AFP
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The United States pressed North Korea Saturday to follow up on a breakthrough by abandoning its full atomic weapons programme -- one where Washington sees signs of "emotional attachment" from Pyongyang.
"At the end of this (process), we have to have the abandonment of all programmes, weapons and materials," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after talks in Seoul with her South Korean counterpart Yu Myung-Hwan.
Rice was visiting South Korea before travelling on to China on Sunday as part of six-nation talks now focused on verifying a North Korean nuclear inventory submitted Thursday and on dismantling the full programme.
A day after delivering the long-awaited nuclear inventory or declaration, the North on Friday blew up the cooling tower at its Yongbyon reactor in a televised event to affirm its commitment to denuclearisation.
US envoy Sung Kim said that, while attending the event, he saw signs of an "emotional attachment" to the Yongbyon plant among engineers working there, including plant director Ri Yong-ho.
FULL ARTICLE @ AFP
Saturday, 28 June 2008
U.S. and EU seen near private data deal
Reuters
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The United States and the European Union are near a deal on letting law enforcement and security agencies obtain private information like credit card transactions and travel histories about people on the other side of the Atlantic, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
The newspaper, which obtained an internal report on the potential agreement, said it would amount to a diplomatic breakthrough for U.S. counterterrorism officials after a history of clashing with the EU over demands for personal data.
It was unclear when the agreement could be completed, the Times said, citing officials, but the Bush administration wants to resolve the issues before leaving office in January and is hoping for an agreement that would not require congressional approval.
Negotiators, meeting since February 2007, have mostly worked out draft language for 12 major issues at the heart of a "binding international agreement," according to the report. Among other things, the pact would make clear that European governments and companies could lawfully exchange personal information with the United States.
A major unresolved issue is whether residents of EU countries would be able to sue the U.S. government over its handling of their personal data, the Times said. U.S. law does not allow foreigners to sue the U.S. government for damages in such instances, the Times said.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The United States and the European Union are near a deal on letting law enforcement and security agencies obtain private information like credit card transactions and travel histories about people on the other side of the Atlantic, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
The newspaper, which obtained an internal report on the potential agreement, said it would amount to a diplomatic breakthrough for U.S. counterterrorism officials after a history of clashing with the EU over demands for personal data.
It was unclear when the agreement could be completed, the Times said, citing officials, but the Bush administration wants to resolve the issues before leaving office in January and is hoping for an agreement that would not require congressional approval.
Negotiators, meeting since February 2007, have mostly worked out draft language for 12 major issues at the heart of a "binding international agreement," according to the report. Among other things, the pact would make clear that European governments and companies could lawfully exchange personal information with the United States.
A major unresolved issue is whether residents of EU countries would be able to sue the U.S. government over its handling of their personal data, the Times said. U.S. law does not allow foreigners to sue the U.S. government for damages in such instances, the Times said.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Friday, 27 June 2008
EU Constitution Kingpin: We Will Ignore Referendums
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 27, 2008
Admits Lisbon Treaty was intended to confuse public into acceptance
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, author of the rejected European Constitution, has effectively stated that the votes of citizens in EU member states will have no bearing on the future actions of the European Parliament.
The former President of France has told media that referendums, such as last week's key Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, will simply be ignored by bureaucrats in Brussels as they may hinder the progress of European integration.
A London Telegraph report detailed the EU kingpin's comments:
"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.
"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."
"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".
d'Estaing also told the Irish Times that after the rejection of the original EU Constitution in 2005 by Dutch and French voters, The Lisbon Treaty was a deliberate attempt to repackage the constitution in a more confusing format.
"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.
"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."
What kind of parliament completely ignores the will of the people, sets out to intentionally confuse the public into accepting legislation, flouts its own laws, and does whatever it wants without accountability?
The only reason the Irish were even allowed a referendum in the first place was due to the fact that Ireland's national constitution mandates that any amendment must be put to a vote, the country remained the only bulwark against the EU's final stumbling block to creating a federal superstate and completely eliminating all remaining vestiges of sovereignty. Other countries, including Great Britain were simply denied a national vote altogether.
Under EU laws, if one of its member states rejects a treaty, the EU is mandated to scrap the bill. But the European Union's contempt for direct democracy is likely to lead them to ignore the Irish referendum and pursue the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty anyway - underscoring the fact that the EU is nothing more than an illegitimate autocracy of manufactured consent.
The usual tactic of the EU is simply to keep repeating a referendum until they achieve the result they desire.
In 2001 the Irish voted No to the Nice Treaty and were simply asked to vote again a year later. That time they said Yes. In 1992 Denmark voted No to the Maastricht Treaty - and voted Yes a year later. The French and Dutch rejected the constitution in 2005 and the EU architects designed the Lisbon Treaty instead.
But this time the EU is set to go a step further and simply ignore the decision of the Irish people and the will of any future dissenting members, while breaking their own laws - proving once and for all that the body is completely illegitimate, dangerous to democracy and a de-facto federal
dictatorship.
Related: Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy's grave warning over the EU
SOURCE: Infowars.net
Infowars.net
Friday, June 27, 2008
Admits Lisbon Treaty was intended to confuse public into acceptance
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, author of the rejected European Constitution, has effectively stated that the votes of citizens in EU member states will have no bearing on the future actions of the European Parliament.
The former President of France has told media that referendums, such as last week's key Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, will simply be ignored by bureaucrats in Brussels as they may hinder the progress of European integration.
A London Telegraph report detailed the EU kingpin's comments:
"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.
"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."
"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".
d'Estaing also told the Irish Times that after the rejection of the original EU Constitution in 2005 by Dutch and French voters, The Lisbon Treaty was a deliberate attempt to repackage the constitution in a more confusing format.
"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.
"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."
What kind of parliament completely ignores the will of the people, sets out to intentionally confuse the public into accepting legislation, flouts its own laws, and does whatever it wants without accountability?
The only reason the Irish were even allowed a referendum in the first place was due to the fact that Ireland's national constitution mandates that any amendment must be put to a vote, the country remained the only bulwark against the EU's final stumbling block to creating a federal superstate and completely eliminating all remaining vestiges of sovereignty. Other countries, including Great Britain were simply denied a national vote altogether.
Under EU laws, if one of its member states rejects a treaty, the EU is mandated to scrap the bill. But the European Union's contempt for direct democracy is likely to lead them to ignore the Irish referendum and pursue the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty anyway - underscoring the fact that the EU is nothing more than an illegitimate autocracy of manufactured consent.
The usual tactic of the EU is simply to keep repeating a referendum until they achieve the result they desire.
In 2001 the Irish voted No to the Nice Treaty and were simply asked to vote again a year later. That time they said Yes. In 1992 Denmark voted No to the Maastricht Treaty - and voted Yes a year later. The French and Dutch rejected the constitution in 2005 and the EU architects designed the Lisbon Treaty instead.
But this time the EU is set to go a step further and simply ignore the decision of the Irish people and the will of any future dissenting members, while breaking their own laws - proving once and for all that the body is completely illegitimate, dangerous to democracy and a de-facto federal
dictatorship.
Related: Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy's grave warning over the EU
SOURCE: Infowars.net
North America's 1st carbon tax rolls out under fire
Allan Dowd
Reuters
Friday, June 27, 2008
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Civic leader Scott Nelson says he is as worried as anyone about global warming, but that does not make him happy to be one of the first North Americans to pay a carbon tax to curb climate change.
Nelson, mayor of Williams Lake, British Columbia, says record high energy prices mean that the levy, for all its good intentions, could not come at a worst time for residents in his community, a lumber and ranching town about 525 km (340 miles) north of Vancouver.
"The last thing they need now is a tax on top of these soaring prices to add insult to injury," said Nelson, predicting that a taxpayer revolt will eventually scuttle the new tax, which takes effect on July 1.
Carbon taxes already exist in Europe. But the tax on fossil fuels will make the Pacific province of British Columbia the first North American jurisdiction to bring in a broad-based levy designed to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.
The provincial government unveiled the tax in February, calling it a key element in a pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.
The tax applies to nearly all fossil fuels, including gasoline and home heating fuel, starting at C$10 per tonne of carbon emissions in 2008 and increasing by C$5 a tonne annually for the next four years.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Reuters
Friday, June 27, 2008
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Civic leader Scott Nelson says he is as worried as anyone about global warming, but that does not make him happy to be one of the first North Americans to pay a carbon tax to curb climate change.
Nelson, mayor of Williams Lake, British Columbia, says record high energy prices mean that the levy, for all its good intentions, could not come at a worst time for residents in his community, a lumber and ranching town about 525 km (340 miles) north of Vancouver.
"The last thing they need now is a tax on top of these soaring prices to add insult to injury," said Nelson, predicting that a taxpayer revolt will eventually scuttle the new tax, which takes effect on July 1.
Carbon taxes already exist in Europe. But the tax on fossil fuels will make the Pacific province of British Columbia the first North American jurisdiction to bring in a broad-based levy designed to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.
The provincial government unveiled the tax in February, calling it a key element in a pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.
The tax applies to nearly all fossil fuels, including gasoline and home heating fuel, starting at C$10 per tonne of carbon emissions in 2008 and increasing by C$5 a tonne annually for the next four years.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
The Democrats and the New FISA Law: Embracing Big Brother
CANDACE COHN
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
It may be June, but Christmas came early this year for Big Brother and the telecommunications giants. Unfortunately, it is average Americans who will pay--dearly--on three separate counts.
First, precious constitutional and other legal protections against warrantless domestic surveillance have been shattered. The federal government may now secretly and legally eavesdrop on virtually any American's e-mail, cell phone and landline communications--without first getting a court-ordered warrant.
New federal legislation gives the government and phone companies sweeping new domestic surveillance powers. It allows for mass, untargeted, warrantless eavesdropping against ordinary American citizens and political activists. It sets back hard-fought free speech, civil rights and privacy protections that were won by popular pressure following the Vietnam War and Watergate era.
The second price that Americans will pay is by those who have been illegally monitored since 9/11. They will lose billions of dollars from dozens of anti-spying lawsuits pending against the likes of Sprint, AT&T and Verizon. These suits, covering the last seven years, will now be dismissed in a huge giveaway of immunity to the telecommunications lobby and big campaign donors.
The lawsuits arose from the government's secret eavesdropping on American citizens, carried out since September 11 by Verizon, AT&T and others at the behest of the Bush administration, without court-ordered warrants--which until now had been legally required.
Third, Americans will be unable to discover the extent and details of the government's post-9/11 domestic spying operation, which barely came to light three years ago. That domestic eavesdropping campaign will now continue and expand further--with legal sanction--in the dark recesses of total secrecy. The new bill is a huge and blatant cover-up.
* * *
DEMOCRATS HAD claimed to be against the bill for months, but--as they did with the earlier USA PATRIOT Act--easily and completely capitulated. The new legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 19; its imminent approval by the Senate is a foregone conclusion.
Reversing himself along with so many of his colleagues, Barack Obama gave fresh evidence of what can be expected of him if he wins the presidency.
In February--when he was running against Hillary Clinton--Obama said he "was proud" to stand against this bill's predecessor and its blanket immunity for the telecommunications companies' violations of individuals' civil rights. Four months later, no longer needing to position himself to the left of his former Democratic rival, Obama has revealed his real stance. He has announced he will vote in favor of the state powers and immunity for crimes and violations he so recently denounced.
At a time when Democrats are most ascendant--when Republicans, the war and bogus post-9/11 "national security" scams for gutting constitutional rights have been most discredited--Obama and "bipartisan" Democrats are giving the completely weakened Bush administration exactly what it wants. Why? There can be only one reason. It is what they want, too.
The new bill guts the post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was created in 1978 to require warrants from secret courts for domestic government spying in national security matters. These were created to curb blatant government domestic wiretap abuse, revealed by the Senate's Church Committee and others.
The Church Committee, convened in the 1970s to investigate government claims against domestic "terrorists," instead revealed a massive, secret official campaign of spying, sabotage, thug tactics, "dirty tricks" and criminal activity by the government against ordinary Americans. The secret surveillance and criminal sabotage were carried out especially against many thousands of movement activists--antiwar, civil rights, antiracist, left-wing and many other dissenters.
The political opponents the government systematically "terrorized" covered a broad range: the Black Panthers, antiwar organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, journalists, Native American groups, socialist organizations, peace vigil groups, Martin Luther King, Jr. Even congressional opponents were targeted.
The eavesdropping, disruption schemes, blackmail, assaults, assassinations and other crimes were carried out by the CIA, FBI and many other government agencies, through programs like the infamous COINTELPRO (COunterINtelligence PROgram).
Mass popular opposition won victories that curbed government thuggery and spying against the American people and political activists. But longtime official efforts to rehabilitate such programs have used 9/11 as a cover for supposedly "temporary" measures against ostensible "terrorists" (most notably via the Patriot Act).
Those efforts have now succeeded in getting exactly what was wanted all along--permanent "legal" license to listen in on any American's communications at will, without meaningful "interference" or supervision from the courts, without the ability of ordinary folks to find out or challenge what the government is doing, and without recourse to legal remedies for what was previously known as breaking the law.
The demolition of civil liberties and human rights introduced at Guantánamo is coming home.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
It may be June, but Christmas came early this year for Big Brother and the telecommunications giants. Unfortunately, it is average Americans who will pay--dearly--on three separate counts.
First, precious constitutional and other legal protections against warrantless domestic surveillance have been shattered. The federal government may now secretly and legally eavesdrop on virtually any American's e-mail, cell phone and landline communications--without first getting a court-ordered warrant.
New federal legislation gives the government and phone companies sweeping new domestic surveillance powers. It allows for mass, untargeted, warrantless eavesdropping against ordinary American citizens and political activists. It sets back hard-fought free speech, civil rights and privacy protections that were won by popular pressure following the Vietnam War and Watergate era.
The second price that Americans will pay is by those who have been illegally monitored since 9/11. They will lose billions of dollars from dozens of anti-spying lawsuits pending against the likes of Sprint, AT&T and Verizon. These suits, covering the last seven years, will now be dismissed in a huge giveaway of immunity to the telecommunications lobby and big campaign donors.
The lawsuits arose from the government's secret eavesdropping on American citizens, carried out since September 11 by Verizon, AT&T and others at the behest of the Bush administration, without court-ordered warrants--which until now had been legally required.
Third, Americans will be unable to discover the extent and details of the government's post-9/11 domestic spying operation, which barely came to light three years ago. That domestic eavesdropping campaign will now continue and expand further--with legal sanction--in the dark recesses of total secrecy. The new bill is a huge and blatant cover-up.
* * *
DEMOCRATS HAD claimed to be against the bill for months, but--as they did with the earlier USA PATRIOT Act--easily and completely capitulated. The new legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 19; its imminent approval by the Senate is a foregone conclusion.
Reversing himself along with so many of his colleagues, Barack Obama gave fresh evidence of what can be expected of him if he wins the presidency.
In February--when he was running against Hillary Clinton--Obama said he "was proud" to stand against this bill's predecessor and its blanket immunity for the telecommunications companies' violations of individuals' civil rights. Four months later, no longer needing to position himself to the left of his former Democratic rival, Obama has revealed his real stance. He has announced he will vote in favor of the state powers and immunity for crimes and violations he so recently denounced.
At a time when Democrats are most ascendant--when Republicans, the war and bogus post-9/11 "national security" scams for gutting constitutional rights have been most discredited--Obama and "bipartisan" Democrats are giving the completely weakened Bush administration exactly what it wants. Why? There can be only one reason. It is what they want, too.
The new bill guts the post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was created in 1978 to require warrants from secret courts for domestic government spying in national security matters. These were created to curb blatant government domestic wiretap abuse, revealed by the Senate's Church Committee and others.
The Church Committee, convened in the 1970s to investigate government claims against domestic "terrorists," instead revealed a massive, secret official campaign of spying, sabotage, thug tactics, "dirty tricks" and criminal activity by the government against ordinary Americans. The secret surveillance and criminal sabotage were carried out especially against many thousands of movement activists--antiwar, civil rights, antiracist, left-wing and many other dissenters.
The political opponents the government systematically "terrorized" covered a broad range: the Black Panthers, antiwar organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, journalists, Native American groups, socialist organizations, peace vigil groups, Martin Luther King, Jr. Even congressional opponents were targeted.
The eavesdropping, disruption schemes, blackmail, assaults, assassinations and other crimes were carried out by the CIA, FBI and many other government agencies, through programs like the infamous COINTELPRO (COunterINtelligence PROgram).
Mass popular opposition won victories that curbed government thuggery and spying against the American people and political activists. But longtime official efforts to rehabilitate such programs have used 9/11 as a cover for supposedly "temporary" measures against ostensible "terrorists" (most notably via the Patriot Act).
Those efforts have now succeeded in getting exactly what was wanted all along--permanent "legal" license to listen in on any American's communications at will, without meaningful "interference" or supervision from the courts, without the ability of ordinary folks to find out or challenge what the government is doing, and without recourse to legal remedies for what was previously known as breaking the law.
The demolition of civil liberties and human rights introduced at Guantánamo is coming home.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
The World in 2025, According to the National Intelligence Council
Daniel Taylor
Old Thinker News
Friday, June 27, 2008
Life extension technology, artificial intelligence, and an expansive "internet of things" are just a few of the topics that the latest report from the National Intelligence Council, "Disruptive Civil Technologies - Six Technologies with Potential Impacts on US Interests out to 2025".
The MoD strategic trends 2007-2036 report covers life extension technologies, stating that a divide may rise between those who can afford to extend their lifespan, such as dictatorial rulers,
"Developments in genetics might allow treatment of the symptoms of ageing and this would result in greatly increased life expectancy for those who could afford it. The divide between those that could afford to ‘buy longevity’ and those that could not, could aggravate perceived global inequality. Dictatorial or despotic rulers could potentially also ‘buy longevity’, prolonging their regimes and international security risks."
Old Thinker News
Friday, June 27, 2008
Life extension technology, artificial intelligence, and an expansive "internet of things" are just a few of the topics that the latest report from the National Intelligence Council, "Disruptive Civil Technologies - Six Technologies with Potential Impacts on US Interests out to 2025".
Earlier reports from the CIA and the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense have carried similar themes. The December 2000 CIA report, Global Trends 2015 stated that nation's borders would weaken in the process of globalization, with an elite reaping the benefits,
"Scenario Two: Pernicious Globalization Global elites thrive, but the majority of the world’s population fails to benefit from globalization... migration becomes a major source of interstate tension... Internal conflicts increase, fueled by frustrated expectations, inequities, and heightened communal tensions..."
The MoD strategic trends 2007-2036 report covers life extension technologies, stating that a divide may rise between those who can afford to extend their lifespan, such as dictatorial rulers,
"Developments in genetics might allow treatment of the symptoms of ageing and this would result in greatly increased life expectancy for those who could afford it. The divide between those that could afford to ‘buy longevity’ and those that could not, could aggravate perceived global inequality. Dictatorial or despotic rulers could potentially also ‘buy longevity’, prolonging their regimes and international security risks."
FULL ARTICLE @ Old Thinker News
Pictured: The bees fitted with microchips to find out why their species is dying
Claire Cohen
Daily Mail
Friday, June 27, 2008
It is a remarkably hairy close-up.
But this tiny microchip attached to a bee’s back will hopefully explain why so many honeybees are dying from disease.
Professor Juergen Tautz and his team at the University of Wurzburg in Germany are studying the health of more than 150,000 bees, in the hope of halting the apparently inexorable decline in their worldwide population.
Bees have always been tricky to study individually.
Each colony has around 50,000 members, all interacting simultaneously and making it near-impossible to observe them.
Previously, each bee would be painted with a different-coloured dot on its back and scientists would video the colony — watching the tape endlessly, to try to work out the behaviour in each insect.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Mail
Daily Mail
Friday, June 27, 2008
It is a remarkably hairy close-up.But this tiny microchip attached to a bee’s back will hopefully explain why so many honeybees are dying from disease.
Professor Juergen Tautz and his team at the University of Wurzburg in Germany are studying the health of more than 150,000 bees, in the hope of halting the apparently inexorable decline in their worldwide population.
Bees have always been tricky to study individually.
Each colony has around 50,000 members, all interacting simultaneously and making it near-impossible to observe them.
Previously, each bee would be painted with a different-coloured dot on its back and scientists would video the colony — watching the tape endlessly, to try to work out the behaviour in each insect.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Mail
Man arrested for anti-cop YouTube clip
DAVID GAMBACORTA
U.S. News & World Report
Friday, June 27, 2008
The comments made in the You Tube video are very similar to the death threats made by Michael Reagan to Mark Dice. This individual was arrested while Reagan was not even suspended from his radio show.
It took just a few weeks for Andre Moore to go from YouTube to the slammer.
Members of the state attorney general's Gun Violence Task Force announced Moore's abrupt career change yesterday morning by smashing a battering ram through the door of his West Philadelphia apartment.
The 44-year-old was arrested for calling for the murder of 18th District police officers in a video titled "Dissin' Philly Cops" that he posted on YouTube on June 6, law-enforcement officials said.
Moore, who's now been suspended from his job as a security guard at Albert Einstein Medical Center, was less than subtle in his performance.
While waving a gun through the air, Moore said, "I rejoice whenever they shoot a cop in Philadelphia because I hate them," according to a court affidavit containing a transcript of the video.
FULL ARTICLE @ U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report
Friday, June 27, 2008
The comments made in the You Tube video are very similar to the death threats made by Michael Reagan to Mark Dice. This individual was arrested while Reagan was not even suspended from his radio show.
It took just a few weeks for Andre Moore to go from YouTube to the slammer.
Members of the state attorney general's Gun Violence Task Force announced Moore's abrupt career change yesterday morning by smashing a battering ram through the door of his West Philadelphia apartment.
The 44-year-old was arrested for calling for the murder of 18th District police officers in a video titled "Dissin' Philly Cops" that he posted on YouTube on June 6, law-enforcement officials said.
Moore, who's now been suspended from his job as a security guard at Albert Einstein Medical Center, was less than subtle in his performance.
While waving a gun through the air, Moore said, "I rejoice whenever they shoot a cop in Philadelphia because I hate them," according to a court affidavit containing a transcript of the video.
FULL ARTICLE @ U.S. News & World Report
No let-up in global stocks slide
BBC News
Friday, June 27, 2008
Global shares have continued their downward path, with New York's Dow Jones showing further declines after key European markets closed lower.
In early trade, the Dow fell 0.5% amid continuing fears over high oil prices.
Share indexes in Paris and Frankfurt ended the day about 0.6% lower, but London's FTSE shrugged off earlier losses to register a 0.2% rise.
Earlier, China's benchmark Shanghai index dropped by 5.3%, while India's Sensex index declined by 4.3%.
Indexes in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all shed more than 2%.
Crude oil surged to a record, as Brent crude jumped to $142.13 a barrel, while New York light crude climbed as high as $142.26, on concerns about supply.
The global stock market downturn began in New York on Thursday, when the Dow fell more than 3% to a two-year low.
The fear on Wall Street is that rising prices and tighter finances will force Americans to curb spending and push the economy into recession.
FULL ARTICLE @ BBC News
Friday, June 27, 2008
Global shares have continued their downward path, with New York's Dow Jones showing further declines after key European markets closed lower.
In early trade, the Dow fell 0.5% amid continuing fears over high oil prices.
Share indexes in Paris and Frankfurt ended the day about 0.6% lower, but London's FTSE shrugged off earlier losses to register a 0.2% rise.
Earlier, China's benchmark Shanghai index dropped by 5.3%, while India's Sensex index declined by 4.3%.
Indexes in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all shed more than 2%.
Crude oil surged to a record, as Brent crude jumped to $142.13 a barrel, while New York light crude climbed as high as $142.26, on concerns about supply.
The global stock market downturn began in New York on Thursday, when the Dow fell more than 3% to a two-year low.
The fear on Wall Street is that rising prices and tighter finances will force Americans to curb spending and push the economy into recession.
FULL ARTICLE @ BBC News
Russian space probe may save Earth from asteroid
RIA Novosti
Friday, June 27, 2008
MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian experts have said a space mission should be sent in 2012 to the Apophis asteroid to establish whether it will collide with Earth, adding that the Russian Phobos-Grunt spacecraft could be used for that purpose.
A report at a Moscow scientific conference said 99942 Apophis, or Asteroid 2004 MN4, with a diameter of 350m, is the biggest space threat to Earth.
In 2029, this near-Earth object will be at a distance of only 36,000 km (22,400 miles) - closer than satellites in geostationary orbit. Earth's gravity could change the orbit of Apophis in such a way that it would collide with Earth on its next approach in 2036.
"This could lead to an area equal to France turning into a desert," said Alexander Simonov, an author of the report.
The report authors also said that Apophis's exact orbit, with a precision of up to several tens of meters, should be calculated to determine whether the asteroid will collide with the Earth. This is only possible if a radio beacon is placed on the asteroid.
Apophis got its name from Egyptian mythology, where Apophis, or Apep the Destroyer, is the god of evil and destruction characterized as a serpent dwelling in eternal darkness.
FULL ARTICLE @ RIA Novosti
Friday, June 27, 2008
MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian experts have said a space mission should be sent in 2012 to the Apophis asteroid to establish whether it will collide with Earth, adding that the Russian Phobos-Grunt spacecraft could be used for that purpose.
A report at a Moscow scientific conference said 99942 Apophis, or Asteroid 2004 MN4, with a diameter of 350m, is the biggest space threat to Earth.
In 2029, this near-Earth object will be at a distance of only 36,000 km (22,400 miles) - closer than satellites in geostationary orbit. Earth's gravity could change the orbit of Apophis in such a way that it would collide with Earth on its next approach in 2036.
"This could lead to an area equal to France turning into a desert," said Alexander Simonov, an author of the report.
The report authors also said that Apophis's exact orbit, with a precision of up to several tens of meters, should be calculated to determine whether the asteroid will collide with the Earth. This is only possible if a radio beacon is placed on the asteroid.
Apophis got its name from Egyptian mythology, where Apophis, or Apep the Destroyer, is the god of evil and destruction characterized as a serpent dwelling in eternal darkness.
FULL ARTICLE @ RIA Novosti
Seizing Laptops and Cameras Without Cause
Alex Kingsbury
U.S. News & World Report
Friday, June 27, 2008
Returning from a brief vacation to Germany in February, Bill Hogan was selected for additional screening by customs officials at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. Agents searched Hogan's luggage and then popped an unexpected question: Was he carrying any digital media cards or drives in his pockets? "Then they told me that they were impounding my laptop," says Hogan, a freelance investigative reporter whose recent stories have ranged from the origins of the Iraq war to the impact of money in presidential politics.
Shaken by the encounter, Hogan says he left the airport and examined his bags, finding that the agents had also removed and inspected the memory card from his digital camera. "It was fortunate that I didn't use that machine for work or I would have had to call up all my sources and tell them that the government had just seized their information," he said. When customs offered to return the machine nearly two weeks later, Hogan told them to ship it to his lawyer.
The extent of the program to confiscate electronics at customs points is unclear. A hearing Wednesday before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution hopes to learn more about the extent of the program and safeguards to traveler's privacy. Lawsuits have also been filed, challenging how the program selects travelers for inspection. Citing those lawsuits, Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, refuses to say exactly how common the practice is, how many computers, portable storage drives, and BlackBerries have been inspected and confiscated, or what happens to the devices once they are seized. Congressional investigators and plaintiffs involved in lawsuits believe that digital copies?so-called "mirror images" of drives?are sometimes made of materials after they are seized by customs.
FULL ARTICLE @ U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report
Friday, June 27, 2008
Returning from a brief vacation to Germany in February, Bill Hogan was selected for additional screening by customs officials at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. Agents searched Hogan's luggage and then popped an unexpected question: Was he carrying any digital media cards or drives in his pockets? "Then they told me that they were impounding my laptop," says Hogan, a freelance investigative reporter whose recent stories have ranged from the origins of the Iraq war to the impact of money in presidential politics.
Shaken by the encounter, Hogan says he left the airport and examined his bags, finding that the agents had also removed and inspected the memory card from his digital camera. "It was fortunate that I didn't use that machine for work or I would have had to call up all my sources and tell them that the government had just seized their information," he said. When customs offered to return the machine nearly two weeks later, Hogan told them to ship it to his lawyer.
The extent of the program to confiscate electronics at customs points is unclear. A hearing Wednesday before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution hopes to learn more about the extent of the program and safeguards to traveler's privacy. Lawsuits have also been filed, challenging how the program selects travelers for inspection. Citing those lawsuits, Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, refuses to say exactly how common the practice is, how many computers, portable storage drives, and BlackBerries have been inspected and confiscated, or what happens to the devices once they are seized. Congressional investigators and plaintiffs involved in lawsuits believe that digital copies?so-called "mirror images" of drives?are sometimes made of materials after they are seized by customs.
FULL ARTICLE @ U.S. News & World Report
Masons framed my son for Orkney waiter murder, says disgraced dad
Bob Dow
Daily Record
Friday, June 27, 2008
THE father of Orkney killer Michael Ross yesterday blamed a masonic plot for his son's conviction.
Disgraced ex-policeman Eddy Ross claimed the 29-year-old racist murderer was the victim of a conspiracy.
He has also accused police chiefs of being involved in the set-up.
Ex-Army sniper Michael Ross was last week convicted of gunning down waiter Shamsuddin Mahmood 14 years ago.
Ross was just 15 when he opened fire in a busy restaurant in Kirkwall.
Minutes after the verdict at the end of a six-week trial, the dad-of-two tried to escape and was caught just yards from freedom.
Eddy, 57, was jailed for four years in 1997 for trying to cover up the crime and has always maintained both he and his son were innocent.
That conviction cost him his 23-year police career and a £100,000 pension. He now works as an undertaker on Orkney.
Yesterday, he said: "I have been aware that, from the beginning of this case, there has been an undeniable and abhorrent stench emanating from it.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Record
Daily Record
Friday, June 27, 2008
THE father of Orkney killer Michael Ross yesterday blamed a masonic plot for his son's conviction.
Disgraced ex-policeman Eddy Ross claimed the 29-year-old racist murderer was the victim of a conspiracy.
He has also accused police chiefs of being involved in the set-up.
Ex-Army sniper Michael Ross was last week convicted of gunning down waiter Shamsuddin Mahmood 14 years ago.
Ross was just 15 when he opened fire in a busy restaurant in Kirkwall.
Minutes after the verdict at the end of a six-week trial, the dad-of-two tried to escape and was caught just yards from freedom.
Eddy, 57, was jailed for four years in 1997 for trying to cover up the crime and has always maintained both he and his son were innocent.
That conviction cost him his 23-year police career and a £100,000 pension. He now works as an undertaker on Orkney.
Yesterday, he said: "I have been aware that, from the beginning of this case, there has been an undeniable and abhorrent stench emanating from it.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Record
Report Shows Lawmakers Heavily Invested in War
Pat Shannan
American Free Press
Friday, June 27, 2008
A new study by a nonpartisan research group shows that lawmakers’ stock holdings in various companies doing business with the Defense Department totals more than $196 million, earning the congress critters millions in profits individually since the start of the war in Iraq.
The Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics says that 2006 financial disclosure statements suggest that members’ holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.
The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.
Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million to $195.5 million in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million. These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million and $62 million between 2004 and 2006, the center concluded.
It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 are still being vetted. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.
FULL ARTICLE @ American Free Press
American Free Press
Friday, June 27, 2008
A new study by a nonpartisan research group shows that lawmakers’ stock holdings in various companies doing business with the Defense Department totals more than $196 million, earning the congress critters millions in profits individually since the start of the war in Iraq.
The Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics says that 2006 financial disclosure statements suggest that members’ holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.
The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.
Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million to $195.5 million in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million. These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million and $62 million between 2004 and 2006, the center concluded.
It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 are still being vetted. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.
FULL ARTICLE @ American Free Press
Wall Street plunges towards worst month since the Great Depression of the early 1930s
Ian Lyall
UK Daily Mail
Friday, June 27, 2008
Shares plunged on both sides of the Atlantic yesterday because of fears over oil, inflation and the global economy.
In London the FTSE 100 slumped 2.6 per cent, or 147.9 points to 5518.2.
Meanwhile in America, the Dow Jones fell more than 350 points to its lowest level since October 1, 2006.
It is now on course for its worst June performance since the Great Depression of the early 1930s.
The febrile mood on trading floors came amid fears that soaring energy prices will push up inflation and erode consumer spending, dramatically reducing company profits.
At the same time, Wall Street analysts gave a grim assessment of the prospects of some of the U.S.'s most prominent companies.
General Motors – America's largest car maker – slumped to a 53-year low, and there were more concerns about the sub-prime exposure of Citigroup, the country's biggest bank.
Hi-tech firms Oracle, and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion also weighed in with bad news.
At the same time, the price of oil surged to a record $140 a barrel after Libya signalled it may cut output, and OPEC President Chakib Khelil warned prices could hit $170.
FULL ARTICLE @ UK Daily Mail
UK Daily Mail
Friday, June 27, 2008
Shares plunged on both sides of the Atlantic yesterday because of fears over oil, inflation and the global economy.
In London the FTSE 100 slumped 2.6 per cent, or 147.9 points to 5518.2.
Meanwhile in America, the Dow Jones fell more than 350 points to its lowest level since October 1, 2006.
It is now on course for its worst June performance since the Great Depression of the early 1930s.
The febrile mood on trading floors came amid fears that soaring energy prices will push up inflation and erode consumer spending, dramatically reducing company profits.
At the same time, Wall Street analysts gave a grim assessment of the prospects of some of the U.S.'s most prominent companies.
General Motors – America's largest car maker – slumped to a 53-year low, and there were more concerns about the sub-prime exposure of Citigroup, the country's biggest bank.
Hi-tech firms Oracle, and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion also weighed in with bad news.
At the same time, the price of oil surged to a record $140 a barrel after Libya signalled it may cut output, and OPEC President Chakib Khelil warned prices could hit $170.
FULL ARTICLE @ UK Daily Mail
Credit crunch forcing US middle classes to live in their cars
Dan Glaister
London Guardian
Friday, June 27, 2008
Homeless people living in cars and motorhomes across the US are being joined by a new breed: the middle class.
As mortgage foreclosures continue to rise, growing numbers of middle-class professionals are losing their homes and downsizing from four bedrooms to four wheels.
With numbers rising, New Beginnings, a homeless agency in Santa Barbara, California, has launched a safe parking scheme, whose aim is to provide a refuge of sorts for those who have nowhere to go other than their vehicle.
Guy Trevor lost his job as an interior designer when the sector contracted thanks to the foreclosure crisis. With his furniture sold and his belongings in storage, he now lives in his car, spending the nights in one of the 12 gated car parks in Santa Barbara run by New Beginnings.
"I see myself as a casualty of a perfect storm," he said. "The people sleeping at the [car parks] are ... just like me. They come from normal, everyday homes. I think a lot of people in this country don't realise that they, too, are a couple of pay cheques away from destitution."
In normally affluent Santa Barbara there were 150 foreclosures last month, with a total of 800 for the year ending in May, according to the county assessor's office, which assesses property for tax purposes.
FULL ARTICLE @ London Guardian
London Guardian
Friday, June 27, 2008
Homeless people living in cars and motorhomes across the US are being joined by a new breed: the middle class.
As mortgage foreclosures continue to rise, growing numbers of middle-class professionals are losing their homes and downsizing from four bedrooms to four wheels.
With numbers rising, New Beginnings, a homeless agency in Santa Barbara, California, has launched a safe parking scheme, whose aim is to provide a refuge of sorts for those who have nowhere to go other than their vehicle.
Guy Trevor lost his job as an interior designer when the sector contracted thanks to the foreclosure crisis. With his furniture sold and his belongings in storage, he now lives in his car, spending the nights in one of the 12 gated car parks in Santa Barbara run by New Beginnings.
"I see myself as a casualty of a perfect storm," he said. "The people sleeping at the [car parks] are ... just like me. They come from normal, everyday homes. I think a lot of people in this country don't realise that they, too, are a couple of pay cheques away from destitution."
In normally affluent Santa Barbara there were 150 foreclosures last month, with a total of 800 for the year ending in May, according to the county assessor's office, which assesses property for tax purposes.
FULL ARTICLE @ London Guardian
Barack Obama calls Iran a 'threat'
Press TV
Friday, June 27, 2008
US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a 'threat' during a word association game in a TV interview.
In an interview on Fox Business channel Thursday, Obama played a word association game, responding in rapid-fire to words thrown at him by the program anchor.
When given the word 'Iran' Obama responded by saying 'threat'. The Illinois Senator also described Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain as 'honorable'.
Earlier this month, Obama called Iran a threat when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he told his audience at the gathering.
Obama also stressed that he would always keep the military option against Iran on the table to defend US security and its ally, Israel.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has said he would do everything in his power to go against Iran if it does not stop threatening Israel and continues uranium enrichment.
But political observers say Barack Obama is simply using harsh rhetoric against the Islamic Republic to secure his Presidency with the support of influential pro-Israel lobbies in the US.
SOURCE: Press TV
Friday, June 27, 2008
US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a 'threat' during a word association game in a TV interview.
In an interview on Fox Business channel Thursday, Obama played a word association game, responding in rapid-fire to words thrown at him by the program anchor.
When given the word 'Iran' Obama responded by saying 'threat'. The Illinois Senator also described Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain as 'honorable'.
Earlier this month, Obama called Iran a threat when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he told his audience at the gathering.
Obama also stressed that he would always keep the military option against Iran on the table to defend US security and its ally, Israel.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has said he would do everything in his power to go against Iran if it does not stop threatening Israel and continues uranium enrichment.
But political observers say Barack Obama is simply using harsh rhetoric against the Islamic Republic to secure his Presidency with the support of influential pro-Israel lobbies in the US.
SOURCE: Press TV
The Plan That Never Was Has Now Been Canceled
John F. McManus
JBS
Friday, June 27, 2008
They never intended to build a Trans-Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. Or so they continued to insist. But now, the Texas Department of Transportation has announced that the plan they never had will no longer be considered.
Follow this link to the original source: " 'A Major Victory for Texas,' Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk, June 23, 2008"
On July 31, 2007, the New York Times published a small article claiming that fears about construction of a massive new highway system connecting Mexico to Canada were "urban legend." The article even included a photo of the planned route that would, in effect, bisect Texas. The photo was a conceptual drawing of where the road would be created, an artist's rendition put forth by the North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO). But even that wasn't enough for the Times as its article pointed out that candidates for the GOP nomination were being peppered with questions about it while campaigning in faraway New Hampshire and Iowa. The GOP stalwarts claimed no knowledge of such a plan.
Having set the tone a response should employ for any such question, the Times had provided an easy way for anyone to scoff at such "rumors." Denials that any such plan ever existed actually continue to this day. But the Texas Department of Transportation has just announced that a project paralleling I-69 (legitimately considered by opponents to be part of the NAFTA Superhighway System) will be built along existing highway facilities, not through any area that would necessitate massive land-grabbing.
So the plan that never existed has been canceled. How one does that is something only a government is likely to accomplish. In effect, TexDOT said, "It never was, but now it isn't." Amazing!
Texas Congressman Ron Paul noted that the project had been stopped cold by "nearly 28,000 public comments" sent to Texas officials, and attendance at 47 public hearings dealing with the proposed plan by "12,000 persons." He congratulated all for "how eloquently and respectfully they spoke and conducted themselves" while protesting a plan that would have cost many their livelihoods, homes, farms, and ranches. Many also feared a continuing erosion of national sovereignty, believing that the NAFTA Superhighway was intended to facilitate the creation of a North American Union entangling Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Paul noted, "Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time." But he added that "this will not be the last time citizen effort and involvement will be required." And he warned, "If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future."
James Russell Lowell issued a similar warning many years ago when he wrote: "Not yet, O Freedom! Close thy lids in slumber, for thine enemy never sleeps."
SOURCE: JBS
JBS
Friday, June 27, 2008
They never intended to build a Trans-Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. Or so they continued to insist. But now, the Texas Department of Transportation has announced that the plan they never had will no longer be considered.
Follow this link to the original source: " 'A Major Victory for Texas,' Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk, June 23, 2008"
On July 31, 2007, the New York Times published a small article claiming that fears about construction of a massive new highway system connecting Mexico to Canada were "urban legend." The article even included a photo of the planned route that would, in effect, bisect Texas. The photo was a conceptual drawing of where the road would be created, an artist's rendition put forth by the North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO). But even that wasn't enough for the Times as its article pointed out that candidates for the GOP nomination were being peppered with questions about it while campaigning in faraway New Hampshire and Iowa. The GOP stalwarts claimed no knowledge of such a plan.
Having set the tone a response should employ for any such question, the Times had provided an easy way for anyone to scoff at such "rumors." Denials that any such plan ever existed actually continue to this day. But the Texas Department of Transportation has just announced that a project paralleling I-69 (legitimately considered by opponents to be part of the NAFTA Superhighway System) will be built along existing highway facilities, not through any area that would necessitate massive land-grabbing.
So the plan that never existed has been canceled. How one does that is something only a government is likely to accomplish. In effect, TexDOT said, "It never was, but now it isn't." Amazing!
Texas Congressman Ron Paul noted that the project had been stopped cold by "nearly 28,000 public comments" sent to Texas officials, and attendance at 47 public hearings dealing with the proposed plan by "12,000 persons." He congratulated all for "how eloquently and respectfully they spoke and conducted themselves" while protesting a plan that would have cost many their livelihoods, homes, farms, and ranches. Many also feared a continuing erosion of national sovereignty, believing that the NAFTA Superhighway was intended to facilitate the creation of a North American Union entangling Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Paul noted, "Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time." But he added that "this will not be the last time citizen effort and involvement will be required." And he warned, "If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future."
James Russell Lowell issued a similar warning many years ago when he wrote: "Not yet, O Freedom! Close thy lids in slumber, for thine enemy never sleeps."
SOURCE: JBS
Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies'
Nick Juliano
Raw Story
Friday, June 27, 2008
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.
"In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was $23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq," the Ohio Democrat said during a speech on the House floor.
"Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP."
The New York Times reported last week that those companies, Chevron, Total and some smaller companies were set to receive no-bid contracts from Iraq's Oil Ministry. According to the paper, such deals "are unusual for the industry," and the companies prevailed over more than 40 others, including some from Russia, China and India.
In March 2001, two years before Iraq was invaded, Cheney met with top executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and others on his infamous secret Energy Task Force.
Kucinich seemed to accuse participants in that meeting of plotting the invasion of Iraq. There's no indication that the participants discussed military action, although documents later released showed they did eye Iraq's oil fields.
The White House convinced the Supreme Court to let it keep secret the proceeding's of Cheney's task force, although the Washington Post later revealed most of its activities.
Kucinich accused the US government of forcing Iraq to privatize its oil fields, which are estimated to hold more than 100 billion barrels of oil, and keeping US troops at war to protect the oil reserves.
"Our nation's soul is stained because we went to war for the oil companies and their profits. There must be accountability not only with this Administration for its secret meetings and its open illegal warfare but also for the oil company executives who were willing participants in a criminal enterprise of illegal war, the deaths of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and the extortion of the national resources of Iraq," he said.
"We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil," Kucinich continued. "As long as the oil companies control our government Americans will continue to pay and pay, with our lives, our fortunes our sacred honor."
SOURCE: Raw Story
Raw Story
Friday, June 27, 2008
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.
"In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was $23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq," the Ohio Democrat said during a speech on the House floor.
"Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP."
The New York Times reported last week that those companies, Chevron, Total and some smaller companies were set to receive no-bid contracts from Iraq's Oil Ministry. According to the paper, such deals "are unusual for the industry," and the companies prevailed over more than 40 others, including some from Russia, China and India.
In March 2001, two years before Iraq was invaded, Cheney met with top executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and others on his infamous secret Energy Task Force.
Kucinich seemed to accuse participants in that meeting of plotting the invasion of Iraq. There's no indication that the participants discussed military action, although documents later released showed they did eye Iraq's oil fields.
The White House convinced the Supreme Court to let it keep secret the proceeding's of Cheney's task force, although the Washington Post later revealed most of its activities.
Kucinich accused the US government of forcing Iraq to privatize its oil fields, which are estimated to hold more than 100 billion barrels of oil, and keeping US troops at war to protect the oil reserves.
"Our nation's soul is stained because we went to war for the oil companies and their profits. There must be accountability not only with this Administration for its secret meetings and its open illegal warfare but also for the oil company executives who were willing participants in a criminal enterprise of illegal war, the deaths of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and the extortion of the national resources of Iraq," he said.
"We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil," Kucinich continued. "As long as the oil companies control our government Americans will continue to pay and pay, with our lives, our fortunes our sacred honor."
SOURCE: Raw Story
OPEC chief sees oil at $150-170 in coming months
Reuters
Friday, June 27, 2008
Crude oil prices could rise to as high as $170 per barrel in the coming months but are unlikely to hit $200 and should ease towards the end of the year, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said in an interview on Thursday.
"I forecast prices probably between $150-170 during this summer. That will perhaps ease towards the end of the year," he told France 24 television, according to a text of the interview released by the station.
The comments came as crude prices neared $135 per barrel, after rising about 40 percent this year.
Khelil said he doubted prices would climb as high as $200.
"I think that the devaluation of the dollar against the euro, if everything goes as I think it will, will be of the order of perhaps 1-2 percent and this will probably generate an $8 rise in the price of oil," he said.
The head of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said it had been clearly established that speculation was impacting markets.
"It's not a question, but a certainty. The problem is the extent of that speculation on the market," he said, adding that the effect of the subprime crisis in the United States had affected oil markets.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Friday, June 27, 2008
Crude oil prices could rise to as high as $170 per barrel in the coming months but are unlikely to hit $200 and should ease towards the end of the year, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said in an interview on Thursday.
"I forecast prices probably between $150-170 during this summer. That will perhaps ease towards the end of the year," he told France 24 television, according to a text of the interview released by the station.
The comments came as crude prices neared $135 per barrel, after rising about 40 percent this year.
Khelil said he doubted prices would climb as high as $200.
"I think that the devaluation of the dollar against the euro, if everything goes as I think it will, will be of the order of perhaps 1-2 percent and this will probably generate an $8 rise in the price of oil," he said.
The head of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said it had been clearly established that speculation was impacting markets.
"It's not a question, but a certainty. The problem is the extent of that speculation on the market," he said, adding that the effect of the subprime crisis in the United States had affected oil markets.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
McCain doesn't want to impeach Bush
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Raw Story
Friday, June 27, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked Thursday his opinion of an attempt to impeach President Bush. His answer shouldn't surprise anyone.
If nothing else, the fact that a question was even asked shows that McCain's campaign doesn't do as rigorous a job as President Bush's handlers do in weeding out unfriendly questioners from town hall meetings.
"I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. McCain, to ask you a question," said a man attending the town hall meeting at Xavier University in Ohio. "Part one is in regards to the articles of impeachment brought up by Kucinich for Bush. What your stance is on that as far as manipulated intelligence to form the policy. And then the second is Professor Gatsby from Arizona was outside your office for sixteen days and didn't eat solid foods. I was wondering if you agreed to meet with him for the two hours he requested or does he have to be a corporate owner with multi-million dollars to meet with you."
The Republican senator laughed.
"I do not agree with quote 'articles of impeachment,'" McCain said, in reference to a resolution introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
FULL ARTICLE @ Raw Story
Raw Story
Friday, June 27, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked Thursday his opinion of an attempt to impeach President Bush. His answer shouldn't surprise anyone.
If nothing else, the fact that a question was even asked shows that McCain's campaign doesn't do as rigorous a job as President Bush's handlers do in weeding out unfriendly questioners from town hall meetings.
"I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. McCain, to ask you a question," said a man attending the town hall meeting at Xavier University in Ohio. "Part one is in regards to the articles of impeachment brought up by Kucinich for Bush. What your stance is on that as far as manipulated intelligence to form the policy. And then the second is Professor Gatsby from Arizona was outside your office for sixteen days and didn't eat solid foods. I was wondering if you agreed to meet with him for the two hours he requested or does he have to be a corporate owner with multi-million dollars to meet with you."
The Republican senator laughed.
"I do not agree with quote 'articles of impeachment,'" McCain said, in reference to a resolution introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
FULL ARTICLE @ Raw Story
Oil price hits record near $142
BBC
Friday, June 27, 2008
The price of crude oil has surged to a record, almost breaking through $142 a barrel, amid concerns about the ability of producer nations to meet demand.
In London, Brent crude jumped to $141.98 a barrel, while New York light crude climbed as high as $141.71.
Producers' group Opec has been under pressure to boost production, though recent reports have shown its members are split over whether to lift output.
Libya has threatened to cut production because the market is well supplied.
Legal action
Libya's most senior oil official, Shokri Ghanem, said on Thursday he was looking into the possibility of cutting oil production in response to US threats against oil producers.
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would allow the Justice Department to sue members of Opec for limiting supplies of oil and setting prices.
But the bill has not yet been voted on by the Senate and the White House has already said it would veto the bill.
FULL ARTICLE @ BBC
Friday, June 27, 2008
The price of crude oil has surged to a record, almost breaking through $142 a barrel, amid concerns about the ability of producer nations to meet demand.
In London, Brent crude jumped to $141.98 a barrel, while New York light crude climbed as high as $141.71.
Producers' group Opec has been under pressure to boost production, though recent reports have shown its members are split over whether to lift output.
Libya has threatened to cut production because the market is well supplied.
Legal action
Libya's most senior oil official, Shokri Ghanem, said on Thursday he was looking into the possibility of cutting oil production in response to US threats against oil producers.
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would allow the Justice Department to sue members of Opec for limiting supplies of oil and setting prices.
But the bill has not yet been voted on by the Senate and the White House has already said it would veto the bill.
FULL ARTICLE @ BBC
Bolton Bristles When Challenged On Getting It Wrong On Iraq: That’s ‘An Ad Hominem Attack’
Think Progress
Friday, June 27, 2008
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has been intensifying his calls for a war with Iran, telling Fox News last weekend that Israel may attack Iran before the inauguration of a new U.S. President. He added that Arab states “would be delighted” if this happened.
Bolton appeared on XM radio’s Potus ’08 earlier this week to talk about an Iran war. He argued this issue “goes fundamentally to your tolerance for the risk of radical Islamists holding nuclear weapons.” Host Tim Farley interrupted and asked, “It also goes, does it not, to the credibility of those making the argument?”
Bolton bristled at the accusation:
Farley tried to interject, but Bolton demanded, “Let me finish my answer!” The host later followed up by noting that the credibility of the argument is lacking when war advocates like Dick Cheney and President Bush “tell you one thing and the truth turns out to be something else.” Bolton responded by complaining to the host that you’re “debating with me.” Listen here:
George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian, has charged that Bolton was “instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war by disseminating false claims through the State Department” while he was under-secretary of state for arms control.
Before the war, Bolton orchestrated the removal of the head of a global arms-control agency, Jose Bustani, because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. In Feb. 2003, Bolton orchestrated the removal of State Department official Rexon Ryu because Ryu “had been instrumental in getting the most controversial allegations” out of Colin Powell’s U.N. speech.
But Bolton would prefer all these acts are washed away with history so that he can have a clean slate to make his pitch for a new war.
SOURCE: Think Progress
Friday, June 27, 2008
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has been intensifying his calls for a war with Iran, telling Fox News last weekend that Israel may attack Iran before the inauguration of a new U.S. President. He added that Arab states “would be delighted” if this happened.
Bolton appeared on XM radio’s Potus ’08 earlier this week to talk about an Iran war. He argued this issue “goes fundamentally to your tolerance for the risk of radical Islamists holding nuclear weapons.” Host Tim Farley interrupted and asked, “It also goes, does it not, to the credibility of those making the argument?”
Bolton bristled at the accusation:
Absolutely not! And by the way, the credibility point is an ad hominem reference. … But to address the merits of the argument requires a response on the merits, not an ad hominem attack.
Farley tried to interject, but Bolton demanded, “Let me finish my answer!” The host later followed up by noting that the credibility of the argument is lacking when war advocates like Dick Cheney and President Bush “tell you one thing and the truth turns out to be something else.” Bolton responded by complaining to the host that you’re “debating with me.” Listen here:
George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian, has charged that Bolton was “instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war by disseminating false claims through the State Department” while he was under-secretary of state for arms control.
Before the war, Bolton orchestrated the removal of the head of a global arms-control agency, Jose Bustani, because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. In Feb. 2003, Bolton orchestrated the removal of State Department official Rexon Ryu because Ryu “had been instrumental in getting the most controversial allegations” out of Colin Powell’s U.N. speech.
But Bolton would prefer all these acts are washed away with history so that he can have a clean slate to make his pitch for a new war.
SOURCE: Think Progress
Hewitt: U.S. will get ‘blown up by the Islamists under Obama.’
Think Progress
Friday, June 27, 2008
On his radio show yesterday, conservative talker Hugh Hewitt announced that he was “living for” the Sept. 13 football game between USC and Ohio State, adding that he predicts that it will be the last game played before the United States “gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama.”:
And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I’d pay fair price. They — they know Ohio State’s gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they’re gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it’s probably the last football game we’ll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. I — I would like to see Ohio State slaughter USC. This is what I’m living for right now.
Listen here:
Hewitt is not alone among conservatives in his unhinged fearmongering. Last week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said that the “best outcome” of an Obama presidency would be “more embassy bombings, more World Trade Center attacks.”
SOURCE: Think Progress
Friday, June 27, 2008
On his radio show yesterday, conservative talker Hugh Hewitt announced that he was “living for” the Sept. 13 football game between USC and Ohio State, adding that he predicts that it will be the last game played before the United States “gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama.”:
And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I’d pay fair price. They — they know Ohio State’s gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they’re gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it’s probably the last football game we’ll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. I — I would like to see Ohio State slaughter USC. This is what I’m living for right now.
Listen here:
Hewitt is not alone among conservatives in his unhinged fearmongering. Last week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said that the “best outcome” of an Obama presidency would be “more embassy bombings, more World Trade Center attacks.”
SOURCE: Think Progress
Jailed and Tortured Fighting for Free Speech
Ben Hurley
Epoch Times
Friday, June 27, 2008
Somewhere in the world, the warm fire crackles as giggling children, adorn their Christmas tree with the colourful lights that William Huang made in jail. A United States living room is coloured with the ornamental flowers he put together, glitter sticking to the sweat on his body, bursting calluses on his hands. Others, somewhere in Europe, chat and munch on the pistachio nuts that he pried open with pliers, or clambered over to use the open toilet, in the bedroom-sized production room that was home to over 20 prisoners.
Surely greater things awaited William when he graduated from China's prestigious Tsinghua University in July 1999, than slaving seven days a week, for more than 16 hours per day, producing cheap Chinese goods in a Chinese "re-education through labour" center. At least he can choose his destiny now, living and studying in the United States. But memories of electric batons, brainwashing sessions and sleep deprivation don't easily fade. Nor do the memories of his colleagues who are still in jail.
William Huang, whose Chinese name is Huang Kui, came to America in March this year, with fresh memories of what had happened to the first group of The Epoch Times workers in China, who suddenly disappeared on December 16, 2000. He and around ten others, mostly Falun Gong practitioners, had rented a flat in Zhuhai city, in Guangdong province, which became the underground office for the fledgling online publication. There were people in other cities helping as well, pitching in with time, or money, or both. His job was researching and writing international news articles, while others focussed on weighty domestic issues, especially the state's full-scale persecution of the Falun Gong meditation practice.
FULL ARTICLE @ Epoch Times
Epoch Times
Friday, June 27, 2008
Somewhere in the world, the warm fire crackles as giggling children, adorn their Christmas tree with the colourful lights that William Huang made in jail. A United States living room is coloured with the ornamental flowers he put together, glitter sticking to the sweat on his body, bursting calluses on his hands. Others, somewhere in Europe, chat and munch on the pistachio nuts that he pried open with pliers, or clambered over to use the open toilet, in the bedroom-sized production room that was home to over 20 prisoners.
Surely greater things awaited William when he graduated from China's prestigious Tsinghua University in July 1999, than slaving seven days a week, for more than 16 hours per day, producing cheap Chinese goods in a Chinese "re-education through labour" center. At least he can choose his destiny now, living and studying in the United States. But memories of electric batons, brainwashing sessions and sleep deprivation don't easily fade. Nor do the memories of his colleagues who are still in jail.
William Huang, whose Chinese name is Huang Kui, came to America in March this year, with fresh memories of what had happened to the first group of The Epoch Times workers in China, who suddenly disappeared on December 16, 2000. He and around ten others, mostly Falun Gong practitioners, had rented a flat in Zhuhai city, in Guangdong province, which became the underground office for the fledgling online publication. There were people in other cities helping as well, pitching in with time, or money, or both. His job was researching and writing international news articles, while others focussed on weighty domestic issues, especially the state's full-scale persecution of the Falun Gong meditation practice.
FULL ARTICLE @ Epoch Times
WeAreCHANGE Confronts Democrats at press conferance
Youtube
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gary Talis and Mathew Lapacek confront Congressman Weiner, Congress woman Jackson and Bill Clinton's propagandist Lanny Davis.
SOURCE: Youtube
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gary Talis and Mathew Lapacek confront Congressman Weiner, Congress woman Jackson and Bill Clinton's propagandist Lanny Davis.
SOURCE: Youtube
Greece: We did not prepare for Iran war
Press TV
Friday, June 27, 2008
Athens has denied a report suggesting that its joint military maneuver with Israel was in 'preparation' for an aerial strike on Iran.
"The exercise has no connection with Israeli 'preparations' for an attack on Iran, as has been inaccurately reported," said Greek government spokesman Theodoros Roussopoulos.
Remarks by the Greek official follow the recent publication of a report by The New York Times, which quoted Pentagon officials as saying that over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged a maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece from May 28 to June 12.
According to the report, Israeli jets flew over 900 miles, roughly the distance from their airfields to a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz, giving rise to speculation that Tel Aviv is making preparations for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israeli planes flew at high altitudes not consistent with a military strike and the exercise had no provision for dealing with anti-aircraft fire, did not include electronic warfare or surveillance aircraft and did not involve live ammunition, the Greek official added.
Roussopoulos further explained that such exercises have previously been conducted by Israeli warplanes over Greece, Cyprus and Turkey and that the scope and the terrain of the maneuver did not indicate a link with Iran.
Israeli aircraft flew at such high altitudes 'which would not have been the case had the nature of the exercise been aggressive', he said.
The Greek defense ministry had earlier issued a statement, reassuring that its military maneuver with Israel was carried out within the framework of Greece-Israel military cooperation and was by no means aimed at preparing for hostile action.
Israel, widely known as the sole possessor of 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in the Middle East, has recently stepped up its rhetoric against Iran and is believed to be preparing the public for an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations.
On June 6, a day after the military exercise, Israeli deputy prime minister Shaoul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot that Tel Aviv would attack Iran if the country did not halt its nuclear activities.
While the US and Israel accuse Tehran of making efforts to produce nuclear weapons, the most recent UN nuclear watchdog report on Tehran has conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and 'the alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.
SOURCE: Press TV
Friday, June 27, 2008
Athens has denied a report suggesting that its joint military maneuver with Israel was in 'preparation' for an aerial strike on Iran.
"The exercise has no connection with Israeli 'preparations' for an attack on Iran, as has been inaccurately reported," said Greek government spokesman Theodoros Roussopoulos.
Remarks by the Greek official follow the recent publication of a report by The New York Times, which quoted Pentagon officials as saying that over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged a maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece from May 28 to June 12.
According to the report, Israeli jets flew over 900 miles, roughly the distance from their airfields to a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz, giving rise to speculation that Tel Aviv is making preparations for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israeli planes flew at high altitudes not consistent with a military strike and the exercise had no provision for dealing with anti-aircraft fire, did not include electronic warfare or surveillance aircraft and did not involve live ammunition, the Greek official added.
Roussopoulos further explained that such exercises have previously been conducted by Israeli warplanes over Greece, Cyprus and Turkey and that the scope and the terrain of the maneuver did not indicate a link with Iran.
Israeli aircraft flew at such high altitudes 'which would not have been the case had the nature of the exercise been aggressive', he said.
The Greek defense ministry had earlier issued a statement, reassuring that its military maneuver with Israel was carried out within the framework of Greece-Israel military cooperation and was by no means aimed at preparing for hostile action.
Israel, widely known as the sole possessor of 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in the Middle East, has recently stepped up its rhetoric against Iran and is believed to be preparing the public for an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations.
On June 6, a day after the military exercise, Israeli deputy prime minister Shaoul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot that Tel Aviv would attack Iran if the country did not halt its nuclear activities.
While the US and Israel accuse Tehran of making efforts to produce nuclear weapons, the most recent UN nuclear watchdog report on Tehran has conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and 'the alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.
SOURCE: Press TV
Ex-weapons inspector says Iran not pursuing nukes, but U.S. will attack before ‘09
Jason Leopold
Online Journal
Friday, June 27, 2008
In 2002, Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector In Iraq, publicly accused the Bush administration of lying to Congress and the public about assertions that Iraq was hiding a chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
By speaking out publicly, Ritter emerged as one of the most prominent whistleblowers since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in the early 1970s.
Ritter’s criticisms about the Bush administration’s flawed prewar Iraq intelligence have been borne out by numerous investigations and reports, including one recently published by the Senate Armed Services Committee that found President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other senior administration officials knowingly lied about the threat Iraq posed to the United States.
Now Ritter, who was a Marine Corps intelligence officer for 12 years, is speaking out about what he sees as history repeating itself regarding U.S. policy toward Iran and the inevitability of a U.S.-led attack on the country, which he believes will happen prior to a new president being sworn into office in January 2009.
“We’re going to see some military activity before the new administration is sworn in.” Ritter said. But he added that “Iran is not a threat to the United States and Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That’s documented.” Ritter teamed up with the Los Angeles-based U.S. Tour of Duty’s Real Intelligence, a nonprofit organization that represents former intelligence officials who openly discuss domestic and foreign policy issues. Ritter went on the road nearly a year ago to promote his recently published book, Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement. But over the past several months, issues related to Iran have dominated his discussions.
FULL ARTICLE @ Online Journal
Online Journal
Friday, June 27, 2008
In 2002, Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector In Iraq, publicly accused the Bush administration of lying to Congress and the public about assertions that Iraq was hiding a chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
By speaking out publicly, Ritter emerged as one of the most prominent whistleblowers since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in the early 1970s.
Ritter’s criticisms about the Bush administration’s flawed prewar Iraq intelligence have been borne out by numerous investigations and reports, including one recently published by the Senate Armed Services Committee that found President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other senior administration officials knowingly lied about the threat Iraq posed to the United States.
Now Ritter, who was a Marine Corps intelligence officer for 12 years, is speaking out about what he sees as history repeating itself regarding U.S. policy toward Iran and the inevitability of a U.S.-led attack on the country, which he believes will happen prior to a new president being sworn into office in January 2009.
“We’re going to see some military activity before the new administration is sworn in.” Ritter said. But he added that “Iran is not a threat to the United States and Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That’s documented.” Ritter teamed up with the Los Angeles-based U.S. Tour of Duty’s Real Intelligence, a nonprofit organization that represents former intelligence officials who openly discuss domestic and foreign policy issues. Ritter went on the road nearly a year ago to promote his recently published book, Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement. But over the past several months, issues related to Iran have dominated his discussions.
FULL ARTICLE @ Online Journal
Who's Planning Our Next War?
Patrick J. Buchanan
Lew Rockwell.com
Friday, June 27, 2008
Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002, President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.
Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.
Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.
In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...
"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president in the White House seven and a half months from now."
If Bush is discussing war on Iran with Ehud Olmert, why is he not discussing it with Congress or the nation?
On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it." The price of oil shot up 9 percent.
Is Israel bluffing – or planning to attack Iran if America balks?
Previous air strikes on the PLO command in Tunis, on the Osirak reactor in Iraq and on the presumed nuclear reactor site in Syria last September give Israel a high degree of credibility.
Still, attacking Iran would be no piece of cake.
Israel lacks the stealth and cruise-missile capacity to degrade Iran's air defenses systematically and no longer has the element of surprise. Israeli planes and pilots would likely be lost.
Israel also lacks the ability to stay over the target or conduct follow-up strikes. The U.S. Air Force bombed Iraq for five weeks with hundreds of daily runs in 1991 before Gen. Schwarzkopf moved.
Moreover, if Iran has achieved the capacity to enrich uranium, she has surely moved centrifuges to parts of the country that Israel cannot reach – and can probably replicate anything lost.
Israel would also have to over-fly Turkey, or Syria and U.S.-occupied Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to reach Natanz. Turks, Syrians and Saudis would deny Israel permission and might resist. For the U.S. military to let Israel over-fly Iraq would make us an accomplice. How would that sit with the Europeans who are supporting our sanctions on Iran and want the nuclear issue settled diplomatically?
And who can predict with certitude how Iran would respond?
Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with Jericho and cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?
oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.
What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to finish a war Israel had begun. But a U.S. war on Iran is not a decision Bush can outsource to Ehud Olmert.
Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullins left for Israel. CBS News cited U.S. officials as conceding the trip comes "just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex."
Vice President Cheney is said to favor U.S. strikes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Mullins are said to be opposed.
Moving through Congress, powered by the Israeli lobby, is House Resolution 362, which demands that President Bush impose a U.S. blockade of Iran, an act of war.
Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?
SOURCE: Lew Rockwell.com
Lew Rockwell.com
Friday, June 27, 2008
Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002, President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.
Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.
Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.
In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...
"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president in the White House seven and a half months from now."
If Bush is discussing war on Iran with Ehud Olmert, why is he not discussing it with Congress or the nation?
On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it." The price of oil shot up 9 percent.
Is Israel bluffing – or planning to attack Iran if America balks?
Previous air strikes on the PLO command in Tunis, on the Osirak reactor in Iraq and on the presumed nuclear reactor site in Syria last September give Israel a high degree of credibility.
Still, attacking Iran would be no piece of cake.
Israel lacks the stealth and cruise-missile capacity to degrade Iran's air defenses systematically and no longer has the element of surprise. Israeli planes and pilots would likely be lost.
Israel also lacks the ability to stay over the target or conduct follow-up strikes. The U.S. Air Force bombed Iraq for five weeks with hundreds of daily runs in 1991 before Gen. Schwarzkopf moved.
Moreover, if Iran has achieved the capacity to enrich uranium, she has surely moved centrifuges to parts of the country that Israel cannot reach – and can probably replicate anything lost.
Israel would also have to over-fly Turkey, or Syria and U.S.-occupied Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to reach Natanz. Turks, Syrians and Saudis would deny Israel permission and might resist. For the U.S. military to let Israel over-fly Iraq would make us an accomplice. How would that sit with the Europeans who are supporting our sanctions on Iran and want the nuclear issue settled diplomatically?
And who can predict with certitude how Iran would respond?
Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with Jericho and cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?
oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.
What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to finish a war Israel had begun. But a U.S. war on Iran is not a decision Bush can outsource to Ehud Olmert.
Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullins left for Israel. CBS News cited U.S. officials as conceding the trip comes "just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex."
Vice President Cheney is said to favor U.S. strikes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Mullins are said to be opposed.
Moving through Congress, powered by the Israeli lobby, is House Resolution 362, which demands that President Bush impose a U.S. blockade of Iran, an act of war.
Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?
SOURCE: Lew Rockwell.com
Obama Waffles on School of the Americas
NIKOLAS KOZLOFF
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA). Originally established in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946, the school later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since its inception, the institution has instructed more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that in the past the School of the Americas utilized training manuals advocating coercive interrogation techniques and extrajudicial executions. After receiving their training at the institution, officers went on to commit countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.
Activists long lobbied Congress to shut down the school, and in the waning days of the Clinton presidency they nearly achieved their goal. In July 1999, the House passed an amendment that cut funding for the military institution, but the Senate decided to pass its own version of the bill that included funding. Compromise legislation between the House and Senate deleted the funding cut, effectively restoring public support for the school. Shortly afterwards Congress renamed the school Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) and revised the institution’s structure and curriculum.
Now fast forward to the 2006 mid-term Congressional election: hoping to make use of their newfound majority on Capitol Hill, some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC’s funding once and for all. Shortly after their victory in November they nearly succeeded with 203 legislators voting against ongoing public support of the school and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested that if the Democrats were able to increase their legislative majority in 2008, then the WHINSEC might indeed be history.
Outside the halls of Congress a number of prominent organizations joined calls to shut WHINSEC including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the NAACP, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, and over 100 U.S. Catholic Bishops.Still, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to take a stand against WHINSEC. In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too would shutter WHINSEC).
In the early stages of the presidential race, Kucinich pledged to close the school if he were elected. A longtime foe of WHINSEC who had voted repeatedly to close the institution while serving in Congress, Kucinich even attended a political protest held at the gates of the school in late 2007.
But the question is: where does Obama stand? On International Human Rights Day last year the Senator remarked, “We in the United States enjoy tremendous freedoms, but we also carry a special responsibility—the responsibility of being the country so many people in the world look to… for human rights leadership.”
Obama then added that Bush had undermined human rights: “We were told that waterboarding was effective. We were assured that shipping men off to countries that tortured was good for national security. We were led to believe that our military and civilian courts were inadequate, and so we established a network of unaccountable prisons.” He continued, “We have not only vacated the perch of moral leader; we have also compounded the threat we face, spurring more people to take up arms against us.”
Obama lamented that the Bush administration had destroyed the moral credibility of the United States worldwide. In Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, Russia, and Pakistan, human rights violations were on the rise. Unfortunately, Washington no longer enjoyed any international respect and could not speak with authority on human rights.
Poignantly, Obama closed by stating, “The very depth of the anti-Americanism felt around the world today is a testament not to hatred but to disappointment, acute disappointment. The global public expects more from America. They expect our government to embody what they have seen in our people: industriousness, humanity, generosity, and a commitment to equality. We can become that country again.”
Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.
What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.
To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.
Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like, Obama’s meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror. Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they’d prefer to close the facility.
Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.
No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the military-industrial complex. Closing WHINSEC would demonstrate that the United States has no interest in dominating the peoples of Latin America by military means. Obama however is reluctant to make a clean break from the United States’ imperialist past.
On the other hand, try as he might to skirt the issue, Obama will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That’s because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009. The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank, country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's graduates and instructors.
Legislators pressed for the measure because in recent years WHINSEC has withheld vital information that would have helped to identify the perpetrators of massacres, targeted assassinations, and human rights abuses committed in Latin America. In a resounding defeat for the Pentagon, the measure was approved by a vote of 220 to 189. The amendment now heads to the Senate where all eyes will be on Obama.
The vote, however, will not resolve the larger question of whether WHINSEC should be shuttered once and for all. If it chose to, the media could prod the candidates to address U.S. military policy towards Latin America during the fall campaign. So far however reporters and pundits have ignored the topic, preferring instead to ask Obama about his flag pin.
McCain has suggested the two candidates participate in town-hall style debates, potentially allowing more direct engagement with voters. The U.S. public would surely welcome this departure from the relentless and insipid questioning featured in previous debates. It would certainly be refreshing to see Obama questioned on issues of real substance such as the historic U.S. role in Latin America, military policy, and human rights.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA). Originally established in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946, the school later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since its inception, the institution has instructed more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that in the past the School of the Americas utilized training manuals advocating coercive interrogation techniques and extrajudicial executions. After receiving their training at the institution, officers went on to commit countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.
Activists long lobbied Congress to shut down the school, and in the waning days of the Clinton presidency they nearly achieved their goal. In July 1999, the House passed an amendment that cut funding for the military institution, but the Senate decided to pass its own version of the bill that included funding. Compromise legislation between the House and Senate deleted the funding cut, effectively restoring public support for the school. Shortly afterwards Congress renamed the school Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) and revised the institution’s structure and curriculum.
Now fast forward to the 2006 mid-term Congressional election: hoping to make use of their newfound majority on Capitol Hill, some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC’s funding once and for all. Shortly after their victory in November they nearly succeeded with 203 legislators voting against ongoing public support of the school and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested that if the Democrats were able to increase their legislative majority in 2008, then the WHINSEC might indeed be history.
Outside the halls of Congress a number of prominent organizations joined calls to shut WHINSEC including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the NAACP, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, and over 100 U.S. Catholic Bishops.Still, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to take a stand against WHINSEC. In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too would shutter WHINSEC).
In the early stages of the presidential race, Kucinich pledged to close the school if he were elected. A longtime foe of WHINSEC who had voted repeatedly to close the institution while serving in Congress, Kucinich even attended a political protest held at the gates of the school in late 2007.
But the question is: where does Obama stand? On International Human Rights Day last year the Senator remarked, “We in the United States enjoy tremendous freedoms, but we also carry a special responsibility—the responsibility of being the country so many people in the world look to… for human rights leadership.”
Obama then added that Bush had undermined human rights: “We were told that waterboarding was effective. We were assured that shipping men off to countries that tortured was good for national security. We were led to believe that our military and civilian courts were inadequate, and so we established a network of unaccountable prisons.” He continued, “We have not only vacated the perch of moral leader; we have also compounded the threat we face, spurring more people to take up arms against us.”
Obama lamented that the Bush administration had destroyed the moral credibility of the United States worldwide. In Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, Russia, and Pakistan, human rights violations were on the rise. Unfortunately, Washington no longer enjoyed any international respect and could not speak with authority on human rights.
Poignantly, Obama closed by stating, “The very depth of the anti-Americanism felt around the world today is a testament not to hatred but to disappointment, acute disappointment. The global public expects more from America. They expect our government to embody what they have seen in our people: industriousness, humanity, generosity, and a commitment to equality. We can become that country again.”
Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.
What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.
To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.
Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like, Obama’s meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror. Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they’d prefer to close the facility.
Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.
No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the military-industrial complex. Closing WHINSEC would demonstrate that the United States has no interest in dominating the peoples of Latin America by military means. Obama however is reluctant to make a clean break from the United States’ imperialist past.
On the other hand, try as he might to skirt the issue, Obama will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That’s because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009. The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank, country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's graduates and instructors.
Legislators pressed for the measure because in recent years WHINSEC has withheld vital information that would have helped to identify the perpetrators of massacres, targeted assassinations, and human rights abuses committed in Latin America. In a resounding defeat for the Pentagon, the measure was approved by a vote of 220 to 189. The amendment now heads to the Senate where all eyes will be on Obama.
The vote, however, will not resolve the larger question of whether WHINSEC should be shuttered once and for all. If it chose to, the media could prod the candidates to address U.S. military policy towards Latin America during the fall campaign. So far however reporters and pundits have ignored the topic, preferring instead to ask Obama about his flag pin.
McCain has suggested the two candidates participate in town-hall style debates, potentially allowing more direct engagement with voters. The U.S. public would surely welcome this departure from the relentless and insipid questioning featured in previous debates. It would certainly be refreshing to see Obama questioned on issues of real substance such as the historic U.S. role in Latin America, military policy, and human rights.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Saakashvili says Russia a threat to ex-Soviet states: report
AFP
Friday, June 27, 2008
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said Russian intervention in Abkhazia must be stopped or the sovereignty of other former Soviet states will be at risk, in an interview published here Thursday.
"Georgia is only the start. Tomorrow it will be Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland. What is at stake here is the whole post-Cold War security order in Europe," he told the German daily Die Welt.
"Georgia has become a litmus test. Europe must show that it stands by its values. If it does not do this, we will see the start of an endless new string of conflicts," he warned.
He said Russia is playing "a kind of politics of redistribution that comes straight from the 19th century" and fails to respect national borders.
Saakashvili accuses Moscow of seeking to annex the breakaway region of Abkhazia, where Russia has deployed extra troops since announcing in April that it would establish formal ties with the separatist government.
He told Die Welt he believed this was decided by former Russian president Vladimir Putin and said Georgia was not sure yet where it stood with his successor Dmitry Medvedev.
FULL ARTICLE @ AFP
Friday, June 27, 2008
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said Russian intervention in Abkhazia must be stopped or the sovereignty of other former Soviet states will be at risk, in an interview published here Thursday.
"Georgia is only the start. Tomorrow it will be Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland. What is at stake here is the whole post-Cold War security order in Europe," he told the German daily Die Welt.
"Georgia has become a litmus test. Europe must show that it stands by its values. If it does not do this, we will see the start of an endless new string of conflicts," he warned.
He said Russia is playing "a kind of politics of redistribution that comes straight from the 19th century" and fails to respect national borders.
Saakashvili accuses Moscow of seeking to annex the breakaway region of Abkhazia, where Russia has deployed extra troops since announcing in April that it would establish formal ties with the separatist government.
He told Die Welt he believed this was decided by former Russian president Vladimir Putin and said Georgia was not sure yet where it stood with his successor Dmitry Medvedev.
FULL ARTICLE @ AFP
NBC Uses Shaky Intelligence to Fan Flames of Global Warming Alarmism
Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
Friday, June 27, 2008
The June 25 “NBC Nightly News” took a new approach to spreading the message of the global warming alarmist agenda. It led off the broadcast with a new government report to connect carbon dioxide with national security.
“The world’s thirst for energy is creating an environmental crisis that could soon become a security crisis for the United States,” NBC chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson said. “Two government reports out today paint a bleak picture of the road ahead.”
Thompson contended the increased demand for resources predicted in the Department of Energy report – which estimates world power demand will increase 50 percent by 2030 – will increase global reliance on fossil fuels and make global warming worse.
“Using more oil, coal and natural gas means more carbon dioxide emissions, 51 percent more, making climate change worse – an environmental issue that now threatens global political security,” Thompson said. “Today, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) says global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years.”
But Thompson failed to point out that the report doesn’t have the full confidence of the NIC.
“In response to a question by Global Warming Committee member Greg Walden (R-OR), the Intelligence Community admitted they had ‘low to medium confidence’ in the accuracy of this estimate because intelligence officers lack the expertise to write such an estimate (it was mostly contracted out to other organizations) and climate change science is so uncertain,” Rich Lowry wrote for National Review Online June 25.
But that didn’t keep Thompson from highlighting the potential consequences outlined in the report.
“It predicts increased immigration pressures as rising sea levels, famine and drought create environmental refugees,” Thompson said. “U.S. military readiness could be harmed if America must respond to humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia created by a lack of adequate food and water.”
According to Lowry, it was also revealed the report was based on conclusions from the questionable and often controversial United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Peter Hoekstra [R-Mich.] asked what intelligence was used for this estimate and whether intelligence collection requirements were prepared,” Lowry wrote. “National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar said no clandestine intelligence was used and that intelligence officers extrapolated what would happen if the ‘mid-level estimates’ by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were correct.”
SOURCE: Business & Media Institute
Business & Media Institute
Friday, June 27, 2008
The June 25 “NBC Nightly News” took a new approach to spreading the message of the global warming alarmist agenda. It led off the broadcast with a new government report to connect carbon dioxide with national security.
“The world’s thirst for energy is creating an environmental crisis that could soon become a security crisis for the United States,” NBC chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson said. “Two government reports out today paint a bleak picture of the road ahead.”
Thompson contended the increased demand for resources predicted in the Department of Energy report – which estimates world power demand will increase 50 percent by 2030 – will increase global reliance on fossil fuels and make global warming worse.
“Using more oil, coal and natural gas means more carbon dioxide emissions, 51 percent more, making climate change worse – an environmental issue that now threatens global political security,” Thompson said. “Today, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) says global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years.”
But Thompson failed to point out that the report doesn’t have the full confidence of the NIC.
“In response to a question by Global Warming Committee member Greg Walden (R-OR), the Intelligence Community admitted they had ‘low to medium confidence’ in the accuracy of this estimate because intelligence officers lack the expertise to write such an estimate (it was mostly contracted out to other organizations) and climate change science is so uncertain,” Rich Lowry wrote for National Review Online June 25.
But that didn’t keep Thompson from highlighting the potential consequences outlined in the report.
“It predicts increased immigration pressures as rising sea levels, famine and drought create environmental refugees,” Thompson said. “U.S. military readiness could be harmed if America must respond to humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia created by a lack of adequate food and water.”
According to Lowry, it was also revealed the report was based on conclusions from the questionable and often controversial United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Peter Hoekstra [R-Mich.] asked what intelligence was used for this estimate and whether intelligence collection requirements were prepared,” Lowry wrote. “National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar said no clandestine intelligence was used and that intelligence officers extrapolated what would happen if the ‘mid-level estimates’ by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were correct.”
SOURCE: Business & Media Institute
UK abandons train and tube scanners
John Oates
The Register
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Brown government has changed its mind on placing security scanners at every London tube station and mainline train stations across the country, because the technology does not work and the public would not tolerate the long delays such scanning would require.
Despite doubts from London Underground after the original trials Gordon Brown gave the scheme his support in November 2007. London Underground questioned the practicality of the technology as well as worrying that the queues created would provide a new target for terrorists.
But today Tom Harris, Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said the project would be abandoned because achieving airport-style screening is not feasible using today's technology, and the public would not stand for the delays caused and the invasion of privacy involved.
As we pointed out at the time the "security theatre" of such a scheme would be more important than any actual impact.
Instead of fixed scanners British Transport Police will continue to use some mobile scanners and sniffer dogs.
Along with metal detectors the government also trialled millimetre wave scanners at Paddington for the Heathrow Express. These scanners, which can look through clothes, proved particularly unpopular with young women. Those surveyed also doubted the technology could be used without causing significant delays.
The trial also tested finger and clothes swabbers and bag sniffers.
SOURCE: The Register
The Register
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Brown government has changed its mind on placing security scanners at every London tube station and mainline train stations across the country, because the technology does not work and the public would not tolerate the long delays such scanning would require.
Despite doubts from London Underground after the original trials Gordon Brown gave the scheme his support in November 2007. London Underground questioned the practicality of the technology as well as worrying that the queues created would provide a new target for terrorists.
But today Tom Harris, Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said the project would be abandoned because achieving airport-style screening is not feasible using today's technology, and the public would not stand for the delays caused and the invasion of privacy involved.
As we pointed out at the time the "security theatre" of such a scheme would be more important than any actual impact.
Instead of fixed scanners British Transport Police will continue to use some mobile scanners and sniffer dogs.
Along with metal detectors the government also trialled millimetre wave scanners at Paddington for the Heathrow Express. These scanners, which can look through clothes, proved particularly unpopular with young women. Those surveyed also doubted the technology could be used without causing significant delays.
The trial also tested finger and clothes swabbers and bag sniffers.
SOURCE: The Register
Le Téléprésident: Sarkozy tightens his grip over French state TV
Angelique Chrisafis
London Telegraph
Friday, June 27, 2008
Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to increase government control over state TV yesterday sparked an outcry from his political opponents who accused him of tightening a Berlusconi-style grip on the airwaves and dragging France back into its dark age of postwar censorship and propaganda.
The French president's proposed "cultural revolution" for France's five state TV channels prompted an uproar when he announced that in future, he and his cabinet would appoint the head of French state TV, instead of an independent body.
Sarkozy, known as the Téléprésident, prides himself on his numerous TV appearances, carefully studies his own ratings and has privately confided that he would have liked to have been a TV executive. So it was no surprise that he took direct control of the project to overhaul French state TV. He argued that a government appointment of the head of France Televisions was more "democratic". This has reopened the festering row over the president's influence over the media and closeness to his press and TV baron friends who are willing to lean on, censor or even sack journalists who displease him.
FULL ARTICLE @ London Telegraph
London Telegraph
Friday, June 27, 2008
Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to increase government control over state TV yesterday sparked an outcry from his political opponents who accused him of tightening a Berlusconi-style grip on the airwaves and dragging France back into its dark age of postwar censorship and propaganda.
The French president's proposed "cultural revolution" for France's five state TV channels prompted an uproar when he announced that in future, he and his cabinet would appoint the head of French state TV, instead of an independent body.
Sarkozy, known as the Téléprésident, prides himself on his numerous TV appearances, carefully studies his own ratings and has privately confided that he would have liked to have been a TV executive. So it was no surprise that he took direct control of the project to overhaul French state TV. He argued that a government appointment of the head of France Televisions was more "democratic". This has reopened the festering row over the president's influence over the media and closeness to his press and TV baron friends who are willing to lean on, censor or even sack journalists who displease him.
FULL ARTICLE @ London Telegraph
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Police Used "Agents Provocateurs" At UK Bush Protests
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Anti-war MP George Galloway writes details to Home Secretary
Anti-war MP George Galloway has accused London Metropolitan Police of engaging in "a deliberate conspiracy to bring about scenes of violent disorder" during President George W. Bush's visit to the UK last week.
Galloway has written a letter to the Home Secretary in which he names a senior police officer thought to have been operating as an undercover "agent provocateur".
The Respect Party MP details incitements that the officer made towards police and how the man encouraged other protesters to charge baton-wielding officers and hurl projectiles at them.
Galloway cites an article from last Weekend's Mail On Sunday in which author Yasmin Whittaker-Khan detailed how she bumped into a known senior police officer, dressed like a press photographer with a large expensive camera, who shouted “Pigs out!” and enticed others to the front of the police-protestor clashes.
FULL ARTICLE @ Infowars.net
Infowars.net
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Anti-war MP George Galloway writes details to Home Secretary
Anti-war MP George Galloway has accused London Metropolitan Police of engaging in "a deliberate conspiracy to bring about scenes of violent disorder" during President George W. Bush's visit to the UK last week.
Galloway has written a letter to the Home Secretary in which he names a senior police officer thought to have been operating as an undercover "agent provocateur".
The Respect Party MP details incitements that the officer made towards police and how the man encouraged other protesters to charge baton-wielding officers and hurl projectiles at them.
Galloway cites an article from last Weekend's Mail On Sunday in which author Yasmin Whittaker-Khan detailed how she bumped into a known senior police officer, dressed like a press photographer with a large expensive camera, who shouted “Pigs out!” and enticed others to the front of the police-protestor clashes.
FULL ARTICLE @ Infowars.net
Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation
The Hill
Thursday, June 26, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
- Mike Soraghan
SOURCE: The Hill
Thursday, June 26, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
- Mike Soraghan
SOURCE: The Hill
Wexler: McCain's 'calculating the value of a terrorist attack' is 'eerie'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Thursday, June 26, 2008
When McCain's top strategist Charlie Black was quoted as saying that a new terrorist attack would "be a big advantage" to the McCain campaign, McCain responded that "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true."
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann pointed out on Wednesday that several examples have now emerged of McCain himself suggesting that terrorism could be good for the GOP. For example, in 2004, a Connecticut paper quoted McCain as saying during a local campaign stop that thanks to the release of an alleged al Qaeda tape, "Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost."
Olbermann asked Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) whether Senator Barack Obama is right when he suggests playing the terror card won't work this time around.
"He is right about the shift," Wexler replied, "The Bush administration and Senator John McCain have lost their credibility -- but still Senator Obama has to go out and aggressively make the argument."
FULL ARTICLE @ Raw Story
Raw Story
Thursday, June 26, 2008
When McCain's top strategist Charlie Black was quoted as saying that a new terrorist attack would "be a big advantage" to the McCain campaign, McCain responded that "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true."
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann pointed out on Wednesday that several examples have now emerged of McCain himself suggesting that terrorism could be good for the GOP. For example, in 2004, a Connecticut paper quoted McCain as saying during a local campaign stop that thanks to the release of an alleged al Qaeda tape, "Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost."
Olbermann asked Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) whether Senator Barack Obama is right when he suggests playing the terror card won't work this time around.
"He is right about the shift," Wexler replied, "The Bush administration and Senator John McCain have lost their credibility -- but still Senator Obama has to go out and aggressively make the argument."
FULL ARTICLE @ Raw Story
'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border'
Press TV
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.
The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.
He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.
"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."
According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.
FULL ARTICLE @ Press TV
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.
The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.
He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.
"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."
According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.
FULL ARTICLE @ Press TV
Market trader forced to bin thousands of kiwi fruits - because the EU says they are ONE MILLIMETRE too small
Daily Mail
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A wholesaler has been banned from selling a batch of kiwi fruits because EU regulators say they are one millimetre too small.
Market trader Tim Down was told his perfectly healthy fruits failed to meet strict European standards for size and weight.
Inspectors found some of his stock weighed just 4g less than the minimum EC requirement - and slapped him with a written warning prohibiting their sale.
The father-of-three, 53, is now stuck with a consignment of 5,000 kiwi fruits which he is forbidden to sell or even give away.
It is the latest example of 'barmy' EU laws that have already banished curved cucumbers, straight bananas, skinny carrots and other 'knobbly' vegetables that look less than perfect.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Mail
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A wholesaler has been banned from selling a batch of kiwi fruits because EU regulators say they are one millimetre too small.
Market trader Tim Down was told his perfectly healthy fruits failed to meet strict European standards for size and weight.
Inspectors found some of his stock weighed just 4g less than the minimum EC requirement - and slapped him with a written warning prohibiting their sale.
The father-of-three, 53, is now stuck with a consignment of 5,000 kiwi fruits which he is forbidden to sell or even give away.
It is the latest example of 'barmy' EU laws that have already banished curved cucumbers, straight bananas, skinny carrots and other 'knobbly' vegetables that look less than perfect.
FULL ARTICLE @ Daily Mail
Who's Actually Winning in Iraq?
PATRICK COCKBURN
Counterpunch
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The American occupation of Iraq follows the same course as that of British rule after the First World War. At first there was imperial over-confidence following military victory and a conviction that what Iraqis did was of no importance. Then there was the shock and surprise of an Iraqi rebellion against the British in 1920 and the Americans after 2003. In both cases the occupiers responded by establishing an Iraqi national government but with limited powers. In 1930 under the Anglo-Iraqi treaty Iraq achieved nominal independence and joined the League of Nations but Britain retained two large bases and remained the predominant power in 1raq. Iraqi governments were tainted and lacked legitimacy because of Iraqis’ perception that their rulers were foreign pawns until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958.
America is now behaving in much the same way. It is negotiating a security agreement to replace the present UN mandate. It is to all intents and purposes a treaty that will determine future relations between Iraq and the US. It is not being called a treaty only because President Bush does not want to submit it to Senate approval. But in effect it continues the occupation under another name. The US will keep possession of over 50 bases though there will be a few Iraqi soldiers manning an outer perimeter so the US can say they will be in Iraqi hands. American soldiers and contractors will have legal immunity. The US will be free to carry out operations against ‘terrorists’ without informing the Iraqi government so it can arrest Iraqis or carry out military campaigns as and when it feels like it. Some of the Iraqi negotiators have been horrified by the extent of the American demands which would mean long term American control. But the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, whatever his private misgivings, believes that at the end of the day he relies on American backing. His coalition of Shia religious parties, Sunni representatives and the Kurds feel the same way.
The Iraqi-American security agreement, which Bush wants signed by July 31, is a better barometer of where real power lies in Iraq than military developments on the ground. It comes just as the Iraqi government is trying to regain control of the largest cities in the country. It has launched three military offensives since the end of March against Shia militias and Sunni insurgents, sending its army into Basra, Sadr City in Baghdad and Mosul. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have moved into Shia districts once dominated by the Mehdi Army which follows the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In the Sunni Arab city of Mosul the government claims it is crushing the last remnant of al-Qa’ida in Iraq and has arrested over 1,000 suspects. The aim of the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is to show that the Iraqi state, feeble and dependant on the US since the fall of Saddam Hussein, is back in business. The operations in Basra and Mosul have bombastic names – ‘Charge of the Knights’ and ‘Roar of the Lion’ – in a bid to underline Maliki’s intention to show that the Iraqi army is the strongest non- American military power in Iraq.
At first sight the government seems to be succeeding after initial failures. The attack on the Mehdi Army in Basra on March 25 at first made no headway and Iraqi soldiers even ran out of food after a couple of days fighting. They had to be heavily reinforced by American advisers calling in US air strikes and British artillery fire. But, after a few weeks, government soldiers were taking over in districts long held by the Mehdi Army. In Sadr City—with a population of two million it is less of a district of Baghdad than a twin city—the Americans again bore the brunt of the fighting. Some 1,000 Iraqis, 60 per cent women and children according to the UN, were killed in seven weeks. In both Basra and Sadr City the clashes ended because Muqtada al-Sadr called his men off the streets under ceasefires brokered by the Iranians. The Iraqi army moved in though without the Americans. Maliki may not have won the decisive military victory he claimed, but his government looked stronger at the end of the fighting than at the beginning.
The crucial political and military question in Iraq is whether the Iraqi government’s success will be long lasting or temporary. Will it lose control once again if al-Sadr orders his militiamen back into the streets? Are al- Qa’ida and other Sunni insurgents simply lying low and waiting for American troops to leave? Again and again in the last five years, the US and its Iraqi allies have genuinely believed that they were winning on the ground only to see their supposed successes evaporate when their opponents launched a counter-attack. But for the moment at least Maliki’s grip on central government is stronger than ever. A year ago the Americans and the Kurds wanted him replaced, as did the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), the biggest Shia party in his governing coalition. But Washington soon began to stress privately that it wanted Iraq to appear as politically stable as possible during an election year in the US, while the Kurds and ISCI came to believe that they could get most of what they wanted with Maliki in power. For the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis think the present government might last.
This may be misleading. The government’s position looks stronger than it is because its opponents are waiting for the Americans to leave or draw down their forces. Al-Sadr does not want to fight now because he sensibly wishes to avoid a direct military confrontation with the US army, which his lightly armed militiamen are bound to lose. This has been his strategy ever since his militiamen fought ferocious battles with the US Marines in Najaf in 2004. The Iranians are playing a more and more overt role in Iraq this year and do not want to see an intra-Shia civil war between ISCI and the Sadrists. The Iraqi Minister of Defense says that the Iraqi army will not be strong enough to stand on its own against insurgents until 2012. A further weakness of the government is that it faces crucial provincial elections in October which its constituent parties may well lose. One US military intelligence estimate is that in a fair poll the Sadrists would win 60 per cent of the vote in overwhelmingly Shia southern Iraq. The surprise government offensive at the end of March may have been launched in order to make sure that the vote can be fixed in favor of the government parties. A more Machiavellian explanation is that ISCI expected the Iraqi army to fail and wanted to lure the American army into a military confrontation with the Sadrists.
The government parties supporting Maliki now make up what some Iraqis called ‘the Council of Five’. There are the two Kurdish parties—the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdkistan—the Dawa party to which Maliki himself belongs, ISCI and the Islamic Party of the Sunni. Their aim seems to be to be eliminate their domestic Iraqi opponents while they still have the backing of American firepower. It is a brutal plan but it might come off. Maliki could become the Iraqi version of Vladimir Putin in Russia. Like Putin, Maliki controls the state machine, a large if unreliable army and benefits from the high price of oil so he has control of over $40 billion in unspent reserves. Iraqis do not trust their own government but, like Russians when Putin first came to power in 1999, they are desperately war weary. Many people will support anybody who provides peace and security. But the analogy should not be carried too far. Putin’s enemies were fictional or in distant Chechnya, while Maliki’s opponents are real, dangerous and close by.
I was in Mosul, a city of 1.4 million people on the Tigris river in northern Iraq, on the day the government forces started their ‘Roar of the Lion’ offensive at 4 am on May 10. As had happened in Basra and Sadr City a few weeks earlier there were thousands of government troops and police guarding every street and alleyway. The entire civilian population had disappeared indoors or had fled the city. The operation, supposedly aimed at depriving al Qa’ida of its last bastion in Iraq, had been promised by Maliki some months earlier after a previous chief of police of Mosul was assassinated by a suicide bomber with explosives hidden under his police uniform. But its actual timing had caught people in Mosul by surprise so they had no time to stock up on food. Nobody was venturing onto the streets because of a curfew. In the first hours of the operation US troops shot dead men, a woman and a child in a car which failed to stop at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Mosul because, according to a US military statement, the two men were armed and one man inside the car made ‘threatening movements.’
I have been visiting Mosul ever since the Kurds and Americans captured it in 2003. Each time I go there the Kurdish authorities, who effectively run the city, allocate more armed guards to protect what ever official I am travelling with. We began the journey from Arbil in a convoy of white pick up trucks, each with a heavy machine gun in the back manned by alert- looking soldiers, some with black face masks, escorting Khasro Goran, the deputy governor of Mosul, to his office in the old Baathist headquarters on the left bank of the Tigris. The official border between Kurdistan and Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital, is the Zaab river, very low this year because of poor rainfall. But the real frontier is further down the road at a small village called Ghazik after which the road becomes increasingly dangerous. At a bridge near Ghazik police were stopping trucks and cars whose drivers had not heard of the curfew declared late the previous day. A few miles further on in a Chaldean Christian village called Bartilla we turned into a fort and exchanged our pick-ups for more heavily armoured vehicles with small windows like spy holes with thick bullet proof glass.
People in Nineveh province were taking the curfew very seriously. There are kilns processing gypsum along the road through the plain east of of Mosul city but none of them was working. Even the dreary tea houses serving food to truck drivers were closed. The Kurdish minority in east Mosul city live close to a small hill on top of which there is the mosque of Nebi Yunis, where the Prophet Jonah is supposedly buried. Usually the Kurdish districts of the city are filled with street traders but during the present operation the metal grill of every shop was down. The operation was being carried out by 15,000 troops, the three brigades of the 2nd and 3rd divisions that are normally stationed in Mosul and an extra brigade from Baghdad. I could see the black vehicles of Interior Ministry special commandos with a yellow tiger’s head insignia on their doors. American drones and helicopters passed over head but I did not see any American troops patrolling the city. There was the occasional burst of machine gunfire in the distance but no street fighting.
On the face of it the government had control of Mosul. This was not difficult to do because, unlike Baghdad and Basra, insurgents had never taken over entire districts. But everything in Nineveh province is a little different from what it looks. “The province is more like Lebanon,” said Saadi Pire, the former leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in the city, “than anywhere else in Iraq.” It is divided between the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds and Christians, but many of the Kurds belong to the Yazidi sect which believes in a mixture of Zoroastrianism, Islam and Christianity. Their chief divinity is the peacock angel who rules the cosmos with six other angels. Last year a Yazidi girl who converted to orthodox Islam to marry her boyfriend was beaten to death by her relatives and in revenge Muslim Kurds dragged 23 Yazidi workers off a bus near Mosul and shot them dead. The government in Baghdad might claim that it was pursuing al Qa’ida in Mosul, but real power struggles in northern Iraq revolve around sectarian and ethnic differences. The Sunni majority in Mosul certainly see the ‘Roar of the Lion’ operation as being directed against them. Any al- Qa’ida in Mosul had long left the city for the country or had temporarily moved across the nearby Syrian border. Everybody I spoke to in Mosul expected they would be back.
In Baghdad there is also a sense that we are seeing a lull rather than end to violence. Places I used to know well still get destroyed. I used to eat in a restaurant in the al-Mansur district of west Baghdad called the Samad. It opened soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein, served good food and somehow survived the next five years of violence. But at 5pm on 8 May some policemen parked their vehicle outside the restaurant and went inside to eat. A few minutes later a large car bomb parked beside the police car blew up and destroyed the Samad, killing seven people and wounding a further 19. The explosion caused a massive traffic jam.
Ambulances and the fire brigade could not get through and the building beside the Samad caught fire and burned to the ground. Though the Iraqi government is claiming that al Qa’ida has been driven from Baghdad and Anbar province to the east, this is not really true. In January I went to see Colonel Ismail Zubaie, the police chief of Fallujah, who was a former insurgent fighting al-Qa’ida who had cut his brother’s throat. He seemed to be in full control of Fallujah. But in May fighters from al Qa’ida confronted Colonel Ismail’s uncle, who was a teacher, and shot him dead. The next day they sent a suicide bomber to blow up the tent where his relatives were receiving mourners. The operation, clearly an elaborate attempt to kill Colonel Ismail, shows that al Qa’ida remains well organized and with agents everywhere in the Sunni community.
The Americans lost only 21 soldiers killed in Iraq in May which are the lowest monthly casualties since February 2004. But these do not mean that the chief Republican contender senator John McCain is correct in believing that with enough resolution the American army is on the road to victory. Paradoxically, the Americans are now benefiting from their failure to turn Iraq into a virtual American colony in 2003-4. Iran and Syria no longer fear, as they once did, that as soon as the US had gained complete control of Iraq it would try to overthrow their governments.
There may be those in the White House who still privately dream of doing just that, but Iraq’s neighbors no longer feel they must destabilize Iraq in order to avert the American threat to themselves. American casualties are also down because the Sunni Arab and the Shia Arab communities in Iraq are not only divided but fighting low level civil wars. Part of the old anti- American Sunni resistance has turned on al Qa’ida and allied itself to the Americans. The Sunni were driven out of most of Baghdad by the Shia militias in the sectarian civil war of 2006-7 and are increasingly marginalized. Among the Shia, once known for their impressive unity after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, internecine battles between the Shia parties in government and the Sadrists have become bloodier and more frequent.
The main supporters of Nouri al-Maliki’s government are the US and Iran. This has never been admitted by Washington but from the Iranian point of view the present Shia-Kurdish government in Baghdad is as good as it is going to get. It does not want to overthrow Maliki, but it does want to reduce American influence on him. The fighting in Basra and Sadr City between the Mehdi Army and the Iraqi government backed by the American army between March and April was in each case brought to an end by Iranian mediation. This has become very public. To arrange the ceasefires in Basra and Baghdad President Jalal Talabani twice went to see Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the Iraq-Iran border, though President Bush has denounced the Quds brigade as terrorists orchestrating attacks on US forces in Iraq. Iranian influence in Iraq is stronger than ever and the Iranians are increasingly willing to flaunt it. When the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad visited Baghdad this years his visit was announced in advance and he drove through the city by car. When President George W Bush comes to Baghdad it is a kept a secret until the last moment, he moves only by helicopter and he has never ventured outside the Green Zone.
Suppose Barack Obama wins the US presidential election America could withdraw its forces from Iraq over the next eighteen months without provoking an explosion of violence but only if it first had an agreement with Iran and Syria. An increase in Iranian influence in Iraq has been inevitable since 2003. Once the US had decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein the beneficiaries were always going to be the Shia religious parties, because they represented the majority of Iraqis, and they would be supported by Iran. Many of America’s problems in Iraq over the last five years have happened because Washington believed it could prevent or dilute the triumph of Iran and the Shia in Iraq.
Iranian strategy in Iraq is to keep the pot boiling but not over-boiling. They do not want the present government displaced. “The Iranians are very good at creating crises in Iraq and then solving them,” one Kurdish leader told me. Iran wants a weak Iraq, incapable of posing a threat to Tehran, and allied to itself. It wants a Shia government in power in Baghdad and the Americans out. “The three great powers of the Gulf historically are Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia,” the same Kurdish leader told me. “If Iran and Iraq act together then they will dominate the Gulf.” It may not be as easy as that. The Iraqis like the Iranians no more than they do the Americans. Muqtada al-Sadr, who is calling for an American withdrawal, has always been an Iraqi nationalist as suspicious of Iran as of the US. Paradoxically, the Shia governing parties in Baghdad, ISCI and Dawa, have traditionally had closer links with Iran than the Sadrists. ISCI was founded by the Iranians in Tehran in 1982 to be their puppet if they succeeded in defeating Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. It is still heavily influenced by them, but at the end of the day neither ISCI nor the Sadrists want the Americans nor the Iranians to treat Iraq as a client state.
Probably the most astute politician in Iraq is Muqtada al-Sadr, who has chosen not to tell his militiamen to fight for the enclaves they controlled in Basra and Baghdad. Instead in the last days of May he called tens of thousands of his followers into the streets to protest against the a new bilateral pact between the US and Iraq that is being secretly negotiated and would govern the future political, military and economic relationship between Washington and Baghdad. “Why do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?” asked Sheikh Mohammed al-Gharrawi addressing crowds in Sadr City. “The agreement wants to put an American in each house. This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.”
This opposition to the occupation can only grow if Senator McCain wins the US presidential election and tries to win an outright military victory in Iraq. The US can only stay in Iraq so long as it is allied to a large part of the Sunni or Shia communities. The occupation has always depended on ‘divide and rule’. If the US is ever faced with a united opposition by both Shia and Sunni in Iraq then it will have to leave. Everybody in Iraq overplays their hand at one time or other. The US position in Iraq has slightly improved over the last year but the improvement is limited. But by trying to impose a security pact on Iraq that would turn Iraq into a client state the Washington is fueling a fresh insurgency. It is discrediting the Iraqi government and the ruling parties who will be seen as foreign pawns. If McCain wins the presidential election and tries to put the security agreement into operation then neither the occupation nor the resistance to it will end.
Patrick Cockburn is the the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.”
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Counterpunch
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The American occupation of Iraq follows the same course as that of British rule after the First World War. At first there was imperial over-confidence following military victory and a conviction that what Iraqis did was of no importance. Then there was the shock and surprise of an Iraqi rebellion against the British in 1920 and the Americans after 2003. In both cases the occupiers responded by establishing an Iraqi national government but with limited powers. In 1930 under the Anglo-Iraqi treaty Iraq achieved nominal independence and joined the League of Nations but Britain retained two large bases and remained the predominant power in 1raq. Iraqi governments were tainted and lacked legitimacy because of Iraqis’ perception that their rulers were foreign pawns until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958.
America is now behaving in much the same way. It is negotiating a security agreement to replace the present UN mandate. It is to all intents and purposes a treaty that will determine future relations between Iraq and the US. It is not being called a treaty only because President Bush does not want to submit it to Senate approval. But in effect it continues the occupation under another name. The US will keep possession of over 50 bases though there will be a few Iraqi soldiers manning an outer perimeter so the US can say they will be in Iraqi hands. American soldiers and contractors will have legal immunity. The US will be free to carry out operations against ‘terrorists’ without informing the Iraqi government so it can arrest Iraqis or carry out military campaigns as and when it feels like it. Some of the Iraqi negotiators have been horrified by the extent of the American demands which would mean long term American control. But the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, whatever his private misgivings, believes that at the end of the day he relies on American backing. His coalition of Shia religious parties, Sunni representatives and the Kurds feel the same way.
The Iraqi-American security agreement, which Bush wants signed by July 31, is a better barometer of where real power lies in Iraq than military developments on the ground. It comes just as the Iraqi government is trying to regain control of the largest cities in the country. It has launched three military offensives since the end of March against Shia militias and Sunni insurgents, sending its army into Basra, Sadr City in Baghdad and Mosul. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have moved into Shia districts once dominated by the Mehdi Army which follows the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In the Sunni Arab city of Mosul the government claims it is crushing the last remnant of al-Qa’ida in Iraq and has arrested over 1,000 suspects. The aim of the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is to show that the Iraqi state, feeble and dependant on the US since the fall of Saddam Hussein, is back in business. The operations in Basra and Mosul have bombastic names – ‘Charge of the Knights’ and ‘Roar of the Lion’ – in a bid to underline Maliki’s intention to show that the Iraqi army is the strongest non- American military power in Iraq.
At first sight the government seems to be succeeding after initial failures. The attack on the Mehdi Army in Basra on March 25 at first made no headway and Iraqi soldiers even ran out of food after a couple of days fighting. They had to be heavily reinforced by American advisers calling in US air strikes and British artillery fire. But, after a few weeks, government soldiers were taking over in districts long held by the Mehdi Army. In Sadr City—with a population of two million it is less of a district of Baghdad than a twin city—the Americans again bore the brunt of the fighting. Some 1,000 Iraqis, 60 per cent women and children according to the UN, were killed in seven weeks. In both Basra and Sadr City the clashes ended because Muqtada al-Sadr called his men off the streets under ceasefires brokered by the Iranians. The Iraqi army moved in though without the Americans. Maliki may not have won the decisive military victory he claimed, but his government looked stronger at the end of the fighting than at the beginning.
The crucial political and military question in Iraq is whether the Iraqi government’s success will be long lasting or temporary. Will it lose control once again if al-Sadr orders his militiamen back into the streets? Are al- Qa’ida and other Sunni insurgents simply lying low and waiting for American troops to leave? Again and again in the last five years, the US and its Iraqi allies have genuinely believed that they were winning on the ground only to see their supposed successes evaporate when their opponents launched a counter-attack. But for the moment at least Maliki’s grip on central government is stronger than ever. A year ago the Americans and the Kurds wanted him replaced, as did the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), the biggest Shia party in his governing coalition. But Washington soon began to stress privately that it wanted Iraq to appear as politically stable as possible during an election year in the US, while the Kurds and ISCI came to believe that they could get most of what they wanted with Maliki in power. For the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis think the present government might last.
This may be misleading. The government’s position looks stronger than it is because its opponents are waiting for the Americans to leave or draw down their forces. Al-Sadr does not want to fight now because he sensibly wishes to avoid a direct military confrontation with the US army, which his lightly armed militiamen are bound to lose. This has been his strategy ever since his militiamen fought ferocious battles with the US Marines in Najaf in 2004. The Iranians are playing a more and more overt role in Iraq this year and do not want to see an intra-Shia civil war between ISCI and the Sadrists. The Iraqi Minister of Defense says that the Iraqi army will not be strong enough to stand on its own against insurgents until 2012. A further weakness of the government is that it faces crucial provincial elections in October which its constituent parties may well lose. One US military intelligence estimate is that in a fair poll the Sadrists would win 60 per cent of the vote in overwhelmingly Shia southern Iraq. The surprise government offensive at the end of March may have been launched in order to make sure that the vote can be fixed in favor of the government parties. A more Machiavellian explanation is that ISCI expected the Iraqi army to fail and wanted to lure the American army into a military confrontation with the Sadrists.
The government parties supporting Maliki now make up what some Iraqis called ‘the Council of Five’. There are the two Kurdish parties—the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdkistan—the Dawa party to which Maliki himself belongs, ISCI and the Islamic Party of the Sunni. Their aim seems to be to be eliminate their domestic Iraqi opponents while they still have the backing of American firepower. It is a brutal plan but it might come off. Maliki could become the Iraqi version of Vladimir Putin in Russia. Like Putin, Maliki controls the state machine, a large if unreliable army and benefits from the high price of oil so he has control of over $40 billion in unspent reserves. Iraqis do not trust their own government but, like Russians when Putin first came to power in 1999, they are desperately war weary. Many people will support anybody who provides peace and security. But the analogy should not be carried too far. Putin’s enemies were fictional or in distant Chechnya, while Maliki’s opponents are real, dangerous and close by.
I was in Mosul, a city of 1.4 million people on the Tigris river in northern Iraq, on the day the government forces started their ‘Roar of the Lion’ offensive at 4 am on May 10. As had happened in Basra and Sadr City a few weeks earlier there were thousands of government troops and police guarding every street and alleyway. The entire civilian population had disappeared indoors or had fled the city. The operation, supposedly aimed at depriving al Qa’ida of its last bastion in Iraq, had been promised by Maliki some months earlier after a previous chief of police of Mosul was assassinated by a suicide bomber with explosives hidden under his police uniform. But its actual timing had caught people in Mosul by surprise so they had no time to stock up on food. Nobody was venturing onto the streets because of a curfew. In the first hours of the operation US troops shot dead men, a woman and a child in a car which failed to stop at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Mosul because, according to a US military statement, the two men were armed and one man inside the car made ‘threatening movements.’
I have been visiting Mosul ever since the Kurds and Americans captured it in 2003. Each time I go there the Kurdish authorities, who effectively run the city, allocate more armed guards to protect what ever official I am travelling with. We began the journey from Arbil in a convoy of white pick up trucks, each with a heavy machine gun in the back manned by alert- looking soldiers, some with black face masks, escorting Khasro Goran, the deputy governor of Mosul, to his office in the old Baathist headquarters on the left bank of the Tigris. The official border between Kurdistan and Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital, is the Zaab river, very low this year because of poor rainfall. But the real frontier is further down the road at a small village called Ghazik after which the road becomes increasingly dangerous. At a bridge near Ghazik police were stopping trucks and cars whose drivers had not heard of the curfew declared late the previous day. A few miles further on in a Chaldean Christian village called Bartilla we turned into a fort and exchanged our pick-ups for more heavily armoured vehicles with small windows like spy holes with thick bullet proof glass.
People in Nineveh province were taking the curfew very seriously. There are kilns processing gypsum along the road through the plain east of of Mosul city but none of them was working. Even the dreary tea houses serving food to truck drivers were closed. The Kurdish minority in east Mosul city live close to a small hill on top of which there is the mosque of Nebi Yunis, where the Prophet Jonah is supposedly buried. Usually the Kurdish districts of the city are filled with street traders but during the present operation the metal grill of every shop was down. The operation was being carried out by 15,000 troops, the three brigades of the 2nd and 3rd divisions that are normally stationed in Mosul and an extra brigade from Baghdad. I could see the black vehicles of Interior Ministry special commandos with a yellow tiger’s head insignia on their doors. American drones and helicopters passed over head but I did not see any American troops patrolling the city. There was the occasional burst of machine gunfire in the distance but no street fighting.
On the face of it the government had control of Mosul. This was not difficult to do because, unlike Baghdad and Basra, insurgents had never taken over entire districts. But everything in Nineveh province is a little different from what it looks. “The province is more like Lebanon,” said Saadi Pire, the former leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in the city, “than anywhere else in Iraq.” It is divided between the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds and Christians, but many of the Kurds belong to the Yazidi sect which believes in a mixture of Zoroastrianism, Islam and Christianity. Their chief divinity is the peacock angel who rules the cosmos with six other angels. Last year a Yazidi girl who converted to orthodox Islam to marry her boyfriend was beaten to death by her relatives and in revenge Muslim Kurds dragged 23 Yazidi workers off a bus near Mosul and shot them dead. The government in Baghdad might claim that it was pursuing al Qa’ida in Mosul, but real power struggles in northern Iraq revolve around sectarian and ethnic differences. The Sunni majority in Mosul certainly see the ‘Roar of the Lion’ operation as being directed against them. Any al- Qa’ida in Mosul had long left the city for the country or had temporarily moved across the nearby Syrian border. Everybody I spoke to in Mosul expected they would be back.
In Baghdad there is also a sense that we are seeing a lull rather than end to violence. Places I used to know well still get destroyed. I used to eat in a restaurant in the al-Mansur district of west Baghdad called the Samad. It opened soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein, served good food and somehow survived the next five years of violence. But at 5pm on 8 May some policemen parked their vehicle outside the restaurant and went inside to eat. A few minutes later a large car bomb parked beside the police car blew up and destroyed the Samad, killing seven people and wounding a further 19. The explosion caused a massive traffic jam.
Ambulances and the fire brigade could not get through and the building beside the Samad caught fire and burned to the ground. Though the Iraqi government is claiming that al Qa’ida has been driven from Baghdad and Anbar province to the east, this is not really true. In January I went to see Colonel Ismail Zubaie, the police chief of Fallujah, who was a former insurgent fighting al-Qa’ida who had cut his brother’s throat. He seemed to be in full control of Fallujah. But in May fighters from al Qa’ida confronted Colonel Ismail’s uncle, who was a teacher, and shot him dead. The next day they sent a suicide bomber to blow up the tent where his relatives were receiving mourners. The operation, clearly an elaborate attempt to kill Colonel Ismail, shows that al Qa’ida remains well organized and with agents everywhere in the Sunni community.
The Americans lost only 21 soldiers killed in Iraq in May which are the lowest monthly casualties since February 2004. But these do not mean that the chief Republican contender senator John McCain is correct in believing that with enough resolution the American army is on the road to victory. Paradoxically, the Americans are now benefiting from their failure to turn Iraq into a virtual American colony in 2003-4. Iran and Syria no longer fear, as they once did, that as soon as the US had gained complete control of Iraq it would try to overthrow their governments.
There may be those in the White House who still privately dream of doing just that, but Iraq’s neighbors no longer feel they must destabilize Iraq in order to avert the American threat to themselves. American casualties are also down because the Sunni Arab and the Shia Arab communities in Iraq are not only divided but fighting low level civil wars. Part of the old anti- American Sunni resistance has turned on al Qa’ida and allied itself to the Americans. The Sunni were driven out of most of Baghdad by the Shia militias in the sectarian civil war of 2006-7 and are increasingly marginalized. Among the Shia, once known for their impressive unity after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, internecine battles between the Shia parties in government and the Sadrists have become bloodier and more frequent.
The main supporters of Nouri al-Maliki’s government are the US and Iran. This has never been admitted by Washington but from the Iranian point of view the present Shia-Kurdish government in Baghdad is as good as it is going to get. It does not want to overthrow Maliki, but it does want to reduce American influence on him. The fighting in Basra and Sadr City between the Mehdi Army and the Iraqi government backed by the American army between March and April was in each case brought to an end by Iranian mediation. This has become very public. To arrange the ceasefires in Basra and Baghdad President Jalal Talabani twice went to see Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the Iraq-Iran border, though President Bush has denounced the Quds brigade as terrorists orchestrating attacks on US forces in Iraq. Iranian influence in Iraq is stronger than ever and the Iranians are increasingly willing to flaunt it. When the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad visited Baghdad this years his visit was announced in advance and he drove through the city by car. When President George W Bush comes to Baghdad it is a kept a secret until the last moment, he moves only by helicopter and he has never ventured outside the Green Zone.
Suppose Barack Obama wins the US presidential election America could withdraw its forces from Iraq over the next eighteen months without provoking an explosion of violence but only if it first had an agreement with Iran and Syria. An increase in Iranian influence in Iraq has been inevitable since 2003. Once the US had decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein the beneficiaries were always going to be the Shia religious parties, because they represented the majority of Iraqis, and they would be supported by Iran. Many of America’s problems in Iraq over the last five years have happened because Washington believed it could prevent or dilute the triumph of Iran and the Shia in Iraq.
Iranian strategy in Iraq is to keep the pot boiling but not over-boiling. They do not want the present government displaced. “The Iranians are very good at creating crises in Iraq and then solving them,” one Kurdish leader told me. Iran wants a weak Iraq, incapable of posing a threat to Tehran, and allied to itself. It wants a Shia government in power in Baghdad and the Americans out. “The three great powers of the Gulf historically are Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia,” the same Kurdish leader told me. “If Iran and Iraq act together then they will dominate the Gulf.” It may not be as easy as that. The Iraqis like the Iranians no more than they do the Americans. Muqtada al-Sadr, who is calling for an American withdrawal, has always been an Iraqi nationalist as suspicious of Iran as of the US. Paradoxically, the Shia governing parties in Baghdad, ISCI and Dawa, have traditionally had closer links with Iran than the Sadrists. ISCI was founded by the Iranians in Tehran in 1982 to be their puppet if they succeeded in defeating Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. It is still heavily influenced by them, but at the end of the day neither ISCI nor the Sadrists want the Americans nor the Iranians to treat Iraq as a client state.
Probably the most astute politician in Iraq is Muqtada al-Sadr, who has chosen not to tell his militiamen to fight for the enclaves they controlled in Basra and Baghdad. Instead in the last days of May he called tens of thousands of his followers into the streets to protest against the a new bilateral pact between the US and Iraq that is being secretly negotiated and would govern the future political, military and economic relationship between Washington and Baghdad. “Why do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?” asked Sheikh Mohammed al-Gharrawi addressing crowds in Sadr City. “The agreement wants to put an American in each house. This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.”
This opposition to the occupation can only grow if Senator McCain wins the US presidential election and tries to win an outright military victory in Iraq. The US can only stay in Iraq so long as it is allied to a large part of the Sunni or Shia communities. The occupation has always depended on ‘divide and rule’. If the US is ever faced with a united opposition by both Shia and Sunni in Iraq then it will have to leave. Everybody in Iraq overplays their hand at one time or other. The US position in Iraq has slightly improved over the last year but the improvement is limited. But by trying to impose a security pact on Iraq that would turn Iraq into a client state the Washington is fueling a fresh insurgency. It is discrediting the Iraqi government and the ruling parties who will be seen as foreign pawns. If McCain wins the presidential election and tries to put the security agreement into operation then neither the occupation nor the resistance to it will end.
Patrick Cockburn is the the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.”
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
