Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The Environment:
The tragedy is that these people aren't joking about interfering with the life-giving rays of the sun.
Apparently, it matters not how crazy the ideas are, as long as the U.S. gets to keep burning fossil fuels at a spectacular rate...
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - US urges scientists to block out sun
"The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.
It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be 'important insurance' against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).
The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.
The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.
The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: 'Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.'
Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were 'speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects,'..."
The tragedy is that these people aren't joking about interfering with the life-giving rays of the sun.
Apparently, it matters not how crazy the ideas are, as long as the U.S. gets to keep burning fossil fuels at a spectacular rate...
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - US urges scientists to block out sun
"The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.
It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be 'important insurance' against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).
The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.
The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.
The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: 'Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.'
Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were 'speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects,'..."
Technology:
The (UK) Green Party: Who has the key to your Vista PC?
The (UK) Green Party: Who has the key to your Vista PC?
"Microsoft's latest operating system, due for release [January 30], is defective by design, putting Microsoft and the corporate media in control of your computer. (1)
Beneath the gloss they have hidden traps that take away important consumer rights, force expensive and environmentally damaging hardware upgrades.
All computer hardware, such as monitors and sound cards, will have to obey Microsoft's rules for encrypting content in order for consumers to use Vista to play 'premium' content, such as Blu-Ray and HD DVD disks. Although it is unlikely to prevent copying, it will make Vista more attractive to Hollywood film distributors, while also locking them into a Vista content distribution system.
Derek Wall, Green Party Male Principal Speaker, said: 'So-called 'digital rights management' technology in Vista gives Microsoft the ability to lock you out of your computer. Technology should increase our opportunities to consume media, create our own and share it with others.
'But Vista helps the corporate media take away our consumer rights. Silence in government betrays a shocking complacency in the face of this latest attack on our rights.'
Vista will also be power hungry, as it requires more processing time to encrypt and decrypt 'premium' content, and looks around the computer every few milliseconds to check that nothing is trying to distribute de-coded 'premium' video or sound.
He continued, 'Vista requires more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment. This will also further exclude the poor from the latest technology, and impose burdensome costs on small and medium businesses who will be forced to enter another expensive upgrade cycle.'
Consumers, businesses and government bodies should protect their interests by migrating to free software, rather than upgrading to Vista, says Wall...
The 'Unitary' Executive:
NY Times: Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
"President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities..."
NY Times: Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
"President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities..."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Domestic Surveillance:
Raw Story: Report: FBI conducting sweeping Internet wiretaps that mirror warantless NSA surveillance
"'The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed,' according to a story posted Tuesday on ZDNet, a technology news website.
Agents engaging in investigations appear to be amassing huge databases of data on thousands of Internet users, rather than eyeing the activities of particular suspects -- similar to the sweeping approach employed by the National Security Agency. The NSA wiretaps program drew congressional uproar after it was revealed the program was taking place without supervision by a court.
'Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000,' ZDNet's Declan McCullagh writes. 'It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.'
McCullagh calls it 'the vacuum-cleaner approach,' a technique used when police have obtained a court order but the suspect's Internet provider can't isolate an individual by their IP address -- the series of digits that identify an individual computer..."
Raw Story: Report: FBI conducting sweeping Internet wiretaps that mirror warantless NSA surveillance
"'The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed,' according to a story posted Tuesday on ZDNet, a technology news website.
Agents engaging in investigations appear to be amassing huge databases of data on thousands of Internet users, rather than eyeing the activities of particular suspects -- similar to the sweeping approach employed by the National Security Agency. The NSA wiretaps program drew congressional uproar after it was revealed the program was taking place without supervision by a court.
'Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000,' ZDNet's Declan McCullagh writes. 'It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.'
McCullagh calls it 'the vacuum-cleaner approach,' a technique used when police have obtained a court order but the suspect's Internet provider can't isolate an individual by their IP address -- the series of digits that identify an individual computer..."
Monday, January 29, 2007
Iraq:
Harper's Magazine: Meet the CIA's New Baghdad Station Chief
Harper's Magazine: Meet the CIA's New Baghdad Station Chief
"Given the desperate situation in Iraq, the CIA's Baghdad station chief needs to be an exceptional manager who can marshal the agency's forces and work closely with the U.S. armed forces. Unfortunately, several sources have informed me that the CIA has nominated a man who has been widely criticized within the agency and seen as a bad fit for the role. Furthermore, I'm told, the new station chief is closely associated with detainee abuses, especially those involving 'extraordinary renditions' - the practice of covertly delivering terrorist suspects to foreign intelligence agencies to be interrogated..."
Bush's Next Target - Iran:
The Sunday Herald (UK) - US "Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites" From Bulgaria and Romania
"President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.
'American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April,' the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.
Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.
Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. 'The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack.' Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, 'a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria', as the source of this revelation..."
The Sunday Herald (UK) - US "Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites" From Bulgaria and Romania
"President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.
'American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April,' the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.
Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.
Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. 'The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack.' Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, 'a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria', as the source of this revelation..."
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Military Privatization
Democracy Now! - Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge
Democracy Now! - Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge
"JEREMY SCAHILL: Blackwater is a company that began in 1996 as a private military training facility in -- it was built near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. And visionary executives, all of them former Navy Seals or other Elite Special Forces people, envisioned it as a project that would take advantage of the anticipated government outsourcing.
Well, here we are a decade later, and it’s the most powerful mercenary firm in the world. It has 20,000 soldiers on the ready, the world’s largest private military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, including helicopter gunships. It’s become nothing short of the Praetorian Guard for the Bush administration's so-called global war on terror. And it’s headed by a very right-wing Christian activist, ex-Navy Seal named Erik Prince, whose family was one of the major bank-rollers of the Republican Revolution of the 1990s. He, himself, is a significant funder of President Bush and his allies.
And what they’ve done is they have built a very frightening empire near the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina. They’ve got about 2,300 men actively deployed around the world. They provide the security for the US diplomats in Iraq. They’ve guarded everyone, from Paul Bremer and John Negroponte to the current US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. They’re training troops in Afghanistan. They have been active in the Caspian Sea, where they set up a Special Forces base miles from the Iranian border. They really are the frontline in what the Bush administration viewed as a necessary revolution in military affairs. In fact, they represent the life's work of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, the 'life's work'?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, Dick Cheney, when he was Defense Secretary under George H.W. Bush during the Gulf War, one of the last things he did before leaving office was to create an unprecedented lucrative market for the firm that he would go on to head, Halliburton. He commissioned [a] Halliburton [division] to do a study on how to privatize the military bureaucracy. That effectively created the groundwork for the absolute war profiteer bonanza that we’ve seen unfold in the aftermath of 9/11. I mean, Clinton was totally on board with all of this, but it has exploded since 9/11. And so, Cheney, after he left office, when the first Bush was the president, went on to work at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which really led the push for privatization of the government, not just the military.
And then, when these guys took office, Rumsfeld's first real major address, delivered on September 10, 2001, he literally declared war on the Pentagon bureaucracy and said he had come to liberate the Pentagon. And what he meant by that -- and he wrote this in an article in Foreign Affairs -- was that governments, unlike companies, can't die. He literally said that. So you have to figure out new incentives for competition, and Rumsfeld said that it should be run more like a corporation than a bureaucracy. And so, the company that most embodies that vision -- and they call it a revolutionary in military affairs. It’s a total part of the Project for a New American Century and the neoconservative movement. The company that most embodies that is not Halliburton; it’s Blackwater..."
Puppet and Puppetmaster:
William Rivers Pitt: A Cornered Animal
William Rivers Pitt: A Cornered Animal
"...The combination of Iranian influence over Iraqi politics, bombast from the Bush administration, their execrable decision-making to date, and the fact that a second US carrier battle group has steamed into the Persian Gulf is disquieting in and of itself. If you add to this already-volatile mix the perjury trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the potential for an explosion increases by orders of magnitude.
Why does Libby's trial matter in this? It matters because of Dick Cheney.
News reports of the opening statements from both prosecutors and defense attorneys appear to place Mr. Cheney at or near the center of the plot to out former CIA agent Valerie Plame. The defense, in a surprise move, went so far as to describe Libby as a 'scapegoat' for White House actions against Plame, which were done to silence Iraq critic Ambassador Joseph Wilson. As this trial proceeds and more witnesses testify, the trail of evidence could very well lead to the Vice President's door.
The importance of this possibility lies in the power wielded by Cheney. Only the most devout Bush-worshippers continue to believe he is the master of events in the Executive branch. Everyone else has correctly concluded that the ideological fuel and bureaucratic muscle in this administration flows from Cheney.
Though his policy initiatives are greeted with failure after failure, though the poll numbers continue to wither, Cheney and the remaining true-believers continue to slog onward, dragging all of us deeper into the morass. Should the trial of Libby present a definitive threat to the political standing and power of Dick Cheney, all bets may be off regarding Iran. We will be faced with the possibility that an attack may be ordered for no better reason than to redirect attention and change the subject.
An attack on Iran would be calamitous on many levels: our military is already strained to its limits, our forces in Iraq would be left wide-open to counterattack, the home front would be susceptible to terror attacks by Iranian special forces, and the missile batteries arrayed across the Iranian mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf would wreak devastating havoc on our fleet.
Sober heads see an attack on Iran as both essentially baseless and an invitation to a widening war we are not prepared to fight, thanks to Iraq. Because of this, the idea that such an attack may be undertaken is not considered a pressing reality by many analysts. Ali Larijani, Iran's top national security official, shares this view. 'The possibility of this is very weak, and it's more a matter of psychological warfare,' said Larijani on Thursday. The Islamic republic's armed forces are in a state of complete readiness and are monitoring everything in order to give a crushing response to even the smallest aggression or threat.' Larijani concluded his remarks by stating, 'I advise Mr. Bush and his advisors to be rational and think about their own nation's interest.'
This would be sage advice if Mr. Bush were the one doing the thinking. These days, all the thinking and management is being done by Dick Cheney, and if this Libby trial comes to pose a danger to his standing, all the sober analysis by policy experts may turn to dust. Nothing is more dangerous, after all, than a cornered animal."
Domestic Surveillance:
Thomas D. Williams: Why Did the White House Reverse Course on Domestic Spying?
Thomas D. Williams: Why Did the White House Reverse Course on Domestic Spying?
"Several leading Democratic congressmen Thursday called on US Department of Justice Inspector General Glen Fine to expand the IG's investigation of the warrantless government surveillance program aimed at alleged domestic and foreign terrorist suspects.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and several of his House colleagues, including Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said they wanted Fine to determine why the Bush administration recently reversed course by placing the program back under more immediate supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
They sent a detailed letter to Fine Thursday. His press office did not respond to questions asking for reactions to a very recent letter. Dean Boyd, a press spokesman for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said, 'It is obvious that we just received it (the letter) so we are reviewing it and do not have immediate comment.' Press spokespersons for Hinchey and Waxman said that because the letter was just sent out to Fine, naturally it was too soon for the congressmen to receive the IG's response.
The congressmen's letter additionally urged Fine to examine a series of specific questions related to the creation and evolution of investigations using, without court orders, electronic eavesdropping and physical searches of persons allegedly engaged in espionage or international terrorism. In response to requests from Hinchey and others, in November, Fine opened an investigation into the National Security Agency program, but said it would only be focused on how the Department of Justice operated within the project's overall structure.
The operations additionally involve monitoring emails and using pen registers to list telephone numbers of those calling into suspect telephone lines. Those under investigation can be forced to produce books, records, papers, documents, and other items - again, without court orders..."
The 'Unitary' Executive:
New York Times Editorial: The Bait-and-Switch White House
"We often wonder whether there is a limit to the Bush administration’s obsession with secrecy, its assault on the rule of law, its disdain for the powers of Congress, its willingness to con the public and its refusal to heed expert advice or recognize facts on the ground. Events of the past week suggest the answer is no.
In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.
That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?...
...Justice Department lawyers are withholding evidence from plaintiffs and even restricting the access of judges to documents in cases involving Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the warrantless interception of e-mail and phone calls....
...Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney claim that they are protecting the powers of the presidency. At least that’s the bait they use to explain their trampling on civil liberties and the constitutional balance of power. But by abusing the government’s legitimate right to claim secrecy in court hearings, they will make it harder for other presidents to do that when it is actually justified. And with that switch, they have done grievous harm to the credibility of the Oval Office and the country."
New York Times Editorial: The Bait-and-Switch White House
"We often wonder whether there is a limit to the Bush administration’s obsession with secrecy, its assault on the rule of law, its disdain for the powers of Congress, its willingness to con the public and its refusal to heed expert advice or recognize facts on the ground. Events of the past week suggest the answer is no.
In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.
That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?...
...Justice Department lawyers are withholding evidence from plaintiffs and even restricting the access of judges to documents in cases involving Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the warrantless interception of e-mail and phone calls....
...Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney claim that they are protecting the powers of the presidency. At least that’s the bait they use to explain their trampling on civil liberties and the constitutional balance of power. But by abusing the government’s legitimate right to claim secrecy in court hearings, they will make it harder for other presidents to do that when it is actually justified. And with that switch, they have done grievous harm to the credibility of the Oval Office and the country."
Friday, January 26, 2007
Manipulated Intel: The Lies That Launched An Illegal Invasion:
The Raw Story: Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq
"Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued an order to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.
'The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information,' he writes, 'are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.'
The order is aimed at protecting 'military security' and 'sensitive law enforcement.'
But what was said to be an effort to protect the United States became a tool by which the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.
Coupled with limited access to intelligence documents, RAW STORY has found that Roberts and a handful of other strategically-placed Washington players stymied all questions into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and post-invasion cover-ups, including the outing of a CIA covert agent, by using targeted leaks and artfully deflecting blame from the White House..."
Next Target: Iran
Raw Story: Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push
"The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack Iran, a RAW STORY investigation has found.
While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s 'axis of evil' in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance – written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad – Cheney’s aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors. The draft document was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post and caused an uproar among Democrats and many in George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) issued a report titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' which espoused similar positions to the 1992 draft and became the basis for the Bush-Cheney Administration's foreign policy. Libby and Wolfowitz were among the participants in this new report; Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent figures in the Bush administration were PNAC members..."
The Raw Story: Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq
"Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued an order to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.
'The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information,' he writes, 'are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.'
The order is aimed at protecting 'military security' and 'sensitive law enforcement.'
But what was said to be an effort to protect the United States became a tool by which the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.
Coupled with limited access to intelligence documents, RAW STORY has found that Roberts and a handful of other strategically-placed Washington players stymied all questions into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and post-invasion cover-ups, including the outing of a CIA covert agent, by using targeted leaks and artfully deflecting blame from the White House..."
Next Target: Iran
Raw Story: Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push
"The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack Iran, a RAW STORY investigation has found.
While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s 'axis of evil' in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance – written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad – Cheney’s aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors. The draft document was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post and caused an uproar among Democrats and many in George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) issued a report titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' which espoused similar positions to the 1992 draft and became the basis for the Bush-Cheney Administration's foreign policy. Libby and Wolfowitz were among the participants in this new report; Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent figures in the Bush administration were PNAC members..."
SOTU:
This author points out quite a few problematic (hypocrytical?) statements by the Chief Executive.
occams hatchet: Daily Kos: Big Fat Liar (Critique of W's Speeches since 2001)
This author points out quite a few problematic (hypocrytical?) statements by the Chief Executive.
occams hatchet: Daily Kos: Big Fat Liar (Critique of W's Speeches since 2001)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Those Who Sold The Illegal Invasion Of Iraq:
Glenn Greenwald: Selective Amnesia
"When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war..."
One GOP Senator Who Won't Be Fooled Again(?)
Gentleman's Quarterly: THE ANGRY ONE
"...Even after four decades and a lifetime of change—a fortune earned in the investment-banking business; a decade as a senator from Nebraska; and a position as one of the GOP’s conservative torchbearers with a shot at the White House—Hagel has put everything on the line to oppose the war in Iraq, refusing to send a 'surge' of new troops into battle, or to forget the lessons he brought home from the killing fields long ago.
Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, Hagel leaned back in his armchair to explain, in a voice reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak, how he was deceived by the president, and won’t let it happen again..."
Glenn Greenwald: Selective Amnesia
"When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war..."
One GOP Senator Who Won't Be Fooled Again(?)
Gentleman's Quarterly: THE ANGRY ONE
"...Even after four decades and a lifetime of change—a fortune earned in the investment-banking business; a decade as a senator from Nebraska; and a position as one of the GOP’s conservative torchbearers with a shot at the White House—Hagel has put everything on the line to oppose the war in Iraq, refusing to send a 'surge' of new troops into battle, or to forget the lessons he brought home from the killing fields long ago.
Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, Hagel leaned back in his armchair to explain, in a voice reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak, how he was deceived by the president, and won’t let it happen again..."
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
No Rights For You...
...if you've been deemed fit to have your rights stripped from you after a single man (POTUS) says so.
Washington Post: Pentagon Releases Rules for Trials of Terrorism Suspects
"The Defense Department yesterday released its detailed rules for military trials of terrorism suspects, a move that reignited last year's controversy over a joint decision by the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress to restrict key detainee rights during such trials.
The 238-page manual, issued after a three-month drafting effort, closely tracks the Military Commissions Act, approved mostly by Republicans in September. It incorporates controversial rules blocking a detainee's right to challenge his or her detention and allowing prosecutors to use hearsay information or coerced evidence if a military judge rules that it is reliable and relevant..."
...if you've been deemed fit to have your rights stripped from you after a single man (POTUS) says so.
Washington Post: Pentagon Releases Rules for Trials of Terrorism Suspects
"The Defense Department yesterday released its detailed rules for military trials of terrorism suspects, a move that reignited last year's controversy over a joint decision by the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress to restrict key detainee rights during such trials.
The 238-page manual, issued after a three-month drafting effort, closely tracks the Military Commissions Act, approved mostly by Republicans in September. It incorporates controversial rules blocking a detainee's right to challenge his or her detention and allowing prosecutors to use hearsay information or coerced evidence if a military judge rules that it is reliable and relevant..."
The Rule Of Law:
U.S. A.G. Gonzales is clearly off his rocker.
Robert Parry: Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
"In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American...
...While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.
For instance, the First Amendment declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.
Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that 'the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'
The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.
That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution..."
U.S. A.G. Gonzales is clearly off his rocker.
Robert Parry: Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
"In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American...
...While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.
For instance, the First Amendment declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.
Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that 'the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'
The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.
That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution..."
On Torture:
If there is no evidence that torture is effective, is it just being used ad hoc by sadists in the military? What these people do is done in the name of the American people.
Washington Post: Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says
"There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.
The 374-page report from the Intelligence Science Board examines several aspects of broad interrogation methods and approaches, and it finds that no significant scientific research has been conducted in more than four decades about the effectiveness of many techniques the U.S. military and intelligence groups use regularly. Intelligence experts wrote that a lack of research could explain why abuse has been alleged at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq..."
Iran:
The Independent (UK) - Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime
"Senior Israeli politicians and analysts appear to be preparing the public for military conflict with Iran as the Iranian President again refused to bow to international demands to curb its nuclear ambitions, and Tehran announced fresh military manoeuvres..."
If there is no evidence that torture is effective, is it just being used ad hoc by sadists in the military? What these people do is done in the name of the American people.
Washington Post: Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says
"There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.
The 374-page report from the Intelligence Science Board examines several aspects of broad interrogation methods and approaches, and it finds that no significant scientific research has been conducted in more than four decades about the effectiveness of many techniques the U.S. military and intelligence groups use regularly. Intelligence experts wrote that a lack of research could explain why abuse has been alleged at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq..."
Iran:
The Independent (UK) - Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime
"Senior Israeli politicians and analysts appear to be preparing the public for military conflict with Iran as the Iranian President again refused to bow to international demands to curb its nuclear ambitions, and Tehran announced fresh military manoeuvres..."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Pre-War Iraq Intel: The Lies That Lead A Nation To War:
Jason Leopold: Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby
"...To further demonstrate just how far the White House was willing to go to suppress any new information about the infamous sixteen words from becoming public, look no further than At the Center of the Storm, a book written by former CIA director George Tenet. The book was due to be published in two weeks, but according to an email exchange with a senior editor at Harper Collins, Tenet's publisher, the book has been 'postponed indefinitely' at the request of the White House because of details Tenet included in his manuscript about how the sixteen words ended up in Bush's speech. The editor, who requested anonymity, would not divulge details of Tenet's narrative, but he said information about the sixteen words contradicts the White House's official statements and Tenet's own July 2003 mea culpa accepting responsibility for allowing the president to cite the sixteen words as fact when he [Tenet] knew the intelligence was unreliable.
The Harper Collins editor said in the email that it was this description of Tenet's book that gave the White House pause:
In this autobiography, Tenet offers his candid views on the agency's mistakes when it came to gathering intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, as well as previously unreported encounters and meetings with members of the Bush administration ... his warnings to White House officials in the spring and summer of 2001, and the plan for a response laid down just six days after the attack. He explains the land-mine missteps made along the way, and the role of his own statements. While recounting the headline events, Tenet also offers his thoughts on the future of the CIA and its role in international relations and foreign policy decisions.
Tenet provides fresh insights and background, including a privileged account of how the famous 'sixteen words' made it into the President's State of the Union speech, the real context of his own now-famous 'slam-dunk' comment, and the CIA's views of the rise of an Iraqi insurgency.
If Tenet's book lives up to the publisher's hype, it could certainly change the narrative about the Iraq War, and may even shed additional light on the events that led Libby and other officials to leak Plame's status with the CIA..."
Jason Leopold: Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby
"...To further demonstrate just how far the White House was willing to go to suppress any new information about the infamous sixteen words from becoming public, look no further than At the Center of the Storm, a book written by former CIA director George Tenet. The book was due to be published in two weeks, but according to an email exchange with a senior editor at Harper Collins, Tenet's publisher, the book has been 'postponed indefinitely' at the request of the White House because of details Tenet included in his manuscript about how the sixteen words ended up in Bush's speech. The editor, who requested anonymity, would not divulge details of Tenet's narrative, but he said information about the sixteen words contradicts the White House's official statements and Tenet's own July 2003 mea culpa accepting responsibility for allowing the president to cite the sixteen words as fact when he [Tenet] knew the intelligence was unreliable.
The Harper Collins editor said in the email that it was this description of Tenet's book that gave the White House pause:
In this autobiography, Tenet offers his candid views on the agency's mistakes when it came to gathering intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, as well as previously unreported encounters and meetings with members of the Bush administration ... his warnings to White House officials in the spring and summer of 2001, and the plan for a response laid down just six days after the attack. He explains the land-mine missteps made along the way, and the role of his own statements. While recounting the headline events, Tenet also offers his thoughts on the future of the CIA and its role in international relations and foreign policy decisions.
Tenet provides fresh insights and background, including a privileged account of how the famous 'sixteen words' made it into the President's State of the Union speech, the real context of his own now-famous 'slam-dunk' comment, and the CIA's views of the rise of an Iraqi insurgency.
If Tenet's book lives up to the publisher's hype, it could certainly change the narrative about the Iraq War, and may even shed additional light on the events that led Libby and other officials to leak Plame's status with the CIA..."
Iran & Iraq:
LA Times: Evidence Scant on Claims Against Iran
"...In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to 'seek out and destroy' Iranian networks that he said were providing 'advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.' He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech.
For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.
The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.
Before invading Iraq, the administration warned repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Those statements proved wrong. The administration's charges about Iran sound uncomfortably familiar to some. 'To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again,' Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week, referring to the administration's comments on Iran..."
LA Times: Evidence Scant on Claims Against Iran
"...In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to 'seek out and destroy' Iranian networks that he said were providing 'advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.' He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech.
For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.
The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.
Before invading Iraq, the administration warned repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Those statements proved wrong. The administration's charges about Iran sound uncomfortably familiar to some. 'To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again,' Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week, referring to the administration's comments on Iran..."
Monday, January 22, 2007
Liberty vs. Security:
Bruce Schneier: On Police Security Cameras: Wholesale Surveillance
"...Throughout our nation's history, we have maintained a balance between the necessary interests of police and the civil rights of the people. The license plate itself is such a balance. We can imagine the debate from the early 1900s: The police proposed affixing a plaque to every car with the car owner's name, so they could better track cars used in crimes. Civil libertarians objected because that would reduce the privacy of every car owner. So a compromise was reached: a random string of letter and numbers that the police could use to determine the car owner. By deliberately designing a more cumbersome system, the needs of law enforcement and the public's right to privacy were balanced.
The search-warrant process, as prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, is another balancing method. So is the minimization requirement for telephone eavesdropping: the police must stop listening to a phone line if the suspect under investigation is not talking.
For license-plate scanners, one obvious protection is to require the police to erase data collected on innocent car owners immediately, and not save it. The police have no legitimate need to collect data on everyone's driving habits. Another is to allow car owners access to the information about them used in these automated searches, and to allow them to challenge inaccuracies.
We need to go further. Criminal penalties are severe in order to create a deterrent, because it is hard to catch wrongdoers. As they become easier to catch, a realignment is necessary. When the police can automate the detection of a wrongdoing, perhaps there should no longer be any criminal penalty attached. For example, both red-light cameras and speed-trap cameras could all issue citations without any 'points' assessed against the driver.
Wholesale surveillance is not simply a more efficient way for the police to do what they've always done. It's a new police power, one made possible with today's technology and one that will be made easier with tomorrow's. And with any new police power, we as a society need to take an active role in establishing rules governing its use. To do otherwise is to cede ever more authority to the police."
Bruce Schneier: On Police Security Cameras: Wholesale Surveillance
"...Throughout our nation's history, we have maintained a balance between the necessary interests of police and the civil rights of the people. The license plate itself is such a balance. We can imagine the debate from the early 1900s: The police proposed affixing a plaque to every car with the car owner's name, so they could better track cars used in crimes. Civil libertarians objected because that would reduce the privacy of every car owner. So a compromise was reached: a random string of letter and numbers that the police could use to determine the car owner. By deliberately designing a more cumbersome system, the needs of law enforcement and the public's right to privacy were balanced.
The search-warrant process, as prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, is another balancing method. So is the minimization requirement for telephone eavesdropping: the police must stop listening to a phone line if the suspect under investigation is not talking.
For license-plate scanners, one obvious protection is to require the police to erase data collected on innocent car owners immediately, and not save it. The police have no legitimate need to collect data on everyone's driving habits. Another is to allow car owners access to the information about them used in these automated searches, and to allow them to challenge inaccuracies.
We need to go further. Criminal penalties are severe in order to create a deterrent, because it is hard to catch wrongdoers. As they become easier to catch, a realignment is necessary. When the police can automate the detection of a wrongdoing, perhaps there should no longer be any criminal penalty attached. For example, both red-light cameras and speed-trap cameras could all issue citations without any 'points' assessed against the driver.
Wholesale surveillance is not simply a more efficient way for the police to do what they've always done. It's a new police power, one made possible with today's technology and one that will be made easier with tomorrow's. And with any new police power, we as a society need to take an active role in establishing rules governing its use. To do otherwise is to cede ever more authority to the police."
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Energy Efficiency:
France long ago mandated that all its diesel fuel would contain 5% biodiesel, a carbon-neutral renewable fuel, which even at very low percentages improves emissions and acts as a fuel system detergent.
Detroit News: Diesel already wins race as the energy alternative
"...In America, introducing clean diesel technology has lagged due to federal foot-dragging on diesel fuel particulate standards. Europe long ago mandated a low 50 parts per million, but the U.S. standard of 15, the world's most stringent (down to 5 by 2009) went into effect in October. Designing engines to the new standard is challenging, but doable.
As diesels enter the market here, they will easily outperform every other alternative. Electric and hydrogen technologies are too expensive to be viable today -- if ever..."
France long ago mandated that all its diesel fuel would contain 5% biodiesel, a carbon-neutral renewable fuel, which even at very low percentages improves emissions and acts as a fuel system detergent.
Detroit News: Diesel already wins race as the energy alternative
"...In America, introducing clean diesel technology has lagged due to federal foot-dragging on diesel fuel particulate standards. Europe long ago mandated a low 50 parts per million, but the U.S. standard of 15, the world's most stringent (down to 5 by 2009) went into effect in October. Designing engines to the new standard is challenging, but doable.
As diesels enter the market here, they will easily outperform every other alternative. Electric and hydrogen technologies are too expensive to be viable today -- if ever..."
Echoes of Iraq In Bush's Next Target - Iran:
Sen. Rockefeller's comments about the Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence (Phase II) are instructive to the obstruction the former Chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas engaged in to shield the President.
The real question is whether the final report will allege that the President misled the Congress with manufactured or manipulated intelligence on Iraq's WMDs, which is a crime.
NY Times: Leading Senator Assails President Over Iran Stance
"The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday sharply criticized the Bush administration's increasingly combative stance toward Iran, saying that White House efforts to portray it as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East...
...Mr. Rockefeller’s committee is working to complete a long-delayed investigation into the misuse of intelligence about Iraq in the months before the American-led invasion.
He said that the committee was nearing completion on one part of that investigation, concerning whether the White House ignored prewar C.I.A. assessments that Iraq could disintegrate into chaos.
That report, Mr. Rockefeller said, could be released within months and was 'not going to make for pleasant reading at the White House.'
Mr. Rockefeller said that with Democrats now in charge of the Intelligence Committee, he expected the panel to be much more aggressive, both in investigating the use of intelligence to fashion White House policy and in subjecting secret intelligence programs to new scrutiny. He mentioned the C.I.A’s network of secret prisons and the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program as likely subjects of investigations.
'We weren’t able to drill down on a lot of stuff' during the years in which the Intelligence Committee was under Republican control, Mr. Rockefeller said. 'Now, there’s a very different attitude,'..."
Sen. Rockefeller's comments about the Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence (Phase II) are instructive to the obstruction the former Chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas engaged in to shield the President.
The real question is whether the final report will allege that the President misled the Congress with manufactured or manipulated intelligence on Iraq's WMDs, which is a crime.
NY Times: Leading Senator Assails President Over Iran Stance
"The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday sharply criticized the Bush administration's increasingly combative stance toward Iran, saying that White House efforts to portray it as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East...
...Mr. Rockefeller’s committee is working to complete a long-delayed investigation into the misuse of intelligence about Iraq in the months before the American-led invasion.
He said that the committee was nearing completion on one part of that investigation, concerning whether the White House ignored prewar C.I.A. assessments that Iraq could disintegrate into chaos.
That report, Mr. Rockefeller said, could be released within months and was 'not going to make for pleasant reading at the White House.'
Mr. Rockefeller said that with Democrats now in charge of the Intelligence Committee, he expected the panel to be much more aggressive, both in investigating the use of intelligence to fashion White House policy and in subjecting secret intelligence programs to new scrutiny. He mentioned the C.I.A’s network of secret prisons and the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program as likely subjects of investigations.
'We weren’t able to drill down on a lot of stuff' during the years in which the Intelligence Committee was under Republican control, Mr. Rockefeller said. 'Now, there’s a very different attitude,'..."
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Official Denial:
It really makes one wonder when the U.S. government puts up a page devoted to trying discredit an author (John Perkins) who makes a devastating case against it. All governments lie, and ours is no exception.
US Department of State: Confessions - or Fantasies - of an Economic Hit Man?
It really makes one wonder when the U.S. government puts up a page devoted to trying discredit an author (John Perkins) who makes a devastating case against it. All governments lie, and ours is no exception.
US Department of State: Confessions - or Fantasies - of an Economic Hit Man?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Rule Of Law:
I'll bet there are some members of Congress who now wish they had bothered to read the PATRIOT Act before voting 'Yea.'
Cox Newspapers: Gonzales Denies Politics Played Role in Exit of Prosecutors
"U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected media reports Wednesday that suggested his office was forcing out nearly a dozen U.S. attorneys around the country for political purposes.
'It’s not true,' said Gonzales, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington about the importance of the judicial branch.
Gonzales declined to get into specifics, citing restriction on publicly discussing personnel issues. But the attorney general did note that the attorneys who 'have been in the news' have all served a 4-year term, making them ripe for replacement.
'Every U.S. attorney serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States,' Gonzales said. 'We can be asked to leave at any time.'
To date, 11 top federal prosecutors have recently resigned or announced their resignations.
A little known provision in the controversial Patriot Act enables Gonzales to select replacements without approval from the Senate.
That incensed Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She sharply criticized the White House for using the provision to oust two U.S. Attorneys in California—Kevin Ryan, who probed the Silicone Valley’s stock-option backdating scandal, and Carol Lam, who headed the inquiry into Republican Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, who pled guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes.
'The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy' and replacing them with their allies, said Feinstein.
The issue is sure to come up tomorrow when Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning. Feinstein is a senior member of that panel."
I'll bet there are some members of Congress who now wish they had bothered to read the PATRIOT Act before voting 'Yea.'
Cox Newspapers: Gonzales Denies Politics Played Role in Exit of Prosecutors
"U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected media reports Wednesday that suggested his office was forcing out nearly a dozen U.S. attorneys around the country for political purposes.
'It’s not true,' said Gonzales, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington about the importance of the judicial branch.
Gonzales declined to get into specifics, citing restriction on publicly discussing personnel issues. But the attorney general did note that the attorneys who 'have been in the news' have all served a 4-year term, making them ripe for replacement.
'Every U.S. attorney serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States,' Gonzales said. 'We can be asked to leave at any time.'
To date, 11 top federal prosecutors have recently resigned or announced their resignations.
A little known provision in the controversial Patriot Act enables Gonzales to select replacements without approval from the Senate.
That incensed Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She sharply criticized the White House for using the provision to oust two U.S. Attorneys in California—Kevin Ryan, who probed the Silicone Valley’s stock-option backdating scandal, and Carol Lam, who headed the inquiry into Republican Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, who pled guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes.
'The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy' and replacing them with their allies, said Feinstein.
The issue is sure to come up tomorrow when Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning. Feinstein is a senior member of that panel."
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Media & Democracy:
Bill Moyers: "Big Media is Ravenous. It Never Gets Enough. Always Wants More. And it Will Stop at Nothing to Get It. These Conglomerates are an Empire, and they are Imperial."
"The veteran broadcast journalist Bill Moyers spoke on Friday before 3,500 at the opening of the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis...
...'What does today's media system mean for the notion of an informed public cherished by democratic theory? Quite literally, it means that virtually everything the average person sees or hears outside of her own personal communications, is determined by the interests of private, unaccountable executives and investors whose primary goal is increasing profits and raising the country's share price. More insidiously, this small group of elites determine what ordinary people do not see or hear. In-depth coverage of anything, let alone the problems real people face day to day, is as scarce as sex, violence, and voyeurism are pervasive'..."
Bill Moyers: "Big Media is Ravenous. It Never Gets Enough. Always Wants More. And it Will Stop at Nothing to Get It. These Conglomerates are an Empire, and they are Imperial."
"The veteran broadcast journalist Bill Moyers spoke on Friday before 3,500 at the opening of the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis...
...'What does today's media system mean for the notion of an informed public cherished by democratic theory? Quite literally, it means that virtually everything the average person sees or hears outside of her own personal communications, is determined by the interests of private, unaccountable executives and investors whose primary goal is increasing profits and raising the country's share price. More insidiously, this small group of elites determine what ordinary people do not see or hear. In-depth coverage of anything, let alone the problems real people face day to day, is as scarce as sex, violence, and voyeurism are pervasive'..."
U.S.-Saddam Ties:
MosNews (Russia) - Saddam Execution Rushed to Hide Information — Russian Ex-PM
"The execution of Saddam Hussein was rushed to prevent the former Iraqi leader from revealing facts that could compromise the United States, former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov has said.
Saddam was executed in an 'unexpected' way so 'he could not have the last word' and reveal compromising information on the relationship between the United States and his former regime, the PTI news agency quoted Primakov as saying in a televised interview on Sunday.
If Saddam Hussein 'had said everything (he knew), the current United States president (George W Bush) would have been greatly embarrassed,' said Primakov, a Middle East expert formerly on good terms with Saddam.
Primakov highlighted the military cooperation between Washington and Baghdad during the 1980s when the United States was fighting the fundamentalist threat from Iran.
He also alleged that Saddam made a deal with Washington before the 2003 invasion of Iraq to allow the United States to occupy the country without meeting any opposition.
Primakov made two confidential visits to Iraq at the request of Russian President Vladimir Putin shortly before the US-led invasion of the country.
Saddam was executed for crimes against humanity on December 30, which coincided with the first day of the Eid al-Adha feast and drew widespread Muslim condemnation."
MosNews (Russia) - Saddam Execution Rushed to Hide Information — Russian Ex-PM
"The execution of Saddam Hussein was rushed to prevent the former Iraqi leader from revealing facts that could compromise the United States, former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov has said.
Saddam was executed in an 'unexpected' way so 'he could not have the last word' and reveal compromising information on the relationship between the United States and his former regime, the PTI news agency quoted Primakov as saying in a televised interview on Sunday.
If Saddam Hussein 'had said everything (he knew), the current United States president (George W Bush) would have been greatly embarrassed,' said Primakov, a Middle East expert formerly on good terms with Saddam.
Primakov highlighted the military cooperation between Washington and Baghdad during the 1980s when the United States was fighting the fundamentalist threat from Iran.
He also alleged that Saddam made a deal with Washington before the 2003 invasion of Iraq to allow the United States to occupy the country without meeting any opposition.
Primakov made two confidential visits to Iraq at the request of Russian President Vladimir Putin shortly before the US-led invasion of the country.
Saddam was executed for crimes against humanity on December 30, which coincided with the first day of the Eid al-Adha feast and drew widespread Muslim condemnation."
White House Will Turn To Extortion Tactics To Assure Congressional Funding:
This sort of disgusting behavior deserves to be exposed for what it is.
NY Times: Pressure Builds Over Plan for Troop Increase
"...Mr. Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview on 'Meet the Press' on NBC that the White House has sufficient money under its control to deploy the troops as planned, and he suggested that once the troops are in place, Congress would be reluctant to cut off funding.
'I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’s tradition is to support those troops,' Mr. Hadley said..."
...And Intimidation Tactics To Suppress Behavior They Do Not Approve Of:
Democracy Now! - Headlines for January 16, 2007
"Pentagon Official Threatens Guantanamo Attorneys
The top Pentagon official handling detainee affairs has called on U.S. corporations to boycott law firms whose attorneys represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In a radio interview, Charles Stimson listed over a dozen prestigious law firms whose attorneys have volunteered to represent detainees.
* Charles Stimson: 'I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.'
Charles Stimson – the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs - spoke on Federal News Radio. The American Bar Association said his remarks were deeply offensive to the legal profession and all Americans. During the same interview Stimson – who is a Navy lawyer -- described Guantanamo as 'the most transparent and open location in the world,'..."
This sort of disgusting behavior deserves to be exposed for what it is.
NY Times: Pressure Builds Over Plan for Troop Increase
"...Mr. Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview on 'Meet the Press' on NBC that the White House has sufficient money under its control to deploy the troops as planned, and he suggested that once the troops are in place, Congress would be reluctant to cut off funding.
'I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’s tradition is to support those troops,' Mr. Hadley said..."
...And Intimidation Tactics To Suppress Behavior They Do Not Approve Of:
Democracy Now! - Headlines for January 16, 2007
"Pentagon Official Threatens Guantanamo Attorneys
The top Pentagon official handling detainee affairs has called on U.S. corporations to boycott law firms whose attorneys represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In a radio interview, Charles Stimson listed over a dozen prestigious law firms whose attorneys have volunteered to represent detainees.
* Charles Stimson: 'I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.'
Charles Stimson – the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs - spoke on Federal News Radio. The American Bar Association said his remarks were deeply offensive to the legal profession and all Americans. During the same interview Stimson – who is a Navy lawyer -- described Guantanamo as 'the most transparent and open location in the world,'..."
Monday, January 15, 2007
Taxes:
Raw Story: Revealed: US comptroller says US taxes would have to double to pay for Bush budget in 2040
"In an overlooked hearing last Thursday, the head of a government watchdog agency warned of looming disaster for America's economy if an effort isn't made to control spending, RAW STORY has learned. Adding that decision-makers in Washington suffer from 'tunnel vision and 'myopia,' he said that getting the budget under control could even require steep tax increases if action isn't taken now.
'The picture I will lay out for you today is not a pretty one and it’s getting worse with the passage of time,' said David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, in a Thursday morning hearing of the Senate's Budget Committee. 'Continuing on our current fiscal path would gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately even our domestic tranquility and our national security,' he warned...
...While he acknowledged the single-year fiscal improvement touted by the Bush administration for 2006, he said that 'it did not fundamentally change our long-term fiscal outlook.' He also noted that since 2000, America's net social insurance commitments and other fiscal obligations have increased to $50 trillion from $20 trillion, representing four times the nation's total economic output. Rising national health care costs are the greatest culprit according to data collected by Walker's agency.
The head of the GAO also warned that if no action is taken now to control government spending, severe tax hikes could be necessary. He stated that, 'balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes to 2 times today’s level,'..."
Raw Story: Revealed: US comptroller says US taxes would have to double to pay for Bush budget in 2040
"In an overlooked hearing last Thursday, the head of a government watchdog agency warned of looming disaster for America's economy if an effort isn't made to control spending, RAW STORY has learned. Adding that decision-makers in Washington suffer from 'tunnel vision and 'myopia,' he said that getting the budget under control could even require steep tax increases if action isn't taken now.
'The picture I will lay out for you today is not a pretty one and it’s getting worse with the passage of time,' said David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, in a Thursday morning hearing of the Senate's Budget Committee. 'Continuing on our current fiscal path would gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately even our domestic tranquility and our national security,' he warned...
...While he acknowledged the single-year fiscal improvement touted by the Bush administration for 2006, he said that 'it did not fundamentally change our long-term fiscal outlook.' He also noted that since 2000, America's net social insurance commitments and other fiscal obligations have increased to $50 trillion from $20 trillion, representing four times the nation's total economic output. Rising national health care costs are the greatest culprit according to data collected by Walker's agency.
The head of the GAO also warned that if no action is taken now to control government spending, severe tax hikes could be necessary. He stated that, 'balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes to 2 times today’s level,'..."
Daring To Cite 'Incomplete, Oversimplified' White House Iraq Statements:
Now, let's see how long ABC CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. will ignore the facts like this that ought to be reported.
McClatchy Newspapers: Administration leaving out important details on Iraq
"President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq..."
Now, let's see how long ABC CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. will ignore the facts like this that ought to be reported.
McClatchy Newspapers: Administration leaving out important details on Iraq
"President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq..."
Media Should Serve The Public Interest:
Stop Big Media: Tell the FCC to Stop Big Media (AGAIN)
"The FCC wants to lift media ownership rules and open the floodgates to wholesale consolidation of local newspaper, radio and television outlets. The FCC needs to hear from you before they hand over local media to concentrated giants like News Corp., General Electric and Clear Channel. Big Media's drive to control local outlets stifles the competition and diversity that are the lifeblood of a democratic media system..."
Comments are due January 16 (tomorrow).
Stop Big Media: Tell the FCC to Stop Big Media (AGAIN)
"The FCC wants to lift media ownership rules and open the floodgates to wholesale consolidation of local newspaper, radio and television outlets. The FCC needs to hear from you before they hand over local media to concentrated giants like News Corp., General Electric and Clear Channel. Big Media's drive to control local outlets stifles the competition and diversity that are the lifeblood of a democratic media system..."
Comments are due January 16 (tomorrow).
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Domestic Surveillance:
NY Times: Military Expands Intelligence Role in U.S.
"The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.
Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say..."
NY Times: Military Expands Intelligence Role in U.S.
"The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.
Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say..."
Friday, January 12, 2007
W's Troop 'Surge':
Stephen Zunes: Bush's Iraq Speech Annotated
W's listening to the neocon historian rather than the military commanders on the ground.
Jason Leopold: The Architect of Mr. Bush's Plan
"One of the key architects of President Bush's disastrous Iraq war policy was responsible for writing the president's new plan calling for an increase in US troops in the region.
By relying on the recommendations of neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on what steps the White House should take to address the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, President Bush has once again ignored the advice of career military officials and even some Republican lawmakers - many of whom in recent weeks have urged Bush to resist implementing a policy that would result in escalating the war - and instead has chosen to rely on the proposals drafted by hawkish, think-tank intellectuals that could very well backfire and end up embroiling the United States in an even bloodier conflict..."
Stephen Zunes: Bush's Iraq Speech Annotated
W's listening to the neocon historian rather than the military commanders on the ground.
Jason Leopold: The Architect of Mr. Bush's Plan
"One of the key architects of President Bush's disastrous Iraq war policy was responsible for writing the president's new plan calling for an increase in US troops in the region.
By relying on the recommendations of neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on what steps the White House should take to address the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, President Bush has once again ignored the advice of career military officials and even some Republican lawmakers - many of whom in recent weeks have urged Bush to resist implementing a policy that would result in escalating the war - and instead has chosen to rely on the proposals drafted by hawkish, think-tank intellectuals that could very well backfire and end up embroiling the United States in an even bloodier conflict..."
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Mention 'Class' In America And You're Shouted Down. Here's Why:
Bob Herbert: Working Harder for the Man
"Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, began the new year with a pink slip and a golden parachute. The company handed him a breathtaking $210 million to take a hike. What would he have been worth if he'd done a good job?
Data recently compiled by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston offers a startling look at just how out of whack executive compensation has become. Some of the Wall Street Christmas bonuses last month were fabulous enough to resurrect an adult's belief in Santa Claus. Morgan Stanley's John Mack got stock and options worth in excess of $40 million. Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs did even better - $53.4 million...
...In a development described by Mr. Sum as 'quite stark and rather bleak for the economic well-being of the average worker,' the once strong link between productivity gains and real wage increases has been severed. The mystery to me is why workers aren't more scandalized. If your productivity increases by 18 percent and your pay goes up by 1 percent, you've been dealt a hand full of jokers in a game in which jokers aren't wild.
Workers have received some modest increases in benefits over the past six years, but most of the money from their productivity gains - by far, it's not even a close call - has gone into profits and the salaries of top executives.
Fairness plays no role in this system. The corporate elite control it, and they have turned it to their ends...
...There's a reason why the power elite get bent out of shape at the merest mention of a class conflict in the U.S. The fear is that the cringing majority that has taken it on the chin for so long will wise up and begin to fight back."
Bob Herbert: Working Harder for the Man
"Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, began the new year with a pink slip and a golden parachute. The company handed him a breathtaking $210 million to take a hike. What would he have been worth if he'd done a good job?
Data recently compiled by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston offers a startling look at just how out of whack executive compensation has become. Some of the Wall Street Christmas bonuses last month were fabulous enough to resurrect an adult's belief in Santa Claus. Morgan Stanley's John Mack got stock and options worth in excess of $40 million. Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs did even better - $53.4 million...
...In a development described by Mr. Sum as 'quite stark and rather bleak for the economic well-being of the average worker,' the once strong link between productivity gains and real wage increases has been severed. The mystery to me is why workers aren't more scandalized. If your productivity increases by 18 percent and your pay goes up by 1 percent, you've been dealt a hand full of jokers in a game in which jokers aren't wild.
Workers have received some modest increases in benefits over the past six years, but most of the money from their productivity gains - by far, it's not even a close call - has gone into profits and the salaries of top executives.
Fairness plays no role in this system. The corporate elite control it, and they have turned it to their ends...
...There's a reason why the power elite get bent out of shape at the merest mention of a class conflict in the U.S. The fear is that the cringing majority that has taken it on the chin for so long will wise up and begin to fight back."
Iraq's Oil: & Bush's 'Surge':
Chris Floyd: New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
"The reason that George W. Bush insists that 'victory' is achievable in Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of 'victory' is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and online. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned 'surge' of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand..."
Iran & Syria:
Michael T. Klare: Ominous Signs of a Wider War
"...[Adm. William] Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.
The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal. 'The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops,' not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone, Abizaid had to go...
...Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.
The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region."
Poppy Bush:
Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen: Bush Sr. Early CIA Ties Revealed
"Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush's oil company emerged from a 1950's collaboration with a covert CIA officer.
Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker.'
But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a 'cleared and witting commercial asset' of the agency..."
Chris Floyd: New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
"The reason that George W. Bush insists that 'victory' is achievable in Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of 'victory' is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and online. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned 'surge' of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand..."
Iran & Syria:
Michael T. Klare: Ominous Signs of a Wider War
"...[Adm. William] Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.
The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal. 'The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops,' not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone, Abizaid had to go...
...Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.
The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region."
Poppy Bush:
Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen: Bush Sr. Early CIA Ties Revealed
"Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush's oil company emerged from a 1950's collaboration with a covert CIA officer.
Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker.'
But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a 'cleared and witting commercial asset' of the agency..."
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Bush's Next Target: Iran and Syria:
Robert Parry: Bush's Rush to Armageddon
"George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel's help..."
Robert Parry: Bush's Rush to Armageddon
"George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel's help..."
Monday, January 08, 2007
Again, How Profiting From Iraq's Oil Is The Only Thing That Matters:
The Independent (UK) - The spoils of war -
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches:
"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. 'So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,' he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the 'false claim' that 'we want to seize' Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: 'It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil.'
Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals..."
The Independent (UK) - The spoils of war -
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches:
"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. 'So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,' he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the 'false claim' that 'we want to seize' Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: 'It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil.'
Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals..."
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Iran:
The Sunday Times (UK) - Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran
"Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several Israeli military sources...
...Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open 'tunnels' into the targets. 'Mini-nukes' would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world...
...Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world's oil..."
The Sunday Times (UK) - Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran
"Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several Israeli military sources...
...Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open 'tunnels' into the targets. 'Mini-nukes' would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world...
...Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world's oil..."
Our (Fleeting) Civil Rights:
NY Times Editorial: The Imperial Presidency 2.0
"Observing President Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.
That year, the White House used the fear of terrorism to scare American voters into cementing the Republican domination of Congress. Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then embarked on an expansion of presidential power chilling both in its sweep and in the damage it did to the constitutional system of checks and balances.
In 2006, the voters sent Mr. Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Mr. Bush understands that — or even realizes that the Democrats are now in control of the Congress. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party’s drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system. Just before the Christmas break, the Justice Department served notice to Senator Patrick Leahy — the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee — that it intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush’s inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns. It refused to hand over two documents, including one in which Mr. Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to establish secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties. The other set forth the interrogation methods authorized in these prisons — which we now know ranged from abuse to outright torture...
...The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush’s rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch. So far, key Democrats, including Mr. Leahy and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, chairman of a new subcommittee on human rights, have said these issues are high priorities for them.
We would lend such efforts our enthusiastic backing and hope Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin and other Democratic leaders are not swayed by the absurd notion circulating in Washington that the Democrats should now 'look ahead' rather than use their new majority to right the dangerous wrongs of the last six years of Mr. Bush’s one-party rule.
This is a false choice. Dealing with these issues is not about the past. The administration’s assault on some of the nation’s founding principles continues unabated. If the Democrats were to shirk their responsibility to stop it, that would make them no better than the Republicans who formed and enabled these policies in the first place."
NY Times Editorial: The Imperial Presidency 2.0
"Observing President Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.
That year, the White House used the fear of terrorism to scare American voters into cementing the Republican domination of Congress. Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then embarked on an expansion of presidential power chilling both in its sweep and in the damage it did to the constitutional system of checks and balances.
In 2006, the voters sent Mr. Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Mr. Bush understands that — or even realizes that the Democrats are now in control of the Congress. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party’s drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system. Just before the Christmas break, the Justice Department served notice to Senator Patrick Leahy — the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee — that it intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush’s inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns. It refused to hand over two documents, including one in which Mr. Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to establish secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties. The other set forth the interrogation methods authorized in these prisons — which we now know ranged from abuse to outright torture...
...The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush’s rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch. So far, key Democrats, including Mr. Leahy and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, chairman of a new subcommittee on human rights, have said these issues are high priorities for them.
We would lend such efforts our enthusiastic backing and hope Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin and other Democratic leaders are not swayed by the absurd notion circulating in Washington that the Democrats should now 'look ahead' rather than use their new majority to right the dangerous wrongs of the last six years of Mr. Bush’s one-party rule.
This is a false choice. Dealing with these issues is not about the past. The administration’s assault on some of the nation’s founding principles continues unabated. If the Democrats were to shirk their responsibility to stop it, that would make them no better than the Republicans who formed and enabled these policies in the first place."
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Electronic Voting:
NY Times: U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting
"A laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.
Skip to next paragraph
The company, Ciber Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colo., has also come under fire from analysts hired by New York State over its plans to test new voting machines for the state. New York could eventually spend $200 million to replace its aging lever devices.
Experts on voting systems say the Ciber problems underscore longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing. The action by the federal Election Assistance Commission seems certain to fan growing concerns about the reliability and security of the devices.
The commission acted last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then. Officials at the commission and Ciber confirmed the action in recent interviews..."
NY Times: U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting
"A laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.
Skip to next paragraph
The company, Ciber Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colo., has also come under fire from analysts hired by New York State over its plans to test new voting machines for the state. New York could eventually spend $200 million to replace its aging lever devices.
Experts on voting systems say the Ciber problems underscore longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing. The action by the federal Election Assistance Commission seems certain to fan growing concerns about the reliability and security of the devices.
The commission acted last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then. Officials at the commission and Ciber confirmed the action in recent interviews..."
Our (Fleeting) Civil Rights:
Seattle Times: Bush says feds can open mail without warrant
"President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a 'signing statement' that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it..."
Seattle Times: Bush says feds can open mail without warrant
"President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a 'signing statement' that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it..."
Bush Pursues Fantasy In Iraq:
William Rivers Pitt: Bush Extends Hand With Fingers Crossed
"...In the final analysis, we see in this Bush editorial the same fantasies and empty rhetoric that have become the defining realities of this administration. He clings to the belief that we can 'win' in Iraq, even as the violence and chaos unleashed by his invasion makes any talk of victory a laughable exercise in fantasy. The hand he supposedly extends in bipartisan friendship comes with crossed fingers, carrying only the same fistful of failures and lies that inspired the November electorate to push him aside.
Mr. Bush has finally acknowledged the existence of Democrats. That is, perhaps, all we can expect from a man whose whole world is framed by delusions, deceptions and the stubborn desire to have everything his way. The American people slapped the crown off his head two months ago, but from everything we see in this editorial, he is the only one left who hasn't noticed it is gone."
William Rivers Pitt: Bush Extends Hand With Fingers Crossed
"...In the final analysis, we see in this Bush editorial the same fantasies and empty rhetoric that have become the defining realities of this administration. He clings to the belief that we can 'win' in Iraq, even as the violence and chaos unleashed by his invasion makes any talk of victory a laughable exercise in fantasy. The hand he supposedly extends in bipartisan friendship comes with crossed fingers, carrying only the same fistful of failures and lies that inspired the November electorate to push him aside.
Mr. Bush has finally acknowledged the existence of Democrats. That is, perhaps, all we can expect from a man whose whole world is framed by delusions, deceptions and the stubborn desire to have everything his way. The American people slapped the crown off his head two months ago, but from everything we see in this editorial, he is the only one left who hasn't noticed it is gone."
The So-Called War On Terror:
Keith Olbermann: Special Comment About 'Sacrifice':
"...First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.
Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.
If what is reported is true - if your decision is made and the 'sacrifice' is ordered - take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning - Gerald Ford:
Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.
Atone.
Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?
No, sir, this is not 'sacrifice.' This has now become 'human sacrifice,'..."
Denial Of Human Carbon-Use Impact On The Environment:
Reuters: Exxon Mobil Cultivates Global Warming Doubt
"Energy giant ExxonMobil borrowed tactics from the tobacco industry to raise doubt about climate change, spending US$16 million on groups that question global warming, a science watchdog group said on Wednesday.
'ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,' Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said at a telephone news conference releasing the report.
An ExxonMobil spokesman dismissed the report as 'an attempt to connect unrelated facts, draw inaccurate conclusions and mislead the audience with a fiction about ExxonMobil's true positions.'
The union, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly traded corporation, had succeeded in parlaying a relatively modest investment into unwarranted public doubt on findings that have been overwhelmingly endorsed by mainstream science.
ExxonMobil did this by using the same methods used for decades by the US tobacco industry, the report said, including:
* raising doubts about even the most undisputed science;
* funding a variety of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform;
* recruiting a number of vocal climate change contrarians;
* portraying its opposition to action as a quest for 'sound science' rather than business self-interest;
* using its access to the Bush administration to shape federal communications and policies on global warming..."
Keith Olbermann: Special Comment About 'Sacrifice':
"...First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.
Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.
If what is reported is true - if your decision is made and the 'sacrifice' is ordered - take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning - Gerald Ford:
Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.
Atone.
Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?
No, sir, this is not 'sacrifice.' This has now become 'human sacrifice,'..."
Denial Of Human Carbon-Use Impact On The Environment:
Reuters: Exxon Mobil Cultivates Global Warming Doubt
"Energy giant ExxonMobil borrowed tactics from the tobacco industry to raise doubt about climate change, spending US$16 million on groups that question global warming, a science watchdog group said on Wednesday.
'ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,' Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said at a telephone news conference releasing the report.
An ExxonMobil spokesman dismissed the report as 'an attempt to connect unrelated facts, draw inaccurate conclusions and mislead the audience with a fiction about ExxonMobil's true positions.'
The union, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly traded corporation, had succeeded in parlaying a relatively modest investment into unwarranted public doubt on findings that have been overwhelmingly endorsed by mainstream science.
ExxonMobil did this by using the same methods used for decades by the US tobacco industry, the report said, including:
* raising doubts about even the most undisputed science;
* funding a variety of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform;
* recruiting a number of vocal climate change contrarians;
* portraying its opposition to action as a quest for 'sound science' rather than business self-interest;
* using its access to the Bush administration to shape federal communications and policies on global warming..."
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Iraq:
What ought to make any reasonable person wonder is why the execution occurred before all the legal proceedings against Saddam had been concluded. At least one trial was still ongoing.
Why not allow all of this man's crimes to come to light before exacting judgment?
Marc Ash: Puppet Kills Puppet
"Shortly after Saddam Hussein was hanged at a US installation in Baghdad, the New York Times called him a 'Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence.' The Washington Post dubbed Hussein an 'Architect of ruthless Iraqi dictatorship.' President Bush said, 'Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial.'
Curiously absent from US mainstream media accounts were a few additional details. Saddam was indeed a ruthless dictator, true, but specifically ruthless on behalf of his benefactors: US multinational petroleum and arms dealers and their patrons well-placed in Washington.
As long as Saddam obediently protected and facilitated the economic and territorial interests of the American (and European) colonialists who backed him, his ruthlessness was their profit, and clearly tolerable...
...Saddam Hussein existed, was tried, and was executed at US direction, by US rules and under total US control. Bush made the final decision, and his newly designated puppet simply carried out the orders.
What price empire?
Immediately after the execution, bombings in predominantly Shiite areas of Iraq claimed the lives of at least 68 Shiites - half the number that Saddam Hussein was hanged for killing. Clearly, dead Shiites are still no concern to the American rulers of Mesopotamia. Total domination is all that matters."
What ought to make any reasonable person wonder is why the execution occurred before all the legal proceedings against Saddam had been concluded. At least one trial was still ongoing.
Why not allow all of this man's crimes to come to light before exacting judgment?
Marc Ash: Puppet Kills Puppet
"Shortly after Saddam Hussein was hanged at a US installation in Baghdad, the New York Times called him a 'Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence.' The Washington Post dubbed Hussein an 'Architect of ruthless Iraqi dictatorship.' President Bush said, 'Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial.'
Curiously absent from US mainstream media accounts were a few additional details. Saddam was indeed a ruthless dictator, true, but specifically ruthless on behalf of his benefactors: US multinational petroleum and arms dealers and their patrons well-placed in Washington.
As long as Saddam obediently protected and facilitated the economic and territorial interests of the American (and European) colonialists who backed him, his ruthlessness was their profit, and clearly tolerable...
...Saddam Hussein existed, was tried, and was executed at US direction, by US rules and under total US control. Bush made the final decision, and his newly designated puppet simply carried out the orders.
What price empire?
Immediately after the execution, bombings in predominantly Shiite areas of Iraq claimed the lives of at least 68 Shiites - half the number that Saddam Hussein was hanged for killing. Clearly, dead Shiites are still no concern to the American rulers of Mesopotamia. Total domination is all that matters."
Monday, January 01, 2007
Washington:
The Baltimore Sun: Bush Hires Lawyers to Prepare for Congressional Probes
"President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.
Bush is moving quickly to fill vacancies within his stable of lawyers, though White House officials say there are no plans to drastically expand the legal staff to deal with a flood of oversight..."
The Baltimore Sun: Bush Hires Lawyers to Prepare for Congressional Probes
"President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.
Bush is moving quickly to fill vacancies within his stable of lawyers, though White House officials say there are no plans to drastically expand the legal staff to deal with a flood of oversight..."
