allow many companies to report significantly lower total compensation for top executives.
The change in the way grants of stock options are to be explained to investors is a victory for corporations that had opposed the rule when it was issued in July, and a defeat for institutional investors that had backed the S.E.C.’s original rule.
'It was a holiday present to corporate America,' Ann Yerger, the executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors, said yesterday. 'It will certainly make the numbers look smaller in 2007 than they would otherwise have looked,'..."
West-Bank Settlements:
The last time the U.S. actually acted on its 'concern' over settlements in Israeli-occupied territory was under George Bush The Wiser, when he declined to support $10 billion in loan guarantees. It is unlikely that we will see a repetition of such actions from 41's idiot son.
NY Times: First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension
"Israel announced plans on Tuesday to construct a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank for the first time in 10 years, prompting Palestinian anger and American concern..."
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Iraq's Oil:
The total silence of the American corporate media on this matter is scandalous. Forcing a constitutional change upon Iraq, especially one that affects oil revenue sharing/control, is not an insignificant thing.
Der Spiegel (Germany) - The Race for Iraq's Resources
"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors.
Oil. The world economy's thick elixir yields politics as murky and combustible as the crude itself. And no wonder. It brings together some awkward bedfellows: It's where multinationals meet villagers, where executives meet environmentalists, where vast wealth meets deep poverty, where East meets West.
Oil, of course, can be politically explosive at the best of times, let alone the worst. So, when the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world debates the future of its endowment during a time of civil war, people sit up and take notice.
The Iraqi government is working on a new hydrocarbons law that will set the course for the country's oil sector and determine where its vast revenues will flow. The consequences for such a law in such a state are huge. Not only could it determine the future shape of the Iraqi federation - as regional governments battle with Baghdad's central authority over rights to the riches - but it could put much of Iraqi oil into the hands of foreign oil companies..."
The total silence of the American corporate media on this matter is scandalous. Forcing a constitutional change upon Iraq, especially one that affects oil revenue sharing/control, is not an insignificant thing.
Der Spiegel (Germany) - The Race for Iraq's Resources
"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors.
Oil. The world economy's thick elixir yields politics as murky and combustible as the crude itself. And no wonder. It brings together some awkward bedfellows: It's where multinationals meet villagers, where executives meet environmentalists, where vast wealth meets deep poverty, where East meets West.
Oil, of course, can be politically explosive at the best of times, let alone the worst. So, when the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world debates the future of its endowment during a time of civil war, people sit up and take notice.
The Iraqi government is working on a new hydrocarbons law that will set the course for the country's oil sector and determine where its vast revenues will flow. The consequences for such a law in such a state are huge. Not only could it determine the future shape of the Iraqi federation - as regional governments battle with Baghdad's central authority over rights to the riches - but it could put much of Iraqi oil into the hands of foreign oil companies..."
Iran:
What Ritter has to say should deeply concern every citizen of this country. A policy that leads to war with Iran is unacceptable, and our Congress needs to be reminded of this before it is too late.
Democracy Now! - Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change
"...today on Democracy Now we present an in-depth discussion between two figures who have critical of the Bush administration’s policy on Iran. Scott Ritter is a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He recently wrote the book 'Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change.' Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist for The New Yorker magazine. In October, Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh held a public conversation in New York about Scott Ritter’s new book..."
Middle East:
Democracy Now! - Robert Fisk Delivers Keynote Address at MPAC Convention
"Veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk of the London Independent recently delivered the keynote address at the sixth annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council..."
What Ritter has to say should deeply concern every citizen of this country. A policy that leads to war with Iran is unacceptable, and our Congress needs to be reminded of this before it is too late.
Democracy Now! - Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change
"...today on Democracy Now we present an in-depth discussion between two figures who have critical of the Bush administration’s policy on Iran. Scott Ritter is a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He recently wrote the book 'Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change.' Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist for The New Yorker magazine. In October, Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh held a public conversation in New York about Scott Ritter’s new book..."
Middle East:
Democracy Now! - Robert Fisk Delivers Keynote Address at MPAC Convention
"Veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk of the London Independent recently delivered the keynote address at the sixth annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council..."
Paranoid Redactions:
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann: What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran
"Here is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.
Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.
These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain..."
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann: What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran
"Here is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.
Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.
These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain..."
Monday, December 18, 2006
U.S. A.G. Gonzales Thinks The First Amendment Is Optional:
...when embarrassing information is at stake.
NY Times Editorial: A Gag on Free Speech
"The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what’s in it to know what’s at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint — almost always a serious infringement on free speech — and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.
Justice Department lawyers have issued a grand jury subpoena to the A.C.L.U. demanding that it hand over 'any and all copies' of the three-and-a-half-page government document, which was recently leaked to the group. The A.C.L.U. is asking a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to quash the subpoena.
There are at least two serious problems with the government’s action. It goes far beyond what the law recognizes as the legitimate purpose of a subpoena. Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the A.C.L.U.’s document for an investigation since it already has its own copy. It is instead trying to confiscate every available copy of the document to keep its contents secret. The A.C.L.U. says it knows of no other case in which a grand jury subpoena has been used this way..."
...when embarrassing information is at stake.
NY Times Editorial: A Gag on Free Speech
"The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what’s in it to know what’s at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint — almost always a serious infringement on free speech — and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.
Justice Department lawyers have issued a grand jury subpoena to the A.C.L.U. demanding that it hand over 'any and all copies' of the three-and-a-half-page government document, which was recently leaked to the group. The A.C.L.U. is asking a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to quash the subpoena.
There are at least two serious problems with the government’s action. It goes far beyond what the law recognizes as the legitimate purpose of a subpoena. Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the A.C.L.U.’s document for an investigation since it already has its own copy. It is instead trying to confiscate every available copy of the document to keep its contents secret. The A.C.L.U. says it knows of no other case in which a grand jury subpoena has been used this way..."
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Information Control:
Information wants to be free, but under this White House only the 'right' information will be allowed to be published? The denials about not wanting to control the flow of information will reassure only those who unquestioningly believe whatever the government says.
Why should this be any different than the other instances of government censorship of scientific findings that contradict the policy of The Decider?
AP: White House Tightens Publishing Rules for USGS Scientists
"The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy.
New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.
'This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. 'I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.'
Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised..."
Information wants to be free, but under this White House only the 'right' information will be allowed to be published? The denials about not wanting to control the flow of information will reassure only those who unquestioningly believe whatever the government says.
Why should this be any different than the other instances of government censorship of scientific findings that contradict the policy of The Decider?
AP: White House Tightens Publishing Rules for USGS Scientists
"The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy.
New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.
'This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. 'I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.'
Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised..."
(Useful?) Technology:
Microsoft is pressing hard for the adoption of their newest Operating System, Vista. They have engaged the help of their trojan agent WorstBuy (you can guess whom I really mean) to use its muscle to force all 3rd-party software vendors to make their products Vista-compatible. If they want to stay on their store shelves, that is...
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: Vista: Why Bother?
"...There's also the question of what exactly you will be running on your Vista system, anyway. Mike Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, questions whether even a majority of the 1,000 applications that Microsoft is claiming as 'Vista applications' were developed specifically for Vista, rather than simply being products that currently run on Windows XP and that should also run on Vista. I find it particularly telling that Microsoft's general manager for Windows client product management, Brad Goldberg, told Microsoft blogger Mary Jo Foley that Microsoft would not publish, as it had for XP, a list of applications that don't work with Vista. 'We have no plan for publishing a (Vista compatibility) list,' said Goldberg.
The reason for this is probably that this would be an embarrassingly long list. I've also found many mainstream applications that will either not run at all or not run well with Vista.
On top of that, software being software, we can be certain that Vista, as a major 1.0 release, will have teething problems. This is after all, an operating system with nine options for how to turn off your computer. This feature, I might add, according to one of its developers, took 24 Microsofties over a year to create. So it's probably safe to say you can expect some serious growing pains with this baby before it's ready for prime time..."
Microsoft is pressing hard for the adoption of their newest Operating System, Vista. They have engaged the help of their trojan agent WorstBuy (you can guess whom I really mean) to use its muscle to force all 3rd-party software vendors to make their products Vista-compatible. If they want to stay on their store shelves, that is...
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: Vista: Why Bother?
"...There's also the question of what exactly you will be running on your Vista system, anyway. Mike Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, questions whether even a majority of the 1,000 applications that Microsoft is claiming as 'Vista applications' were developed specifically for Vista, rather than simply being products that currently run on Windows XP and that should also run on Vista. I find it particularly telling that Microsoft's general manager for Windows client product management, Brad Goldberg, told Microsoft blogger Mary Jo Foley that Microsoft would not publish, as it had for XP, a list of applications that don't work with Vista. 'We have no plan for publishing a (Vista compatibility) list,' said Goldberg.
The reason for this is probably that this would be an embarrassingly long list. I've also found many mainstream applications that will either not run at all or not run well with Vista.
On top of that, software being software, we can be certain that Vista, as a major 1.0 release, will have teething problems. This is after all, an operating system with nine options for how to turn off your computer. This feature, I might add, according to one of its developers, took 24 Microsofties over a year to create. So it's probably safe to say you can expect some serious growing pains with this baby before it's ready for prime time..."
Friday, December 15, 2006
Iraq: And Now The Other Shoe Drops
The Independent (UK) - Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
"The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, 'at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.'
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been 'effectively contained'.
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. 'I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),' he said.
'At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.'
He claims 'inertia' in the Foreign Office and the 'inattention of key ministers' combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.
Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.
The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.
It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, 'there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material' held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. 'There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US,' he added..."
The Independent (UK) - Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
"The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, 'at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.'
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been 'effectively contained'.
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. 'I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),' he said.
'At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.'
He claims 'inertia' in the Foreign Office and the 'inattention of key ministers' combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.
Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.
The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.
It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, 'there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material' held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. 'There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US,' he added..."
On Torture:
George Monbiot: Routine and systematic torture is at the heart of America's war on terror
"After thousands of years of practice, you might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But you should never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators, we now discover, have found a new way of destroying a human being..."
The Pentagon staffer who wrote this report obviously did not get the memorandum reminding people that the DoD does not do anything wrong...
Washington Post: '04 Pentagon Report Cited Detention Concerns
"A previously undisclosed Pentagon report concluded that the three terrorism suspects held at a brig in South Carolina were subjected to months of isolation, and it warned that their 'unique' solitary confinement could be viewed as violating U.S. detention standards..."
Punishing Truth-tellers:
New York Times: U.S. Subpoena Is Seen as Bid to Stop Leaks
"Federal prosecutors are trying to force the American Civil Liberties Union to turn over copies of a classified document it received from a source, using what legal experts called a new extension of the Bush administration’s efforts to protect national-security secrets.
The novelty in the government’s approach is in its broad use of a grand jury subpoena, which is typically a way to gather evidence, rather than to confiscate all traces of it. But the subpoena issued to the A.C.L.U. seeks 'any and all copies' of a document e-mailed to it unsolicited in October, indicating that the government also wants to prevent further dissemination of the information in the document.
The subpoena was revealed in court papers unsealed in federal court in Manhattan yesterday. The subject of the grand jury’s investigation is not known, but the A.C.L.U. said that it had been told it was not a target of the investigation.
The subpoena, however, raised the possibility that the government had found a new tool to stop the dissemination of secrets, one that could avoid the all but absolute constitutional prohibition on prior restraints on publication.
The disputed document, according to the A.C.L.U., is three-and-a-half pages long and unremarkable, and its disclosure would be only mildly embarrassing to the government. It added that the document 'has nothing to do with national defense,'..."
George Monbiot: Routine and systematic torture is at the heart of America's war on terror
"After thousands of years of practice, you might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But you should never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators, we now discover, have found a new way of destroying a human being..."
The Pentagon staffer who wrote this report obviously did not get the memorandum reminding people that the DoD does not do anything wrong...
Washington Post: '04 Pentagon Report Cited Detention Concerns
"A previously undisclosed Pentagon report concluded that the three terrorism suspects held at a brig in South Carolina were subjected to months of isolation, and it warned that their 'unique' solitary confinement could be viewed as violating U.S. detention standards..."
Punishing Truth-tellers:
New York Times: U.S. Subpoena Is Seen as Bid to Stop Leaks
"Federal prosecutors are trying to force the American Civil Liberties Union to turn over copies of a classified document it received from a source, using what legal experts called a new extension of the Bush administration’s efforts to protect national-security secrets.
The novelty in the government’s approach is in its broad use of a grand jury subpoena, which is typically a way to gather evidence, rather than to confiscate all traces of it. But the subpoena issued to the A.C.L.U. seeks 'any and all copies' of a document e-mailed to it unsolicited in October, indicating that the government also wants to prevent further dissemination of the information in the document.
The subpoena was revealed in court papers unsealed in federal court in Manhattan yesterday. The subject of the grand jury’s investigation is not known, but the A.C.L.U. said that it had been told it was not a target of the investigation.
The subpoena, however, raised the possibility that the government had found a new tool to stop the dissemination of secrets, one that could avoid the all but absolute constitutional prohibition on prior restraints on publication.
The disputed document, according to the A.C.L.U., is three-and-a-half pages long and unremarkable, and its disclosure would be only mildly embarrassing to the government. It added that the document 'has nothing to do with national defense,'..."
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Chemicals & The Environment:
DuPont is probably very, very happy that their US business does not have to comply with new rules such as those recently imposed by the European Parliament.
The New Standard: DuPont Still Hiding Teflon Hazard Study
"Nearly two months after DuPont claimed to have evidence that a chemical it uses in the Teflon-manufacturing process is safe for workers, the chemical giant still refuses to release its full findings to the public.
Now unions have joined in pressuring DuPont to release the study and other information on the health effects of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon that the Environmental Protection Agency says is potentially harmful to humans.
The company announced the results of the study in October; it examined mortality rates of employees over a 50-year period. While DuPont claimed its scientists found no increased mortality in workers exposed to PFOA, the company refused to release the full study, including information about its authors, to the public.
The United Steel Workers (USW) requested a copy of the study almost two months ago, but said they received no response from DuPont. USW filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Friday in order to compel DuPont to release the full study, along with raw data, statistics and workers’ medical histories. The union says DuPont is preventing them from protecting the health and safety of its membership.
'We don’t understand at all why there’s such secrecy around this if in fact DuPont’s statement that PFOA has no harmful effects is correct,' USW’s Joe Drexler, manager of strategic planning and research, told The NewStandard..."
DuPont is probably very, very happy that their US business does not have to comply with new rules such as those recently imposed by the European Parliament.
The New Standard: DuPont Still Hiding Teflon Hazard Study
"Nearly two months after DuPont claimed to have evidence that a chemical it uses in the Teflon-manufacturing process is safe for workers, the chemical giant still refuses to release its full findings to the public.
Now unions have joined in pressuring DuPont to release the study and other information on the health effects of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon that the Environmental Protection Agency says is potentially harmful to humans.
The company announced the results of the study in October; it examined mortality rates of employees over a 50-year period. While DuPont claimed its scientists found no increased mortality in workers exposed to PFOA, the company refused to release the full study, including information about its authors, to the public.
The United Steel Workers (USW) requested a copy of the study almost two months ago, but said they received no response from DuPont. USW filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Friday in order to compel DuPont to release the full study, along with raw data, statistics and workers’ medical histories. The union says DuPont is preventing them from protecting the health and safety of its membership.
'We don’t understand at all why there’s such secrecy around this if in fact DuPont’s statement that PFOA has no harmful effects is correct,' USW’s Joe Drexler, manager of strategic planning and research, told The NewStandard..."
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Money Buys A Lot, Even One Man's Credibility:
The Guardian (UK) - Renowned Cancer Scientist Was Paid by Chemical Firm for 20 Years
"A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry, the Guardian can reveal.
Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.
While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.
Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemicals and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride, used in plastics, of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer - a conclusion with which the World Health Organisation disagrees. Sir Richard's review was used by the manufacturers' trade association to defend the chemical for more than a decade.
The revelations will dismay scientists and other admirers of Sir Richard's pioneering work and fuel a rift between the majority who support his view that the evidence shows cancer is a product of modern lifestyles and those environmentalists who argue that chemicals and pollution must be to blame for soaring cancer rates..."
The Guardian (UK) - Renowned Cancer Scientist Was Paid by Chemical Firm for 20 Years
"A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry, the Guardian can reveal.
Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.
While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.
Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemicals and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride, used in plastics, of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer - a conclusion with which the World Health Organisation disagrees. Sir Richard's review was used by the manufacturers' trade association to defend the chemical for more than a decade.
The revelations will dismay scientists and other admirers of Sir Richard's pioneering work and fuel a rift between the majority who support his view that the evidence shows cancer is a product of modern lifestyles and those environmentalists who argue that chemicals and pollution must be to blame for soaring cancer rates..."
Battery Makers, Lead Smelters, Refiners: Lead Is Not a Poison Worth Keeping Out Of The Environment:
...and they have found a willing listener in the White House.
AP: EPA May Drop Lead Air Pollution Limits
"The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments.
Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.
A preliminary staff review released by the Environmental Protection Agency this week acknowledged the possibility of dropping the health standards for lead air pollution. The agency says revoking those standards might be justified 'given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976' as an air pollutant.
The EPA says concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades.
But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to 'renounce this dangerous proposal immediately,' because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children.
'This deregulatory effort cannot be defended,' Waxman wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Soon after lead was listed as an air pollutant 30 years ago, the Carter administration began removing lead from gasoline. Other big sources of lead in the atmosphere are from solid waste, coal, oil, iron and steel production, lead smelters and tobacco smoke.
Exposure to lead can also come from food and soil. Lead is one of six air pollutants the EPA is required to review every five years to make sure the health limits are protective enough. The others are ozone, soot, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides..."
...and they have found a willing listener in the White House.
AP: EPA May Drop Lead Air Pollution Limits
"The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments.
Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.
A preliminary staff review released by the Environmental Protection Agency this week acknowledged the possibility of dropping the health standards for lead air pollution. The agency says revoking those standards might be justified 'given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976' as an air pollutant.
The EPA says concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades.
But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to 'renounce this dangerous proposal immediately,' because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children.
'This deregulatory effort cannot be defended,' Waxman wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Soon after lead was listed as an air pollutant 30 years ago, the Carter administration began removing lead from gasoline. Other big sources of lead in the atmosphere are from solid waste, coal, oil, iron and steel production, lead smelters and tobacco smoke.
Exposure to lead can also come from food and soil. Lead is one of six air pollutants the EPA is required to review every five years to make sure the health limits are protective enough. The others are ozone, soot, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides..."
The Senate Actually Confirmed This Dubious Candidate as SecDef:
Ray McGovern: Constitution Takes a New Hit
"...[December 6th]'s spectacle at the Senate Armed Forces Committee included repeated allusions to the biblical injunction to 'speak truth to power.' This has never been Robert Gates's forte. Rather, his modus operandi has always been to ingratiate himself with the one with the power, and then recite - or write memos about - what he believes that person would like to hear. Thus, while CIA Director Bill Casey's 'analysis' suggested that the Soviets would use Nicaragua as a beachhead to invade Texas, Gates pandered by writing a memo on December 14, 1984, suggesting US air strikes 'to destroy a considerable portion of Nicaragua's military buildup.'
This makes me wonder what may be in store for Iran, if Cheney solicits help from Gates in making the case for bombing.
Gates may have 'fresh eyes,' but if past is precedent he will add but marginally to the flavor of the self-licking ice cream cone that passes for Bush's coterie of advisers. What Bush has done is replace Rumsfeldian Tart with Sugary Gates. Otherwise, the Cheney/Bush recipe is likely to remain the same as the US draws nearer and nearer to the abyss in Iraq."
Ray McGovern: Constitution Takes a New Hit
"...[December 6th]'s spectacle at the Senate Armed Forces Committee included repeated allusions to the biblical injunction to 'speak truth to power.' This has never been Robert Gates's forte. Rather, his modus operandi has always been to ingratiate himself with the one with the power, and then recite - or write memos about - what he believes that person would like to hear. Thus, while CIA Director Bill Casey's 'analysis' suggested that the Soviets would use Nicaragua as a beachhead to invade Texas, Gates pandered by writing a memo on December 14, 1984, suggesting US air strikes 'to destroy a considerable portion of Nicaragua's military buildup.'
This makes me wonder what may be in store for Iran, if Cheney solicits help from Gates in making the case for bombing.
Gates may have 'fresh eyes,' but if past is precedent he will add but marginally to the flavor of the self-licking ice cream cone that passes for Bush's coterie of advisers. What Bush has done is replace Rumsfeldian Tart with Sugary Gates. Otherwise, the Cheney/Bush recipe is likely to remain the same as the US draws nearer and nearer to the abyss in Iraq."
Iraq:
Antonia Juhasz: It's still about oil in Iraq
"...The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.
Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be 'very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.' The law would implement production-sharing agreements.
Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed.
In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq...
...All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.
We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil."
Antonia Juhasz: It's still about oil in Iraq
"...The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.
Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be 'very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.' The law would implement production-sharing agreements.
Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed.
In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq...
...All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.
We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil."
Monday, December 11, 2006
Food Safety:
Regulation is what is duly imposed on industries that fail to act in the public interest. The question is: can the will of the people trump the fat lobbying budgets of the food processing industry?
Eric Schlosser: Has Politics Contaminated the Food Supply?
"...People are always going to get food poisoning. The idea that every meal can be risk-free, germ-free and sterile is the sort of fantasy Howard Hughes might have entertained. But our food can be much safer than it is right now.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year because of something they ate.
Part of the problem is that the government’s food-safety system is underfinanced, poorly organized and more concerned with serving private interests than with protecting public health. It is time for the new Democratic Congress to reverse a decades-long weakening of regulations and face up to the food-safety threats of the 21st century..."
Regulation is what is duly imposed on industries that fail to act in the public interest. The question is: can the will of the people trump the fat lobbying budgets of the food processing industry?
Eric Schlosser: Has Politics Contaminated the Food Supply?
"...People are always going to get food poisoning. The idea that every meal can be risk-free, germ-free and sterile is the sort of fantasy Howard Hughes might have entertained. But our food can be much safer than it is right now.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year because of something they ate.
Part of the problem is that the government’s food-safety system is underfinanced, poorly organized and more concerned with serving private interests than with protecting public health. It is time for the new Democratic Congress to reverse a decades-long weakening of regulations and face up to the food-safety threats of the 21st century..."
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Iraq:
Would we really expect a group lead by James Baker to recommend anything less than the securing Iraq's oil wealth for Western powers (ripping it from the clutches of OPEC)? Is it any wonder this ISG recommendation isn't widely publicized by the corporate media?
Democracy Now! - Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry
"Among its recommendations, the Iraq Study Group advised that Iraq privatize its oil industry and to open it up to international companies. Author and activist Antonia Juhasz writes 'Put simply, the oil companies are trying to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq's oil under the ground,'..."
Robert Fisk: Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in Denial
"More than half a million deaths, an army trapped in the largest military debacle since Vietnam, a Middle East policy already buried in the sands of Mesopotamia - and still George W Bush is in denial. How does he do it? How does he persuade himself - as he apparently did in Amman yesterday - that the United States will stay in Iraq 'until the job is complete'? The 'job' - Washington's project to reshape the Middle East in its own and Israel's image - is long dead, its very neoconservative originators disavowing their hopeless political aims and blaming Bush, along with the Iraqis of course, for their disaster..."
Dennis Kucinich: There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I
"On November 7, 2006, the American public voted for a New Direction for our Iraq policy. That direction is--out. As Democrats prepare to take the majority for the first time in twelve years, Democrats now have the responsibility to act on the overwhelming mandate issued by the American public.
Will that new direction mean an exit from Iraq? Because, if not, America will be held hostage by the skyrocketing cost of the war in Iraq even as President Bush leaves office at 11:59 am on January 20, 2009. And, the voters will not forget who let them down..."
Would we really expect a group lead by James Baker to recommend anything less than the securing Iraq's oil wealth for Western powers (ripping it from the clutches of OPEC)? Is it any wonder this ISG recommendation isn't widely publicized by the corporate media?
Democracy Now! - Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry
"Among its recommendations, the Iraq Study Group advised that Iraq privatize its oil industry and to open it up to international companies. Author and activist Antonia Juhasz writes 'Put simply, the oil companies are trying to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq's oil under the ground,'..."
Robert Fisk: Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in Denial
"More than half a million deaths, an army trapped in the largest military debacle since Vietnam, a Middle East policy already buried in the sands of Mesopotamia - and still George W Bush is in denial. How does he do it? How does he persuade himself - as he apparently did in Amman yesterday - that the United States will stay in Iraq 'until the job is complete'? The 'job' - Washington's project to reshape the Middle East in its own and Israel's image - is long dead, its very neoconservative originators disavowing their hopeless political aims and blaming Bush, along with the Iraqis of course, for their disaster..."
Dennis Kucinich: There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I
"On November 7, 2006, the American public voted for a New Direction for our Iraq policy. That direction is--out. As Democrats prepare to take the majority for the first time in twelve years, Democrats now have the responsibility to act on the overwhelming mandate issued by the American public.
Will that new direction mean an exit from Iraq? Because, if not, America will be held hostage by the skyrocketing cost of the war in Iraq even as President Bush leaves office at 11:59 am on January 20, 2009. And, the voters will not forget who let them down..."
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Race In Politics:
Mr. Younge does not address Obama's political record, which does not include much (if any) principled risk-taking, but interesting nonetheless...
Gary Younge: Obama: Black Like Me
"...Obama is, of course, a worthy subject. He is the smartest, savviest, handsomest and most charismatic man in the Senate--sadly, the competition is not great. In an era when America's political class lacks character and intelligence, he stands out. What little the nation has seen of him, it has liked. But none of this quite explains the magnitude of the Obamathon currently taking place.
Perhaps what the nation has liked most is not what Obama has said or done but what he is. In short, Obama is a black man who does not scare white people. This is mostly not Obama's fault. He is who he is. He has a life to live, a job to do and a book to promote. He cannot be held responsible for a white paranoia that--outside the music, sports and entertainment industries--demands: If you have to be black, then please don't be too black..."
Mr. Younge does not address Obama's political record, which does not include much (if any) principled risk-taking, but interesting nonetheless...
Gary Younge: Obama: Black Like Me
"...Obama is, of course, a worthy subject. He is the smartest, savviest, handsomest and most charismatic man in the Senate--sadly, the competition is not great. In an era when America's political class lacks character and intelligence, he stands out. What little the nation has seen of him, it has liked. But none of this quite explains the magnitude of the Obamathon currently taking place.
Perhaps what the nation has liked most is not what Obama has said or done but what he is. In short, Obama is a black man who does not scare white people. This is mostly not Obama's fault. He is who he is. He has a life to live, a job to do and a book to promote. He cannot be held responsible for a white paranoia that--outside the music, sports and entertainment industries--demands: If you have to be black, then please don't be too black..."
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
New DecDef:
Ray McGovern: A CIA insider's take on Gates
"...The Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Carl Levin, D-Mich., who voted against Gates' nomination in 1991 to be director of the CIA, said he wanted to give Gates a 'fresh look; a lot of time has passed.' Well, highly damaging evidence has come to light since 1991, implicating Gates in some of the most serious national-security scandals of the 1980s. Veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry, for one, has been providing chapter and verse on Consortiumnews.com.
For example, in January 1995, Howard Teicher, who served on President Reagan's National Security Council staff, submitted a sworn affidavit detailing the activities of Gates and his then-boss, CIA Director William Casey, in secretly providing arms to Iraq. This violated the Arms Export Control Act in two ways: ignoring the requirement to notify Congress; and providing arms to a state designated as a sponsor of terrorism.
It gets worse. To grease the skids for this dubious adventure, Gates ordered his more malleable subordinates at the CIA to cook up intelligence reports to provide some comfort to Reagan in acquiescing to these activities. A National Intelligence Estimate of May 1985 predicted Soviet inroads in Iran if the United States did not reach out to 'moderates' within the Iranian leadership.
In addition, Gates' analysts were pressed to publish several reports beginning in late 1985 -- as HAWK anti-aircraft missiles wended their way to Tehran -- that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had 'dropped off substantially.' There was no persuasive evidence to support that judgment.
As part of my official duties at the time, I took steps to make Gates aware of this a month before he wrote in articles in the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs magazine and our professional journal Studies in Intelligence that, 'No CIA publication asserted these things.' I then tried in vain to get him to correct the record..."
Electronic Voting:
Adam Cohen: What's Wrong With My Voting Machine?
"To the long list of recent Election Day horrors from butterfly ballots to six-hour lines, add 'vote flipping.'
In Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey and other states last month, there were reports - some confirmed by election officials - that when voters touched the screen for one candidate, the machine registered it for another. One Florida Congressional race, in which the Republican won by fewer than 400 votes, is in the courts because paperless electronic voting machines may have failed to register as many as 18,000 votes.
This year's election had voters across the country once again asking why voting machines are so lousy. Their technology is similar to A.T.M. technology, but when was the last time your A.T.M. flipped a $200 withdrawal into a $200 deposit?
Voting machines, unlike home electronics, are not sold in a competitive consumer market, which is ruthlessly unforgiving of low quality. The officials who buy them generally do not know much about technology. They listen to sales pitches from vendors who relentlessly push the most expensive models. Sometimes, well-connected lobbyists apply pressure. The process is rife with conflicts of interest, from free meals to future jobs with the manufacturers.
Since quality is not the deciding factor, it's not surprising there isn't a lot of it.
Voters who complain about their own machines don't often get a chance to compare them with other options. But New York's boards of elections are replacing the old lever machines, and I recently went to demonstrations the city held to allow the public to try out the five finalists.
There are many important things about a voting machine you can't tell from a quick inspection. But what was clear was almost all disturbing. Here are the ratings..."
Iraq:
Very significant percentages of reconstruction project expenditures go toward 'security.' To whom are these people, many of them armed, accountable?
Washington Post: Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
"There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.
The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.
It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers..."
FIOA Requests A Joke?
Raw Story: Government blacks out whole response to ethics watchdog's FOIA request
"A response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) yielded 100 pages of almost entirely redacted or blacked out material, RAW STORY has learned..."
Ray McGovern: A CIA insider's take on Gates
"...The Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Carl Levin, D-Mich., who voted against Gates' nomination in 1991 to be director of the CIA, said he wanted to give Gates a 'fresh look; a lot of time has passed.' Well, highly damaging evidence has come to light since 1991, implicating Gates in some of the most serious national-security scandals of the 1980s. Veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry, for one, has been providing chapter and verse on Consortiumnews.com.
For example, in January 1995, Howard Teicher, who served on President Reagan's National Security Council staff, submitted a sworn affidavit detailing the activities of Gates and his then-boss, CIA Director William Casey, in secretly providing arms to Iraq. This violated the Arms Export Control Act in two ways: ignoring the requirement to notify Congress; and providing arms to a state designated as a sponsor of terrorism.
It gets worse. To grease the skids for this dubious adventure, Gates ordered his more malleable subordinates at the CIA to cook up intelligence reports to provide some comfort to Reagan in acquiescing to these activities. A National Intelligence Estimate of May 1985 predicted Soviet inroads in Iran if the United States did not reach out to 'moderates' within the Iranian leadership.
In addition, Gates' analysts were pressed to publish several reports beginning in late 1985 -- as HAWK anti-aircraft missiles wended their way to Tehran -- that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had 'dropped off substantially.' There was no persuasive evidence to support that judgment.
As part of my official duties at the time, I took steps to make Gates aware of this a month before he wrote in articles in the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs magazine and our professional journal Studies in Intelligence that, 'No CIA publication asserted these things.' I then tried in vain to get him to correct the record..."
Electronic Voting:
Adam Cohen: What's Wrong With My Voting Machine?
"To the long list of recent Election Day horrors from butterfly ballots to six-hour lines, add 'vote flipping.'
In Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey and other states last month, there were reports - some confirmed by election officials - that when voters touched the screen for one candidate, the machine registered it for another. One Florida Congressional race, in which the Republican won by fewer than 400 votes, is in the courts because paperless electronic voting machines may have failed to register as many as 18,000 votes.
This year's election had voters across the country once again asking why voting machines are so lousy. Their technology is similar to A.T.M. technology, but when was the last time your A.T.M. flipped a $200 withdrawal into a $200 deposit?
Voting machines, unlike home electronics, are not sold in a competitive consumer market, which is ruthlessly unforgiving of low quality. The officials who buy them generally do not know much about technology. They listen to sales pitches from vendors who relentlessly push the most expensive models. Sometimes, well-connected lobbyists apply pressure. The process is rife with conflicts of interest, from free meals to future jobs with the manufacturers.
Since quality is not the deciding factor, it's not surprising there isn't a lot of it.
Voters who complain about their own machines don't often get a chance to compare them with other options. But New York's boards of elections are replacing the old lever machines, and I recently went to demonstrations the city held to allow the public to try out the five finalists.
There are many important things about a voting machine you can't tell from a quick inspection. But what was clear was almost all disturbing. Here are the ratings..."
Iraq:
Very significant percentages of reconstruction project expenditures go toward 'security.' To whom are these people, many of them armed, accountable?
Washington Post: Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
"There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.
The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.
It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers..."
FIOA Requests A Joke?
Raw Story: Government blacks out whole response to ethics watchdog's FOIA request
"A response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) yielded 100 pages of almost entirely redacted or blacked out material, RAW STORY has learned..."
Monday, December 04, 2006
On Torture:
If this man did something wrong, charge him, prosecute him and imprison him based on evidence that his lawyers are allowed to see. If they had a solid case, they'd have done so by now.
That was not their plan. They had to strip him of his rights as a citizen, had to detain him incommunicado, had to torture and break him, and now don't even want a jury to hear what they did to him.
People like the U.S. AG Gonzales are nothing short of monsters. Torture is not patriotic, it's barbaric. The moral high-road has been abandoned, and they have done so in our name.
Democracy Now! - Headlines for December 4, 2006
"...Attorneys: Jose Padilla Unfit to Stand Trial After Years of Isolation
Lawyers for Jose Padilla are arguing that he is now unfit to stand trial because he has become mentally ill after years of imprisonment and interrogations. The government initially accused Padilla of plotting to set off a dirty bomb inside the United States. He was held as an enemy combatant in complete isolation. He wasn't allowed to see an attorney for 21 months. Padilla is now facing trial on less serious charges. His lawyers say he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of 'truth serums.' The New York Times today published two new photos of Padilla in detention. One showed him being escorted by three guards dressed in riot gear with their faces hidden by plastic visors. He is wearing blacked out googles [sic] and noise-blocking headphones. His lawyers say that for three years Padilla had little human contact other than with his interrogators. His cell was electronically monitored. His meals were passed to him through a slot in the door. The windows were blackened. There was no clock or calendar. He slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him. The New York times reports the Government is now seeking to block Padilla's lawyers from telling the jury about the conditions of his confinement at his trial..."
If this man did something wrong, charge him, prosecute him and imprison him based on evidence that his lawyers are allowed to see. If they had a solid case, they'd have done so by now.
That was not their plan. They had to strip him of his rights as a citizen, had to detain him incommunicado, had to torture and break him, and now don't even want a jury to hear what they did to him.
People like the U.S. AG Gonzales are nothing short of monsters. Torture is not patriotic, it's barbaric. The moral high-road has been abandoned, and they have done so in our name.
Democracy Now! - Headlines for December 4, 2006
"...Attorneys: Jose Padilla Unfit to Stand Trial After Years of Isolation
Lawyers for Jose Padilla are arguing that he is now unfit to stand trial because he has become mentally ill after years of imprisonment and interrogations. The government initially accused Padilla of plotting to set off a dirty bomb inside the United States. He was held as an enemy combatant in complete isolation. He wasn't allowed to see an attorney for 21 months. Padilla is now facing trial on less serious charges. His lawyers say he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of 'truth serums.' The New York Times today published two new photos of Padilla in detention. One showed him being escorted by three guards dressed in riot gear with their faces hidden by plastic visors. He is wearing blacked out googles [sic] and noise-blocking headphones. His lawyers say that for three years Padilla had little human contact other than with his interrogators. His cell was electronically monitored. His meals were passed to him through a slot in the door. The windows were blackened. There was no clock or calendar. He slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him. The New York times reports the Government is now seeking to block Padilla's lawyers from telling the jury about the conditions of his confinement at his trial..."
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Iraq:
The Guardian (UK) - Corruption: the 'second insurgency' costing $4bn a year
"The Iraqi government is in danger of being brought down by the wholesale smuggling of the nation's oil and other forms of corruption that together represent a 'second insurgency', according to a senior US official. Stuart Bowen, who has been in charge of auditing Iraq's faltering reconstruction since 2004, said corruption had reached such levels that it threatened the survival of the state.
'There is a huge smuggling problem. It is the No 1 issue,' Mr Bowen told the Guardian. The pipelines that are meant to take the oil north have been blown up, so the only way to export it is by road. 'That leaves it vulnerable to smuggling,' he said, as truckers sell their cargoes on the black market.
Mr Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir), cites Iraqi figures showing that the 'virtual pandemic' of corruption costs the country $4bn (£2.02bn) a year, and some of that money goes straight to the Iraqi government's enemies. A US government report has concluded that oil smuggling abetted by corrupt Iraqi officials is netting insurgents $100m a year, helping to make them financially self-sustaining.
'Corruption is the second insurgency, and I use that metaphor to underline the seriousness of this issue,' Mr Bowen said. 'The deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, told Sigir this summer that it threatens the state. That speaks for itself.'
The Bush administration's strategy in Iraq hinges on the survival of the government run by Nuri al-Maliki, despite US reservations about the prime minister's readiness or ability to confront extremists in his own Shia community.
But Mr Bowen's office has found that the insurgents and militias have also been abetted by US incompetence. A recent audit by his inspectors found that more than 14,000 guns paid for out of US reconstruction funds for Iraqi government use could not be accounted for. Many could be in the hands of insurgents or sectarian death squads, but it will be almost impossible to prove because when the US military handed out the guns it noted the serial numbers of only about 10,000 out of a total of 370,000 US-funded weapons, contrary to defence department regulations..."
The Guardian (UK) - Corruption: the 'second insurgency' costing $4bn a year
"The Iraqi government is in danger of being brought down by the wholesale smuggling of the nation's oil and other forms of corruption that together represent a 'second insurgency', according to a senior US official. Stuart Bowen, who has been in charge of auditing Iraq's faltering reconstruction since 2004, said corruption had reached such levels that it threatened the survival of the state.
'There is a huge smuggling problem. It is the No 1 issue,' Mr Bowen told the Guardian. The pipelines that are meant to take the oil north have been blown up, so the only way to export it is by road. 'That leaves it vulnerable to smuggling,' he said, as truckers sell their cargoes on the black market.
Mr Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir), cites Iraqi figures showing that the 'virtual pandemic' of corruption costs the country $4bn (£2.02bn) a year, and some of that money goes straight to the Iraqi government's enemies. A US government report has concluded that oil smuggling abetted by corrupt Iraqi officials is netting insurgents $100m a year, helping to make them financially self-sustaining.
'Corruption is the second insurgency, and I use that metaphor to underline the seriousness of this issue,' Mr Bowen said. 'The deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, told Sigir this summer that it threatens the state. That speaks for itself.'
The Bush administration's strategy in Iraq hinges on the survival of the government run by Nuri al-Maliki, despite US reservations about the prime minister's readiness or ability to confront extremists in his own Shia community.
But Mr Bowen's office has found that the insurgents and militias have also been abetted by US incompetence. A recent audit by his inspectors found that more than 14,000 guns paid for out of US reconstruction funds for Iraqi government use could not be accounted for. Many could be in the hands of insurgents or sectarian death squads, but it will be almost impossible to prove because when the US military handed out the guns it noted the serial numbers of only about 10,000 out of a total of 370,000 US-funded weapons, contrary to defence department regulations..."
Friday, December 01, 2006
Trusting The Sacred Right Of Franchise To Questionable Technology:
Washington Post: Security Of Electronic Voting Is Condemned
"Paperless electronic voting machines used throughout the Washington region and much of the country 'cannot be made secure,' according to draft recommendations issued this week by a federal agency that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The assessment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the government's premier research centers, is the most sweeping condemnation of such voting systems by a federal agency.
In a report hailed by critics of electronic voting, NIST said that voting systems should allow election officials to recount ballots independently from a voting machine's software. The recommendations endorse 'optical-scan' systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts..."
Who Killed Alexander Litvinenko?
Chris Floyd: Pale Fire and London Fog
"Everyone knows that Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko was killed by radiation poisoning in London last month. But beyond that bare fact, almost nothing is clear about the case. The truth has disappeared, probably forever, into the shadowlands - that murky confluence of crime, violence, money and politics where so much of the real business of the world is conducted. However, an examination of some of the curiously overlooked aspects of the affair might send at least a few shafts of light into the cloud of unknowing that has enveloped Litvinenko's death..."
Washington Post: Security Of Electronic Voting Is Condemned
"Paperless electronic voting machines used throughout the Washington region and much of the country 'cannot be made secure,' according to draft recommendations issued this week by a federal agency that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The assessment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the government's premier research centers, is the most sweeping condemnation of such voting systems by a federal agency.
In a report hailed by critics of electronic voting, NIST said that voting systems should allow election officials to recount ballots independently from a voting machine's software. The recommendations endorse 'optical-scan' systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts..."
Who Killed Alexander Litvinenko?
Chris Floyd: Pale Fire and London Fog
"Everyone knows that Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko was killed by radiation poisoning in London last month. But beyond that bare fact, almost nothing is clear about the case. The truth has disappeared, probably forever, into the shadowlands - that murky confluence of crime, violence, money and politics where so much of the real business of the world is conducted. However, an examination of some of the curiously overlooked aspects of the affair might send at least a few shafts of light into the cloud of unknowing that has enveloped Litvinenko's death..."
