Liberation News Service

The U.S. winked at Hussein's evil: National Security Archive FOIA requests expose American complicity

Almost 500 US soldiers have died in Iraq. The number
of those killed and wounded has doubled over last four
months. Ten US soldiers died over the "Christmas
Holidays." For what?

Support Our Troops, Show Up forDemocracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again)

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16210

Robert Scheer
Creators Syndicate
12.30.03

The U.S. winked at Hussein's evil: National Security Archive FOIA requests expose American complicity

Sometimes democracy works. Though the wheels of
accountability often grind slowly, they also can grind
fine, if lubricated by the hard work of free-thinking
citizens. The latest example: the release of official
documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act, that detail how the U.S. government under
presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush nurtured
and supported Saddam Hussein despite his repeated use
of chemical weapons.
The work of the National Security Archive, a dogged
organization fighting for government transparency, has
cast light on the trove of documents that depict in
damning detail how the United States, working with
U.S. corporations including Bechtel, cynically and
secretly allied itself with Hussein's dictatorship.
The evidence undermines the unctuous moral superiority
with which the current American president, media and
public now judge Hussein, a monster the U.S. actively
helped create.

The documents make it clear that were the trial of
Hussein to be held by an impartial world court, it
would prove an embarrassing two-edged sword for the
White House, calling into question the motives of U.S.
foreign policy. If there were a complete investigation
into those who aided and abetted Hussein's crimes
against humanity, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and former Secretary of State George Shultz would
probably end up as material witnesses.

It was Rumsfeld and Shultz who told Hussein and his
emissaries that U.S. statements generally condemning
the use of chemical weapons would not interfere with
relations between secular Iraq and the Reagan
administration, which took Iraq off the
terrorist-nations list and embraced Hussein as a
bulwark against fundamentalist Iran. Ironically, the
U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons
of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.

It was 20 years ago when Shultz dropped in on a State
Department meeting between his top aide and a
high-ranking Hussein emissary. Back then the Iraqis,
who were fighting a war with Iran, were our new best
friends in the Mideast. Shultz wanted to make it
crystal clear that U.S. criticism of the use of
chemical weapons was just pablum for public
consumption, meant as a restatement of a
"long-standing policy, and not as a
pro-Iranian/anti-Iraqi gesture," as State's Lawrence
S. Eagleburger told Hussein's emissary. "Our desire
and our actions to prevent an Iranian victory and to
continue the progress of our bilateral relations
remain undiminished," Eagleburger continued, according
to the then highly classified transcript of the
meeting.

The Shultz/Eagleburger meeting took place between two
crucial visits by Rumsfeld, acting as a Reagan
emissary, to Hussein to offer unconditional support
for the Iraqi leader in his war with Iran. In the
first meeting, in December 1983, Rumsfeld told Hussein
that the United States would assist in building an oil
pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba, Jordan. He made no
mention of chemical weapons, even though U.S.
intelligence only months earlier had confirmed that
Iraq was using such illegal weapons almost daily
against Iranians and Kurds.

That administration's eye was not on the carnage from
chemical weapons but rather the profit to be obtained
from the flow of oil. In a later meeting with an Iraqi
representative, as recorded in the minutes,
"Eagleburger explained that because of the
participation of Bechtel in the Aqaba pipeline, the
Secretary of State [Shultz] is keeping completely
isolated from the issue. Iraq should understand that
this does not imply a lack of high-level [U.S.
government] interest." (Shultz had been chief
executive of Bechtel before joining the Reagan
administration and is currently a director of the
company, which is signing contracts for work in Iraq
as fast as U.S. taxes can be allocated.)

Minutes of that meeting and others in which the United
States ignored Hussein's use of banned weapons while
extending support to the dictator mock the moral high
ground assumed by George W. Bush in defense of his
invasion. If, as Bush II says, Hussein acted as a
"Hitler" while "gassing his own people," during the
1980s, we were fully aware and implicitly approving,
via economic and military aid, of his most nefarious
deeds.

Hussein's crimes were committed on our watch, when he
was a U.S. ally, and we knowingly looked the other
way. But don't take my word for it; check out
www.nsarchive.org . For more, please see the Robert
Scheer archive.

Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed
and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it
when it didn't.
(c) 2003 Creators Syndicate
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily
those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets
responsible for objectionable material accessed via
links from this site.

Mad Cow Out Of The Barn

Madison Capital Times: Veneman was put in charge of the Department of Agriculture by President Bush because he knew the longtime advocate for the genetic modification of food, factory farming and free trade policies that favor big agribusiness over family farmers and consumers could be counted on to choose the side of business interests over the public interest.
Protect Public Health, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9663

Mad Cow Out Of The Barn

Now that the first case of mad cow disease in the
United States has been confirmed, Secretary of
Agriculture Ann Veneman's subservience to the
agribusiness interests she once served as a lobbyist
is no longer merely troublesome. It's dangerous.

Veneman was put in charge of the Department of
Agriculture by President Bush because he knew the
longtime advocate for the genetic modification of
food, factory farming and free trade policies that
favor big agribusiness over family farmers and
consumers could be counted on to choose the side of
business interests over the public interest.

Protecting Business Over Consumers

Veneman did just that when she announced that mad cow
disease had been found in the United States. Instead
of offering a realistic response to the news, she was
still doing public relations for agribusiness. She
declared the case was isolated, praised the USDA for a
"swift and effective" response and discounted any risk
to human health.

Unfortunately, because of the USDA's lax approach to
inspections and regulation, Venemen has no idea
whether she is right.

What Veneman does know is that BSE, or bovine
spongiform encephalopathy—nicknamed mad cow disease—is
a far more serious matter than she let on. She knows
that this disease devastated the British beef industry
in the late 1980s and 1990s, requiring the slaughter
of millions of cows and the expenditure of billions of
dollars. She knows the human form of mad cow disease
so far has killed more than 130 people in Britain. And
she knows that an isolated case of BSE in Canada
earlier this year led countries around the world,
including the United States, to stop importing that
country's beef.

An Ounce Of Prevention

Above all, Veneman knows that the USDA is not doing
the inspections that are necessary to expose the
presence of BSE in the United States and that could
prevent its spread. While the agriculture secretary
was talking about how unlikely it was that the
diseased beef would end up on food shelves, she
neglected to mention that the United States has never
put into place the sort of stringent inspection
program that exists in many countries in Europe and
Asia, where all animals are tested before beef is made
available for human consumption.

At every turn, Veneman has been "extremely
disingenuous," according to Madisonian John Stauber,
co-author of Mad Cow USA."My presumption," he says,
"is that mad cow disease is spread throughout North
America at some level, but because our testing program
is so inadequate we have not identified it."

The world community tends to trust Stauber's analysis
over that of Veneman's. Within hours after it was
learned that a sick animal had been found outside a
slaughterhouse in Washington state, close to a dozen
countries suspended U.S. beef imports.

At this critical point, Stauber and other public
health activists are more credible sources than
Veneman for honest analysis of how widespread the
threat could be and how it can be contained. Why?
Because, unlike Veneman, the public health activists
are relying on Food and Drug Administration data.

Detecting The Spread Of Mad Cow

According to Stauber, an FDA memo in 1997 predicted
that if a single case of mad cow disease were found in
the United States, and serious steps were immediately
taken to prevent the spread of the disease, inspectors
might still uncover 299,000 infected cows over the
next decade. That is because beef blood, beef fat and
other animal proteins—which can spread the disease—are
still fed to calves across the nation. Only as those
calves come to maturity will the full extent of the
spread of BSE be known.

By failing to acknowledge genuine concerns regarding
BSE, and by failing even now to respond to those
concerns, Veneman has failed U.S. farmers and
consumers. She should be ashamed, and the rest of us
should be looking for better sources of information
about the safety of our food supply.

This editorial originally appeared on Saturday,
December 27, 2003 in The Capital Times (Madison,
Wisconsin).

Their Media War and Ours in 2004

"It's the Media, Stupid."

Danny Schecter, Media Channel: In 2003, media that once was a casual complaint became an issue around which millions were organizing. The outcry against the pathetic cheerleading that called itself TV coverage of the war in Iraq, and the battle to stop new FCC rules demonstrated that there is a large constituency for media activism and organization.
Break Up the News Media Monopolies, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert125.shtml

Their Media War and Ours in 2004
A Call to Educate, Organize and Mobilize

By Danny Schechter, The News Dissector
MediaChannel.org

NEW YORK, January 1, 2004 -- In 2003, media that once
was a casual complaint became an issue around which
millions were organizing. The outcry against the
pathetic cheerleading that called itself TV coverage
of the war in Iraq, and the battle to stop new FCC
rules demonstrated that there is a large constituency
for media activism and organization.

Media activists led the fight. More than 2,000
converged in November on Madison, Wisconsin to signal
a commitment to make media reform a central concern.
It was impressive, energetic and a strong statement.
There were members of Congress, top journalists like
Bill Moyers, and legends like Studs Terkel. Comedian
Al Franken was there along with other best-selling
authors, pop stars and a who's who among media
reformers.

The analysis was as powerful as the passion. But the
follow up has yet to result in a new organization or
coalition. And follow up is key for 2004. The
conference was not important as an event in itself --
it was important as a staging ground for a new
offensive on media issues.

Political maneuvers and compromises in Congress
blocked the total rebuke to the FCC in 2003 that many
hoped for. The tricks politicians play seems to have
taken the wind out of a well orchestrated citizens
campaign. It was a set back but not a total defeat
because the campaign showed that media has become a
mainstream issue and will not go away.

What the impressive mobilization of public sentiment
should signal to other activists -- who have tended to
denigrate media activism as somehow secondary to the
"real problems" -- is that this is one of the few
issues with national traction, and an ability to
galvanize support across the spectrum.

The FCC battle and the public rejection of proposed
deregulation was the first issue that the Bush
Administration threatened to exercise a veto against.
It was the first that brought Democrats and some
Republicans together. It signaled that media concerns
are not marginal or to be marginalized.

Moving the Movement

What's next? One email I received recently asked:
"What do we do when our TV and newspapers tell us lies
but insist we should regard this information as truth?
What do we do when the vast majority of people in our
society accepts these lies as truths and ridicule us
when we call these statements lies?"

These are good questions but there are also some good
answers. They involve hard work and real action, day
to day work in the trenches -- not just sending checks
to candidates in hopes that dumping Bush is a panacea.
Bear in the mind that part of the mess we are in goes
back to the Telecommunications "reform" Act of l996
backed by the Clinton Administration and many liberal
democrats. The bill was supposed to foster
competition. It led instead to a massive wave of media
concentration.

Notice how few candidates even focus on media
concentration or slanted coverage. All fear that will
lose their fifteen seconds of fame if they piss off
thin-skinned media moguls.

Turning the Camera Inward

If you recognize, as many in the global justice
movements do that real power is exercised today not by
governments but by private interests, then a focus on
corporate interests make sense. If that is the case,
the corporate media deserves more attention.

Media institutions, which report on the corporate
irresponsibility of others, like the endless stream of
indicted Wall Street operators, need to turn the
cameras on themselves. How socially responsible and
accountable are they? How transparent? Had activists
been paying attention, there would have been a protest
against revelations in 2000 by the Alliance for Better
Campaigns that showed how many local TV stations
violated federal laws by overcharging candidates while
reducing their electoral coverage.

What this points to is the need for activists
themselves to become better informed about the way big
media works -- and the way the government works with
it. That's where websites like Mediachannel.org and
Mediareform.net and the research of groups like FAIR
and Media Tenor come in.

Are you paying attention to the latest research and
analysis of media manipulation? Are you aware of how
media drives politics and why we can now speak of
America as a "mediaocracy" in which media rules, not a
democracy in which the people decide.

At year's end, Rupert Murdoch was given a thank you
present for services rendered by the FCC in the form
of a go ahead to take over DirecTV, the largest
satellite TV service in the United States. ( It was
owned by Hughes Electronics Corp. which had been
bought by General Motors ).

As Space News explains, "the deal gives News Corp. a
television-distribution platform in the United States,
where it already operates TV stations, the Fox
television network and several pay-TV channels." News
Corp. immediately transferred its stake in Hughes to
its majority-owned Fox Entertainment Group, which owns
TV stations and other media properties in the United
States, the statement said.

This is also part of a global strategy, as the trade
newspaper explains: "In addition to DirecTV, which
claimed 11.85 million subscribers as of the end of
September, Hughes operates a satellite hardware and
networking company, Hughes Network Systems of
Germantown, Md., and controls DirecTV Latin America, a
satellite TV provider in Central and South America.
Hughes also owns 81 percent of Wilton, Conn.-based
satellite operator PanAmSat Corp."

Could this FCC decision have anything to with comments
by FCC Chairman Michael Powell (son of the Secretary
of State and originally a Clinton Administration
appointee by the way) that one reason we need big
media is that "only big media can cover the war the
way this one has been covered"?

The Bad News -- More Bad Coverage

Did you know that a dictionary website that tracks
words found that "Embedding" was the most used new
word of 2003? During the invasion phase of the Iraq
war, Jingoism fused with journalism and news biz while
show biz morphed into what TIME magazine called
"militainment."

Can it get any worse? You bet. It took a week for us
to learn, for example, that the capture of Saddam was
not as reported a US military intelligence coup, but
rather the work of Kurdish groups bent on avenging the
rape of a woman, not the country. Lesson: You can't
trust mainstream news.

We can expect more disinformation and misinformation
next year with renewed efforts by the US government to
leapfrog over any semblance of a critical media with
news feeds bypassing the news networks and fed
directly to local stations. Media control will
intensify as perceived "bad news" threatens to disturb
the domestic tranquility that the Administration is
hell bent on preserving.

This is part of the privatization of and a
synergization with a strategy adapted by the US
military called "information dominance." David Miller,
editor of an important new book called "Tell Me Lies"
(Pluto) explains:

"As Col Kenneth Allard has written, the 2003 attack on
Iraq 'will be remembered as a conflict in which
information fully took its place as a weapon of war'
the interoperability of the various types of
'weaponized information' has far reaching, if little
noticed, implications for the integration of
propaganda and media institutions into the war
machine. The experience of Iraq in 2003 shows how the
planned integration of the media into instruments of
war fighting is developing. It also shows the
increased role for the private sector in information
dominance, a role which reflects wider changes in the
armed services in the US and the UK."

The Beacon of Independent Media

It is important that independent media outlets educate
their audiences about this type of insidious strategic
planning. As important as exposing it is resisting it,
Happily a cultural resistance is emerging with theater
groups lampooning the news. The New York Times reports
on a new play in New Haven which ridicules coverage of
a war that "is being fought somewhere against an
unknown enemy because the Pentagon has decided that to
reveal whom and where American forces are fighting
would be a security risk."

The play, "A New War" by Gip Hoppe "satirizes a
television broadcast from a newsroom at a network very
similar to CNN, is a ridiculing send up of the Bush
administration and a kowtowing news media. It owes a
great deal to the "Weekend Update" feature on
"Saturday Night Live,"

There is even a version of "Crossfire," here called
"Crosshairs," John Stewarts Comedy Channel news show
and many articles in "The Onion" that testify to how
popular and commercially successful this type of
assault on mainstream media has become.

We are all living in the crosshairs of powerful media
institutions. Their fire is "incoming," into our
living rooms -- and then into our brains. We need more
than self-defense. We need collective action to
challenge mainstream media assumptions and push back.
We need to support independent media, with our
eyeballs, dollars and our marketing know how. We need
to encourage media literacy education in our schools.
We need to challenge candidates to speak out on these
issues, and media outlets to cover them.

The short trusism is -- we can all do more than we are
doing to ensure that next year is not just happy but
happier than 2003.

Mediachannel.org is launching a major new initiative
called "Media for Democracy 2004" to monitor and
challenge political coverage next year -- and to
mobilize voters around a campaign for better media
practices. Timothy Karr, MediaChannel.org's executive
director is leading this effort and can be reached at
tim@mediachannel.org if you want to help and have
time, resources or skills to contribute.

-- News Dissector Danny Schechter is the executive
editor of Mediachannel.org. His most recent book is
"Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media
Failed to cover the war in Iraq." (Prometheus)

© MediaChannel.org, 2003. All rights reserved.

Democrats air concern on vote fraud

2+2=4

Orlando Sun-Sentinel: "I'm not a paranoid person," Wexler said. "I don't operate from a paranoid point of view." But, he said, the potential for problems is great. "Both a purposeful attack on the computer system or just a computer malfunction will put our whole democratic process in chaos," he said.
Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cpvoting30dec30,0,4293530.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

Democrats air concern on vote fraud

By Anthony Man
Staff writer
Posted December 30 2003

Boca raton · Critics warned Monday that computer error
or outright fraud easily could alter the outcome of
elections conducted on Palm Beach County's electronic
voting machines.

Vincent J. Lipsio, a software design engineer from
Gainesville, said he was not a "conspiracy theorist,"
but expressed concern about the voting equipment put
in use in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential
election

For example, he said, it would be easy for a beginning
computer science student to rig the devices so that 57
percent of all votes next fall go to President Bush --
regardless of who the voters actually select.

"There's a lot of history in American politics of
ballot box stuffing," he said. "A few deft keystrokes
and all the ballot boxes in a county get stuffed at
once."

Lipsio, who volunteers to work on voting issues for
the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers,
said there are so many potential problems with the
computer voting equipment "we will have no way of
knowing how the election really went."

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Boca Raton, appeared with
Lipsio before 200 people at a Democratic event, the
Committee to Defeat Bush gathering at Florida Atlantic
University.

"I'm not a paranoid person," Wexler said. "I don't
operate from a paranoid point of view." But, he said,
the potential for problems is great. "Both a
purposeful attack on the computer system or just a
computer malfunction will put our whole democratic
process in chaos," he said.

County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore said
their analysis was deeply flawed.

"It's just a bunch of lies," she said.

LePore said it would be impossible to rig the
machines.

Someone would have to break into a secure warehouse
and tamper individually with 5,000 machines because
they aren't connected. They have no modems, so a
hacker could not meddle with them remotely.

LePore said there are extensive safeguards to ensure
the accuracy of votes cast on the electronic machines.
They are recorded in three places, and a diagnostic
test is performed after each voter uses the machine.

What's more, she added, there is so much testing of
the machines and software, starting before the state
certifies them through public tests before each
election, that any problems would be detected.

Wexler said a simple solution would eliminate doubt.

He wants all voting machines retrofitted so that a
paper printout spits out each time an electronic vote
is cast. That would allow voters to check the accuracy
of the machines and provide a backup that could be
used if a recount is necessary.

LePore said that's not a simple fix. "It's not as easy
as they think where you go to Office Depot and buy a
printer off the shelf."

Equipment and software compatible with the voting
machines has to be developed, go through testing and
get state certification.

If that ultimately happens, she said, it might cost
$600 to $1,000 for each of Palm Beach County's 5,000
voting machines. That's $3 million to $5 million.

And, she said, paper printouts would create all sorts
of problems. If they had to be counted, it would be a
messy process with 500,000 pieces of paper.

"You're injecting humans in the process again, just
like they did with the punch cards," she said.

The decision is up to the state. No one from the
Secretary of State's Office, which oversees elections,
could be reached for comment Monday afternoon.

Ruth Pleva, chairwoman of The Committee to Defeat
Bush, is among the Democrats who think Bush and the
Republicans stole the 2000 election.

"They would like to steal it once more using the
corruptible electronic voting machines," said Pleva,
who lives west of Delray Beach.

LePore has become a lightning rod for Democrats since
the recount that followed the 2000 presidential
elections. Some party members think her strict
interpretation of election law helped Bush over
Democrat Al Gore in the recount process.

Pleva didn't invite LePore. "I don't have enemies at
my parties," she said.

Lipsio, a Democratic activist in his home community,
and Wexler, a sharp critic of President Bush, clearly
have partisan interests.

And the crowd was primed to hear about potential
problems with the 2004 voting. When a brief videotape
was shown early in the meeting, former Secretary of
State Katherine Harris -- instrumental in the pro-Bush
resolution of the 2000 election -- appeared on the
screen twice.

Both times her image was greeted with a chorus of
boos.

Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com or
561-832-2905.

Email story
Print story

Copyright © 2003, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

MAD AS HELL

You are not alone.

RESTORE THE TIMELINE...Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2773

MAD AS HELL

CHERI DELBROCCO

PEGGING THE NEW YEAR RIGHT

Like many kids, my brother had one of those toy shape
finders. It came with a little mallet and wooden pegs
for hammering correctly shaped pegs into matching
holes in a bench. When playing with his friends,
inevitably, some would not be able to fit the peg into
its corresponding shape.

One kid would always figure out that if he took the
mallet and banged and hammered really hard, and forced
the peg, even if it splintered or broke, eventually
the peg would fit into a hole that did not fit its
shape.

George W. Bush has been the kid who has forced the
square pegs into the round holes. He has beaten and
hammered the country and the world. He has used force
to break us, and come hell or high water, he is going
to bang those pegs into the shapes he wants, even if
they are the wrong ones.

In 2004, we have finally, finally reached another
election year. As the year unfolds, it will become
clear to voters that after four long years of being
forced, divided, hammered, and broken, they will have
a distinct choice in candidates and the chance to
replace the destructive forces of George W. Bush.

Recently, in The Washington Post, Al From, who heads
the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, credited
Howard Dean with running a successful campaign, but
questioned whether Dean can effectively lead the party
as its nominee. “We need to lay out a reason to
replace Bush.” From said. Al From should take a break
from his efforts to create the Republican-lite a.k.a.
Loser Party and listen to Howard Dean, for he has been
laying out reasons to replace Bush for months, now.
The following are just a few reasons why most
Democrats and many Independents think another four
years of a Bush administration will be a global
tragedy in the making:

Reason Number One: The greatest disaster to ever
happen in our country, September 11, 2001, could have
been prevented by George W. Bush. He has taken more
vacations, more long week-ends, and more taxpayer
financed campaign fundraising trips than any President
in history. Former Republican governor of New Jersey,
Tom Kean, chairman of the independent 9/11
investigating commission said publicly that 9/11 could
have and should have been prevented. Why was Bush
taking a month off to vacation in Crawford, Texas just
prior to 9/11 when he and his national security
adviser had been warned repeatedly of its imminence?
Why did he fail to alert the American people? Is it
too much to ask of the President to stay on the job
and not take a month’s vacation if he has been told we
might be attacked? Governor Kean promises major
revelations in the coming new year, but if his
commission raises doubts about the President’s
competency, Bush will just take that proverbial mallet
and bang away until the will of the people is thwarted
and the square peg has fit into the round hole.

Reason Number Two: Bush lied about his reasons for
invading Iraq. He squandered the country’s entire
stock of global empathy and goodwill following 9/11 by
invading Iraq under false pretenses, in violation of
international law, and without the approval of most of
the world. Bush said Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction(WMD) posed an imminent danger to America,
but when no WMD were found, he said we invaded Iraq so
we could install democracy there. Bush used 9/11 as a
pretense for invading Iraq and repeatedly spoke of
Sadaam Hussein and 9/11 in the same breath, as if it
was Sadaam Hussein who had orchestrated the attacks on
our country. Our efforts should have been concentrated
on capturing Osama bin Laden and defeating al Qaeda,
but Bush handed victories to the very terrorists he
claims to scorn by placing our troops in Iraq. It took
150,000 soldiers, tens of thousands of deaths, and a
billion dollars a week to capture Sadaam Hussein.
Americans are told the country is safer, but are given
warnings of “high alert” for more terrorist attacks.
So which way is it? Are we safer? Are we more
vulnerable and at a higher risk of another 9/11? Where
are the weapons of mass destruction that were such an
imminent danger?

Reason Number Three: Under Bush, at the expense of
necessary programs such as Social Security and
Medicare, the giant corporations who contributed so
lavishly to his campaign, are being rewarded. During
this administration, three million people have lost
their jobs. Daily, the corporate giants announce
thousands of jobs being exported to India and China.
The Wall Street Journal, recently reported that if
this trend continues, by 2010, well over half of
America’s high tech jobs will have vanished and
America will have completed its transformation from an
advanced to a Third World economy! And what about
those Bush tax refunds? The $300 in tax relief most
middle-income earners received was more than offset by
increases in local property and state taxes, tuition
hikes, and increased energy costs due to draconian
cuts in federal funds for vital state and local
services.

Reason Number Four: Bush has transfigured a healthy
budget surplus created by Democrats into an endless
sea of red ink - in the form of massive federal
deficits of over $500 billion. Taxpaying families,
their children, and their children’s children will be
swimming in debt to pay for what? Endless war, tax
cuts for millionaires, and multinational corporate
bankrolling.
The national debt has exploded to over $6.9 trillion
since 2000. Since then, our currency has declined in
value over 30%. This President is asking future
generations to pay more taxes, experience high
inflation, and suffer a devalued currency to repay the
unrealistic tax cuts of his reckless fiscal policies.

So ring out the old, ring in the new! The year to come
will surely be a bright and happy one when we get
someone in the White House who doesn’t beat, hammer,
and bang America by splitting it and forcing it into a
shape it doesn’t belong.

The new sick man of Europe

Remember, it was Mussolini who said "Facism" would be better termed "Corporatism."

Will Hutton, Guardian: Corruption in politics and the media is turning the once core EU state of Italy into an international disgrace

Rid the Western Alliance of the Bush Cabal, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1113229,00.html

The new sick man of Europe

Corruption in politics and the media is turning the
once core EU state of Italy into an international
disgrace

Will Hutton
Sunday December 28, 2003
The Observer

Suppose Tony Blair owned ITV, had disbanded the
majority of the board of governors of the BBC and that
director-general Greg Dyke had resigned because of the
impossibility of maintaining the corporation's
impartiality in the face of unfair, growing and
politically motivated competition from Mr Blair's
interests. Suppose, too, that Mr Blair owned both the
Daily Telegraph and the Express. And suppose the Queen
had extraordinarily refused to enact a parliamentary
Bill that would, in effect, allow Mr Blair to expand
his media empire despite earlier promises to disband
it. There would, I suspect, be just a little political
disquiet.
Suppose, too, that, while we were digesting all this,
one of our largest companies had gone into
receivership. Over the past few years, it had falsely,
and probably fraudulently, accounted for a cool £7
billion, but attempts to recover the cash were being
grievously hampered by new Blair laws which weakened
protection against false accounting, largely to ensure
that the Prime Minister's media empire would better
survive scrutiny. We could start to wonder what kind
of banana republic we were living in.

But this is no banana republic - this is present-day
Italy, one of the chief states in the European Union.
The Prime Minister is not Tony Blair but Silvio
Berlusconi; Mediaset is ITV; RAI is the BBC; Lucia
Annunziata is Greg Dyke: Il Giornale is the Daily
Telegraph and the company in receivership is Parmalat.
For the Queen, read 83-year-old President Ciampi. The
analogies are not exact - Italian institutions and
processes are not mirrored in Britain - but the
similarities drive home what has been happening there.
It is a salutary warning not just about democracy and
capitalism in Italy, but about modern times.

The British are as complicit as the Italians in not
taking Italy sufficiently seriously. Italy suffers
from a curious inferiority complex, in which its
military glories ceased with the Romans and its
cultural influence ended with the Renaissance. Italian
citizens take no pride in their state or democracy;
avoiding taxes is a sign of canniness and to comply
with regulation is to be seen as weak. Italian
reunification is not yet 150 years old, and there
isn't the loyalty to political, judicial and
democratic institutions that you find in Britain,
France or the US. Loyalty is to family - the vehicle
for building everything from restaurants to great
companies. Italians despair of their public realm.

Yet Italy matters. It is one of the Group of Seven
industrialised nations (now eight with Russia). It
matters as a founder of the EU; indeed, without
Italy's willingness to sign the original Treaty of
Rome, the so-called European project would have been
little more than a Franco-German friendship pact of
the kind tried and found wanting in the past. Italy
plays that role still; no other mainland European
country has the population weight and GDP to
Europeanise Franco-German relations. Nor does its
political salience stop there; Berlusconi's Italy gave
Britain and the US political cover during the Iraq
war.

Italy is a crucial market. Rupert Murdoch, with an
ever keen eye to the main chance, was more than happy
to buy the two distressed Italian satellite platforms,
Stream and Telepiu, now absorbed into Sky and carrying
a diet of dubbed US retreads from Fox, with news as
pro-government as anything carried by Berlusconi's
Rete4, Canale5 and Italia1.

Playing his political cards carefully will create from
this market of 60 million Italians a cash cow to equal
his British operation. We neglect Italy at our peril;
it has always been a forerunner of European trends,
whether the Renaissance, fascism in the 1920s and now
the integration into a powerful unity of media baron
and financial casino capitalism, all the while
co-opting the state to serve its ends.

At first, Parmalat seemed a typical Italian family
business built around dairy and ham products. It was
no such thing. Founder, chairman and chief executive
Calisto Tanzi, whose family controlled the majority of
the equity, was using the core business to support an
extravaganza of invented contracts, particularly in
the Cayman Islands. American banks, many of which see
dodgy practice as a natural outgrowth of capitalism,
continued to lend money against the contracts until it
was too late. Wall Street met Italian capitalism to
produce a European Enron.

But what made it possible, as with Enron, is that
national and international financial regulation has
not kept pace with today's opportunities for fraud and
deception by company leaderships minded to take this
step. Nor is this a technical failing. It is because
today's leitmotif is that regulation inhibits 'wealth
generation' and 'free markets'. Tanzi pulled some
political favours to build the core of Parmalat, and
then exploited Italy's - and the West's - weak
regulatory environment, supported by the ideology that
business must be free, to cover his tracks.

And Italy is more wide open than most. Creating almost
impossible-to-follow audit trails is easier in
Italian-style family-controlled firms: corporate
governance rules are scandalously inadequate;
regulation is habitually weak. Attempts at reform have
been fiercely contested by the Berlusconi-controlled
media portraying any such initiative as anti-business,
anti-free market and anti-Italy. As Prime Minister, an
office Berlusconi won with the support of his own
media, he is able to practise what his TV companies
and papers preach. His control of the media suffocates
debate and criticism. The result: bad government,
nearly extinct political pluralism and Parmalat.

In Britain, we ride the same tiger, albeit one in a
different guise. The same ideology rules, generating
the same temptations: Daily Telegraph proprietor
Conrad Black is no stranger to hard-to-follow audit
trails and disappearing cash; naturally, he is as
fervent an apostle of the 'free market' and
anti-public-service broadcasting as Mr Berlusconi.

The potent mix of an ideological and powerful media,
self-seekingly promoting particular corporate
interests as the public interest, is not confined to
Italy. Nor is the exchange of commercial advantage for
political support just a feature of Rome and Milan.

Events in Italy are the concern of all of us and the
EU should signal its fundamental interest in the
outcome of Italy's battle to defend the integrity of
its capitalism and public realm. The first act of the
incoming Irish presidency of the European Union should
be to say just that. Mr Blair should be in the
vanguard of European leaders pressing for such a
statement. Instead, we can be sure that silence will
reign.

· An editing slip in last week's column gave Britain's
private debt as 65 per cent of GDP, rather than 165
per cent, as Will Hutton originally wrote. Sorry for
any Sunday morning perplexity that caused.

Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

"Out, out damn spot!"

Times of London/Times of India: The British government has confirmed that MI6 had organised Operation Mass Appeal, a campaign to plant stories in the media about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Reveal the Truth about the War in Iraq, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/387882.cms

Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

[ SUNDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2003 10:55:57 PM ]

LONDON: The British government has confirmed that MI6
had organised Operation Mass Appeal, a campaign to
plant stories in the media about Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction.

The revelation will create embarrassing questions for
Tony Blair in the run-up to the publication of the
report by Lord Hutton into the circumstances
surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly , the
government weapons expert.

A senior official admitted that MI6 had been at the
heart of a campaign launched in the late 1990s to
spread information about Saddam's development of nerve
agents and other weapons, but denied that it had
planted misinformation.

"There were things about Saddam's regime and his
weapons that the public needed to know," said the
official.

The admission followed claims by Scott Ritter, a
former US marine who led 14 inspection missions in
Iraq, who said that MI6 had recruited him in 1997 to
help with the propaganda effort.

He described meetings where the senior officer and at
least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to
manipulate intelligence material.

"The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a
far greater threat than it actually was," Ritter said
last week.

He said there was evidence that MI6 continued to use
similar propaganda tactics up to the invasion of Iraq
earlier this year.

"Stories ran in the media about secret underground
facilities in Iraq and ongoing programmes to produce
weapons of mass destruction," said Ritter.

"They were sourced to western intelligence and all of
them were garbage." Kelly, himself a former United
Nations weapons inspector and colleague of Ritter,
might also have been used by MI6 to pass information
to journalists.

"Kelly was a known and government-approved conduit
with the media," said Ritter.

Sunday Times, London

'Silence cannot be bought'

Beverly Eckert, like Ellen Mariani (who has filed a
RICO suit against the _resident) and other brave
citizens who lost loved ones on 9/11, is still
demanding answers to reasonable, very important and
very ANSWERABLE questions. Eckhert should be on
SeeBS's Fork the Nation, AnythingButSee's Week in
Revision and NotBeSeen's Meat the Press this morning,
BUT she won't be...nor will the propapunditgandists
waste a well-fed breath on her noble quest...and you
know why...

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

12/1http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-12-19-oppose_x.htm

'Silence cannot be bought'
By Beverly Eckert

I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff
from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I
want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence
and security systems that a band of religious fanatics
was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy
force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with
terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story
skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why
escape and rescue options were so limited.
I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues,
including congressional hearings and the 9/11
commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given
under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of
compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by
Congress that it tampered with our civil justice
system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the
liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists
who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires
still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines,
but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers
and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who
want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It
means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of
those who need to be held accountable. With the
financial consequences other than insurance proceeds
removed, there is no incentive for those whose
negligence contributed to the death toll to
acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They
can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting
game.

By suing, I've forfeited the "$1.8 million average
award" for a death claim I could have collected under
the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning
money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my
husband, whose death I believe could have been
avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held
accountable. If we don't get answers to what went
wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000
dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who
conspired to divert attention from government and
private-sector failures: My husband's life was
priceless, and I will not let his death be
meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade
Center, is the founder of Voices of September 11th, a
victims advocacy group.

Despair Is Not an Option

Two more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? Lies, a neo-con wet dream of "Empire," domestic political cover (that backfired), the war-profiteering of cronies and sponsors, and yes, oil.

Defend the Constitution, Support Our Troops, Show Up
for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1226-08.htm

Published in the January 12, 2004 issue of The Nation

Despair Is Not an Option
by William Sloane Coffin

Many people believed at the time that the trauma of
9/11 would change the world. My feeling was that our
American response would be far more crucial. The
President, after all, did not have to declare war. He
could have called the terrorists mass murderers, their
deeds crimes against humanity. He could have said to
the American people and the world, "We will respond,
but not in kind. We will not seek to avenge the death
of innocent Americans by the death of innocent victims
elsewhere, lest we become what we abhor. We refuse to
ratchet up the cycle of violence that brings only ever
more death, destruction and deprivation. What we will
do is build coalitions with other nations. We will
share intelligence, freeze assets and engage in
forceful extraditions of terrorists if internationally
sanctioned. I promise to do all in my power to see
justice done, but by the force of law only, never by
the law of force."

It was a ripe moment--to educate the soul of the
nation, to improve the quality of our suffering. We
had lost our sense of invulnerability and superpower
invincibility, but as these were only illusions, we
should not have grieved their passing. Other nations
too had been unfairly hurt, many of them, and far
worse than we. But instead of deepening our kinship
with the world's suffering, the President chose to
invoke an almost unlimited sense of entitlement to
pursue in our own way what he termed a struggle "to
rid the world of evil."

As a result we squandered the widely felt sympathy
that was ours on 9/11, symbolized by the headline in
Le Monde the following day: Nous sommes tous
Américains. We also squandered the near-record budget
surplus that could have helped victims abroad as well
as the homeless and hungry in the United States, where
poverty is a tragedy that great wealth makes a sin.
Finally, ironically and predictably, the Bush doctrine
of unilateralism and preventive war has recruited more
terrorists than it has cowed. Clearly the past two
years have been morally and politically disastrous.

But tempus fugit--an election year is upon us, another
ripe moment for educating and for changing regimes in
Washington. While turned off by the President's
chirping optimism, I still find encouraging such
developments as the following:

Although still claiming moral clarity, the President
is clearly losing moral authority. The stubborn
persistence of evil in Iraq, Afghanistan and here at
home is helping Americans to slough off the
self-righteousness that threatens our capacity for
self-criticism.

Reservoirs of anger and common sense have already been
tapped by the presidential campaigns, especially those
of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.

The mammoth mistakes of globalization, highlighted by
developing countries like Brazil, are being
acknowledged by First World nations and important
world organizations.

At home the bloat of the military, the plight of the
poor and the sorrow of the aged and infirm are
mounting concerns of big-city mayors and state
governors, who stare helplessly at their
deficit-plagued coffers.

When the chief legal officer of the land fears
freedom, more and more Americans are fearing for the
freedom of the nation. Federal courts too are reacting
to preserve constitutional rights.

Like politicians, clergy can be so cautious as to
become moral failures. Now, however, they are signing
on by the hundreds to the Clergy Leadership Network,
recently formed to counter the influence of the
Christian right. They are eager to resurrect two great
biblical mandates--to pursue justice and to seek
peace. They are appalled by tax breaks that fill the
rich with good things and send the poor empty away;
most are for the global abolition of nuclear weapons;
and most, I would imagine, view marriage as a human
right, not a reward for being heterosexual.

Finally, I think of the Women in Black in Israel, the
Liberian women praying alongside the road, the
whistleblowers everywhere who are trying to dim fears
and raise hopes. So much is at stake in the new year
that despair is not an option. Better by far to heed
the poet and double the heart's might.

William Sloane Coffin, pastor emeritus of the
Riverside Church in Manhattan, is the author, most
recently, of Credo (Westminster).

© 2003 The Nation

###

Tongass Travesty

The NYTwits continue to placate the center and the left with righteous editorial, while serving the right with itsforgetful, weak-minded reporting on the theft of Fraudida, the 9/11 cover-up, the lies used to lead this country into the foolish, disasterous military adventure in Iraq and other outrages...But, indeed, here is a powerful New York Times editorial on the _resident's latest crime against nature. Of course, it would be better if they unleashed some reporters for a front page expose on how campaign contributions and government job appointments lead to such abominations...Oh, yes, and once again, Mr. Nada, where is your retraction or do you still insist there is no difference between a vote for Bush and a vote for Gore?

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/27/opinion/27SAT1.html

Tongass Travesty

Published: December 27, 2003

The Bush administration has pulled another thread from the intricate legal tapestry shielding the national forests from excessive logging. On Tuesday, it announced that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska would be denied protections provided by the so-called roadless rule, a federal regulation prohibiting the building of roads — and by definition most commercial activity — on 58.5 million acres of national forests.

The administration presents the new policy as a necessary tonic for southeast Alaska's depressed economy, and as a necessary response to a state lawsuit that it says it could never have won. The reality is otherwise. This is essentially a holiday gift to Senator Ted Stevens and Gov. Frank Murkowski, both of whom have lobbied for the resumption of the clear-cutting that has already stripped the nation's only temperate rain forest of a half million acres of old-growth trees.

The announcement came wrapped in the same deceptive packaging that has camouflaged much of this administration's forest policy. The most egregious example was the Forest Service's disingenuous assertion that the new policy would allow logging on only 300,000 acres of the Tongass, or about 3 percent of the 9.6 million roadless acres that are earmarked for protection.

Though that is technically true, the actual ecological impact would be far greater. For one thing, those 300,000 acres include many of the forest's oldest trees and most valuable watersheds, as well as an extraordinary collection of wildlife. It is no exaggeration to say that these acres constitute the forest's biological heart. And because these acres are not all in one place, but are distributed among 50 different logging projects, the new roads required to reach them will inevitably violate even more of the forest.

The administration's action is prelude to what is most likely to be an even broader assault on the roadless rule, which has been challenged in the courts by timber interests and six other states where logging is big business. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the rule; the 10th Circuit is reviewing a lower court's decision rejecting the rule. But rather than wait for a resolution, the administration has indicated that it will move administratively to give individual governors the right to ignore the rule. That would seem to pre-empt the judicial process. It would also give a handful of state officials power over federal lands, which belong to all Americans.

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily

Over 200 cities, towns, counties, etc. (including most recently Toledo, Ohio) have taken stands against the so-called PATRIOT Act. You are not alone. Please share this story with others, since AnythingButSee (ABC), SeeNotNews (CNN), NotBeSeen (NBC) and the rest of the "US mainstream news media" continues to provide cover for the outrageous activities of this illegitimate, incompetent and corrupt administration...

Save the U.S. Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

news: headlines

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG

By David Martin 12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily

O n December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."

"It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see."
— Robert Summers

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent."

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers.

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process? •

©San Antonio Current 2003

Revealed -- Saddam's Network or a PSYOPS Campaign?

Well, five more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? Certainly, not to crush terrorism. The _resident's foolish military adventure has only spread it. Certainly, not to destroy WMDs. There were none, and the Bush cabal knew it. Certainly, not to "liberate" Iraq or bring "democracy" to the region. Saddam,like Osama, was empowered to do evil by those who now denounce the evil he has done. Meanwhile, Barbara Bush gloats, "I advise the former President, the governor of Florida, and the President, I guess you could say I rule the world," and VICE _resident Cheney's "Christmas Card" features a disturbing quote (Ben Franklin taken out of context) about God's aid to a "rising empire." Here is a bit of reality...

Support Our Troops,Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1223-12.htm
Published on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 by MediaChannel.org
Revealed -- Saddam's Network or a PSYOPS Campaign?
by Sam Gardiner

We are seeing an orchestrated media campaign by the administration and a psychological operation aimed at the insurgents in Iraq. The success of this campaign can be measured by recent articles in The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor.

Looking at the nearly 100 other press reports in the five days since Saddam's capture, one theme is clear: Saddam Hussein was captured, and the United States is on the verge of breaking the Iraqi insurgency.

But is it really?

As a former instructor at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College, I am familiar with the pattern of using the press to conduct psychological operations against internal audiences in Iraq. The technique is straightforward: plant stories or persuade media outlets to slant the news in a way that debilitates your enemy. And so far, media reports on the intelligence significance of Saddam's capture have followed that pattern to the letter.

President Bush's interview with ABC News on December 16 heralded the debut of the military's post-capture media strategy. In it, Bush stated that he believed that the arrest of Saddam Hussein "will encourage more Iraqis to step up." The capture was styled as a major event, a turning point.

The groundwork for this media and psychological operations had already been laid that day when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the US military commander in Iraq, gave a press conference:

Question: General, how involved was Saddam Hussein in the insurgency? What have you been able to find out over the past 48 hours?

General Myers: I think there will be some intelligence that we get from the capture of Saddam Hussein. That will be analyzed and worked over time. And I think right now it's inappropriate to speculate on what we might find in terms of his involvement. But, of course, there will be intelligence value to the fact that he is now in coalition hands.

Question: General, is he --

General Myers: Let me -- just a minute. Let me -- let me --

Question: -- is he inside the country at the moment? Can you tell us where Saddam is?

General Sanchez: Let me add my part to your question. As I've always stated, repeatedly, our expectation was that Saddam was probably involved in intent and in financing. And so far, that is still my belief. And more to follow from the interrogations. At this point, we have nothing further.

What we see here is General Myers giving the answer probably closer to the truth. He thinks there will be some intelligence that the US will get from the capture of Saddam Hussein. General Sanchez, however, interrupted his superior before General Myers could complete his answer.

Sanchez says the media and psyops theme: Saddam Hussein has been involved in the insurgency. Sanchez is very careful not to lie. He said "expectation" and "probably." He protects himself, but gets out the message.

Subsequent interviews with key players in the Saddam capture followed the same strategy: give the impression that there was some important intelligence, but without stating concretely that there was.

General Abizaid, the Commander of Central Command told media: "I don't want to characterize it as a great intelligence windfall . . . But it's clear that we have gained a greater understanding of how things work as a result of capturing him . . ."

Asked by reporters if US intelligence had found links between Saddam and the resistance, Colonel James Hickey, the brigade commander of the unit that found Saddam Hussein said: "There are links. There are so many links I don't have time to go into them. My estimate is he was, but I don't know for sure."

These remarks are a long way from stories published in The Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor on Dec. 17 and 18. Both stories reveal the windfall of a successful psychological operations thrust.

The December 17 Washington Post story was headlined "Hussein Document Exposes Network." The article described how a document found during the raid has enabled U.S. military authorities to assemble detailed knowledge of a key network behind as many as 14 insurgent cells.

On December 18, The Christian Science Monitor carried the finds to another level. Their article described how documents (now plural) revealed key details about guerrilla cells and appears to have allowed the U.S. to make quick progress rolling up "parts of the insurgency as a whole."

We've come full circle back to the president's message.

Adding to the themes, unnamed officials are also giving interviews to the press. One such official told the AP "that the guerrillas displayed no signs of a strict command-and-control hierarchy in the conventional military sense, but said dozens of independent cells have received some guidance from above."

Is this the truth? For all the public statements hinting that such reports are fact, items found at Saddam's hideout strongly suggest otherwise.

Saddam's temporary shelter was a mess. The soldiers found dirty laundry, bare shelves, leftover rice in a pot, one can of 7-UP, two Mars candy bars, and stale bread. The place was littered with garbage. The toilet was a trench outside the hut. There are no reports of files, no reports of trunks with documents, and no pictures of documents. Importantly, no communication devices were found.

This was not a command center. It is hard to believe that it was anything more than what it appeared. It was one of the hiding places of an individual desperately on the run. This was not the center of an insurgency network. It is very hard to see how any guidance came from that hole.

The Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor have done a terrible job reporting this story. Why are so few real questions raised by reporters when they are confronted with the military's media and psychological operations campaign? Why aren't they helping us get to truth?

The author is a retired Air Force Colonel and has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defence College. During the Gulf War II, he was a regular guest on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, BBC radio and television and National Public Radio.

© MediaChannel.org, 2003. All rights reserved.

Expert Warned That Mad Cow Was Imminent

Perhaps the NYTwits will do a better job with this story than they did with the theft of Fraudida, the 9/11 cover-up or the lies that led to war in Iraq...

Protect Public Health, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/25/national/25WARN.html?hp

Expert Warned That Mad Cow Was Imminent
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE

Published: December 25, 2003

Ever since he identified the bizarre brain-destroying proteins that cause mad cow disease, Dr. Stanley Prusiner, a neurologist at the University of California at San Francisco, has worried about whether the meat supply in America is safe.

He spoke over the years of the need to increase testing and safety measures. Then in May, a case of mad cow disease appeared in Canada, and he quickly sought a meeting with Ann M. Veneman, the secretary of agriculture. He was rebuffed, he said in an interview yesterday, until he ran into Karl Rove, senior adviser to President Bush.

So six weeks ago, Dr. Prusiner, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on prions, entered Ms. Veneman's office with a message. "I went to tell her that what happened in Canada was going to happen in the United States," Dr. Prusiner said. "I told her it was just a matter of time."

The department had been willfully blind to the threat, he said. The only reason mad cow disease had not been found here, he said, is that the department's animal inspection agency was testing too few animals. Once more cows are tested, he added, "we'll be able to understand the magnitude of our problem."

This nation should immediately start testing every cow that shows signs of illness and eventually every single cow upon slaughter, he said he told Ms. Veneman. Japan has such a program and is finding the disease in young asymptomatic animals.

Fast, accurate and inexpensive tests are available, Dr. Prusiner said, including one that he has patented through his university.

Ms. Veneman's response (he said she did not share his sense of urgency) left him frustrated. That frustration soared this week after a cow in Washington State was tentatively found to have the disease. If the nation had increased testing and inspections, meat from that cow might never have entered the food chain, he said.

Ms. Veneman was not available for interviews yesterday, and the White House referred all questions to the department. A spokeswoman for Ms. Veneman, Julie Quick, said: "We have met with many experts in this area, including Dr. Prusiner. We welcome as much scientific input and insight as we can get on this very important issue. We want to make sure that our actions are based on the best available science."

In Dr. Prusiner's view, Ms. Veneman is getting poor scientific advice. "U.S.D.A. scientists and veterinarians, who grew up learning about viruses, have difficulty comprehending the novel concepts of prion biology," he said. "They treat the disease as if it were an infection that you can contain by quarantining animals on farms. It's as though my work of the last 20 years did not exist."

Scientists have long been fascinated by a group of diseases, called spongiform encephalopathies, that eat away at the brain, causing madness and death. The leading theory was that they were caused by a slow-acting virus. But in 1988, Dr. Prusiner proposed a theory that seemed heretical at the time: the infectious agent was simply a type of protein, which he called prions.

Prions (pronounced PREE-ons), he and others went on to establish, are proteins that as a matter of course can misfold — that is, fold themselves into alternative shapes that have lethal properties — and cause a runaway reaction in nervous tissue. As more misfolded proteins accumulate, they kill nerve cells.

Animals that eat infected tissues can contract the disease, setting off an epidemic as animals eat each other via rendered meats. But misfolded proteins can also arise spontaneously in cattle and other animals, Dr. Prusiner said. It is not known whether meat from animals with that form of the disease could pass the disease to humans, he said, but it is a risk that greatly worries him.

Cattle with sporadic disease are probably entering the food chain in the United States in small numbers, Dr. Prusiner and other experts say.

Brain tissue from the newly discovered dairy cow in Washington is now being tested in Britain to see if it matches prion strains that caused the mad cow epidemic there, or if it is a homegrown American sporadic strain, Dr. Prusiner said.

"The problem is we just don't know the size of the problem," he said. "We don't know the prevalence or incidence of the disease."

He called them "extremely disingenuous",

Here is an important story from America's best
newspaper...Uncontrollable, unpredictable forces may
influence the coming political battle. A doctor and a
general could be well-positioned...

Protect the Public Health, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-02.htm

Published on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 by the
Guardian/UK
First Case of Mad Cow Disease in US
by Julian Borger in Washington

The US government was yesterday scrambling to calm
public fears over its food supply after America's
first recorded case of mad cow disease was found in a
sick animal in Washington state.

Ann Veneman, agriculture secretary, said the positive
test for BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) was
"presumptive" and would be confirmed in a British
laboratory. But she said the administration was
confident that the finding was accurate and had
already implemented measures to curb its spreading.

A sample was believed to be on its way to the World
Reference Laboratory in Pirbright, Surrey, where a
sample was sent from Canada in May after a BSE alert
there.

The US was last night notifying the country's trading
partners and Ms Veneman was not sure how they would
react.

However, she assured Americans: "The risk of spreading
is low based on the safeguards and controls we have
put in place." She said the risk of the disease
entering the human food chain was minimal. "I plan to
serve beef for my Christmas dinner and we remain
confident in our food supply," Ms Veneman said, in an
echo of the then British agriculture minister John
Selwyn Gummer's ill-fated ploy to have his young
daughter eat a hamburger on behalf of British beef in
1990.

The infected cow identified yesterday was a Holstein
which was tested because it was a "downer", unable to
walk, when it arrived at a Washington state
slaughterhouse. The meat from the cow was nevertheless
sent to a processing plant.

Agriculture department investigators were yesterday
urgently trying to track it down.

Ms Veneman said that only the "muscle cuts" had been
sent for processing for human consumption and there
was no record of the disease being transmitted through
the meat. The brain and spinal column had been sent to
a "rendering facility" elsewhere, but she did not
specify how it had been used.

The news hit an already nervous American public,
entering the Christmas holiday under a high state of
alert because of the risk of a new terrorist attack.
Ms Veneman felt it necessary to stress there was no
evidence of terrorism in the BSE incident.

However, her assurances that the outbreak would be
contained were questioned by public health activist,
John Stauber. He called them "extremely disingenuous",
and pointed out Ms Veneman was a former lobbyist for
the cattle industry. "I suggest this cow is the tip of
an invisible iceberg," Mr Stauber, co-author of a book
( Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here? )
about the threat of the disease, told CNN last night.
"My presumption is mad cow disease is spread
throughout North America at some level, but because
our testing program is so inadequate we have not
identified it."

He said the US livestock industry, unlike its European
counterparts, continued to practice "animal
cannibalism".

An isolated case of BSE was identified in Canada in
May, but Ms Veneman said there was no immediate
evidence of a link with the cow identified yesterday.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

###

Democrats Court Vote of Disgruntled U.S. Muslim Americans

Two important points:
1) New political coalitions are emerging, and you must not be afraid to
think outside of the box of the old ones (Dean has done this...)
2) It is going to be a very ugly campaign.

Save the U.S.Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/December/24%20n/Democrats%20Court%20Vote%20of%20Disgruntled%20U.S.%20Muslim%20Americans.htm

Democrats Court Vote of Disgruntled U.S. Muslim Americans

Tue December 23, 2003 02:19 PM ET

By Caroline Drees WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Three years after Muslim Americans overwhelmingly
voted for George W. Bush, democratic presidential
candidates are courting these disenchanted voters in
hopes of winning millions of backers in key states.

"I want to earn the support of Muslims and Muslim
leaders across the United States," Sen. John Kerry, a
Democrat from Massachusetts, told a major Muslim
conference outside Los Angeles last weekend.

"I very much hope for your support," Democratic
front-runner and former Vermont governor, Howard Dean,
told the same meeting, the Muslim Public Affairs
Council annual convention.

Dean, Kerry and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich all called
in from the campaign trail, and the audience was
receptive.

Angered by post-Sept. 11 legislation like the USA
Patriot Act which Muslims feel discriminates against
them, upset about wars against two Muslim countries,
and frustrated by a perceived pro-Israeli bias in
Middle East peacemaking, many U.S. Muslims are
shifting their political allegiance.

This marks a sharp turn from previously widespread
sentiment that the Republicans under Bush would
support Palestinian aspirations in the Middle East.

Bush had in the past aggressively courted the Muslim
vote, and the traditional pro-business stance of
Republicans had also appealed to many middle class
Muslim voters.

With Bush's approval ratings at 59 percent -- the
highest since August -- disgruntled Muslims and
leading democratic candidates hope this nontraditional
voting bloc could swing the election in major states
which have large Muslim populations such as
California, New York, Florida and Michigan.

"I think that this November we will see American
Muslims coming to the polls in unsurpassed numbers,"
said MPAC executive director Salam al-Marayati.

"This is due to actions our elected leaders took in
response to 9/11 as well as the dramatic increase in
voter registration drives and the large number of
American Muslim youth who have become eligible to vote
since the last presidential election," he said.

U.S. census statistics do not detail religious
affiliation, and unofficial estimates vary widely.
Islamic groups say there are around 6 million American
Muslims.

American Muslims endorsed and strongly backed Bush in
2000, a decision many criticized after Sept. 11, 2001,
when they say anti-Islamic sentiment began to rise.
"Today I go to mosques and many people tell me they'll
vote for ABB -- anybody but Bush," said Hossam
Ayloush, head of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations in southern California. A straw poll among
the 800 MPAC delegates showed more than 67 percent
planned to vote for Dean, compared to just 2 percent
for Bush. Upon hearing the poll results, one delegate
said, "How did Bush manage to get 2 percent?"

Aslam Abdullah, an activist and head of the Muslim
Electorates' Council of America, said his surveys in
seven key states showed two-thirds of 1.7 million
Muslim voters backed Bush in 2000.

He said the size of the Muslim electorate had now
jumped to almost 3 million, thanks to massive voter
registration drives, a large number of new citizens
and an increase in Muslim-Americans who have reached
the voting age of 18.

Yahya Basha, a staunch Republican and a prominent
Muslim leader in Michigan, said Bush could still win
the Islamic vote, but had to do more to court it.

"It is going to be a challenge," he said. "I'd hate to
see them giving up on that community ... I think there
is potential and they (the Bush campaign) should do a
bit more to reach out."

Four-Star Marine General: Iraq Strategy "Screwed-Up"

Three more US soldiers died in Iraq over night. For what? Here is more courageous, plain speaking from retired 4-star General Anthony Zinni, whose name was scrawled on the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes last year...Please share it with others over the "holidays."

Support our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122403B.shtml

Editors Note | Retired General Anthony Zinni is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, four-star Marine general and former Central Command Chief in Charge of all U.S. Forces in the Persian Gulf Region. In addition Zinni Was Selected Personally by George W. Bush as U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East in 2001. His comments come as a stark reminder that White House war plans face opposition even at the highest levels. -ma

Four-Star Marine General: Iraq Strategy "Screwed-Up"
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday 23 December 2003

Anthony C. Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.

He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."

That time has arrived.

Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become one of the most prominent opponents of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster.

It is one of the more unusual political journeys to come out of the American experience with Iraq. Zinni still talks like an old-school Marine -- a big-shouldered, weight-lifting, working-class Philadelphian whose father emigrated from Italy's Abruzzi region, and who is fond of quoting the wisdom of his fictitious "Uncle Guido, the plumber." Yet he finds himself in the unaccustomed role of rallying the antiwar camp, attacking the policies of the president and commander in chief whom he had endorsed in the 2000 election.

"Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire."

Three years ago, Zinni completed a tour as chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, during which he oversaw enforcement of the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq and also conducted four days of punishing airstrikes against that country in 1998. He even served briefly as a special envoy to the Middle East, mainly as a favor to his old friend and comrade Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power -- such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

Now, five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think the capture of Hussein is likely to make much difference, beyond boosting U.S. troop morale and providing closure for his victims. "Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up."

'Where's the Threat?'

Anthony Zinni's passage from obedient general to outspoken opponent began in earnest in the unlikeliest of locations, the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was there in Nashville in August 2002 to receive the group's Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, recognition for his 35 years in the Marine Corps.

Vice President Cheney was also there, delivering a speech on foreign policy. Sitting on the stage behind the vice president, Zinni grew increasingly puzzled. He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after he retired from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq.

"I think he ran on a moderate ticket, and that's my leaning -- I'm kind of a Lugar-Hagel-Powell guy," he says, listing three Republicans associated with centrist foreign policy positions.

He was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

Unheeded Advice

This retired Marine commander is hardly a late-life convert to pacifism. "I'm not saying there aren't parts of the world that don't need their ass kicked," he says, sitting in a hotel lobby in Pentagon City, wearing an open-necked blue shirt. Even at the age of 60, he remains an avid weight-lifter and is still a solid, square-faced slab of a man. "Afghanistan was the right thing to do," he adds, referring to the U.S. invasion there in 2001 to oust the Taliban regime and its allies in the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

But he didn't see any need to invade Iraq. He didn't think Hussein was much of a worry anymore. "He was contained," he says. "It was a pain in the ass, but he was contained. He had a deteriorated military. He wasn't a threat to the region."

But didn't his old friend Colin Powell also describe Hussein as a threat? Zinni dismisses that. "He's trying to be the good soldier, and I respect him for that." Zinni no longer does any work for the State Department.

Zinni's concern deepened at a Senate hearing in February, just six weeks before the war began. As he awaited his turn to testify, he listened to Pentagon and State Department officials talk vaguely about the "uncertainties" of a postwar Iraq. He began to think they were doing the wrong thing the wrong way. "I was listening to the panel, and I realized, 'These guys don't have a clue.' "

That wasn't a casual judgment. Zinni had started thinking about how the United States might handle Iraq if Hussein's government collapsed after Operation Desert Fox, the four days of airstrikes that he oversaw in December 1998, in which he targeted presidential palaces, Baath Party headquarters, intelligence facilities, military command posts and barracks, and factories that might build missiles that could deliver weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of those attacks on about 100 major targets, intelligence reports came in that Hussein's government had been shaken by the short campaign. "After the strike, we heard from countries with diplomatic missions in there [Baghdad] that the regime was paralyzed, and that there was a kind of defiance in the streets," he recalls.

So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. Under the code name "Desert Crossing," the resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad -- an absence that some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq.

Listening to the administration officials testify that day, Zinni began to suspect that his careful plans had been disregarded. Concerned, he later called a general at Central Command's headquarters in Tampa and asked, "Are you guys looking at Desert Crossing?" The answer, he recalls, was, "What's that?"

The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground."

;And the more he dwelled on this, the more he began to believe that U.S. soldiers would wind up paying for the mistakes of Washington policymakers. And that took him back to that bloody day in the sodden Que Son mountains in Vietnam.

A Familiar Chill

Even now, decades later, Vietnam remains a painful subject for him. "I only went to the Wall once, and it was very difficult," he says, talking about his sole visit to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall. "I was walking down past the names of my men," he recalls. "My buddies, my troops -- just walking down that Wall was hard, and I couldn't go back."

Now he feels his nation -- and a new generation of his soldiers -- have been led down a similar path.

"Obviously there are differences" between Vietnam and Iraq, he says. "Every situation is unique." But in his bones, he feels the same chill. "It feels the same. I hear the same things -- about [administration charges about] not telling the good news, about cooking up a rationale for getting into the war." He sees both conflicts as beginning with deception by the U.S. government, drawing a parallel between how the Johnson administration handled the beginning of the Vietnam War and how the Bush administration touted the threat presented by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I think the American people were conned into this," he says. Referring to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the Johnson administration claimed that U.S. Navy ships had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by North Vietnam, he says, "The Gulf of Tonkin and the case for WMD and terrorism is synonymous in my mind."

Likewise, he says, the goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the "domino theory" in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent the rest of Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands.

And that brings him back to Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies as the root of the problem. "I don't know where the neocons came from -- that wasn't the platform they ran on," he says. "Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president."

He is especially irked that, as he sees it, no senior officials have taken responsibility for their incorrect assessment of the threat posed by Iraq. "What I don't understand is that the bill of goods the neocons sold him has been proven false, yet heads haven't rolled," he says. "Where is the accountability? I think some fairly senior people at the Pentagon ought to go." Who? "That's up to the president."

Zinni has picked his shots carefully -- a speech here, a "Nightline" segment or interview there. "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice," he said at a talk to hundreds of Marine and Navy officers and others at a Crystal City hotel ballroom in September. "I ask you, is it happening again?" The speech, part of a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, received prolonged applause, with many officers standing.

Zinni says that he hasn't received a single negative response from military people about the stance he has taken. "I was surprised by the number of uniformed guys, all ranks, who said, 'You're speaking for us. Keep on keeping on.' "

Even home in Williamsburg, he has been surprised at the reaction. "I mean, I live in a very conservative Republican community, and people were saying, 'You're right.' "

But Zinni vows that he has learned a lesson. Reminded that he endorsed Bush in 2000, he says, "I'm not going to do anything political again -- ever. I made that mistake one time."

-------

Bush, Hu talk after Cheney scuttles plan for N Korea

Of course, peace was breaking out all over when the
Bush cabal seized power in 2000. (Yes, there was an
immediate threat from Al-Qaeda. That's why Sandy
Berger, the Clinton-Gore National Security Advisor
handed Condi Rice a comprehensive plan to crush
Al-Qaeda. She shelved it.) Calm ' Em Powell swore under
oath during his confirmation hearings that the work
Clinton-Gore had undertaken on the Korean penninsula
would be carried on...The _resident and the VICE
_resident had no intention of doing so...They changed
the tone and the conditions, and they rattled Kim's
cage and turned back the clock to justify "missle
defense" spending and add to the ambience of war that
their racket thrives on...

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941609653.html

Bush, Hu talk after Cheney scuttles plan for N Korea
By Hamish McDonald
China Correspondent
Beijing
December 22, 2003

US President George Bush talked with Chinese President
Hu Jintao by telephone at the weekend after
revelations that hardliners in Mr Bush's
Administration had derailed diplomatic preparations
for new talks with North Korea over its nuclear
weapons.

The chat came after US newspapers reported that US
Vice-President Dick Cheney, a neo-conservative
wielding unusual powers in foreign policy, opposed the
latest draft of a Chinese-initiated plan for North
Korea to freeze and dismantle its nuclear programs in
return for security guarantees and economic aid.

US State Department negotiators had submitted a
reworked version of the Chinese plan to a high-level
meeting in Washington on December 12, but Mr Cheney
had insisted that the document required North Korea to
agree to "irreversible" dismantling of its nuclear
weapons programs and international verification.

The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain said a senior
official had quoted Mr Cheney as telling the meeting:
"I have been charged by the President with making sure
that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated
with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it."

The re-emergence of the word "evil" and talk of defeat
- recalling Mr Bush's January 2002 speech linking
North Korea with Iraq and Iran in an "axis of evil" -
is likely to make the North Koreans even more
distrustful of promising anything ahead of hard
guarantees from the US and its allies.

The situation contrasts with the months of secret
negotiations with Libya that resulted in last week's
announcement by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that he
was ending all mass-destruction weapons programs, and
also with Mr Bush's firm rebuke of Taiwanese
Government plans to hold a referendum that China sees
as a step toindependence.

Mr Cheney's veto of the Chinese plan ended hopes of
bringing US and North Korean negotiators together
again in Beijing this month, along with teams from
China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

Diplomatic momentum is unlikely to rebuild for several
weeks, unless Mr Bush's phone talk indicates the issue
has been taken over Mr Cheney's head. The Chinese
official newsagency Xinhua did not say who initiated
the call, but said North Korea had been discussed
along with Iraq, Taiwan and bilateral relations.

"The Chinese side will continue maintaining close
contact with the relevant parties to facilitate the
holding of the second Beijing six-party talks at an
early date and enable the talks to yield positive
results," it quoted Mr Hu as saying.

Even without the words that Mr Cheney insisted on, the
US stance was proving hard for the North Koreans to
swallow, insisting on the Pyongyang Government moving
to dismantle its nuclear weapons without the formal
security treaty it had demanded, and well before any
economic aid was discussed. After the draft was
rejected, China called on Washington to be more
"flexible" and "realistic".

On Saturday, Pyongyang's main official newspaper,
Rodong Sinmun, said North Korea would never give up
its "nuclear deterrent" unless its security was
guaranteed and aid recommenced. The paper said North
Korea would disarm only in return for a "simultaneous
package solution".

But the Bush Administration's attitude is deeply
coloured by the experience of a 1994 agreement that
was just such a package.

Meanwhile, the World Food Program said it would
probably have to cut off food aid to 3 million North
Koreans next month due to a lack of foreign donations.

Families Sue U.S., Reject 9/11 'Bribe'

Toronto Star: "This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible. "No one has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were working that day."

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1223-02.htm

Published on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 by the Toronto
Star
Families Sue U.S., Reject 9/11 'Bribe'
Ignore Deadline for Compensation

by Tim Harper

WASHINGTON—For some, it's blood money, a repugnant
payoff they feel they have no choice but to accept.

For a handful of others, the process of claiming
compensation is too painful: they find themselves
paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen emotional
wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved
ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S.
government compensation as an attempt to protect those
who should be held accountable for what they believe
was mass murder.

They ignored a midnight deadline last night, their
last chance to apply for government cash.

It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines
and not hold any of those people responsible for what
happened.

Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon
attack
And today, they begin a new stage in an arduous
odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and
state and local authorities.

"This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a
pool on Sept. 11, 2001 and had to learn to swim," said
Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband Richard in the
World Trade Center attack.

"I am doing this for my husband. He was a gentle man,
and he was alive, trying to get out of that building
that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror.
No one should have suffered like that. I want
accountability. I need answers."

The compensation fund has been controversial since
President George W. Bush signed it into law 13 days
after the attacks. For those who lost family members,
it was always about protecting airlines, federal,
state and local authorities from billions of dollars
of lawsuits.

To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a
waiver giving up their right to sue anyone involved in
the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant
close to 95 per cent of the 2,976 families who lost
loved ones in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania
were expected to finally take the money.

To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on
the lives of those closest to them, after making a
case based on birth and marriage licences, diplomas
and degrees, even videos. They will, on average,
receive $1.8 million (all figures U.S.) each.

Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for
compensation and most have applied.

Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a
portion of the victims who have launched the lawsuit,
said he knew of no Canadians involved.

He said those who have chosen to sue have put no
dollar figure on awards and each claim will be
individually tailored.

"A widow who is 80 years old is not in the same
category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and
has four kids at home," he said.

Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government
fund by the weekend. Compensation for individual
deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million. Those
physically injured as a result of the attacks have
received compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9
million.

"Only in America could there be a program like this,"
fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNN
yesterday.

"You wouldn't find a program paying an average $1.8
million tax-free to eligible families. This is an
unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the
best in the American people."

Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so
victims can be coerced into washing their hands of the
affair.

She is also resentful that the government is
determining the worth of loved ones.

"This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know
who was responsible. "No one has been fired. No one
has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us
today on an elevated security alert are the same
people who were working that day."

Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11
commission headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas
Kean to answer the question of responsibility.

Kean has battled the White House, New York and
aviation authorities for access to documents. He has a
May deadline.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would
certainly not be in the position they were in at that
time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean
told CBS last week.

He said later he was talking of lower level officials,
but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the
safety of the buildings and airport security.

Even those who have accepted the money see it only as
the lesser of two evils.

Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon
attack, was still grappling with the decision to put
9/11 behind her or continue with a lawsuit.

"It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines
and not hold any of those people responsible for what
happened," she said.

Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The
beneficiary of a 36-year-old project manager earning
$231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48
million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old
military officer with no dependents and a $44,000
salary got $1.84 million.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

###

Who Will Testify At Saddam’s Trial?

Joe Conason: Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon a long list of Reagan and Bush administration officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when they were occurring.
Reveal the Truth about Iraq, Show Up for Democracy in
2004L Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8357

Who Will Testify At Saddam’s Trial?
by Joe Conason

President George W. Bush and the provisional Iraqi
authorities have promised that before Saddam Hussein
is executed, he will most certainly receive a fair
trial. Conveniently enough, the Iraqis set up a
war-crimes tribunal in Baghdad for this purpose just
last week. So sometime after Saddam’s Army
interrogators are finished sweating the old monster,
the preparations shall begin for what promises to be a
courtroom spectacular.

Advocates of human rights and international law hope
that the prosecution of Saddam will improve somewhat
upon his regime’s standard of criminal justice, which
generally entailed horrific torture followed by
confession and punishment. They have urged that
Saddam’s trial be conducted with complete fairness and
transparency. Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon’s favorite
member of the Iraqi Governing Council, says that
Saddam must be afforded the lawful treatment he denied
his victims.

Those laudable aims presumably require that he be
permitted to defend himself legally, no matter how
indefensible he actually is. Human Rights Watch, which
demanded action against Iraqi atrocities before such
concerns became fashionable in Washington, now insists
that the captured dictator "must be allowed to conduct
a vigorous defense that includes the right to legal
counsel at an early stage."

Apart from blaming his underlings for the genocidal
crimes on his indictment, what defense can he (or his
lawyers) offer? Following in the style of Slobodan
Milosevic, he may well wish to spend his final days on
the public stage bringing shame to those who brought
him down.

Unfortunately, it isn’t hard to imagine how he might
accomplish that if he can call witnesses and subpoena
documents.

Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and
Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon
a long list of Reagan and Bush administration
officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when
they were occurring.

An obvious prospective witness is Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, who acted as a special envoy to
Baghdad during the early 1980’s. On a courtroom easel,
Saddam might display the famous December 1983
photograph of him shaking hands with Mr. Rumsfeld, who
acknowledges that the United States knew Iraq was
using chemical weapons. If his forces were using
Tabun, mustard gas and other forbidden poisons, he
might ask, why did Washington restore diplomatic
relations with Baghdad in November 1984?

As for his horrendous persecution of the Kurds in
1988, Saddam could call executives from the banks and
defense and pharmaceutical companies from various
countries that sold him the equipment and materials he
is alleged to have used. He might put former President
George Herbert Walker Bush on the witness stand and
ask, "Why did your administration and Ronald Reagan’s
sell my government biological toxins such as anthrax
and botulism, as well as poisonous chemicals and
helicopters?"

Saddam could also subpoena Henry Kissinger, whose
consulting firm’s chief economist ventured to Baghdad
in June 1989 to advise the Iraqi government on
restructuring its debt. "After my forces allegedly
murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988," he
might inquire, "why would you and other American
businessmen want to help me refinance and rearm my
government?"

Indeed, Saddam could conceivably seek the testimony of
dozens of men and women who once served in the Reagan
and Bush administrations, starting with former
Secretary of State George Shultz, and ask them to
explain why they opposed every Congressional effort to
place sanctions on his government, up until the moment
his army invaded Kuwait during the summer of 1990.
Pursuing the same general theme, he might call Vice
President Dick Cheney, who sought to remove sanctions
against Iraq when he served as the chief executive of
Halliburton Corp.

The long, shadowy history of American relations with
Saddam would be illuminated not only through witness
testimony but literally thousands of documents in U.S.
government files. Memos uncovered by the National
Security Archive show that Reagan and Bush
administration officials knew exactly how the Iraqi
government was procuring what it needed to build
weapons of mass destruction, including equipment
intended for construction of a nuclear arsenal.

From time to time, during those crucial years when
Saddam consolidated his power and prepared for war,
U.S. diplomats issued rote condemnations of his worst
actions. Then, as the record shows, they would
privately reassure Saddam that the United States still
desired close and productive relations. The other
governments that were Saddam’s accomplices include
both opponents and supporters of this administration’s
pre-emptive war—from France, Germany and Russia, to
Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Pertinent as these issues are to Saddam’s case, they
do not mitigate his record of murder and corruption.
And the man dragged from his pathetic hideout near
Tikrit hardly seems to possess the will or the
capability to raise them. Either way, he will get what
he deserves. Yet it will be hard to boast that justice
and history have been fully served if his foreign
accomplices escape their share of opprobrium.


back to top
This column ran on page 5 in the 12/22/03 edition of
The New York Observer. SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW YORK
OBSERVER
HOME PAGE OF THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

COPYRIGHT © 2002
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The P.U.-litzer Prizes were established more than a

Norman Solomon: A month after the invasion of Iraq began, CNN executive Eason Jordan admitted on his network's "Reliable Sources" show (April 20) that CNN had allowed U.S. military officials to help screen its on-air analysts: "I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people there and said, for instance -- 'At CNN, here are the generals we're thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war' -- and we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was important."

Break the Corporate Stranglehold on the US News Media,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1222-10.htm

Published on Monday, December 22 , 2003 by
CommonDreams.org
Announcing the P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2003
by Norman Solomon

The P.U.-litzer Prizes were established more than a
decade ago to give recognition to the stinkiest media
performances of the year.

As usual, I have conferred with Jeff Cohen, founder of
the media watch group FAIR, to sift through the large
volume of entries. In view of the many deserving
competitors, we regret that only a few can win a
P.U.-litzer.

And now, the twelfth annual P.U.-litzer Prizes, for
the foulest media performances of 2003:

MEDIA MOGUL OF THE YEAR -- Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear
Channel

While some broadcasters care about their programming,
the CEO of America's biggest radio company (with more
than 1,200 stations) admits he cares only about the
ads. The Clear Channel boss told Fortune magazine in
March: "If anyone said we were in the radio business,
it wouldn't be someone from our company. We're not in
the business of providing news and information. We're
not in the business of providing well-researched
music. We're simply in the business of selling our
customers products."

LIBERATING IRAQ PRIZE -- Tom Brokaw

Interviewing a military analyst as U.S. jet bombers
headed to Baghdad on the first day of the Iraq war,
NBC anchor Brokaw declared: "Admiral McGinn, one of
the things that we don't want to do is to destroy the
infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we're
going to own that country."

"THE MORE YOU WATCH, THE LESS YOU KNOW" PRIZE -- Fox
News Channel

According to a University of Maryland study, most
Americans who get their news from commercial TV
harbored at least one of three "misperceptions" about
the Iraq war: that weapons of mass destruction had
been discovered in Iraq, that evidence closely linking
Iraq to Al Qaeda had been found, or that world opinion
approved of the U.S. invasion. Fox News viewers were
the most confused about key facts, with 80 percent
embracing at least one of those misperceptions. The
study found a correlation between being misinformed
and being supportive of the war.

"CLEAR IT WITH THE PENTAGON" AWARD -- CNN

A month after the invasion of Iraq began, CNN
executive Eason Jordan admitted on his network's
"Reliable Sources" show (April 20) that CNN had
allowed U.S. military officials to help screen its
on-air analysts: "I went to the Pentagon myself
several times before the war started and met with
important people there and said, for instance -- 'At
CNN, here are the generals we're thinking of retaining
to advise us on the air and off about the war' -- and
we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was
important."

"CONSERVATIVE TIMES FOR THE 'LIBERAL' MEDIA" AWARD --
ABC News

Over the years, ABC correspondent John Stossel became
known for one-sided, often-inaccurate reporting on
behalf of his pro-corporate, "greed is good" ideology.
He boasted that his on-air job was to "explain the
beauties of the free market," received lecture fees
from corporate pressure groups, and even spoke on
Capitol Hill against consumer-protection regulation.
In May of this year, when Stossel was promoted to
co-anchor of ABC's "20/20," a network insider told TV
Guide: "These are conservative times. ... The network
wants somebody to match the times."

"CODDLING DONALD" PRIZE -- CBS's Lesley Stahl, ABC's
Peter Jennings and Others

On the day news broke about Saddam Hussein's capture,
Stahl and Jennings each interviewed Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. In step with their mainstream media
colleagues, both failed to ask about Rumsfeld's
cordial 1983 meeting with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf
of the Reagan administration that opened up strong
diplomatic and military ties between the U.S.
government and the dictator that lasted through seven
years of his worst brutality.

MILITARY GROUPIE PRIZE -- Katie Couric of NBC's
"Today" Show

"Well, Commander Thompson," said Couric on April 3, in
the midst of the invasion carnage, "thanks for talking
with us at this very early hour out there. And I just
want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock."

NOBLESSE OBLIGE OCCUPATION AWARD -- Thomas Friedman,
New York Times

In a Nov. 30 piece, Times columnist Friedman gushed
that "this war (in Iraq) is the most important
liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project
since the Marshall Plan." He lauded the war as "one of
the noblest things this country has ever attempted
abroad." Friedman did not mention the estimated 112
billion barrels of oil in Iraq ... or the continuous
deceptions that led to the "noble" enterprise.

Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the
News Media Didn't Tell You." For an excerpt and other
information, go to:
www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target

###

Citizen Conrad's Friends

"It's the Media, Stupid."

Paul Krugman: But the Black affair isn't just about bad corporate governance. It goes without saying that Lord Black, like Rupert Murdoch, has used his media empire to promote a conservative political agenda. The Telegraph, in particular, has a habit of "finding" documents of unproven authenticity that just happen to support neoconservative rationales for war. We're now learning that Lord Black also used his control of Hollinger to reward friends, including journalists, who share his political views.
Break the Corporatist Strangehold on the US News Media, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/opinion/23KRUG.html
Citizen Conrad's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 23, 2003

Yesterday's eye-opening New York Times story about the inner circle of Conrad Black, the troubled chairman of Hollinger International, described him as a "throwback press baron." Indeed, his style recalls that of William Randolph Hearst. But it's a mistake to think of Lord Black, whatever his personal fate, as a throwback to a bygone era. He probably represents the wave of the future.

These days, everything old is new again. Income is once again concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite, and money rules politics to an extent not seen since the Gilded Age. The Iraq war bears an eerie resemblance to the Spanish-American war. (There was never any evidence linking Spain to the Maine's demise.) And Citizen Kane is back, in the form of an incestuous media-political complex.

Conrad Black's empire includes The Daily Telegraph in London, The Jerusalem Post and The Chicago Sun-Times. He switched from Canadian to British citizenship — an action that forced him to give up control of Canada's National Post — when the Canadian government prevented him from becoming a member of the House of Lords.

Now he's a lord in trouble. Hollinger, it turns out, has paid hundreds of millions in fees to companies controlled by Lord Black and to individual executives. Some of these payments were secret and were unauthorized by the board. Even if viewed purely as a corporate scandal, this is pretty major stuff.

But the Black affair isn't just about bad corporate governance. It goes without saying that Lord Black, like Rupert Murdoch, has used his media empire to promote a conservative political agenda. The Telegraph, in particular, has a habit of "finding" documents of unproven authenticity that just happen to support neoconservative rationales for war. We're now learning that Lord Black also used his control of Hollinger to reward friends, including journalists, who share his political views.

Inevitably the list includes both Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, whom I hereby propose (stealing an idea from Slate's Tim Noah) as the subject of a parlor game about cronyism, along the lines of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon." The former Pentagon official, who has close ties to Donald Rumsfeld, has enthusiastically embraced the advantages of being both a businessman and a policy insider. His prestigious if part-time official position on the Defense Policy Board provides him with credibility, and at least the suggestion of both inside information and policy influence. This has led to lucrative consulting deals, and has attracted investments in his venture capital fund, Trireme Partners.

Last August, in a moment of supreme synergy, Mr. Perle, wearing his defense-insider hat, co-wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed praising the Pentagon's controversial Boeing tanker deal. He didn't disclose Boeing's $2.5 million investment in Trireme.

Sure enough, Hollinger also invested $2.5 million in Trireme, which is advised by Lord Black. In addition, Mr. Perle was paid more than $300,000 a year and received $2 million in bonuses as head of a Hollinger subsidiary. It's good to have friends.

The real surprise, though, is that two prominent journalists, William Buckley and George Will, were also regular paid advisors to Hollinger. Now, I thought there were rules here. First, if you're a full-time journalist, you shouldn't be in that kind of relationship. Second, whoever you are, if you write a favorable article about someone with whom you have a personal or financial connection — like Mr. Perle's piece on the tanker deal or Mr. Will's March column praising Lord Black's wisdom — you disclose that connection. But I guess the old rules no longer apply.

That, surely, is the moral of this story. Lord Black may have destroyed himself by being a bit too brazen. But his more powerful rival Rupert Murdoch just goes from strength to strength, even though top positions in his media empire have a tendency to go to his sons, and the News Corporation has done far more than Hollinger to blur the line between news and propaganda. And the empire keeps growing: last week the Federal Communications Commission approved Mr. Murdoch's acquisition of a controlling interest in DirecTV, whose satellite television serves 11 million U.S. homes.

In other words, Lord Black may be about to fall, but the nexus among news coverage, political influence and personal gain seems likely to grow even stronger.

Rumsfeld, Bechtel and Iraq

Two more soldiers died in Iraq over night. For what? A
foolish military adventure, a neo-con wet dream, a
phoney war staged with real bloodshed for domestic
political consumption by a complicit corporatist
media, the war-profiteering of the _resident's cronies
and sponsors...How many Americans know that Saddam was
actually being held by Kurds, who then left him in
that hole for the US soldiers to "capture" in time to
boost the _resident plunging poll numbers for the
"holidays" news cycle? How many Americans know that
the Thanksgiving "turkey" the _resident held for the
cameras at the Baghdad airport was fake? How many
Americans even know that the _resident only spent 20
minutes in that dining room and only two and a half
hours on the ground in Iraq?

End the War-Profiteering of the Bush Cabal Cronies, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_juancole_archive.html#107190754281829381

Rumsfeld, Bechtel and Iraq

Well, the Democratic Party seems too nice or inept to
do anything with it, but as the Washington Post points
out, the good folks at the National Security Archive
are continuing to document the long history of
Republican Party coddling of Saddam Hussein, and their
hypocritical winking at his use of weapons of mass
destruction in the 1980s.

The Archive incidentally shows that the Bechtel
Corporation actively connived to subvert 1988
Congressional sanctions on Iraq for using weapons of
mass destruction by seeking non-US subcontractors.
Bechtel was awarded an Iraq reconstruction contract by
US AID last spring worth at least $640 million. Yup,
some American corporations have long been deeply
concerned about the dangers of weapons of mass
destruction and the moral evil of genocide.

It turns out that Don Rumsfeld actually went to Iraq
twice, once in 1983, and again in 1984. The work
Rumsfeld did in 1983 of beginning a rapprochement
between Reagan and Saddam was detracted from by a
strong State Department condemnation of Iraqi use of
chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. Schultz told
Rumsfeld to explain to Saddam [warning: PDF] that the
Reagan administration did not actually, really have
any serious objections to, like, exterminating Iranian
troops like cockroaches with poison gas. It was just a
general, unspecific blanket condemnation of that sort
of thing, you know, to keep up appearances. Sort of
like when the US was against genocide in general but
didn't really mind so much the one conducted in
Indonesia against hundreds of thousands of leftists in
1965. So, Saddam should feel comfortable about
Reagan's desire to continually improve bilateral
Reagan-Saddam relations at a pace of Saddam's
choosing, and not be put off by the unfortunate but
necessary pro forma condemnations of him as a war
criminal issued at silly old Foggy Bottom.

The document also reveals two other things on which
the press hasn't widely remarked. George H. W. Bush
was deeply involved in this Saddamist démarche, he was
the one who extended an invitation to high Baathist
official Tariq Aziz to come to Washington.

And, Schultz told both Rumsfeld and Saddam that the US
was trying to curb weapons flows to Iran. Yet it is
well known that Israel was supplying Iran with
weaponry in return for Iranian oil. Only a little over
a year later, Schultz double-crossed Saddam by getting
on board with the Iran-Contra weapons exchange, which
was suggested by the Israelis in the first place. The
White House illegally sold Iran hundreds of powerful
TOW anti-tank and HAWK anti-aircraft weapons [which
Reagan came on television and told us were
shoulder-launched weapons!], for use against
Washington's newfound ally, the Iraqis, who were being
assured that the US was trying hard to "prevent an
Iranian victory . . ."

These weapons sales contravened US law, under which
Iran was tagged as a terrorist nation. (Even today I
can get into trouble for so much as editing a paper by
an Iranian scholar for publication in a US scholarly
journal, but it was all right for the Republicans and
Neocons to send Khomeini 1000 TOWs!) Not only that,
but Reagan's team then turned around and used the
money garnered from these off-the-books sales to
support the contra death squads in Nicaragua. In the
US Constitution, how to spend government money is the
purview of Congress, and Congress had told Reagan "no"
on funding the death squads. So Reagan's people
essentially stole weapons from the Pentagon
storehouses, shipped them to Israel for transfer to
Ayatollah Khomeini, and then took the ill gotten gains
from fencing the stolen goods and gave them to
nun-murderers in Latin America.

Here's the timeline:

"1985
July -- An Israeli official suggests a deal with Iran
to then-national security adviser Robert McFarlane,
saying the transfer of arms could lead to release of
Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. McFarlane
brings the message to President Reagan.
Aug. 30 -- The first planeload of U.S.-made weapons is
sent from Israel to Tehran. Two weeks later the first
American Hostage is released.
Dec. 5 -- Reagan secretly signs a presidential
'finding,' or authorization, describing the operation
with Iran as an arms-for-hostages deal.

1986
Jan. 17 -- Reagan signs a finding authorizing CIA
participation in the sales and ordering the process
kept secret from Congress.
April -- Then-White House aide Oliver North writes a
memo outlining plans to use $12 million in profits
from Iran arms sales for Contra aid. "

Where are they now?

George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford
Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was
sworn in on July 16, 1982, as the sixtieth U.S.
secretary of state and served until January 20, 1989.
In January 1989, he rejoined Stanford University as
the Jack Steele Parker Professor of International
Economics at the Graduate School of Business and a
distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is
a member of the board of directors of Bechtel Group,
Fremont Group, Gilead Sciences, and Charles Schwab &
Co. He is chairman of the International Council of J.
P. Morgan Chase and chairman of the Accenture Energy
Advisory Board. He was awarded the Medal of Freedom,
the nation's highest civilian honor, on January 19,
1989. He also received the Seoul Peace Prize (1992),
the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service
(2001), and the Reagan Distinguished American Award
(2002).

Schultz strongly supported the war against Iraq, on
the grounds that Saddam had used chemical weapons in
the 1980s.

Elliot Abrams, a convicted criminal who lied to
Congress about the shady goings-on in Central America
and a long-time supporter of the far rightwing Likud
Party, was appointed by W. as the National Security
Council advisor for Arab-Israeli affairs. Perhaps it
was Abrams who told W. that Ariel Sharon, the Butcher
of Beirut, is "a man of peace."

Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense of the
United States, and supported the war against Iraq,
partially on the grounds that Saddam had used chemical
weapons in the 1980s.

George H. W. Bush is the former president of the
United States. His invitee, Tariq Aziz, is in a US
prison at the Baghdad Airport.

Oliver North, a convicted criminal, has been given a
cushy job on Fox television by its owner, eccentric
far rightwing Australian billionnaire Rupert Murdoch.

Saddam Hussein is in a US prison at the Baghdad
airport.

Ronald Reagan is being considered above criticism by
the US Right, which pressured CBS to cancel a
mini-series on his life that was anything less than
absolutely adoring, and is now being proposed as a
replacement on the US dime or 10 cent piece for
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the defeater of the Axis.

Clark Campaign Beats The Spit Out Of Tom 'Chicken-Hawk' Delay

I don't know who will win the Democratic nomination in
2004, maybe Howard Dean (D-Jeffords), maybe Wesley
Clark (D-NATO), maybe someone else at a brokered
convention. But I do know that this press release is a
beautiful example of how that nomineee is going to
have to fight. It is also imperative, I feel, to have
a soldier on the ticket, either Clark or Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...But, unfortunately, Kerry has
shown very bad political judgement over these many
months, and I am afraid his campaign is dead in the
water.That means what happens to Clark is very, very
important to the mission of removing the _resident
from the Oval Office in the 2004 election, so the LNS
is following his campaign closely for you. The
propapunditgandists in the "US mainstream news media"
are still focused on their top priority assignment,
i.e. the mis-definition of Howard Dean. Once Clark
emerges from the pack - into a defacto one on one race
against Dean (post N.H.), they will turn to the
mis-definition of Clark...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://clark04.com/press/release/135/

Press Room

For Immediate Release
Date: December 21, 2003

Clark Campaign Beats The Spit Out Of Tom 'Chicken-Hawk' Delay
This morning on Meet the Press, when asked about
Clark's criticism of the Bush administration's failure
to capture those responsible for 9/11 and his stance
that the threat in Iraq was not imminent, Tom Delay
said, "unfortunately Wesley Clark must live in a
different world."

Clark Campaign Strategist Reid Cherlin responded to
Tom 'Chicken-hawk' Delay's latest cowardly comments,
"The closest to real combat that Tom 'Chicken-Hawk'
Delay has ever come was when he got himself a student
deferment from Vietnam and instead suited up in his
exterminator outfit and defended the people of Texas
against invading cockroaches, marauding red ants and
hostile moths. Wes Clark has seen real combat, given
his blood for our country, and commanded troops in
battle, which is why he believes we need to win the
war on terrorism instead of declaring victory when we
all know that the terrorists directly responsible for
9/11 are still out there at large. General Clark lives
in a world where he believes that America will be
stronger, safer and more secure if we are focused on
winning the war against the terrorists, getting Osama
bin Laden and working with our Allies."

Just to remind people of the Chicken-hawk's views on
military service, here is what he has said about his
lack of military experience, in an excerpt from the/
Houston Press/:

"He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media
in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon
back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian
war. 'So many minority youths had volunteered for the
well-paying military positions to escape poverty and
the ghetto that there was literally no room for
patriotic folks like himself.' Satisfied with the
pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of
his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched
off to the convention." [/Houston Press/, 1/7/99]

Elite Israeli Commandos Refuse to Serve in Palestinian Territories

Restore US Leadership to the struggle for Middle East
Peace, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush
(again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1221-06.htm

Published on Sunday, December 21, 2003 by Agence
France Presse
Elite Israeli Commandos Refuse to Serve in Palestinian Territories

Fifteen members of the Israeli army's top commando
unit have written to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
refusing to carry out missions in the Palestinian
territories, private television reported.

We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us
through carrying out the missions of an occupation
army... in the past, we fought for a justified cause
(but today), we have reached the boundary of
oppressing another people.


According to the report, 15 reservists from the elite
Sayeret Matkal unit, said they would no longer
participate in the "rule of oppression" and the
defense of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian
territories.

"We will no longer give our lives to the rule of
oppression in the territories and to the denial of
human rights to millions of Palestinians and we will
no longer serve as a defensive shield for the
settlements," the television quoted the letter as
saying.

"We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us
through carrying out the missions of an occupation
army... in the past, we fought for a justified cause
(but today), we have reached the boundary of
oppressing another people," it added.

"We will no longer cross this boundary."

Since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in
September 2000, Sayeret Matkal has spearheaded
Israel's campaign to round up militants, tracking down
and arresting senior wanted Palestinians, rounding up
"terror units" and searching for weapons caches.

The letter was likely to send shockwaves through the
defense establishment due to the seniority of the
unit, best known for its spectacular rescue of 106
passengers from a hijacked plane at Uganda's Entebbe
Airport in 1976.

Army radio said the letter would be presented to
Sharon's office later Sunday.

Last week, the Israeli press revealed a 1992 plan to
assassinate former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, after
Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991
Gulf war.

The plan was to have been carried out by the Sayeret
Matkal unit, but was aborted at the last minute.

The latest refusal to serve comes three months after
27 airforce pilots sent a petition to airforce head
General Dan Halutz outlining their refusal to
undertake missions in the Palestinian territories.

The "refusenik" movement swung into the spotlight in
January 2002, when 52 reserve officers and soldiers
signed a letter saying they would not serve in the
Palestinian territories.

As news of the letter spread, several politicians who
served in the unit heaped condemnation on the
signatories, saying the army was not a forum in which
to raise political issues.

Former premier and head of the unit Ehud Barak, called
on them "immediately" to retract their decision,
saying it was "a serious mistake", army radio
reported.

"Within a democracy there is no place for refusal...
it is essential to conduct the struggle against the
government's policies in the public sphere," he said.

Labour MK Matan Vilnai, who served as deputy commander
of Sayeret Matkal, said the refusal to serve was "a
phenomenon that must cannot be accepted in any
manner... One must change policy with democratic tools
and not through the army."

Ehud Yatom, a deputy from premier Ariel Sharon's
right-wing Likud party who also served in the unit,
called for the signatories to be brought to justice
and said they were hurting the army's fighting
capacity.

And the army's Chief of Staff, Moshe Yaalon said
anyone who has anything to say about the army's
actions should "do it within a military framework,"
the radio said.

The legal and constitutional committee at the Knesset
(parliament) is to hold an urgent debate on opening
criminal procedures against "refuseniks" in the coming
days, the radio said.

The committee wants to broaden the scope for
prosecution outside of the military tribunals.

© Copyright 2003 AFP

###

Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore

More names for the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes...They
deserve more than death by attrition and a fake turkey
help up by a fake President...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

Friday, December 19th, 2003
Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

As we approach the holidays, I've been thinking a lot
about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in
Iraq. I've received hundreds of letters from our
troops in Iraq -- and they are telling me something
very different from what we are seeing on the evening
news.

What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in
heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to --
and this war has nothing to do with the security of
the United States of America.

I've written back and spoken on the phone to many of
them and I've asked a few of them if it would be OK if
I posted their letters on my website and they've said
yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may
face disciplinary measures for exercising their right
to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.

Lance Corporal George Batton of the United States
Marine Corps, who returned from Iraq in September
(after serving in MP company Alpha), writes the
following:

“You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked
to in my company and others believed that the
president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of
bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was
only about money. There was also a lot of crap that
many companies, not just marine companies, had to go
through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill
their missions when they crossed the border. It was a
miracle that our company did what it did the two
months it was staying in Iraq during the war…. We were
promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it
was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra
three months. Even some of the most radical
conservatives in our company including our company
gunnery sergeant got a real bad taste in their mouth
about the Marine corps, and maybe even president
Bush.”

Here's what Specialist Mike Prysner of the U.S. Army
wrote to me:

“Dear Mike -- I’m writing this without knowing if
it’ll ever get to you…I’m writing it from the trenches
of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m
here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and
vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag
on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to
understand… I joined the army as soon as I was
eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a
state university, eager to serve my country, ready to
die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years
later I found myself moments away from a landing onto
a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country
I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words (from
the Oscars) repeating in my head. My time in Iraq has
always involved finding things to convince myself that
I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of
something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I
came up with, I pictured my smirking
commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation…"

An Army private, still in Iraq and wishing to remain
anonymous, writes:

“I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve
under a man who was never elected. Because he is the
president and my boss, I have to be very careful as to
who and what i say about him. This also concerns me a
great deal... to limit the military's voice is to
limit exactly what America stands for... and the
greater percentage of us feel completely underpowered.
He continually sets my friends, my family, and several
others in a kind of danger that frightens me beyond
belief. I know several other soldiers who feel the
same way and discuss the situation with me on a
regular basis.”

Jerry Oliver of the U.S. Army, who has just returned
from Baghdad, writes:

“I have just returned home from "Operation Iraqi
Freedom". I spent 5 months in Baghdad, and a total of
3 years in the U.S. Army. I was recently discharged
with Honorable valor and returned to the States only
to be horrified by what I've seen my country turn
into. I'm now 22 years old and have discovered America
is such a complicated place to live, and moreover,
Americans are almost oblivious to what's been
happening to their country. America has become "1984."
Homeland security is teaching us to spy on one another
and forcing us to become anti-social. Americans are
willingly sacrificing our freedoms in the name of
security, the same Freedoms I was willing to put my
life on the line for. The constitution is in jeopardy.
As Gen. Tommy Franks said, (broken down of course) One
more terrorist attack and the constitution will hold
no meaning.”

And a Specialist in the U.S. Army wrote to me this
week about the capture of Saddam Hussein:

“Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths
and over a billion dollars a day, but they caught a
guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be dazzled?”

There are lots more of these, straight from the
soldiers who have been on the front lines and have
seen first hand what this war is really about.

I have also heard from their friends and relatives,
and from other veterans. A mother writing on behalf of
her son (whose name we have withheld) wrote:

“My son said that this is the worst it's been since
the "end" of the war. He said the troops have been
given new rules of engagement, and that they are to
"take out" any persons who aggress on the Americans,
even if it results in "collateral" damage.
Unfortunately, he did have to kill someone in self
defense and was told by his commanding officer ‘Good
kill.’

"My son replied ‘You just don't get it, do you?’

"Here we are...Vietnam all over again.”

From a 56 year old Navy veteran, relating a
conversation he had with a young man who was leaving
for Iraq the next morning:

“What disturbed me most was when I asked him what
weapons he carried as a truck driver. He told me the
new M-16, model blah blah blah, stuff never made sense
to me even when I was in. I asked him what kind of
side arm they gave him and his fellow drivers. He
explained, "Sir, Reservists are not issued side arms
or flack vests as there was not enough money to outfit
all the Reservists, only Active Personnel". I was
appalled to say the least.

"Bush is a jerk agreed, but I can't believe he is this
big an Asshole not providing protection and arms for
our troops to fight HIS WAR!”

From a 40-year old veteran of the Marine Corps:

“Why is it that we are forever waving the flag of
sovereignty, EXCEPT when it concerns our financial
interests in other sovereign states? What gives us the
right to tell anyone else how they should govern
themselves, and live their lives? Why can't we just
lead the world by example? I mean no wonder the world
hates us, who do they get to see? Young assholes in
uniforms with guns, and rich, old, white tourists!
Christ, could we put up a worse first impression?”

(To read more from my Iraq mailbag -- and to read
these above letters in full -- go to my website:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/soldierletters/index.php)

Remember back in March, once the war had started, how
risky it was to make any anti-war comments to people
you knew at work or school or, um, at awards
ceremonies? One thing was for sure -- if you said
anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up
immediately with this line: "BUT I SUPPORT THE
TROOPS!" Failing to do that meant that you were not
only unpatriotic and un-American, your dissent meant
that YOU were putting our kids in danger, that YOU
might be the reason they lose their lives. Dissent was
only marginally tolerated IF you pledged your
"support" for our soldiers.

Of course, you needed to do no such thing. Why?
Because people like you have ALWAYS supported "the
troops." Who are these troops? They are our poor, our
working class. Most of them enlisted because it was
about the only place to get a job or receive the
guarantee of a college education. You, my good
friends, have ALWAYS, through your good works, your
contributions, your activism, your votes, SUPPORTED
these very kids who come from the other side of the
tracks. You NEVER need to be defensive when it comes
to your "support" for the "troops" -- you are the only
ones who have ALWAYS been there for them.

It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose
sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform
-- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops.
Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so,
offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a
tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so
that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed
their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our
place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a
tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here
they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom
have had to suffer under an unjust economic system
that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who
have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of
town, going to the most miserable schools, living in
danger and learning often to go without, watching
their parents struggle to get by and then be
humiliated by a system that is always looking to make
life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their
education, their libraries, their fire and police,
their future.

And then, after this miserable treatment, these young
men and women, instead of coming after US to demand a
more just society, they go and join the army to DEFEND
us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn't
it? They not only deserve our thanks, they deserve a
big piece of the pie that we dine on, those of us who
never have to worry about taking a bullet while we
fret over which Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for
Christmas.

In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in
return from us is our promise that we never send them
into harm's way unless it is for the DEFENSE of our
nation, to protect us from being killed by "the
enemy."

And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has
been broken in the worst way imaginable. We have sent
them into war NOT to defend us, not to protect us, not
to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies. We have
sent them to war so Bush and Company can control the
second largest supply of oil in the world. We have
sent them into war so that the Vice President's
company can bilk the government for billions of
dollars. We have sent them into war based on a lie of
weapons of mass destruction and the lie that Saddam
helped plan 9-11 with Osama bin Laden.

By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is
HE who does not support our troops. It is HE who has
put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is
responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have
now died for NO honest, decent reason whatsoever.

The letters I've received from the friends and
relatives of our kids over there make it clear that
they are sick of this war and they are scared to death
that they may never see their loved ones again. It
breaks my heart to read these letters. I wish there
was something I could do. I wish there was something
we all could do.

Maybe there is. As Christmas approaches (and Hanukkah
begins tonight), I would like to suggest a few things
each of us could do to make the holidays a bit
brighter -- if not safer -- for our troops and their
families back home.

1. Many families of soldiers are hurting financially,
especially those families of reservists and National
Guard who are gone from the full-time jobs ("just one
weekend a month and we'll pay for your college
education!"). You can help them by contacting the
Armed Forces Emergency Relief Funds at
http://www.afrtrust.org/ (ignore the rah-rah military
stuff and remember that this is money that will help
out these families who are living in near-poverty).
Each branch has their own relief fund, and the money
goes to help the soldiers and families with paying for
food and rent, medical and dental expenses, personal
needs when pay is delayed, and funeral expenses. You
can find more ways to support the troops, from buying
groceries for their families to donating your airline
miles so they can get home for a visit, by going here.

2. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by
our bombs and indiscriminate shooting. We must help
protect them and their survivors. You can do so by
supporting the Quakers' drive to provide infant care
kits to Iraqi hospitals—find out more here:
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/relief/default.shtm. You can
also help the people of Iraq by supporting the Iraqi
Red Crescent Society—here’s how to contact them:
http://www.ifrc.org/address/iq.asp, or you can make an
online donation through the International Federation
of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies by going
here:
http://www.ifrc.org/HELPNOW/donate/donate_iraq.asp.

3. With 130,000 American men and women currently in
Iraq, every community in this country has either sent
someone to fight in this war or is home to family
members of someone fighting in this war. Organize care
packages through your local community groups, activist
groups, and churches and send them to these young men
and women. The military no longer accepts packages
addressed to “Any Soldier,” so you’ll have to get
their names first. Figure out who you can help from
your area, and send them books, CDs, games, footballs,
gloves, blankets—anything that may make their extended
(and extended and extended…) stay in Iraq a little
brighter and more comfortable. You can also sponsor
care packages to American troops through the USO:
http://www.usocares.org/.

4. Want to send a soldier a free book or movie? I’ll
start by making mine available for free to any soldier
serving in Iraq. Just send me their name and address
in Iraq (or, if they have already left Iraq, where
they are now) and the first thousand emails I get at
soldiers@michaelmoore.com will receive a free copy of
"Dude..." or a free “Bowling…” DVD.

5. Finally, we all have to redouble our efforts to end
this war and bring the troops home. That's the best
gift we could give them -- get them out of harm's way
ASAP and insist that the U.S. go back to the UN and
have them take over the rebuilding of Iraq (with the
US and Britain funding it, because, well, we have to
pay for our mess). Get involved with your local peace
group—you can find one near where you live by visiting
United for Peace, at: http://www.unitedforpeace.org
and the Vietnam Veterans Against War:
http://www.vvaw.org/contact/. A large demonstration is
being planned for March 20, check here for more
details:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136. To
get a “Bring Them Home Now” bumper sticker or a poster
for your yard, go here:
http://bringthemhomenow.org/yellowribbon_graphics/index.html.
Also, back only anti-war candidates for Congress and
President (Kucinich, Dean, Clark, Sharpton).

I know it feels hopeless. That's how they want us to
feel. Don't give up. We owe it to these kids, the
troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there
and back home so they can help organize the drive to
remove the war profiteers from office next November.

To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents
and spouses and loved ones, we offer to you the
regrets of millions and the promise that we will right
this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for
offering to risk your lives for us. That your life was
put at risk for Bush's greed is a disgrace and a
travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my
lifetime.

Please be safe, come home soon, and know that our
thoughts and prayers are with you during this season
when many of us celebrate the birth of the prince of
"peace."

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

Cheney faces prosecution: report

The LNS posted a news story on this investigation
several months ago. It is still alive.

End the War Profiteering of the Bush Cabal Cronies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941598014.html

Cheney faces prosecution: report
December 21, 2003 - 12:05PM

A French official is examining whether to prosecute US
Vice President Dick Cheney over alleged complicity in
the abuse of corporate assets dating from the time he
was head of the services company Halliburton, the
French newspaper Le Figaro said.

The case stems from a contract by a consortium
including the American company Kellogg, Brown and Root
(KBR), a Halliburton subsidiary, and a French company,
Technip, to supply a gas complex to Nigeria, the
newspaper reported.

A Paris investigating magistrate has been conducting
investigations since October into allegations that
$US180 million ($A243.18 million) was paid in secret
commissions during the late 1990s up to 2002 from
funds established by the consortium in Madeira, the
report said.

Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive between 1995
and 2000.

In a letter to the attorney-general's department,
magistrate Reynaud van Ruymbeke ruled out directly
prosecuting Cheney on a charge of bribing foreign
officials, Le Figaro said.

But the official did not exclude the possibility of
prosecution on the grounds of complicity in misuse of
corporate assets, it added.

©2003 AAP

A 'War' Fought on Half-Truths and Deceptions

Clare Short is one of those brave names scrawled on
the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes. She resigned from the
governmen of the
shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Tony-Blair in
resistance against the
shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Tony-Blair's
complicity in the LIES foisted on us all to provide
the flimsy pretext for the foolish military adventure
in Iraq...Libya? Libya is just something (it has been
a six year process) the _resident didn't screw up (one
of the very few that he didn't screw up) because it
happened to serve his purpose...

Support our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1221-03.htm

Published on Sunday, December 21, 2003 by the
lndependent/UK
A 'War' Fought on Half-Truths and Deceptions
by Clare Short

Christmas could give us time to reflect on, and the
New Year the opportunity to determine, how we might
move forward in Iraq and the Middle East and correct
the terrible mistakes of 2003.

Saddam Hussein has been found in a hole in the ground.
And Colonel Gaddafi's six-year journey to
respectability has reached its culmination. This may
have brought temporary comfort to George Bush and Tony
Blair. But any pretence that this means that the
tactics of their so-called "war on terror" are
succeeding is sadly false. Obviously the news about
Gaddafi is welcome, but it has been a long process,
and suggestions that events in Libya are linked to the
war in Iraq are unfounded. Gaddafi started six years
ago by breaking off his contacts with the IRA. He then
paid compensation for the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher
and moved on to make arrangements for the Lockerbie
trial and the offer of compensation for the victims'
families.

The co-ordination of the Blair-Bush press conferences
on Friday night claiming a big success in the "war on
terror" has a pathetic tone that reflects the Prime
Minister's desperation and the two men's continuing
belief that they can prosecute their "war" with
half-truths and deceptions.

The state in which Saddam was found demonstrates very
clearly that he was not organizing the resistance. The
challenge now is to bring him to trial for all the
evil he has done. This should include the war on Iran,
which would expose the support he received from the US
and the UK as well as the monstrous cruelty inflicted
on his people. Already, there is doubt that the trial
will be properly handled. The Coalition Provisional
Authority - which does not take big decisions without
US guidance - has decided that the crimes of the
Saddam years should be handled by an Iraqi court
without international engagement. This is surely a
mistake. Getting the trial right will be crucial for
the future of Iraq. All the injustice must be exposed
and the perpetrators held to account. In Bosnia and
Rwanda, we have seen how important it is for people to
see the evidence of former dictators being held
accountable for their crimes. The best available model
is surely that of Sierra Leone, which means a court
established under UN authority, with international
support but established within the country in which
the atrocities were committed.

It is also unlikely that the capture of Saddam will
end the resistance. Iraqis are a proud and
nationalistic people. Those who worked for the UN Oil
for Food Programme understood that. It is clear that
the core of the resistance came from the Sunni
heartlands, the group that did well under Saddam and
from which much of the leadership of the army and
security services was drawn. They are joined by a
growing number of Iraqis who feel humiliated or are
seeking revenge for the suffering of their families.
On top of this, we now have foreign fighters. There
was no link between Iraq and al-Qa'ida before the war.
There is now - the suicide bombs are evidence of this.
The Middle East is crowded with angry young people who
believe the US has propped up dictatorships, misused
the region's oil and supported Israel in its constant
breaches of international law, and therefore carries
major responsibility for the oppression and suffering
of the Palestinian people.

Most of these young people would not support the
rhetoric of Osama bin Laden. But they may well be
willing to link with the loose network that is
al-Qa'ida to join in the resistance to American
occupation.

The Shia people of Iraq, who suffered terribly under
Saddam Hussein, have held back in joining the
resistance. Their leadership is clear about how much
they have to gain from democracy. But the question
here is does the US (accompanied by the UK as the
faithful poodle) really want democracy in Iraq? This
would almost certainly mean an anti-American,
anti-Israeli government with half the world's oil
reserves. The US wants an exit strategy, but it also
wants a pro-American government in Iraq.

Both may not be possible. A sustainable exit strategy
requires a US president who understands that he is
unlikely to be able to exit from Iraq or reunite the
world in opposition to al-Qa'ida without a settlement
of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
This could bring benefits to all because a just
settlement of Israel/Palestine could lead to agreement
that all WMD - including Israel's considerable nuclear
capacity - should be removed from the region. Such a
settlement would provide a real opportunity for
democracy and development to spread across the region.

The question is, how will we get to this beneficial
solution? I am afraid that the consequences of the
errors made by Blair in his handling of the Iraq
crisis mean that, as long as he is there, we will have
little influence and he will continue to be taken for
granted by the US and written off by Europe. But the
forces of history won't be stopped, indeed, will
probably grow. Thus Iraq is likely to continue to cost
American lives and an even larger number of terrible
injuries and mental breakdowns - the numbers of which
are being kept very quiet. If the Shia join the
resistance, the situation will become very much more
difficult in the south, and for our own soldiers. And
if all of this goes on, the costs will cause further
resentment in the US; the $87bn (£54bn), which
recently caused trouble with Congress, covered the
costs of less than one year in Iraq. Equally, UK
expenditure in Iraq, while our public finances are
under pressure, could see our public and parliament
begin to chafe at the growing costs to our own
treasury.

The best scenario would be for Howard Dean to be
elected president in 2004 with Wesley Clark as
vice-president. The American people would have voted
for the fastest possible exit from Iraq and a reversal
of the tax cuts to fund a comprehensive health-care
system. By then - if the resistance persists - the
only way out will be to settle Palestine and to
internationalize Iraq.

This means giving the UN the authority it should have
been given at the end of the war. A special
representative of the Secretary-General should be
appointed to consult the Iraqis about the best
possible way of selecting an interim government and a
procedure to draw up a constitution and get to
elections. US and UK troops would be withdrawn and
international - probably blue-helmeted - troops
deployed while urgent action is taken to help Iraq to
build its own army and police force. The IMF, World
Bank, Asian Development Bank and UN system would then
provide support to the interim Iraqi government in
carrying forward economic and social reform. In these
circumstances, Pakistan, Jordan and other Arab and
Muslim countries would be likely to offer forces to
help the Iraqis stabilize their country, and coalition
forces could leave.

The less optimistic scenario for 2004 is that Bush is
elected and Blair limps on. In this case, I fear the
resistance will grow; al-Qa'ida will strengthen;
bitterness and suffering will deepen and the
multilateral system remain weak. But I cannot see how
the present strategy can work, and therefore I hope
and pray that either through the ballot box or an
intelligent understanding of their self-interest, US
policy will change and the world move forward in 2004.

Clare Short was the UK's International Development
Secretary, 1997-2003.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

###

New Developments in Case of U.S. Spying on U.N. Security Council: Former British Cabinet Minister Decries Prosecution of Whistleblower

Institute for Public Accuracy: Referring to Katharine Gun, who worked as a translator at Britain’s super-secret Government Communications Headquarters and now faces up to two years in prison, Benn said Tuesday in a live interview: “When somebody on the basis of moral principle puts their conscience before official secrets, they do society a -- well, they perform an essential function. And I think it does raise the question as to whether if that woman is imprisoned it doesn’t throw doubt on the whole idea of the law being concerned with justice.”
Support the Whistleblowers, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR121703a.htm

December 17, 2003
New Developments in Case of U.S. Spying on U.N. Security Council: Former British Cabinet Minister Decries Prosecution of Whistleblower


Former British cabinet minister Tony Benn has
criticized the prosecution of a woman charged with
violating his country’s Official Secrets Act in
connection with the leaking of a secret memorandum
from the U.S. National Security Agency. The memo
described wiretaps of home and office telephones along
with surveillance of emails of six “swing vote”
delegations from nations with votes on the U.N.
Security Council early this year as the U.S. and
British governments unsuccessfully sought a resolution
authorizing war on Iraq.

Referring to Katharine Gun, who worked as a translator
at Britain’s super-secret Government Communications
Headquarters and now faces up to two years in prison,
Benn said Tuesday in a live interview: “When somebody
on the basis of moral principle puts their conscience
before official secrets, they do society a -- well,
they perform an essential function. And I think it
does raise the question as to whether if that woman is
imprisoned it doesn’t throw doubt on the whole idea of
the law being concerned with justice.”

Benn was appearing on a broadcast of the national U.S.
radio and TV program “Democracy Now.” Also on the
program was Norman Solomon, executive director of the
Institute for Public Accuracy, whose piece in The
Baltimore Sun on Sunday was the first substantive
article about Katharine Gun to appear in the U.S.
press.

The op-ed piece, distributed today by the LA Times -
Washington Post wire service, includes these
observations:

* “The case raises profound questions about democracy
and the public's right to know on both sides of the
Atlantic.”

* The targets of the U.S. spying at the United
Nations were “delegations from six countries
considered to be pivotal -- Mexico, Chile, Angola,
Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan -- for the war
resolution being promoted by the United States and
Britain.”

* “Some analysts cite the uproar from the leaked memo
as a key factor in the U.S.-British failure to get
Security Council approval of a pro-war resolution
before the invasion began in late March.”

* "In this case, Ms. Gun's conscience fully
intersected with the needs of democracy and a free
press. The British and American people had every right
to know that their governments were involved in a
high-stakes dirty tricks campaign at the United
Nations. For democratic societies, a timely flow of
information is the lifeblood of the body politic. As
it happened, the illegal bugging of diplomats from
three continents in Manhattan foreshadowed the
illegality of the war that was to come.”

BULLETIN
Letters of support for Katharine Gun can now be sent
to: kthgun@yahoo.co.uk

Audio of the interview with Benn and Solomon is posted
at:
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/164218

The Baltimore Sun article is posted at:
www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.gun14dec14,0,1102755.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
and www.commondreams.org/views03/1214-07.htm

For more information, contact at the Institute for
Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541)
484-9167

Who was Robert Bartley?

"It's the media, stupid."

Break Up the News Media Monopolies, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03435309.asp

MEDIA
Who was Robert Bartley?
BY DAN KENNEDY
On Tuesday, Brent Staples, a liberal editorial writer
for the New York Times, wrote a tribute to the late
Robert Bartley, the retired editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page. Staples’s brief piece was
similar to others I’d seen in the days since Bartley’s
death. Unable to separate the public person — a
vicious scandalmonger whom Staples politely described
as "thunderous" — from the "quiet, self-effacing man"
he knew personally, he chose to honor the latter and
ignore the former.

But Bartley’s misdeeds should neither be forgotten nor
forgiven. As one of the original lying liars, Bartley
smeared Bill Clinton and his associates for eight
straight years, helping to fuel the right-wing rage
that led to Clinton’s impeachment and near-removal
from office.

The most infamous headline to appear over a
Bartley-era editorial was who is vincent foster? The
editorial, which appeared on June 17, 1993, was an
incoherent jumble. At one point, the editorialist,
presumably Bartley himself, complained that Foster,
deputy White House counsel and a former law partner of
Hillary Clinton’s, had refused to supply the Journal
with a photo of himself.

But Bartley was just getting warmed up. As later
recounted in the American Journalism Review, "Four
more Journal editorials over the next four weeks
played up Foster’s circumstantial connections to
Jackson Stephens, an Arkansas businessman involved in
the BCCI scandal, and the White House travel-office
imbroglio. Foster’s integrity, the editorials
suggested, was very much in doubt."

And on July 20, Foster committed suicide. He left
behind a note. It read in part: "The editors of the
Wall Street Journal lie without consequence."

Not that Bartley ever repented. Indeed, so proud was
he of the Journal editorial page’s incessant coverage
of Whitewater and other so-called Clinton scandals —
none of which, we now know, ever amounted to more than
a speck — that he collected all this garbage in books
and offered them for sale. Bartley’s was a parallel
universe inhabited by the Clinton-hating right. And
for a while, aided by fellow conspiracy theorists and
assorted wackos ranging from the American Spectator to
independent counsel Kenneth Starr, they nearly
succeeded in toppling a presidency.

"There’s a thin line between hard-hitting opinion
journalism and character assassination, a line that
Bartley frequently erased," wrote Jack Shafer in Slate
last week — quite an assessment considering that
Shafer considers himself "a conflicted fan" of
Bartley’s.

In fact, Bartley’s persecution of Clinton was the
culmination of a miserable career. Though credited
with popularizing the supply-side economics of the
Reagan era, his real talent was for whispering darkly
about phony scandals. In 1984, he published a piece by
Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny — on his opinion
pages, not in the news section — suggesting that
Philip Zaccaro, the late father-in-law of that year’s
Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Geraldine
Ferraro, had "connections" to organized crime. Among
other things, Kwitny included a list of questions that
Ferraro and her husband, John Zaccaro, had refused to
answer. At the time that Kwitny’s piece appeared,
Philip Zaccaro had been dead for 12 years.

According to a Washington Post piece on the furor, "In
The Journal’s newsroom some staff members considered
the story ‘an embarrassment,’ as one put it; at other
publications some said it was wrong to raise such
destructive questions without having the answers."
Bartley defended his decision, piously telling the
Post, "I think the voters have a right to decide for
themselves."

Another embarrassment — the wrong word, perhaps, since
Bartley himself never seemed to be embarrassed by
anything — came over his crusade regarding "Yellow
Rain," a poisonous substance that he contended the
Soviet Union used to subdue enemies in Southeast Asia
in the 1970s.

As former Boston Globe columnist David Warsh, on his
Web site, EconomicPrincipals.com, recalls, "The
‘Yellow Rain’ samples proffered by the State
Department turned out to be bee feces, dropped by
swarms during seasonal cleansing flights. No credible
alternative weapon delivery system was ever produced."
But Bartley never retreated.

"Bob Bartley was a corrosive force in American life,"
wrote Warsh. "Almost single-handedly, he made
extremism respectable."

It’s an epitaph for the ages, and one Brent Staples
might consider as he pays final respects to his
soft-spoken friend.

Issue Date: December 19 - 25, 2003

Clark: Bush lacks will to find bin Laden

CNN: Democratic presidential contender Wesley
Clark said Wednesday that President Bush has shown a
lack of will in pursuing al Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden. In a blistering critique of the commander in
chief, Clark said that "capturing Saddam Hussein
doesn't change the fact that Osama bin Laden is still
on the loose."

Support our Soldiers: Elect One, Show Up for Democracy
in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/elec04.prez.clark.bush/index.html

Clark: Bush lacks will to find bin Laden
Democrat says he would have had the al Qaeda chief by
now
Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Posted: 7:00 PM EST (0000
GMT)

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential contender Wesley
Clark said Wednesday that President Bush has shown a
lack of will in pursuing al Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden. In a blistering critique of the commander in
chief, Clark said that "capturing Saddam Hussein
doesn't change the fact that Osama bin Laden is still
on the loose."

"If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin
Laden by this time," Clark said at a news conference
in Concord, New Hampshire, where he was campaigning
for votes in the nation's first primary, January 27.
"I would have followed through on the original
sentiment that the president gave us -- Osama bin
Laden, dead or alive.

"Instead, he executed a bait-and-switch. He took the
priority off Osama bin Laden. He shifted the spotlight
onto Saddam Hussein."

The retired Army four-star general also said that if
Bush questions the patriotism and national security
credentials of Democrats in the coming campaign, he
would not hesitate to match his record against the
president's.

"I'll put my 34 years of defending the United States
of America, and the results that I and my teammates in
the United States armed forces achieved, against his
three years of failed policies any day," said Clark,
who was NATO supreme commander during the 1999 air
campaign in Kosovo.

He added, "We've got a president who will go halfway
around the world for a photo opportunity but won't go
halfway across town for a funeral for an American
serviceman.

"I've been to those funerals. I've comforted families.
... I don't think you can make good policy at the top
if you don't understand the impact at the bottom of
your organization."

Bush has on only two or three occasions met with the
families of fallen servicemen and women, most recently
at Fort Carson, Colorado, and he has not attended
funerals or greeted caskets returning from Iraq.

A senior administration official told The Washington
Post in November, "The president believes funerals are
a time for grieving families to be together and mourn
their loved ones and celebrate their lives, and he has
not felt comfortable intruding on that."

Clark, who returned this week after testifying at the
war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic in The Hague, Netherlands, weighed in on the
case of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Clark said Saddam should be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis,
under standards drawn up by international experts --
with the death penalty as a potential punishment.

"I think that you cannot take the death penalty off
the table. ... It has to be there, to be applied to
war criminals who've used chemical weapons, to those
responsible for genocide," Clark said.

While congratulating U.S. forces for capturing Saddam
from "that snake hole in the ground," Clark said he
"can't understand why the president hasn't devoted the
same energy and resources to going after al Qaeda that
he did to going after Iraq."

"Right now, having captured Saddam, the right course
for the country is to redirect our energies and
capture Osama bin Laden, now. We've got momentum,
now," he said.

"It's a question of presidential will. If the
president will show the will, I'm confident our armed
forces will find a way to take him."

As president, Clark said he also would "insist that
Saudi Arabia take responsibility" and provide
resources and intelligence to help the United States
get bin Laden, including creating a joint U.S.-Saudi
commando unit to root out terrorists.

He said the United States should put "intense
political pressure" on Pakistan to find bin Laden and
move "substantial" U.S. special operations forces and
intelligence personnel from Iraq into Afghanistan.

To free up those assets, Clark said the United States
should end its "fruitless" hunt for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and turn the task over to the
international community.

"I could never understand why we insisted on doing
this anyway, when the international community was
fully willing to participate and do it," he said.

"The experienced U.N. inspectors, who've done it
before ... were champing at the bit, waiting to go
there. We kept them out."

Clark said the hunt could be turned over to
international inspectors because "weapons of mass
destruction are no longer a threat to the United
States, at least not from Iraq. We're there.

"We need to move on -- let the international
inspectors clean out the remnants of this, sort out
the programs, talk to the scientists."

The year democracy ended

Free Press: The Sunday, November 12, 2000 Washington Post, buried
on page A22, the smoking gun of the Bush family’s
CIA-style rigged 'demonstration' election in Florida:
«Something very strange happened on election night to
Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official of
Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county
elections department and found that Al Gore was
leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes.
But when she checked the county’s Web site for an
update half an hour later, she found a startling
development: Gore’s count had dropped by 16,000 votes,
while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up
10,000 ... all because of a single precinct with only
600 voters».

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2158

The year democracy ended


As the year ends, 2003 will be remembered by future
historians as the year the pretense of democracy in
the United States ended. Since the 1940s,
conservatives have accepted the assumption of
economist Joseph Schumpeter that democracy in a mass
society existed of little more than the following: the
adult population could vote; the votes were fairly
counted; and the masses could choose between elites
from one of two parties.

With the most recent revelations about the 2000 Bush
coup in Florida disclosed in the shocking stolen
Diebold memos, the Bush family has signaled that an
authoritarian right-wing dynasty is the future course
for American politics.

The Sunday, November 12, 2000 Washington Post, buried
on page A22, the smoking gun of the Bush family’s
CIA-style rigged 'demonstration' election in Florida:
«Something very strange happened on election night to
Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official of
Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county
elections department and found that Al Gore was
leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes.
But when she checked the county’s Web site for an
update half an hour later, she found a startling
development: Gore’s count had dropped by 16,000 votes,
while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up
10,000 ... all because of a single precinct with only
600 voters».

So it should come as no surprise when the New York
Times headline on July 24 of this year read "Computer
voting is open to easy fraud." The work by Alastair
Thompson at scoop.co.nz and Bev Harris in her
essential new book Black Box Voting reveal not only
that computer voting is open to fraud but that massive
and widespread fraud occurred in the 2000 election.

Moreover, the emboldened Bush administration appears
to have continued its fraud in the 2002 and subsequent
elections. Why not? The investigation by Senator Frank
Church in the 1970s revealed that the U.S. CIA
routinely rigged elections throughout the world and
was involved in overthrowing democracies and
installing dictatorships as needed during the Cold
War. The list is familiar to human rights advocates:
Iran and Guatemala in the 50s; Chile and Greece in the
70s.

Four computer scientists at Rice University and a
separate study by the Security Institute at Johns
Hopkins University document how easy it is to hack
into the Diebold voting machines. Diebold’s CEO Wally
O’Dell is an ardent Bush supporter who recently hosted
a ,000-a-plate fundraiser for the President in his
manor in the affluent Columbus suburb of Upper
Arlington. He is «committed to helping Ohio deliver
its electoral votes to the President next year» while,
at the same time, attempting to contract with the
state of Ohio for his fabulously flawed voting
machines.

And it’s not just Diebold. The largest seller of
computerized voting systems in the U.S. is ES&S, whose
former top exec is now Nebraska’s Republican Senator
Chuck Hagel, who won after ES&S machines reported an
unusual and stunning black vote for him.

The Dallas News reported that early voting in the 2002
election created «…several dozen complaints . . . from
people who said that they selected a Democratic
candidate but that their vote appeared beside the name
of a Republican on the screen».

Recall the six major upsets of Democrats by
Republicans in Georgia in the 2002 election. The
state’s votes were counted on the unreliable and
easily hackable 22,000 Diebold machines. Also during
the 2002 election, where over 1000 votes were cast in
other races, no votes were registered for governor as
Clinton administration Attorney General went down to a
surprisingly 5000 vote loss.

As a result of these obvious voting irregularities,
hackers went into the Diebold system and stole
thousands of documents and internal memos which expose
the 2000 Florida coup. In Harris’ book based on these
documents and interviews with Diebold officials, she
outlines how Gore originally conceded the election
after somebody used a «second [computer] card (card
#3) that mysteriously appeared, subtracted 16,022 from
Al Gore and still in some undefined way, added 4000
erroneous votes to George W. Bush...»

A summary of the 2002 election by scoop.co.nz found
that in 14 races, there was a 3-16 point swing to the
Republican Party after the final poll was taken
providing several stunning upsets. By contrast, in
only two races was there a swing toward the Democratic
Party, between 2-4 points. In three other races, the
pollsters were within the margin of error.

The American people have been socialized into denial.
First about the ruthless and imperialist nature of
their 26 intelligence-gathering agencies including the
CIA and NSA that have been involved in rigging
elections worldwide and the ongoing involvement by
these agencies in American politics. What is obviously
evolved is a praetorian guard, loyal only to the Bush
family, that some call the «shadow government».

Most Americans are intent to stick their heads in the
sand on Bush’s vote-rigging and our troops in the
sands of Iraq. Future historians will record that
while the facts and documentation of the end of
American republic mounted, many believed the babbling
of a low-IQ’ed well-scripted son of the new
aristocracy.

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press
(http://freepress.org), a political science professor,
and author of numerous articles and books.

The Free Press
www.freepress.org

2003-12-17 15:21:00

Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders

San Francisco Chronicle: Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific
organizations issued a new warning this week that
human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants and other industries --
are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than
ever.
Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-01.htm

Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by the San
Francisco Chronicle
Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders
Statement by American Geophysical Union's council
warns temperature change is real and human-caused

by David Perlman

Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific
organizations issued a new warning this week that
human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants and other industries --
are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than
ever.

The statement came from the 28-member council of the
American Geophysical Union, whose 41,000 members
include more than 10,000 experts on the planet's
atmosphere and changing climate.

The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations, together with other human influences
on climate over the past century and those anticipated
for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.


Although the vast majority of climate researchers are
persuaded that the evidence, combined with computer
models, show that global warming is real and
dangerous, a few scientists still hold to the view
that most of the changes are due more to natural
cycles than human-induced causes.

Lead scientist of the organization that circulated the
statement is Robert Dickinson, professor of
atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. Another significant signer was John
Christy, director of the University of Alabama's Earth
Systems Science Center, a more cautious supporter of
the idea that humans are causing climate change.

In a phone interview, Christy said that while he
supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that
human activities are the major cause of the global
warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong
critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions
of huge increases in global temperatures and
tremendous rises in sea levels."

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after
changing forests into cities, turning millions of
acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of
soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending
quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the
natural course of climate change hasn't been increased
in the past century.''

The AGU has issued milder statements on global change
in the past, with more emphasis on theories about
natural changes than on evidence of human- caused
rapid warming. But this statement declared:
"Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural
influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global
near-surface temperatures observed in the second half
of the 20th century."

Although they cannot yet predict the pace of change,
the scientists did declare that since 1900 more than
80 percent of the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon
dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- has been caused
by fossil fuel burning and changes in land use. They
also said that levels of the gas "may be rising faster
than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly
following rare events like impacts from
extraterrestrial objects."

Without specifying numbers, the scientists did make
these predictions: "Mid-continent warming will be
greater than over the oceans, and there will be
greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and
glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both
effects will contribute to higher sea levels. There
will be considerable regional variations in the
resulting impacts.

"The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations, together with other human influences
on climate over the past century and those anticipated
for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."

In a related development, researchers at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts are
reporting that the tropical Atlantic Ocean is much
saltier than it was 50 years ago, according to the
Boston Globe.

Scientists have assumed that global warming would
speed evaporation in parts of the world's oceans but
had no direct way of measuring the change. In the
Woods Hole study, published in the journal Nature,
scientists estimated that tropical evaporation rates
increased 10 percent during the last 15 years.

As a purely scientific organization, the AGU took no
stand on the politics of the international Kyoto
Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which
President Bush has refused to sign.

But the AGU did suggest that continuing scientific
research "provides a basis for mitigating the harmful
effects of global climate change through decreased
human influences." Among the AGU's suggestions:
slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land
management practices and removing carbon from the
atmosphere.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

###

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

Only two candidates, Wesley Clark (D-NATO) and Howard
Dean (D-Jeffords), since Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fraudida)
dropped out, have shown the courage to raise the
dangerous issue of the _resident pre-9/11 failures and
post-9/11 cover-up. It must be kept in the news, it
must be turned against the _resident, the VICE
_resident and the rest of the cabal..In the weeks
ahead, we will see what Tom Kean, 9/11 commission
chairman, is really made of...I do not expect the
expose that is needed, but I hope that they at least
spell out the questions for which the White House
denied them answers. It is an important breakthrough
for someone like Kean to say that 9/11 did not have to
happen and should not have happened. But we have to
hope he spells out why...It was not an intelligence
breakdown, there was plenty of intelligence. It was
(at best) incompetence and negligence in the White
House; at worst, of course, there is the stench of the
PNAC document, wistfully stating that another "Pearl
Harbor" was needed to get PNAC implemented...

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

Only two candidates, Wesley Clark (D-NATO) and Howard
Dean (D-Jeffords), since Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fraudida)
dropped out, have shown the courage to raise the
dangerous issue of the _resident pre-9/11 failures and
post-9/11 cover-up. It must be kept in the news, it
must be turned against the _resident, the VICE
_resident and the rest of the cabal..In the weeks
ahead, we will see what Tom Kean, 9/11 commission
chairman, is really made of...I do not expect the
expose that is needed, but I hope that they at least
spell out the questions for which the White House
denied them answers. It is an important breakthrough
for someone like Kean to say that 9/11 did not have to
happen and should not have happened. But we have to
hope he spells out why...It was not an intelligence
breakdown, there was plenty of intelligence. It was
(at best) incompetence and negligence in the White
House; at worst, of course, there is the stench of the
PNAC document, wistfully stating that another "Pearl
Harbor" was needed to get PNAC implemented...

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/printable589137.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

For the first time, the chairman of the independent
commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is
saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have
been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall
Pinkston. "This is a very, very important part of
history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas
Kean. As you read the report, you're going to have a
pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should
have been done," he said. "This was not something that
had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former
Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing
fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would
certainly not be in the position they were in at that
time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean
said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has
navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena
to gain access to the president's top-secret daily
briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the
most controversial assertions of the Bush
administration – that there was never any thought
given to the idea that terrorists might fly an
airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they
would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked
airplane as a missile," said national security adviser
Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security
advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they
could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records
from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said
Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who
lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the
commission.

The widows want to know why various government
agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such
as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona
about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the
murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one
question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser
said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions
than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people
sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical
day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the
answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony
beginning next month from top officials in the FBI,
CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and,
maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Feedback • Terms of Service • Privacy Statement

Building a War Machine on the Backs of Victims

Consider this appalling disparity: $3 million for the
9/11 investigation, $100 million for the Whitewater
investigation. Please share this outrage with others.

David Potorti: “It’s not a Republican or Democrat thing—this is an open government thing! It’s about what we’re willing to accept as citizens in a democracy. We spent $100 million on Whitewater [Clinton’s pre-presidential financial scandal]. Only $3 million has been spent on investigating September 11! It’s not about ‘getting Bush’—I’m no fan of Bill Clinton either! In a democracy it’s always about us—and what we’re willing to let people get away with.”
Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=795

Building a War Machine on the Backs of Victims
Wednesday 10 December @ 13:20:41
by Lydia Howell

“We all realize that there are bad people out there
and that we have to do something about the real
problem of terrorism. But, we don’t want to do that on
the backs of other innocent people’s mothers and
fathers, sisters and brothers and children around the
world,” strongly states David Potorti, a co-founder of
the anti-war group 9/11 Families For Peaceful
Tomorrows.

“Not because we’re naive dreamers, but because we
realized from a practical, pragmatic point of view
that [Bush’s ‘war on terrorism’] was NOT the way to
solve the problem. That only creates more hatred, more
terrorism, more anger turned back on us.”

David Potorti, author of “September 11th Families for
Peaceful Tomorrows”

Members of this national group all lost loved ones on
September 11. More than two years later, Potorti, his
voice catching, describes watching TV coverage of the
WTC attacks “knowing my brother worked on the 95th
floor, knowing the building was 110 stories. Counting
with my eyes to see where that big gaping hole was—at
the 95th floor ... that’s where my brother would have
been sitting.”

On September 14, 2001, George W. Bush’s speech at the
National Cathedral vowed retaliation on behalf of the
attacks’ victims, referring by name to Manhattan widow
Rita Lasar’s younger brother Abe Zelmanowitz. Her
brother could have easily saved himself (he worked on
the 27th floor), but chose to wait for rescue workers
with a wheelchair-bound co-worker. In his new book,
Potorti quotes Lasar’s horror at the “use [of] my
brother’s heroism as justification to kill innocent
people in a place far away.” She wrote to the New York
Times expressing this strong reaction, shared by
Potorti and others, initiating Peaceful Tomorrows’
formation. There’s no “recruitment” for the group, but
after any media attention more family members join.

Potorti’s book “9/11 Families For Peaceful Tomorrows:
Turning Our Grief Into Action For Peace” is an
eloquent elegy for lost loved ones channeled into a
transformative testimony opposing war. In my view, the
Bush Administration immediately exploited the attacks
for a pre-9/11 neo-conservative agenda, and I felt I
had to shove my sadness aside to organize resistance.

This book made mourning possible—linking 9/11 victims
and people of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the real power
of the book is its vindication of our capacity to draw
on compassion rather than retaliation. Over and over
these stories brought me to tears of both sorrow and
shimmering hope.

During visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, Peaceful
Tomorrows members made leaps across language and
culture, discovering humanity’s common ground in the
basic experiences of love and loss. The empathetic
connections that resulted are inspiring triumphs
standing in stark contrast to the militarized
nationalism propagated daily by the Bush
Administration. An antidote to despair, this book also
energizes hope as it chronicles real alternatives to
retaliation being put into practice by these everyday
people. Although Bush refers to September 11 in almost
every speech he makes, he’s refused to meet with this
anti-war group.

“In September 2002, we had a press conference with
[Ohio] Rep. Dennis Kucinich (The only Democratic
presidential candidate that voted against invading
Iraq). He introduced us and stepped aside—this was
just before the vote on the Iraq war resolution in
Congress,” Potorti says. They received a letter from
Bush’s National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
“It was a pro forma letter, saying ‘The President is
working closely with the U.N., doing whatever he can
to avoid war with Saddam Hussein.’ Pretty cynical and
really not truthful—but it was acknowledgment [of
Peaceful Tomorrows]. She still didn’t address our
concern— which was, STOP using our family members for
war!” They continued to ask to meet with Bush, hoping
recently to go to the Crawford Ranch during a
presidential vacation. Potorti says, “The
denial-letter came, saying ‘The president is too
busy—but, thank you for the support your letter
represents!’— that’s the line I remember!”

In his book, Peaceful Tomorrows, Potorti describes the
investigation of the attacks. A group of September 11
widows calling themselves the Jersey Girls and other
organizations, pressed for the independent commission
currently investigating the attacks far more broadly
(co-chaired by Tom Cain and Lee Hamilton). The
previous Congressional committee only considered
intelligence before the attacks, reported in December
2002. The White House withheld those findings, until
this July and by then 28 pages about Saudi Arabia had
been deleted.

David Potorti, author of “September 11th Families for
Peaceful Tomorrows”

“There would not be [current, broad] investigation
without this small group going to Washington and
demanding it. The president has so much power he can
hide anything, anything politically embarrassing to
him through executive privilege,” Potorti says.

Peaceful Tomorrows is insisting Bush have limited
“executive privilege” and forcing him to release the
next report after 30 days. He refers to leaks to the
media that ‘outed’ a CIA officer married to diplomat
Joe Wilson, who publicly challenged assertions that
Iraq bought nuclear material from Niger. Potorti
scoffed at Bush denials that Administration officials
were not responsible: “It’s not a Republican or
Democrat thing—this is an open government thing! It’s
about what we’re willing to accept as citizens in a
democracy. We spent $100 million on Whitewater
[Clinton’s pre-presidential financial scandal]. Only
$3 million has been spent on investigating September
11! It’s not about ‘getting Bush’—I’m no fan of Bill
Clinton either! In a democracy it’s always about
us—and what we’re willing to let people get away
with.”

“Why no response to the attacks for two hours?
Terrorists ruled the skies for two hours and no jets
were scrambled from nearby bases. Not a slow response.

Why no response?

Not a poor response. No response. No jets were
scrambled until all the attacks were over,” Potorti’s
measured voice crackled with sudden anger. He explains
that this is a total failure of standard operating
procedures when any plane goes off-course, because of
hijacking or other reasons. NORAD—the federal agency
controlling the skies—is required to send jets up
within five minutes. Potorti cites the plane crash
with golfer Payne Stewart, where military jets
responded as required. “How is it possible multiple
planes are hijacked, and within 30 minutes, there’s no
military escort? Forty-five minutes after leaving
Boston, the WTC was hit. Why didn’t George Bush get up
from reading to children when told of the attacks? Why
did Richard Meyers, chair of the Joint Chiefs, spend
40 minutes drinking coffee after the WTC—until the
Pentagon was hit? Bush and Cheney called Tom Daschle
(House Majority Leader) and said ‘we don’t want this
investigated.’ So, Congress only looked at
intelligence before the attacks.”

The new, independent commission will release its
findings next May.

Potorti’s book is a kind of literary quilt, stitching
together the history of Peaceful Tomorrows, rooted in
personal stories, poems, short essays and other
writings by members. Chapters begin with beautiful
quotes aspiring to peace by Martin Luther King Jr.,
Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnamese Buddhist monk,
instrumental in bringing American veterans and
Vietnamese people together to heal from that war),
Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s “Prayer for America,” Sen. Paul
Wellstone and others. Moving black and white
photographs also document Peaceful Tomorrows’ members
in Iraq and Afghanistan meeting with people Portorti
calls “our counterparts”—civilians who’ve lost loved
ones to military violence unleashed by the U.S.
Peaceful Tomorrows members joined the post-9/11
anti-war movement from October 2001 to opposing the
invasion of Iraq. Voices in the Wilderness and its
Nobel Prize nominee Kathy Kelly, who has opposed U.S.
sanctions and bombing of Iraq since 1995, linked up
with Peaceful Tomorrows early; Global Exchange, the
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Fellowship of Reconciliation
and other peace groups followed. Michael Moore donated
proceeds from the New York City premier of “Bowling
For Columbine” to Peaceful Tomorrows.

Like Bush’s refusal to meet with Peaceful Tomorrows,
corporate-owned media usually fail to report their
activities. Potorti observes that the international
press shows regular interest, citing the irony of
Japanese TV covering a New York City press conference
that the Times ignored. That coverage inspired a
delegation of Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors
to contact Peaceful Tomorrows. When the Japanese
delegation toured the United States, calling for
nuclear disarmament, they wanted to go to the WTC site
with Peaceful Tomorrows. Potorti describes that
pilgrimage and how the now-elderly survivors noted the
strange similarities between the destruction in New
York and their memories of 1945 Japan. He relates one
atomic bomb survivor’s story.

“This man lost his whole family. He had to go live
with another family, in a small house, with the other
children resenting him. He felt totally unwanted. This
man hated the U.S. for years,” Potorti’s voice
trembles painfully. “You hear that kind of story 60
years after the fact and you have to ask, what kind of
stories are we creating in Iraq and Afghanistan? Lost
parents. People watching their children die horrible
deaths, sliced in half by cluster bombs [made by
Edina, Minnesota company Alliant Technologies—writer’s
note.] What kind of nightmares are we creating 10
years from now? 20 years from now? 30 years from now?
This stuff doesn’t just end!”

His voice sharpens incredulously. “I always remember
this headline, three days after the fall of
Baghdad—April 2003: ‘Iraq Returning To Normal.’ The
notion that we could drop 14,000 bombs and that
country would return to normal three days later—this
is the level of denial our country is in. That’s a
removal from reality that STILL exists. I would have
thought September 11th would have been enough of a
wake-up call to get us thinking about what life is
like in the rest of the world.”

Potorti’s book is full of powerful stories of 9/11
family-members reaching out to the rest of the world.

Rita Lasar and an Afghani woman embrace and weep
together over the brothers they both lost. Derrill
Bodley, a music teacher, shared songs for his
daughter, Deora, a victim of 9/11, with students at an
Afghanistan girls’ school. Colleen Kelly’s brother
Bill died “randomly” (He was only at the WTC for an
appointment). She describes a family gathering in
Basra, Iraq, where “we sang, we cried, we attempted to
tell stories about our lost loved ones. There was a
palpable human connection that transcended all
boundaries of national identity, culture or religion.”

Potorti’s book has inspired endorsements from famous
dissidents: Vietnam veteran/peace activist Ron Kovic
(immortalized by Tom Cruise in Oliver Stone’s film
“Born On The 4th Of July”) called it “Voices of great
courage, healing and wisdom”; Rep. Barbara Lee
(D-Calif.), the lone vote against war on Afghanistan,
said it “truly honored the memories of their loved
ones by exploring ways to promote peace, rather than
advance war”; Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) concluded
that “no one can speak with a more powerful voice or
with more authority on the need for peace and justice
than Peaceful Tomorrows.” Much has been written about
September 11 from many perspectives, but coming to
terms with it feels impossible without this book’s
redemptive vision.

North Carolina-based writer Portorti acknowledges that
not everyone who lost someone on September 11 feels as
his group does. Describing one widow “with her
husband’s name painted on a bomb dropped on
Afghanistan, thrilled that we were going to drop it on
the people who did this. It probably landed on
somebody’s house and killed somebody elses’ husband!”
Each chapter closes with e-mail responses to Peaceful
Tomorrows—some supportive, some not.

Peaceful Tomorrows has even taken on the most tangled
conflict in the Middle East, meeting with a group
called Israeli/Palestinian Bereaved Families For
Peace. That group created one of the most amazing
actions for peace: A United Nations vigil with over
1,000 coffins, draped in Israeli and Palestinian
flags, each representing those killed on both sides.
It was ignored by American media.

“Itzak Frankenthal’s oldest son was killed by Hamas
nine years ago. He cautioned us about using the word
‘justice’ because for a lot of people war is
justice—like that woman with her husband’s name on the
bomb. But, he’s committed to break the cycle of
violence.” Potorti could be describing Peaceful
Tomorrows’ mission. “Itzak said ‘I’m not going to
cause the deaths of any more people’s children.’ He
said his ‘revenge’ is peace. That’s his way of bombing
people—with love.”

“9/11 Families For Peaceful Tomorrows:Turning Our
Grief Into Action For Peace.” $15 (May Day and Arise!
Bookstores). More information:
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org. Hear a conversation
with David Potorti, Tues., Dec. 23, 9 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
as part of the holiday special “Making Peace on
Earth,” produced/hosted by Lydia Howell, broadcast on
KFAI, 90.3FM Minneapolis 106.7FM St. Paul. Archived
http://www.kfai.org.

Critics: Convicted felons worked for electronic voting companies

Associated Press/San Jose Mercury News: A manufacturer of electronic voting machines has employed at least five convicted felons as managers, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software. Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold Inc., one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions, and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7507193.htm----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Wed, Dec. 17, 2003

Critics: Convicted felons worked for electronic voting companies
RACHEL KONRAD
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - A manufacturer of electronic voting machines has employed at least five convicted felons as managers, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.

Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold Inc., one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions, and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.

The programmer, Jeffrey Dean, wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems Inc. Diebold purchased GES in January 2002.

According to a public court document released before GES hired him, Dean served time in a Washington correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."

"You can't tell me these people passed background tests," Harris, author of "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century," said in a phone interview.

Michael Jacobsen, a spokesman for North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold, emphasized that the company performs background checks on all managers and programmers. He said many GES managers - including Dean - left at the time of the acquisition.

"We can't speak for the hiring process of a company before we acquired it," Jacobsen said. He would not provide further details, saying company policy bars discussion of current or past employees.

The former GES is Diebold's wholly owned subsidiary, Global Election Management Systems, which produces the operating system that touch-screen voting terminals use.

Dean could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced a bill last week that would require stringent background checks on all electronic voting company employees who work with voting software. The bill, which the California Democrat plans to introduce in January, would toughen security standards for voting software and hardware, and require touch-screen terminals to include printers and produce paper backups of vote counts by the 2004 presidential election in November.

Harris and Andy Stephenson, a Democratic candidate for secretary of state in Washington, conducted a 10-day investigation in Seattle and Vancouver, where the men were convicted. Harris and Stephenson released the findings in a 17-page document online and at a news conference in Seattle.

Also Tuesday, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed announced legislation that would require electronic voting machines in Washington to produce a paper trail. If the legislature approves it, touch-screen machines in the state would be required to produce paper receipts by 2006. Voters would get to see but not touch or remove the receipts, which would be kept in a county lock box.

Computer programmers say software bugs, hackers or electrical outages could cause more than 50,000 touch-screen machines used in precincts nationwide to delete or alter votes. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced Nov. 21 that touch-screens in the nation's most populous state must provide paper receipts by 2006.

ON THE NET

http://www.blackboxvoting.com

Contractor served troops dirty food in dirty kitchens

Don't let this scandal be lost in the _resident's new
propaganda campaign, centered on the phoney "capture"
of the phoney "threat to America."

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/14/2003079545
Contractor served troops dirty food in dirty kitchens

AFP , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Dec 14, 2003,Page 7
The Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor
Halliburton-KBR that the food it served to US troops
in Iraq was "dirty," as were as the kitchens it was
served in, NBC News reported on Friday.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root's promises to
improve "have not been followed through," according to
a Pentagon report that warned "serious repercussions
may result" if the contractor did not clean up.

The Pentagon reported finding "blood all over the
floor," "dirty pans," "dirty grills," "dirty salad
bars" and "rotting meats ... and vegetables" in four
of the military messes the company operates in Iraq,
NBC said, citing Pentagon documents.

The report came as President George W. Bush fended off
Pentagon reports that Halliburton-KBR overcharged
US$61 million for gasoline it sold the military in
Iraq. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton for five years until
becoming vice president.

The company feeds 110,000 US and coalition troops
daily at a cost of US$28 per troop per day, NBC said.

The Pentagon found unclean conditions at four
locations in Iraq, including one in Baghdad and two in
Tikrit. Even the mess hall where Bush served troops
their Thanksgiving dinner was dirty in August,
September and October, according to NBC.

This adds up to "a company that arrogantly is
overcharging when they can get away with it and not
providing the quality of service that they agreed to
do," Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of
California, told NBC.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root told NBC that
"hostile conditions" pose special challenges as they
served the 21 million meals so far to the troops at 45
sites in Iraq.

"We have taken quick action to improve," the company
said.
This story has been viewed 8167 times.

Madonna enters the political world by endorsing Wesley Clark.

CNN: The Material Girl has
stepped onto the political stage and endorsed
Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. "I
think he has a good handle on foreign policy, I think
he's good with people, and I think he has a heart and
a consciousness," pop singer Madonna said. "He's
interested in spirituality -- I mean, those things
mean a lot to me."

Support Our Soldiers: Elect One,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The Material Girl has
stepped onto the political stage and endorsed
Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. "I
think he has a good handle on foreign policy, I think
he's good with people, and I think he has a heart and
a consciousness," pop singer Madonna said. "He's
interested in spirituality -- I mean, those things
mean a lot to me."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/elec04.prez.clark.madonna/index.html

Material Girl covers Clark with praise
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Posted: 6:43 PM EST (2343
GMT)

Madonna enters the political world by endorsing Wesley Clark.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The Material Girl has
stepped onto the political stage and endorsed
Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. "I
think he has a good handle on foreign policy, I think
he's good with people, and I think he has a heart and
a consciousness," pop singer Madonna said. "He's
interested in spirituality -- I mean, those things
mean a lot to me."

The singer and children's book author met Clark a few
weeks ago for over an hour. In an interview recorded
last week with CNN's Denise Quan, Madonna said they
discussed his becoming president.

The singer told Quan she had decided to support the
former general and she felt Clark was a natural-born
leader.

"As it stands right now, he's got my support," Madonna
said.

The two were introduced by "Bowling for Columbine"
filmmaker Michael Moore, who was an early supporter of
Clark.

Madonna said she saw a few television interviews with
Clark and wanted to meet with him herself.

"I think to be the general for as long as he's been,
this is a man who knows how to deal with pressure and
make decisions under pressure," Madonna said.

Clark, a retired Army general, was NATO's supreme
commander during the 1999 air war against Yugoslavia.

He testified Monday and Tuesday in the war crimes
trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic,
now held in The Hague. (Full story)

"We're delighted with the endorsement of a superstar
for our four-star," said Matt Bennett, a Clark
campaign spokesman.

Rep. Jim McDermott, who drew headlines across the globe last year for criticizing President Bush while in Baghdad, is enmeshed in a new controversy over remarks he made about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jim McDermott had his name scrawled on the John
O'Neill Wall of Heroes some time ago...Here is another
brave statement from this principled politician,
patriot, and, oh yes, decorated war veteran...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Saddam%20McDermott

Monday, December 15, 2003 · Last updated 4:45 p.m. PT

GOP criticizes McDermott over Saddam comments

By MATTHEW DALY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim McDermott, who drew headlines
across the globe last year for criticizing President Bush while in Baghdad, is enmeshed in a new controversy over remarks he made about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview Monday with Seattle's KIRO-AM Radio,
McDermott said the U.S. military could have found the
former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they
wanted."

Asked by host Dave Ross if he thought the weekend
capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and
said, "Yeah, oh yeah."

McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by
happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

Asked again if he meant to imply the Bush
administration timed the capture for political
reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was
definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've
been in contact with people all along who knew
basically where he was. It was just a matter of time
till they'd find him. "It's funny," McDermott added,
"when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they
have to roll out something."

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's
remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was
engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq war.

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with
his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris
Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to
apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to
let the public know if they agree with McDermott."

Last year, Vance and other Republicans labeled
McDermott "Baghdad Jim," for comments he made, during
a trip to Baghdad, that President Bush "would mislead
the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

On Monday, criticism of McDermott was bipartisan.

"With all due respect to my colleague, that is a
fantasy," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told Ross after
McDermott's comments were aired. "That just is not
right. ... It's one thing to criticize this
administration for having done this war. I mean,
that's a fair question. But to criticize them on the
capture of Saddam, when it's such a big thing to our
troops, is just ridiculous."

McDermott, in a Monday telephone interview with The
Associated Press, called the timing of Saddam's
capture suspicious, but said he did not mean it had
been intentionally delayed.

"Everything was going wrong, and they got a real
Christmas gift, if you will, in that the troops did a
magnificent job and found" Saddam, McDermott said.

Asked again if he thought Bush timed the capture for
political benefit, McDermott said, "All I know is
people have got to be skeptical about what is
happening here, because these (American) kids are
still dying, and as long as that is happening we're in
a world of hurt."

His earlier statements referred to the 12-hour gap
between the time Bush learned of the successful raid
and the announcement by the military the following
day, McDermott said. The delay kept the news about
Saddam out of the Sunday papers.

"It sounded like he knew about it on Saturday, but
didn't release it until Sunday. That had, apparently,
to do with news cycles. That's all I was talking
about," he said.

---

Associated Press Writer Elizabeth M. Gillespie also
contributed to this report.

We Caught The Wrong Guy

Here are some talking points (the only ones you'll need) for the next few days:
1. Saddam did not kill thousands of innocent US citizens on 9/11
2. No WMDs have been found in Iraq (you were told there were tens of thousands of tons of them, you were told they could be delivered in 45 minutes)
3. Over 400 US soldiers have been killed already in Iraq, and many thousands injured, some maimed for life
4. Al-Qaeda, which did kill thousands of innocent US citizens on 9/11 is stronger today than it was a year ago (because the _resident has fed the fire, lost the good will of the world and redirected vital resources to his foolish military adventure in Iraq)

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503A.shtml#

We Caught The Wrong Guy
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 15 December 2003

Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American
federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in
Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the
American federal government. That sounds pretty
deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The
unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at
that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of
them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received
pay from the United States for services rendered.

It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of
Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last
twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times
more during his time as an American employee than the
soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in
the Reagan White House were generous with your tax
dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse
for the better part of a decade.

If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be
watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in
the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled
dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes,
sentenced to several thousand concurrent life
sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The
anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden
futility of their fight to place Hussein back into
power, would lay down their arms and melt back into
the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few
would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and
discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President
would speak with eloquence as the martial score
swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get
off my plane.

The real-world version is certainly not lacking in
drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday
with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final
removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since
1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN
of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim
version of Charles Manson while getting checked for
head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as
anything one might ever see on a television.

Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of
pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector
Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said,
“It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal
dictator who committed terrible crimes against his
people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go
to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to
get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons
have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and
27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s
perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was
captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons
of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue
firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before
they could tell us.”

Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before
March was based upon Hussein’s possession of 26,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin,
1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX
nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver
these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear
bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists
closely associated with Hussein who would take this
stuff and use it against us on the main streets and
back roads of the United States.

When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in
the ground, none of this stuff was down there with
him. The full force of the American military has been
likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is
no evidence of al al Qaeda agents working with
Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to
publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do
with September 11. The Niger uranium story was
debunked last summer.

Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this
stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear
statements from virtually everyone in the Bush
administration squatting on the public record
describing the existence of this stuff looks now like
what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and
outright lies, designed to terrify the American people
into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said
war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of
avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense
Department to play at empire-building, something they
have been craving for more than ten years.

Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons
stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did
his little ‘Mission Accomplished’ strut across the
aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal
of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi
people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of
the “sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda,” as
described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in
February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that
Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11.
Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass
destruction ceased completely. We were, instead,
embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis
dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into
these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his
people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and
to great effect. But a poet once said something about
tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

“We are not fighting for Saddam," said an Iraqi
named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report
from a week ago. "We are fighting for freedom and
because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council
is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries.
We cannot expect that stability in this country will
ever come from them. The principle is based on
religion and tribal loyalties," continued Saleh. "The
religious principle is that we cannot accept to live
with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him,
said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.' We
are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to
rule over us."

Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455
Americans killed there, and the thousands of others
who have been wounded, fell at the hands of
pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush
administration celebrations over this capture will
appear quite silly and premature when the dying
continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are
will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see
no good reason for American forces to remain. After
all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of
Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task
has been completed. Yet American forces are not
leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops
will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad
Saleh. All Hussein’s capture did for Saleh was remove
from the table the idea that he was fighting for the
dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in
earnest.

The dying will continue because America’s presence
in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named
Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin
Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is
happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence
as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush
administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars
on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went
towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought
down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden
and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland.

For all the pomp and circumstance that has
surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator
from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the
United States is not one bit safer now that the man is
in chains.

There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing
in public, because he might start shouting about the
back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of
the American government. Because another former
employee of the American government named Osama is
still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal
danger in Iraq.

Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His
capture means nothing to the safety and security of
the American people. The money we spent to put the bag
on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden,
who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be
happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein
problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem
is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama
fellow we should have been trying to capture this
whole time, remains perched over our door like the
raven.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of
truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international
best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq,"
available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition
is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our
Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in
August from Context Books.

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans

...while the "US mainstream news media" babbles about the capture of Saddam being a Christmas present, consider this...there is a mega-Mogadishu brewing in Iraq...The _resident's foolish military adventure has only made Al-Qaeda stronger and given it a credibility and cache on the Arab Street tha it never would have gained without his blundering assistance...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503C.shtml#

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans
By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Monday 15 December 2003

At a secret meeting, bin Laden's reps give bad news to
the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new
front.

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three
senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret
meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban
commanders.

The confab took place in mid-November in the remote,
Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near
the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found
it easy to operate—frequently even using satellite
phones despite U.S. surveillance.

At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama
bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to
emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive
leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime.
Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large
number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in
Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce
by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan
jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the
sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and
his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for
killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and
neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to
Taliban sources who complain that their own movement
will suffer. (Though certainly not as much as
Washington would like: last week Taliban guerrillas
killed a U.N. census worker in an ambush, and a rocket
struck near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul only hours after
a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) Bin
Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect
battlefield to fight the “American crusaders” and that
the Iraqi insurgency has been “100 percent successful
so far,” according to a Taliban participant at the
mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre
Sharafullah.

Fluent in Arabic, Sharafullah tells NEWSWEEK he
acted as the meeting’s official translator. He has
proved to be a reliable source in previous stories.
Prior to 9/11, he was Mullah Omar’s translator in
face-to-face meetings with bin Laden. And Sharafullah
has translated correspondence between the two leaders.
Another Taliban source separately confirmed that the
meeting occurred, and he corroborated other parts of
Sharafullah’s account.

If true, bin Laden’s shift of focus could be
unsettling news for George W. Bush. The president is
eager to quell the Iraqi insurgency and establish a
democratic, stable Iraq as he heads into the 2004
re-election campaign. Until now, the attacks on
Americans and other Coalition members have come mainly
from local Saddam loyalists rather than an influx of
foreign jihadists. But if the Taliban sources are
correct, bin Laden may be aiming to help turn Iraq
into “the central front” in the war on terror. That is
how Bush himself described Iraq in a September speech,
when he said, “We are fighting that enemy [there]
today so that we do not meet him again on our own
streets.” But the president may be getting more than
he bargained for. With 79 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq
in November—far more than in any previous month—many
Democrats now see Bush’s troubles in Iraq as the
central front in their campaign to unseat him.

Despite bin Laden’s apparently fresh interest in
Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant
evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war.
And U.S. officials who have sought to establish those
links suggest now that Al Qaeda doesn’t have
substantial resources to divert to Iraq. “There just
doesn’t seem to be evidence of that,” says a U.S.
intel official. Asked if Washington believes the
Ramadan meeting took place, CIA spokesman William
Harlow declined to comment.

Sharafullah described the Qaeda-Taliban meeting
while sitting down openly with a NEWSWEEK reporter at
a tea shop in Peshawar’s Kissakhani bazaar. That’s not
unusual: Afghan Taliban officials often move freely in
Pakistani cities despite President Pervez Musharraf’s
vows to crack down. Even Mullah Omar himself, who has
been sought by U.S. forces for two years, may be
operating inside Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid
Karzai told NEWSWEEK in an interview on Nov. 28.
“Mullah Omar was spotted praying in a mosque in Quetta
10 days ago,” Karzai said. “This is the first time I
have said this publicly.” Karzai alleged that Taliban
rebels were getting support in Pakistan—Quetta has
become their main base, he said—and he asked Musharraf
to stop Pakistani Islamic groups from providing
sanctuary. (“It is a lie that Mullah Omar is in
Pakistan,” retorted Pakistan Information Minister
Sheik Rashid Ahmed.)

Sharafullah, smartly dressed in a shalwar kameez,
wool sweater and black boots, said bin Laden was
represented at the Ramadan meeting by three Arabs in
their mid-40s who were armed with new Kalashnikovs and
bedecked in hand grenades. The Arabs informed Mullah
Omar’s two representatives—one a former cabinet
minister and the other a senior Taliban military
commander—that bin Laden believed Al Qaeda had to
widen the scope of its anti-infidel efforts as new
opportunities arose. According to Sharafullah, the
Qaeda representatives quoted bin Laden as saying, “The
spilling of American blood is easy in Iraq. The
Americans are drowning in deep, rising water.” Many
Qaeda men are keen to go to Iraq, bin Laden’s
delegates at the meeting allegedly added, and they
again quoted “the sheik” as saying: “I’m giving men
who are thirsty a chance to drink deeply.”

Bin Laden, they said, had also decided to
“reorganize the distribution of funding” by reducing
Al Qaeda’s monthly payment to the Afghan resistance
from $3 million to $1.5 million, according to
Sharafullah. Bin Laden’s men pointed out that raising
and distributing funds has been complicated by the
U.S. crackdown on jihadi charitable foundations, bank
accounts of terror-related organizations and money
transfers. Nonetheless, bin Laden wanted to “assure”
the Afghan resistance that it would receive the
promised amount. “We will never leave you alone,” the
terror chief allegedly said through his
representatives.

Judging from bin Laden’s taped messages over the
years, his strategy has always been to sap America’s
will and drive U.S. troops out of Arab lands
altogether. While it remains unclear how well bin
Laden is still able to direct or coordinate his
far-flung cells and franchises, the most recent
audiotaped message attributed to him, in October,
calls on young Muslims to fight a holy war in Iraq.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Qaeda
operatives are also heading to Iraq from Europe. Some
key Taliban sources claim there are more than 1,000
Qaeda fighters, military trainers and advisers who
work closely with the Afghan resistance. These sources
say at least one third of these Qaeda militants are
now being sent to the Mideast. Mohammad Amir, a
32-year-old Taliban intelligence agent in Pakistan,
says that of some 350 Qaeda fighters who operated out
of Waziristan, an unregulated tribal area of Pakistan,
nearly one half have already pulled out and headed for
Iraq and neighboring countries.

The Taliban sources paint a portrait of a Qaeda
network that has found new ways to operate, despite a
U.S. dragnet in Central and South Asia. U.S. officials
adamantly deny they have skimped on
resources—intelligence or military—in that region. But
there is evidence that the diversion of U.S. attention
to Iraq has given Al Qaeda some breathing room, and
that U.S. dependence on Pakistani troops and Afghan
warlords is proving inadequate, perhaps even
counter-productive, against the terror network. Over
the past year, NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA and
British intelligence have been at odds over how badly
the Taliban and Al Qaeda were damaged in the region.
“The British were more prone to say the Taliban and Al
Qaeda were coming back,” says a U.S. official who is
privy to intel discussions, and who believes the Bush
administration downplayed the threat in order to
switch its focus to Iraq.

Many Qaeda operatives appear to be traveling to the
Mideast via the long, overland route through Iran. But
the Bush administration, preoccupied with Iraq, has
been reluctant to take a harder line toward Iran over
its role as a terrorist haven. “The Iranians and some
Arab countries like Syria are breathing easier because
the United States is bogged down in Iraq,” says one
—Arab ambassador to Washington. Abdullah Ramezanzadeh,
an Iranian government spokesman, says Tehran is
arresting Qaeda suspects, but he notes that “before we
consider America’s best interests, we have to consider
our own people’s interests.”

Iran is an ideal transit station for Al Qaeda
because it borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to its
west and Iraq and Turkey to its east. Abdul Alkozai, a
portly, black-turbaned Taliban intelligence and
logistical officer along the Pakistani-Afghan border,
says that two months ago bin Laden ordered 24
Qaeda-affiliated Turkish fighters to withdraw from
Waziristan and head home to Turkey, also through Iran.
Bin Laden has also dispatched some of his key senior
aides to the Iraqi front over the past months. Three
months ago he ordered Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, an Iraqi
Baathist who fell out with Saddam in the 1980s and
later became a Qaeda training-camp commander in
Khowst, to leave bin Laden’s hideout in northeastern
Afghanistan and head to Iraq, Taliban sources say.

Mullah omar has been dismayed by the apparent
redirection of Qaeda forces, these same sources say.
According to Sharafullah, bin Laden’s representatives
at the November meeting counseled the Taliban to unite
the Afghan resistance. The Qaeda leader urged the
Taliban to coordinate with the other main anti-U.S.
and anti-Karzai guerrilla outfits, which are run by
Afghan warlords Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Saed Akbar
Agha.

Mullah Omar’s official spokesman, Hamid Agha, denied
to NEWSWEEK in a satellite-telephone interview that
the Taliban had financial or military problems. “We
have enough money to fund our resistance,” he said
from an undisclosed location. The resurgent Taliban
say they have been buoyed by an influx of hundreds of
former Taliban fighters into their ranks over the past
year. Many have rejoined because local warlords allied
with U.S. forces and Karzai have persecuted them in
their villages, both Taliban and U.S. intel sources
say. “These repressive, pro-American warlords have
been our best recruiting tool,” says Rahman Hotaki, a
former Transport Ministry official and now a Taliban
operative in Waziristan. “Warlords are pushing people
to leave the warmth of their blankets at home and join
us in our caves.” Hotaki admits that the departure of
Qaeda trainers will hurt the Taliban. “We need more,
not fewer, Qaeda experts, especially in explosives and
other military technologies,” he says. “We can’t fight
without foreign financial support.” But if bin Laden’s
Taliban allies are to be believed, the Qaeda leader
may no longer be sympathetic to their entreaties. It
appears that he, like his mortal enemy George W. Bush,
may be seeking to make Iraq center stage in the war on
terror.

Who's Really in Charge at the White House?

Vive le France!

Restore the Western Alliance, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1214-02.htm
Published on Sunday, December 14, 2003 by the Toronto
Sun
Who's Really in Charge at the White House?
by Eric Margolis

PARIS -- As I walked along the elegant Quai d'Orsay,
past France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Talleyrand's wonderfully cynical bon mot about
Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghien kept coming
back to me: "Worse than a crime, it was a blunder."

Napoleon's foreign minister could just as well have
been speaking of Iraq.

France repeatedly warned the Bush administration
against invading Iraq. DGSE, the French intelligence
service, had highly placed agents within Saddam
Hussein's regime and informed the U.S. Iraq had no
weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat and
would, if invaded, turn into a second Lebanon or West
Bank.

Warnings by France and other European powers were
sneeringly dismissed by the war's principal
architects, among them U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, whose strategy was based in large part
on disinformation from shady defectors and
self-serving sources.

Pro-invasion Americans hurled insults at France for
impeding Washington's rush to war.

Totally wrong about Iraq, Wolfowitz and fellow
neo-cons are now punishing those who were totally
right.

France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Greece, and China -
and maybe or maybe not Canada - were blacklisted from
$18.6 billion US of "reconstruction" contracts in
Iraq.

The laughable reason: "To protect the essential
security interests of the United States." Albania and
Uzbekistan are approved vendors.

"Reconstruction" is a euphemism for repairing massive
damage inflicted on Iraq, formerly the Arab world's
most developed nation, by a decade of crushing
American-led sanctions and bombing.

French diplomats at the Quai d'Orsay are asking
whatever happened to Colin Powell, who is supposed to
head U.S. foreign policy? Wolfowitz seems to be
running foreign as well as Defense policy now. The
hapless Powell has been demoted to messenger.

Banning staunch allies like France and Germany from
rebuilding Iraq is not only foolishly vindictive and
ham-handed, it is downright stupid, a condition now
epidemic at the Pentagon's highest civilian echelons.

America's affronted allies, facing domestic outrage
over this insult, must now take overt or covert
counter-action, worsening U.S.-European relations.

Ironically, the spiteful ban undermines intense U.S.
efforts to draw Europe into the Iraq mess.

All this could have been done quietly.

Instead, Wolfowitz created an unnecessary
trans-Atlantic fracas that again shows the alarming
diplomatic ineptitude and political crassness of the
Bush administration. Embarrassingly, the American
blacklist was issued just as Bush was calling European
leaders, trying to get them to forgive Iraq's huge
debts. The president was left red-faced. Many wondered
who really was running the administration.

The exclusion of some of America's oldest friends from
Iraq underlines the point that the U.S. invasion was
really motivated by big oil and big business, rather
than the faux war on terrorism or Baghdad's
non-existent unconventional weapons.

Few people realize how important the occupation of
oil-rich Iraq is to America's
military-industrial-petroleum complex, a major
financial backer of Bush and the Republican party.
Defense spending, spurred by the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, will reach $3.1 trillion US over the next
two years - the same amount, in constant dollars, the
U.S. spent on World War II!

Much of this bonanza will go to traditional Defense
contractors. But a growing share will flow to U.S.
firms engaged in privatized military and imperial
functions. Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney's old firm, got
a sweetheart contract to pump and export Iraqi oil.

Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, builds and
runs U.S. military bases in Iraq, and other nations,
supplying food, cleaning, water, sewage and power.

Other little-known firms with close links to the Bush
administration have over 10,000 "civilian" (read
ex-military) contractors in Iraq. They receive
billions of dollars to train Iraq's new U.S.-run
police and army, create security forces, field
mercenary units and "protect" the U.S.-installed
figurehead in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. In fact, a
third of this year's $87 billion allocated for Iraq,
Afghanistan and Central Asia will be spent on U.S.
private military contractors.

For these members of the military-industrial complex,
Iraq is a gold mine. Pentagon plans to create three
major, permanent bases in Iraq and link them to new
U.S. bases in Central Asia - what I call America's
imperial oil route - will guarantee decades of
lucrative work and generous funding for the Republican
party.

The French, who have a long history of knocking off
puppet African rulers who get out of line, have no
great moral qualms about U.S. military intervention in
Iraq, but they view Iraq as a legitimate sphere of
European economic influence. Paris is furious
Washington is elbowing Europe out of this rich market
and stirring up an Islamic hornet's nest against the
West.

There are at least five million impoverished Muslims
in France living on the edge of society, 40% of them
under 20 years of age - fertile ground for unrest and
violence.

Washington may eventually back down over the Iraq
contract dispute. Yet each week, the Bush
administration seems to finds new ways to antagonize,
alienate, and infuriate Europe and the Muslim world.

As a French diplomat observed to me, "Monsieur bin
Laden must be tres content."

Copyright © 2003, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc

###

BuzzFlash.com Talks with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., About His Emile Zola like "J'Accuse" Indictment of the Bush Anti-Environmental Record

Robert Kennedy Jr. in www.buzzflash.com interview: "This, to me, is one of the most alarming things that this Administration is doing -- it’s compromised the scientific process and systematically intimidated, blackballed, fired, muzzled and gagged scientists in every department of government. Scientists who produce science that challenges corporate profit taking, or that might be an obstacle to corporate profit taking, are routinely punished or punished by muzzled or gagged." -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/12/int03325.html

December 15, 2003
INTERVIEW ARCHIVES
Support BuzzFlash

BuzzFlash.com Talks with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., About His Emile Zola like "J'Accuse" Indictment of the Bush Anti-Environmental Record

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

"This, to me, is one of the most alarming things that
this Administration is doing -- it’s compromised the
scientific process and systematically intimidated,
blackballed, fired, muzzled and gagged scientists in
every department of government. Scientists who produce
science that challenges corporate profit taking, or
that might be an obstacle to corporate profit taking,
are routinely punished or punished by muzzled or
gagged." -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

For his entire adult life, Robert F. Kennedy has
fought to protect our environment. In a recent lengthy
commentary in Rolling Stone Magazine, Kennedy issued a
brilliant, impassioned, well-documented indictment of
the Bush administration for its assault on the air,
water, and land owned by all Americans for our common
good.

Kennedy serves as chief prosecuting attorney for the
Hudson Riverkeeper, senior attorney for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and serves as the President
of the Waterkeeper Alliance. He is a clinical
professor and supervising attorney at the
Environmental Litigation Clinic at Pace University
School of Law in New York.

BuzzFlash recently interviewed Kennedy about his case
against the Bush administration's ruinous policies
toward the environment.

* * *

BuzzFlash: Your recent article in Rolling Stone caught
our attention because it’s sort of a modern version of
Emile Zola’s J’Accuse -- in this case, an indictment
of the environmental policies of President George W.
Bush. And toward the end of this rather lengthy
indictment, you ask the question: "Does the government
protect the Commonwealth on behalf of all of the
community members or does it allow wealth and
political clout to steal the commons from the people?"
That seems to be the central crux of the question
about how any administration is dealing with issues of
what belongs to "the American people in common." And
certainly that’s something that applies to the
environment. What is your judgment about the Bush
Administration in terms of how it measures up on that
question?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: One of the central roles of
government from the beginning of the first organized
communities has been protection -- the safeguarding of
the commons on behalf of the public. The commons under
Roman law -- under the Code of Justinian -- were
defined as those things that are not susceptible to
private ownership; in other words, the shared
resources, the air that we breathe, the waterways, the
dune lands, wetlands, wandering animals.

And under Roman law, if you were a citizen of Rome,
the Emperor himself, whether you were humble, noble,
rich or poor, could not stop you from crossing a beach
flowing at an ebb and taking out the fish. Everybody
had a right to use those resources. Nobody had a right
to use them in a way that would diminish or injure
their use and enjoyment by others.

That principle is echoed in the Magna Carta and in the
constitutions of all of our states, through a doctrine
that’s called the Public Trust Doctrine. And it’s at
the heart of our environmental laws. And again, from
the beginning of time, the first acts of tyranny were
to privatize the commons. In fact, the Magna Carta was
passed because of the Battle of Runneymede, which was
precipitated by King John’s efforts to turn the
rivers, the fisheries and the deer over to private
corporations and privileged parties.

Under the Bush Administration, we’re seeing the same
thing that happened in this country during the 1880s
and 1890s, during the Gilded Age, where now -- as then
-- large corporations have an undue influence on
government officials, and where they are literally
stealing things that belong to the public.

One out of every four black children in New York now
has asthma. We don’t know what’s causing the pandemic
itself, but we know that asthma attacks are triggered
by ozone in particulates, and that the primary source
-- about 40 percent of those components of air
pollution -- are coming from 1,100 coal-fire power
plants that were supposed to have been cleaned up 10
years ago.

But the energy industry gave $48 million to President
Bush and the Republican Party during the 2000 race,
and the payback is billions of dollars of relief from
regulations that are meant to protect the commons,
including the Clean Air Acts’ resource performance
standards, which the Bush Administration abandoned
last month. So it’s illegal for those companies to put
those substances into our air, but the Bush
Administration has now said that it is no longer going
to enforce the laws against them.

BuzzFlash: You call this, in your article in Rolling
Stone, "looting the commons."

Kennedy: Let me add one other thing. Yesterday, the
Bush Administration announced that it wasn’t going to
enforce mercury standards. And mercury, you know, is a
potent neurotoxin brain poison. Forty percent of the
mercury emissions in our country are coming from those
same 1,100 power plants, and they have poisoned the
fresh water bodies across America. They’re now 28
states in which it is unsafe to eat any freshwater
fish in the state.

According to the CDC, there are 325,000 children born
each year who have been subjected to such high levels
of mercury in the womb that they are at risk for
permanent brain damage. The Clinton Administration
classified mercury as a toxic substance under the
Clean Air Act, and required the utilities industry to
remove 90 percent of the mercury within three years.
But the Bush Administration has now abandoned that
requirement and adopted a new proposal that will
effectively allow them to discharge mercury forever.

BuzzFlash: How is this happening? You’ve been involved
with the environment throughout your professional
career. You’re an attorney who works on cases trying
to protect the environment. How is the Bush
Administration getting away with what you describe --
in essence, an assault on almost every aspect of the
environment?

Kennedy: There are over 200 major environmental
rollbacks that are now being promoted by the Bush
Administration, and they’re listed on NRDC’s website.
They’re getting away with this because the media isn’t
paying attention. And the reason I say that is that
polling, including the Republican Party polls taken by
Frank Luntz, consistently shows that Americans across
party lines favor strong environmental protection and
strict enforcement of our laws. Republicans and
Democrats favor strengthening our environmental laws
by margins upwards of 75 percent. So the White House
proceeded with an understanding that its
anti-environmental agenda is unpopular with the
American people and has successfully concealed its
agenda through a series of stealth attacks designed to
eviscerate 30 years of environmental law.

NRDC obtained a memo and released it to the press --
from Frank Luntz to the President and to top
Republican leaders -- in which he recommended that
strategy as necessary for preserving the President’s
electoral strength. Luntz says in his memo that the
rollbacks are unpopular with the public, including the
Republican Party stalwarts, and that the science was
against the Republicans on these issues. And he
recommended recruiting industry scientists who would
sow confusion about the science. And he recommended
concealing the anti-environmental actions of the
Administration underneath the mantle of environmental
rhetoric.

BuzzFlash: Can you give examples? The cynically named
"Clear Skies," for instance?

Kennedy: Yes, "The Clear Skies" initiative. The Bush
Administration has followed Luntz’s advice by cloaking
its anti-environmental agenda with deceptively named
initiatives -- for example, "The Healthy Forests Act,"
which was passed Wednesday, is really a way of
reintroducing 1950s-style industrial logging to public
lands that were thought to be protected forever. "The
Clear Skies" Agenda is a bill that guts the Clean Air
Act. Environmentalists called it the Clear Lies
Initiative. And Luntz recommends that, instead of
weakening, that the Republicans use the word
"streamlining," which they do.

The Administration invariably releases news about
these initiatives on Friday afternoons when the press
is sleeping, or on holidays. Over the next several
weeks during the Christmas holiday, you can expect
that we’re going to see a lot more of these
initiatives.

BuzzFlash: The use of science comes off as somewhat
ironic almost from the first week Bush was sworn in.
One of the first issues that came up was global
warming. He said we’re not going to enact any
regulations unless we can first put them through a
"science-based" series of tests. What you’re
suggesting, Robert, as one of the subtitles in the
Rolling Stones commentary states, is that they’re
"cooking the books" scientifically.

Kennedy: Yes. This, to me, is one of the most alarming
things that this Administration is doing -- it’s
compromised the scientific process and systematically
intimidated, blackballed, fired, muzzled and gagged
scientists in every department of government.
Scientists who produce science that challenges
corporate profit taking, or that might be an obstacle
to corporate profit taking, are routinely punished or
punished by muzzled or gagged.

I’ll give you an example. Last year, a Department of
Agriculture scientist produced a series of reports
that showed that discharges from hog factories
operated by big agri-businesses like Smithfield and
Tyson’s Foods, the air emissions from these factories
include, on average, a billion antibiotic-resistant
bacteria every day, which cross property lines and
threaten downwind neighbors and their herds.

I invited this scientist to make a presentation to a
group of farmers and farm activists in Clear Lake,
Iowa last year, to about 1,100 or 1,200 farmers and
farm activists who are fighting agri-business on
factory farms. And the hog industry -- the Pork
Producers Council -- learned a day before he was
supposed to make his presentation to us that he was
going to visit our conference. They contacted the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture ordered him not to appear at the
conference. He later told me that he had been ordered
to not speak at over a dozen events -- mainly
presentations to local county health departments on
his findings. And remember, this is a taxpayer-funded
study. The USDA also ordered him to withdraw the study
and not publish it.

The study is peer-reviewed quality study that was
funded with taxpayer money, but it offended the
industry. And the industry has so much control over
our government officials that the USDA, which is
supposed to be protecting small farmers and rural
communities, has instead become an advocate for big
agri-business and is muzzling its own scientists when
the science shows that agri-business practices are
posing a public health threat. The same Administration
ordered government scientists not to study methal
bromide, another pesticide. They’ve ordered government
scientists not to study mercury. And they’ve muzzled
two scientists within the EPA who were studying
mercury poisoning.

The U.S. Department of Interior has altered a series
of reports on polar bears, trumpeter swans, and
caribou in the Arctic that show that industry
practices are damaging these animals. They’ve done the
same on desert fishes in Arizona, on timber wolves, on
grizzly bears. All of these reports indicated that
corporate activity was threatening the continued
existence of these species. And so the Administration
ordered the science halted.

BuzzFlash: On this specific topic of manipulation of
science, you have a paragraph, about midway through
the article, about global warming, in which you
mention that a report, which had been suppressed by
the Bush Administration, was leaked by dissident EPA
scientists. It showed that a Senate plan co-sponsored
by John McCain could reduce pollution that causes
global warming at a very small cost, and the
Administration basically squashed that. To knock the
leaked study off the radar screen, the Bush
Administration announced it was launching a $100
million, 10-year effort to prove that global
temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally.

Kennedy: Ha.

BuzzFlash: And you say now the delay tactic was done
to benefit the fossil fuel barons. So we had a study
ostensibly that showed really we could reduce the
pollution that causes global warming for very little
cost. The Bush Administration suppresses that. When it
finally is leaked, then they come up with a study
that’s going to waste one-tenth of a billion dollars
to try to prove, over a 10-year period, that it’s all
really due to natural causes.

Kennedy: That’s right. My Rolling Stone piece mentions
12 different major studies on global warming that have
been suppressed or altered by the Bush Administration.
And the President’s father did this same tactic. One
of the studies that this Bush Administration has
suppressed was a 10-year intensive study that was
inaugurated by President Bush’s father when he was
President for the same reason -- to delay action on
what was already a consensus among the world’s
scientists: that global warming exists, and that it’s
caused by the byproducts of our population growth
aided by industrial discharges into our atmosphere.

That report, inaugurated by the original President
Bush, also concluded that this is a crisis that has to
be addressed immediately. That was suppressed, and
then the son has launched another 10-year study. His
intention is transparent -- a continued delay on any
action on global warming gasses.

BuzzFlash: Near the end of the indictment of the Bush
Administration, you make the statement that corporate
capitalists do not want free markets. They want
dependable profits, and their surest route to crush
competition is by controlling the government. You go
on to suggest that what we’ve seen happen in the Bush
Administration is that the industries that are
governed are now basically governing themselves
because Bush has appointed so many industry people to
regulatory jobs. They’ve gone through the revolving
door and end up policing the very industries they’re
coming from.

Kennedy: All of our federal agencies have now been
captured by the industries that they’re intended to
regulate. The head of the Forest Service is a timber
industry lobbyist. The head of our public lands is a
mining industry lobbyist. The chief of staff in the
White House, Andrew Card, was chief counsel to General
Motors and its top lobbyists. And 22 of the top 38
White House officials all have energy industry
pedigrees. We have a president that says that he
doesn’t listen to TV, and he doesn’t get his news from
the newspapers, but gets it from his staff.
Unfortunately, all of his staff are from the energy
industries, and the rest of them have corporate
pedigrees. So they, of course, have a rosy view of
what’s going on in our country, and their opinions
about how our nation ought to work may not always
reflect the best interests of the American public.

I think my concern regarding the increasing control of
government by large corporations should be a central
issue to all Americans. I was raised in a milieu where
I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and
capitalism leads to democracy. But it’s not that
simple. Free-market capitalism definitely democratizes
a country. But corporate crony capitalism is as
antithetical to democracy in America as it is in
Nigeria. And corporate control of government is
fascism. The definition of communism is the control of
business by government. The definition of fascism is
the control of government by business.

A farmer sent me a copy of the American Heritage
Dictionary’s definition of fascism the other day, and
the definition is roughly that the control of
government by large corporations with right-wing
ideologies, driven by bellicose nationalism. That has
a familiar ring these days.

Democracy is fragile. It needs to be nurtured. It
needs to be stewarded. And the free market has to be
protected through government regulation. As I say,
capitalists do not want free markets. They want
profits. And the best way to capture profits -- to
capture a reliable profit stream -- is to get control
of government and use government to crush your
competition.

And that’s what’s happening in this country -- the
free market is being eliminated. And in many of the
major sectors, the free market has already
disappeared. There is no free market left in
agriculture. A farmer can’t raise a pig and get it
slaughtered, and bring it to a stockyard and sell it.
The stockyards are gone. The farmers are out of
business, and hog production and meat production and
chicken production in this country is now controlled
by giant agri-businesses, as is grain production. The
same is true in the energy sector, and in the media --
you’ve got 17,000 news outlets in this country that
are now controlled by 11 corporations. And it’s even
happening on Main Street, where Wal-Mart is coming and
knocking out the Main Street merchants, the small
entrepreneurs. They’re really making American
democracy viable. And it’s a frightening thing for our
country. But we need a free market.

I heard him Jim Hightower the free market is a great
thing. We should try it sometime. We’re losing it in
America. And when we lose the free market -- the free
market democracy, the democracy of the marketplace --
political democracy will fall soon after. And that’s
something all of us should be afraid of.

BuzzFlash: Again, you’ve devoted your life to trying
to keep the environment as pristine and as useable as
possible for the public good. There’s been talk by
some large corporations -- Enron was dabbling in it --
of actually privatizing water rights. Is the public
not seeing what’s happening in terms of the
privatization of the environment?

Kennedy: The privatization is occurring when a coal
company and a utility poison the air that your
children are supposed to be breathing. That’s the
privatization of a public resource. It’s a
privatization of a public resource when General
Electric dumps PCBs into the Hudson River so that
nobody can eat the fish, so it’s illegal to sell the
fish in the marketplace, because those fish were owned
by the public. And they were owned by the commercial
fishermen who utilized that resource for generations
-- for 350 years. But all of a sudden, those fishermen
were put out of business -- the small business
enterprises were put out of business because General
Electric had better lobbyists up in Albany. And they
were able to dump grease the political skids and dump
their PCBs into the Hudson. They made a big profit by
privatizing the commons -- by liquidating a public
asset for cash, which were the fish of the Hudson
River.

And the coal companies and the utilities are
liquidating a public asset for cash, which is the air
that we breathe. And it’s not just that our public
lands are being opened, or that our water systems are
being sold to private companies, but you can privatize
the commons through pollution, because that’s a public
asset that is being essentially reduced to private
control. It’s being stolen from the public through
your actions.

And that’s what’s going on on Capitol Hill. It’s much
more subtle, in most cases, than somebody kind of
outright buying a public water supply. But it’s much
more ubiquitous too. It’s happening everywhere, all
around us, with the things that we always took for
granted -- the air, the water, the fisheries, the
wetlands. All the things that are owned by the public,
such as the aquifers that are the infrastructure to
our quality of life. Those things are being stolen
from us by private corporate entities with political
clout.

BuzzFlash: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., thank you very much
for your time.

Kennedy: Thanks for having me.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Howard Dean’s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years.

www.blackcommentator.com: Howard Dean’s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or who has been President of the United States since Lyndon Johnson’s June 4, 1965 affirmative action address to the graduating class at Howard University.
Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_cover_dean_pf.html

Howard Dean’s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or
who has been President of the United States since
Lyndon Johnson’s June 4, 1965 affirmative action
address to the graduating class at Howard University.

For four decades, the primary political project of the
Republican Party has been to transform itself into the
White Man’s Party. Not only in the Deep South, but
also nationally, the GOP seeks to secure a majority
popular base for corporate governance through coded
appeals to white racism. The success of this GOP
project has been the central fact of American politics
for two generations – reaching its fullest expression
in the Bush presidency. Yet a corporate covenant with
both political parties has prohibited the mere mention
of America’s core contemporary political reality: the
constant, routine mobilization of white voters through
the imagery and language of race.

Last Sunday, Howard Dean broke that covenant:

In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it
in a shameful way – by dividing Americans against one
another, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing
out the worst in people.

They called it the "Southern Strategy," and the
Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon
pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using
phrases like "racial quotas" and "welfare queens" to
convince white Americans that minorities were to blame
for all of America's problems.

The Republican Party would never win elections if they
came out and said their core agenda was about selling
America piece by piece to their campaign contributors
and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated
in the hands of a few.

To distract people from their real agenda, they run
elections based on race, dividing us, instead of
uniting us.
Dean’s Columbia, South Carolina, statement is equal in
political import to Lyndon Johnson’s framing of the
need for affirmative action, in 1965. Prior to
Johnson’s Howard University address, no sitting or
potential President since Reconstruction had drawn the
straight line that connects racism and poverty:

Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes
and many of its cures are the same. But there are
differences – deep, corrosive, obstinate differences –
radiating painful roots into the community, and into
the family, and the nature of the individual.

These differences are not racial differences. They are
solely and simply the consequence of ancient
brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They
are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a
constant reminder of oppression.
A defining moment

Not since Lyndon Johnson vowed to harness the power of
the federal government to redress the historical
grievances of Black America has a potential or sitting
President made such a clear case against racism as a
political and economic instrument – and even Johnson
failed to indict corporate interests, or anyone in
particular, for wielding race as a political weapon.
Howard Dean points the finger straight at executive
boardrooms, and directly implicates members of his own
party in the coded conspiracy.

Every time a politician uses the word "quota," it's
because he'd rather not talk about the real reasons
that we've lost almost 3 million jobs.

Every time a politician complains about affirmative
action in our universities, it's because he'd rather
not talk about the real problems with education in
America – like the fact that here in South Carolina,
only 15% of African Americans have a post-high school
degree.
At Howard University Lyndon Johnson established a
muscular, principled, historically-rooted rationale
for vigorous affirmative action as national public
policy. Johnson then announced “a White House
conference of scholars, and experts, and outstanding
Negro leaders – men [sic] of both races – and
officials of Government at every level. This White
House conference's theme and title will be ‘To Fulfill
These Rights.’”

Johnson spent the better part of the next three and a
half years forcing legislation through Congress to
“fulfill” those rights, as broadly demanded by the
Civil Rights Movement.

Bill Clinton – the ridiculously dubbed “Black”
President – began his 1992 campaign by staging an
ambush of Sister Souljah to impress white males,
dedicated his second term to elimination of “welfare
as we know it,” and ended his tenure with a
purposeless national “conversation on race” that went
nowhere by design.

Howard Dean has taken history in his hands by hitching
his ascendant campaign to a straightforward,
anti-corporate message that does not pander to white
racism. He presents whites in the South and elsewhere
with the only principled choice they should be
offered: to vote their interests, or vote for their
bosses’ interests (if they are lucky enough to have a
job). Although corporate media called Dean’s statement
his “southern strategy,” it is in fact the only
position that holds out any hope for a national
Democratic victory in 2004 – whether enough southern
whites emerge from their racist “false consciousness”
or not.

The December 7 speech is a clear and definitive break
from the lethal grip of the Democratic Leadership
Council, the southern-born, corporate-mouthpiece
faction of the party. The DLC’s favored presidential
candidate is Senator Joe Lieberman, it’s most
illustrious personality is Bill Clinton, and it’s most
prestigious founding member is none other than – Al
Gore.

Gore’s endorsement of Dean should be viewed as
head-swiveling proof of the bankruptcy of the DLC’s
white “swing voter” strategy. The DLC-Emeritus has
effectively jumped ship.

Stay the course

Where does this leave Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich?
Exactly as they are, preaching the same social
democratic, anti-racist, pro-peace message as before,
for as long as their energies can sustain them.
Dean’s political leap would not have been possible in
the absence of Sharpton’s energetic Black candidacy
and Kucinich’s principled, progressive white voice
from the Left. At this historic juncture they dare not
go anywhere. Dean has picked up the torch that
Sharpton and Kucinich have been carrying and they must
stay in the race to make sure he doesn’t set it down.
By persevering in pressing the Left edges of the
Democratic envelope, the “Two Civilized Men” created
the political space for Dean to make his historic
break. Although we cannot expect either candidate to
rejoice in the frontrunner’s actions, Dean’s leftward
march is also their victory over the DLC, and they
must defend it – against Dean himself and his newfound
allies, if need be.

On the anti-war front, Dean continues to waffle on the
nature and length of the Iraq occupation, which makes
him an apologist for American Manifest Destiny.
Kucinich and Sharpton are the only candidates who call
for unequivocal withdrawal. Their job is by no means
over.

Sharpton’s singular mission remains the same as when
he first declared for the presidency: to present
himself as the Black candidate. African Americans are
sophisticated, and understand the value of a
demonstration; many will vote for Sharpton as a way to
make the weight of their electoral presence
unmistakably felt. A substantial proportion of Black
primary voters will choose Sharpton over any white
man, including one with a progressive racial platform
– a good result under present circumstances, and one
we expect in South Carolina, February 3. (South
Carolina Black Rep. James Clyburn has endorsed his
congressional colleague, Dick Gephardt.)

Only two people can shut the window that Howard Dean
threw open for the national Democratic Party, last
Sunday: Dean and Al Sharpton. Dean’s Black advisors,
especially Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., must
caution the former Vermont Governor that their
presence in his camp does not convey Blackness to the
candidate. He must respect and acclimate himself to
Sharpton’s mission.

Sharpton must remember that he is not running for King
of the Blacks, but is essentially acting as the lead
Black organizer in the progressive wing of the
Democratic Party. Dean’s December 7 statement would
certainly not have been written without Sharpton in
the race. That is a great victory of the Sharpton
campaign, one that may shape the future of the nation.

Indeed, Sharpton could have vetted Dean’s speech,
which reads very much like the distilled product of A
More Perfect Union, the book written by Rep. Jackson
and Frank Watkins, Sharpton’s former campaign manager.
The same river runs through it, the historical
currents that also informed Rev. Jesse Jackson’s
speech to South Carolina State University at
Orangeburg, last week.

"The big fight in this state should be trade policy
and the Wal-Martization of our economy," said Jackson,
the local Times and Democrat reported. "The challenge
is to get South Carolina to vote its economic hopes
and not its racial fears." Most low-income Americans
are white and "they work every day. They work at
Wal-Mart without insurance. They work at fast-food
places. They work at hospitals where no job is beneath
them, where they don't have insurance, so they can't
afford to lay in the beds they make…

"The challenge for South Carolina is to move from
racial battleground to economic common ground to moral
high ground."

Those sentiments spring from the Black Political
Consensus. Howard Dean is attempting to get the
Democratic Party – and himself – in step. That’s how
history is made.

With absolute certainty that the corporate media have
thoroughly misreported, mangled and incompetently
framed Howard Dean’s December 7 speech, we have
republished it in full, below.

From the Official Howard Dean Weblog, December 7, 2003

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002565.html

Restoring the American Community

The following remarks as prepared were delivered this
afternoon by Governor Howard Dean in Columbia, South
Carolina:

In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it
in a shameful way – by dividing Americans against one
another, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing
out the worst in people.

They called it the "Southern Strategy," and the
Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon
pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using
phrases like "racial quotas" and "welfare queens" to
convince white Americans that minorities were to blame
for all of America's problems.

The Republican Party would never win elections if they
came out and said their core agenda was about selling
America piece by piece to their campaign contributors
and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated
in the hands of a few.

To distract people from their real agenda, they run
elections based on race, dividing us, instead of
uniting us.

But these politics do worse than that – they fracture
the very soul of who we are as a country.

It was a different Republican president, who 150 years
ago warned, "A house divided cannot stand," and it is
now a different Republican party that has won
elections for the past 30 years by turning us into a
divided nation.

In America, there is nothing black or white about
having to live from one paycheck to the next.

Hunger does not care what color we are.

In America, a conversation between parents about
taking on more debt might be in English or it might be
in Spanish, worrying about making ends meet knows no
racial identity.

Black children and white children all get the flu and
need the doctor. In both the inner city and in small
rural towns, our schools need good teachers.

When I was in medical school in the Bronx, one of my
first ER patients was a 13-year-old African American
girl who had an unwanted pregnancy. When I moved to
Vermont to practice medicine, one of my first ER
patients was a 13-year-old white girl who had an
unwanted pregnancy.

They were bound by their common human experience.

There are no black concerns or white concerns or
Hispanic concerns in America. There are only human
concerns.

Every time a politician uses the word "quota," it's
because he'd rather not talk about the real reasons
that we've lost almost 3 million jobs.

Every time a politician complains about affirmative
action in our universities, it's because he'd rather
not talk about the real problems with education in
America – like the fact that here in South Carolina,
only 15% of African Americans have a post-high school
degree.

When education is suffering in lower-income areas, it
means that we will all pay for more prisons and face
more crime in the future.

When families lack health insurance and are forced to
go to the emergency room when they need a doctor,
medical care becomes more expensive for each of us.

When wealth is concentrated at the very top, when the
middle class is shrinking and the gap between rich and
poor grows as wide as it has been since the Gilded Age
of the 19th Century, our economy cannot sustain
itself.

When wages become stagnant for the majority of
Americans, as they have been for the past two decades,
we will never feel as though we are getting ahead.

When we have the highest level of personal debt in
American history, we are selling off our future, in
order to barely keep our heads above water today.

Today, Americans are working harder, for less money,
with more debt, and less time to spend with our
families and communities.

In the year 2003, in the United States, over 12
million children live in poverty. Nearly 8 million of
them are white. And no matter what race they are, too
many of them will live in poverty all their lives.

And yesterday, there were 3,000 more children without
health care - children of all races. By the end of
today, there will 3,000 more. And by the end of
tomorrow, there will be 3,000 more on top of that.

America can do better than this.

It's time we had a new politics in America – a
politics that refuses to pander to our lowest
prejudices.

Because when white people and black people and brown
people vote together, that's when we make true
progress in this country.

Jobs, health care, education, democracy, and
opportunity. These are the issues that can unite
America.

The politics of the 21st century is going to begin
with our common interests.

If the President tries to divide us by race, we're
going to talk about health care for every American.

If Karl Rove tries to divide us by gender, we're going
to talk about better schools for all of our children.

If large corporate interests try to divide us by
income, we're going to talk about better jobs and
higher wages for every American.

If any politician tries to win an election by turning
America into a battle of us versus them, we're going
to respond with a politics that says that we're all in
this together - that we want to raise our children in
a world in which they are not taught to hate one
another, because our children are not born to hate one
another.

We're going to talk about justice again in this
country, and what an America based on justice should
look like – an America with justice in our tax code,
justice in our health care system, and justice in our
hearts as well as our laws.

We're going to talk about making higher education
available to every young person in every neighborhood
and community in America, because over 95% of people
with a 4-year degree in this country escape poverty.

We're going to talk about rebuilding rural communities
and making sure that rural America can share in the
promise and prosperity of the rest of America.

We're going to talk about investing in more small
businesses instead of subsidizing huge corporations,
because small businesses create 7 out of every 10 jobs
in this country and they don't move their jobs
overseas – and they can help revitalize troubled
communities. We're going to make it easier for
everyone to get a small business loan wherever they
live and whatever the color of their skin.

We're going to talk about rebuilding our schools and
our roads and our public spaces, empowering people to
take pride in their neighborhood and their community
again.

We're going to talk about building prosperity that's
based on more than spending beyond our means, a
prosperity that doesn't force us to choose between
working long hours and raising our children, a
prosperity that doesn't require a mountain of debt to
sustain it, a prosperity that lifts up every one of us
and not just those at the very top.

The politics of race and the politics of fear will be
answered with the promise of community and a message
of hope.

And that's how we're going to win in 2004.

At the Democratic National Convention in 1976,
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan asked, "Are we to be one
people bound together by common spirit sharing in a
common endeavor or will we become a divided nation?"

We are determined to find a way to reach out to
Americans of every background, every race, every
gender and sexual orientation, and bring them – as Dr.
King said – to the same table of brotherhood.

We have great work to do in America. It will take
years. But it will last for generations. And it begins
today, with every one of us here.

Abraham Lincoln said that government of the people, by
the people and for the people shall not perish from
this earth. But this President has forgotten ordinary
people.

That is why it is time for us to join together.
Because it is only a movement of citizens of every
color, every income level, and every background that
can change this country and once again make it live up
to the promise of America.

So, today I ask you to not just join this campaign but
make it your own. This new era of the United States
begins not with me but with you. United together, you
can take back your country.

Wesley Clark calls for transparant trial of Saddam

Of course, there is another way to look at the capture of Saddam, according to LNS foreign correspondent, Dunston Woods...The US military may have just done the exact opposite of what the Bush cabal wanted...They captured Saddam alive...If Saddam were still on the loose, he could be blamed for the guerrilla war in Iraq; alternately, if Saddam had been killed, his head could be held up as a trophy but his lips could not speak any embarrassing truths about the Bush family, Rumsfeld and the others...It is an intriuging perspective...Poignantly, Wesley Clark (D-NATO) was on his way to the Hague, this morning, to testify in the World Court trial of Milosevic, and his statement, calling for a "transparent trial" of Saddam, is compelling and quite possibly LOADED with insider knowledge...Poppy was able to deep-six Manuel Noriega, I doubt Saddam will be so easily removed from the world stage...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=524&e=1&u=/ap/20031214/ap_wo_en_po/eu_pol_netherlands_clark_saddam

Wesley Clark calls for transparant trial of Saddam

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - U.S. presidential candidate Wesley Clark (news - web sites) called Sunday for a transparent trial for captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) that ensured him full legal rights under international law.

The retired general and former NATO (news - web sites) commander said Saddam's capture was welcome news that could have an impact on the anti-coalition insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I hope this will see a diminishing in the violence against American soldiers in Iraq," he told reporters as he arrived in the Netherlands.

Clark did not say who should try Saddam, but said the trial should be conducted with "the highest legal standards. There can be absolutely no doubt about the rights of the accused."

The case "needs to be as public as possible and the evidence needs to be aired and charges brought," he said.

Clark, contesting for the Democratic nomination for president, declined to comment when asked how Saddam's capture could affect the race or the standings of President George W. Bush (news - web sites).

Clark was on his way to The Hague (news - web sites) where he has been summoned to testify in the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites).

He was to appear in closed session before the U.N. tribunal Monday and Tuesday, but at the insistence of the U.S. government publication of his testimony was being delayed until Friday to allow it to be reviewed and edited of comments deemed compromising to U.S. national security.

As the former supreme commander of NATO, Clark led a 78-day bombing campaign in 1999 aimed at expelling Milosevic's Yugoslav forces involved in a bloody crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Clark also had extensive contacts with Milosevic when he served as director of strategy, plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the mid-1990s when the United States was trying to negotiate an end to the war in Bosnia.

(ad/am)

Al Qaeda's Finances Ample, Say Probers Worldwide Failure to Enforce Sanctions Cited

Well, the Bush cabal has come up with a "December
Surprise." It is hard to believe it took this long, if
the story is true. It is hard to believe his poll
numbers are as bad as they must be, if as I suspect,
they have known where Saddam was all along or at least
for awhile and were waiting for *later* in the 2004
election cycle to "bring him in." As predicted in the
LNS, I expected them to trot Saddam and Osama out for
the fall campaign in 2004. Do they also have the Osama
card? And when will they cash that one in? There is a
downside to the capture of Saddam, of course --
unfortunately, the guerilla war being waged against
the US presence is not predicated on allegiance to
Saddam, and sadly it will continue, and with it, the
pointless deaths of US GIs. Meanwhile...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62515-2003Dec13.html

washingtonpost.com
Al Qaeda's Finances Ample, Say Probers Worldwide Failure to Enforce Sanctions Cited

By Douglas Farah
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page A01

Governments around the world are not enforcing global
sanctions designed to stem the flow of money to al
Qaeda and impede the business activity of the
organization's financiers, allowing the terrorist
network to retain formidable financial resources,
according to U.S., European and U.N. investigators.

Several businessmen designated by the United Nations
as terrorist financiers, whose assets were supposed to
have been frozen more than two years ago, continue to
run vast business empires and to travel freely because
most nations are unaware of the sanctions and others
do not enforce them, the investigators said. Several
charities based in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that were
reportedly shut down by the governments there because
of the groups' alleged financial ties to Osama bin
Laden also continue to operate freely, they said.

As a result, al Qaeda continues to receive ample
funding not only to carry out its own plots but also
to finance affiliated terrorist groups and to seek new
weapons, the investigators and terrorism experts said.
A report released this month by a U.N. panel of
experts documented the continued flow of money --
including drug money -- to terrorist organizations and
warned that al Qaeda "has already taken the decision
to use chemical and bioweapons in their forthcoming
attacks. The only constraint they are facing is the
technical complexity to operate them properly and
effectively" -- rather than a lack of means to acquire
them.

"We desperately need to revitalize our effort to choke
off terrorist financing, because until we cut that
off, we have not crippled al Qaeda's ability to attack
us," said one senior U.S. official who monitors
terrorist finances. "We started out well, picked all
the low-hanging fruit, and then, as we have squeezed,
they have simply moved on to different methods."

A separate report released last week by the General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
noted that U.S. law enforcement still has no clear
idea of how terrorists move their money and that the
FBI, which is the lead agency in tracking terrorist
assets, still does not "systematically collect or
analyze" such information. It concluded that the
Justice and Treasury departments have fallen more than
a year behind in developing plans to attack terrorist
financial mechanisms, such as the use of diamonds and
gold to hide assets.

Under the sanctions policy adopted by the United
Nations immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,
individuals designated by the world body as terrorists
or terrorist supporters were to have their assets
frozen and be banned from international travel.

So far, the world body has publicly named 272 people
as sponsors of terrorism.

But U.N. and U.S. officials said they do not know
where more than a handful of those people are, and
only 83 of 191countries have submitted the required
U.N. reports on attacking terrorist financing and
implementing the travel ban. Only a third of those
have given the list to their border guards.

The investigators said some developing nations lack
the resources to comply with the sanctions, while some
wealthier countries do not know of the sanctions or
are hampered by bureaucratic inertia.

U.S. officials said that about $138 million in
terrorist assets have been frozen since the attacks,
and that some steps have been taken to clamp down on
charities and other known terrorist funding
mechanisms. Officials noted the closure of three large
Islamic charities in the United States and an ongoing
investigation of a group of charities and
organizations in Northern Virginia. Numerous alleged
sponsors of terrorism, in the United States and
abroad, have been publicly named.

But the officials acknowledged that al Qaeda, now more
decentralized, needs less money to operate than it did
when bin Laden was supporting training camps and
propping up the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

The U.N. report said $75 million of the $138 million
in frozen assets claimed by the United States belonged
to al Qaeda or the Taliban. The Taliban money, which
was a "substantial" portion, has been turned over to
the new Afghan government.

Illustrating the ineffectiveness of the sanctions
regime, U.S. and U.N. officials said, are the joint
business empires of Yousef Nada and Idris Nasreddin,
which sprawl across Europe and Africa and are worth
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nada, an Egyptian national who lives in Switzerland,
was designated a terrorist financier by the United
Nations on Nov. 9, 2001, and was publicly accused by
U.S. and U.N. officials of providing direct aid to al
Qaeda. Nasreddin, an Eritrean who lives in Italy, was
designated a terrorist supporter on April 24, 2002. At
that time, the assets of more than a dozen of their
joint enterprises were supposed to have been frozen,
and a travel ban was imposed on the pair.

Both men have strongly denied any involvement in
terrorist activities.

But U.S. officials and the U.N. report said that many
of the pair's businesses, including a luxury hotel in
Milan, continue to operate and that both men violate
the travel ban with impunity.

The U.N. panel found that on Jan. 28, Nada traveled
from his home in Campione d'Italia, in Switzerland, to
Vaduz, Liechtenstein, to change the names of two of
the companies that were targets of the asset freeze.

Despite his designated status, he traveled under his
own name and even applied for and received a new
passport shortly before leaving.

In Liechtenstein, Nada sought to liquidate both
renamed companies and listed himself as the
liquidator, a move that would have allowed him to
pocket the proceeds. When U.N. officials discovered
the move and protested, the liquidation was halted.

Lawyers for the two men did not return telephone calls
seeking comment.

Victor Comras, a former State Department official who
helped write the U.N. report, said that, in the
immediate aftermath of the terrorist strikes, the
United States and other countries effectively froze
some terrorist assets, but that the success was
largely limited to halting money in the banking
system.

Once al Qaeda understood the weaknesses and loopholes
in the sanctions regime, Comras said, "money was
quickly moved out of harm's way" by taking it out of
banks and putting it into commodities, such as
diamonds and gold, or into front companies.

"Al Qaeda had assets, and those assets are still
around," Comras said. "They had a number of different
ways to handle the problem, and they are using all of
them."

U.S. and U.N. officials said the lack of enforcement
is especially acute in Europe and Saudi Arabia, and
they expressed dismay that, 27 months after the
terrorist attacks, many countries have done little to
install a legal framework that would make the
sanctions effective. Most lacking in Europe are laws
that would allow the seizure or shutdown of shell
companies, businesses and properties -- not just bank
accounts -- if there is evidence linking them to
terrorism.

Legal issues, including how to confiscate properties
when one owner is a designated terrorist sponsor but
others are not, present another obstacle, officials
said.

"The question is, how do you go after real properties
and not just bank accounts," said Juan C. Zarate, the
Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for
terrorist finance. "These are men of resources, men of
high finance who know how to reformulate their
businesses and how to move money."

U.S. and U.N. officials said that some failures to
effectively implement the sanctions stem in part from
ignorance of the sanctions regime, and that others are
the result of bureaucratic inertia.

"The European Union has very strong regulations
covering money and travel issues in compliance with
the United Nations," one U.N. official said. "One has
to question how some of these governments can justify
not being in compliance with EU regulations."

In addition, the body set up by the European Union to
monitor compliance with the U.N. regulations has only
two people assigned to the enforcement office and has
no real authority.

U.N. and U.S. officials also said another problem is
the ongoing activity of charities that were supposed
to have been shut down.

Several branches of the al Haramain Charitable
Foundation, a Saudi Arabia-based organization that in
the past raised as much as $30 million a year, remain
active, they said. Several offices of the organization
were directly implicated in the financing of al Qaeda,
and in May the Saudi government announced that the
charity had been required to suspend all activities
outside Saudi Arabia.

"Al Haramain is still active in a number of countries
and has just opened a new Islamic school in Jakarta,
Indonesia," the U.N. report said.

The al Haramain office in Saudi Arabia did not respond
to telephone calls, but in the past its leaders denied
any links to terrorism.

U.S. officials said that shutting down al Haramain and
ensuring that other suspected terrorist financiers are
put out of business by Saudi Arabia is at the top of
the two nations' agenda.

Similarly, the U.N. report noted that the al Rashid
Trust, a designated Pakistani charity, "continues its
operation in Pakistan under various names and
partnerships . . . it has continued to be active in
funding al Qaeda-related activities as well as other
social and humanitarian projects."

The investigators also expressed concern about the
alleged activities of Wael Julaidan, a businessman who
helped found al Qaeda and who was designated by the
United Nations on Sept. 6, 2002, as a terrorist
financier.

Until last year, Julaidan was the Saudi chairman of
the Rabita Trust, a Pakistani charity also found by
the United Nations to have funded al Qaeda activities.
U.N. and U.S. officials said Julaidan continues to
work in charities and to handle large sums of money.

A source with direct knowledge of U.S. actions said
the "highest priority of the U.S. government is to get
the Saudis to do what they said [they] would do and
close down what they were supposed to close down." The
source noted that, after agreeing to put him on the
U.N. list, senior Saudi officials publicly denounced
Julaidan's designation.

"Then the Saudis said he was questioned but wouldn't
tell us what he said," the source said. "They said his
assets are frozen, but won't say where. It's like
Humphrey Bogart in 'Casablanca.' They round him up
when the pressure builds and are shocked to find
anything going on."

A senior Saudi official disputed the U.S. and U.N.
accounts of the ongoing activities of al Haramain and
Julaidan.

"Julaidan is not operating," the official said. "His
assets are frozen. Al Haramain cannot spend a penny
outside Saudi Arabia. We are doing what we can."

He added: "If they think al Haramain is doing
something in Indonesia, then it is up to the
government of Indonesia to take action, not Saudi
Arabia."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Both developed and developing countries were already suffering from the greenhouse effect, conference delegates said, pointing to financial losses

Ironically, the international community is awake and motivated to come to grips with the Global Warming crisis, and the US political power establishment, the US media monopolies and the US electorate is still in denial -- AND YET, it is the US economy that has been hit hardest (already) by Global Warming...Who will show the political courage that Clinton-Gore demonstrated on this national security threat?

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/12/2003079269

Global warming is here now, say delegates

FRAGILE PLANET: Both developed and developing countries were already suffering from the greenhouse effect, conference delegates said, pointing to financial losses

AFP , MILAN
Friday, Dec 12, 2003,Page 7
Leaders at a UN conference on climate change, backed
by fresh data from the insurance industry, said on
Wednesday that global warming was already kicking in,
years ahead of most scientific predictions.

But the vehicle designed to combat the threat, the
Kyoto Protocol, remained deep in the mire, awaiting a
clear sign from Russia that it would transform the
draft deal into an international treaty to cut
greenhouse-gas pollution.

The meeting of environment ministers, gathered under
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), heard many delegates say the flurry of
droughts, storms and floods of the past few years
pointed to a planetary weather system that was already
being disrupted.

"Climate change is already having an impact on
mankind, especially in developing countries," said
chief Chinese delegate Liu Jiang, whose country was
hit by catastrophic flooding this year.

"The effects of climate change are already evident,"
said Environment Minister Altero Matteoli of Italy,
current chairman of the EU, which in 2003 suffered its
hottest summer on record.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in an address read to
the meeting, also suggested the first impacts of
global warming could be felt today.

"The heightened frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events and associated natural disasters that
we have seen in recent years -- such as the serious
droughts this summer in India and Europe, and the
storms that devastated parts of North America -- is
consistent with this conclusion," Annan said.

"There is growing concern that this trend is likely to
continue," he said.

According to details from an annual estimate compiled
by re-insurance giant Munich Re, natural disasters,
most of them caused by extreme weather, cost the world
more than US$60 billion this year, up from $55 billion
last year.

Europe's heatwave was the biggest single item, at
US$10 billion in agricultural losses alone, while
flooding on China's Huai and Yangtze rivers cost US$8
billion.

The biggest single insured loss was in the US, where
tornado damage in the Midwest cost insurers US$3
billion, according to the figures, released by the UN
Environment Program.

"Climate change is not a prognosis, it is a reality
that is and will increasingly bring human suffering
and economic hardship," said program chief Klaus
Toepfer.

Evidence that the uncontrol-led burning of fossil
fuels is trapping solar heat, creating the
"greenhouse" effect, has progressively strengthened
over the past decade.

But when, where and how bad the impact would be on the
planet's fragile climate system were unknowns,
according to the usual scientific consensus.

Most projections suggested the first could be felt
perhaps a decade or more from now.

In the past few years, though, more and more
scientists have come to embrace the view that climate
change may have already started.

Others remain unconvinced, insisting that longer-term
data is needed and pointing out that ever-higher
losses can also derive from building more homes in
places exposed to natural disasters.

As for the Kyoto Protocol, Russia on Wednesday left
ministers wondering whether, as it has promised, it
will ratify the pact, therefore pushing it over a
threshold that will turn it into an international
treaty.

Russian delegation chief Aleksander Bedritsky called
for "coordinated efforts from all the international
community" to combat climate change, but made no
reference at all to ratification.

Green groups were outraged that Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi, busy with preparing an EU summit,
failed to show up to give the flagging protocol a
vital push.

Clark blaming Bush for not taking precautions before World Trade Center attacks

Here is Wesley Clark (D-NATO) demostrating political
courage, attacking the _resident on 9/11, what must be
made a central issue of the 2004 election campaign,
while Dick LoseHeart (D-Misery)and unfortunately, Sen.
John Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) waste their money and
damage the Democratic Party as a whole by running
attacks ads on Howard Dean (D-Jeffords) instead.

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/December2003/December_11/News/pol_clark_1211b.asp
Clark blaming Bush for not taking precautions before World Trade Center attacks
By MICHAEL GOOT

Democrat Staff Writer

PORTSMOUTH — Democratic presidential candidate Wesley
Clark is blaming President Bush for not taking the
necessary precautionary steps to prevent the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11.

The retired four-star general had harsh words for the
commander in chief, saying Bush did nothing to address
the problems of al-Qaida being an imminent threat.

At a reception on Tuesday with the employees of the
Pierce Atwood law office at Pease International
Tradeport, Clark said the Bush administration did not
heed the warnings from President Clinton’s national
security adviser Sandy Berger.

"He gave advice to this administration that the
greater threat to national security was Osama bin
Laden," he said.

At the time, the Bush administration was preoccupied
with trying to work with Russian President Vladimir
Putin to scrap the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and
building a weapons defense system.

Clark said the reason why Bush administration
officials are stonewalling attempts to release
documents and information about Sept. 11, is it does
not want any embarrassing details to come to light.

Being commander in chief is more than prancing around
in a flight suit and wearing an military jacket, he
said.

"We all know who did 9-11, but he’s the person who’s
responsible for our defense and our preparations," he
said. "I think leaders should be held accountable."

While meeting with eighth graders from St. Elizabeth
Seton School at the New Castle Public Library later
that afternoon, Clark proposed to clamp down on some
of the country’s biggest polluters like coal-powered
power plants.

He also said he would "put the environmental cop back
on the beat" by restoring Environmental Protection
Agency inspections and personnel to enforce rules. He
would start by stiffening fines for polluters and
doubling fines for repeat offenders.

"We need a president who protects the public’s health,
not polluter’s pocketbooks," he said.

He would also encourage more innovation to come up
with new pollution-control programs. He plans to tell
people the truth about the threats to their
environment.

Clark said he is not concerned about former Vice
President Al Gore’s endorsement of his opponent,
former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

"I’m not concerned with endorsements unless they’re
endorsing me," he said.

When pressed by reporters, Clark said he had also not
ruled out Hillary Clinton as a running mate in 2004.

"She’s fabulous. She’s a good senator," he said. "For
me, it’s too early (to decide a running mate.)"

Clark will be campaigning today at Somersworth High
School, where he will discuss his plan to provide a
college education for every American.

The plan would provide $6,000 per year for the first
two years of full-time college for any student whose
family’s income is below $100,000.

Democrat Staff Writer Michael Goot can be reached at
431-4888, Ext. 5043, or mgoot@fosters.com

Bush Plans Drilling in Untapped Alaska Oil Reserve

If you voted for Ralph Nada, you voted for this...The
craven Senate Democrats, like Tom Duck-It (D-SD) and
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have done litte over the past
two years EXCEPT block the most odious of the
_resident's judicial nominees and block his push to
drill in Anwar. That isn't much, but it is more than
Nada or the Greens have done. The Greens? Please
explain running a Green candidate againt Sen. Paul
Wellstone (D-MN)?

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1213-03.htm

Published on Saturday, December 13, 2003 by Reuters
Bush Plans Drilling in Untapped Alaska Oil Reserve
by Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Across the western Arctic sprawls
an Indiana-sized land mass dotted with lakes,
populated by migratory birds and other wildlife, and
packed with potential oil riches.

The National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPR-A),
wedged between the foothills of the rugged Brooks
Range and the icy Arctic coastline, is about 120 miles
from the better-known Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR).

Teshekpuk Lake, North Slope, Alaska
The BLM may also allow drilling in and around the vast
Teskekpuk Lake, which sits near the Arctic coastline
and is currently off-limits to development. Until now,
its shores were considered too important to birds,
caribou and wildlife to allow oil rigs. (Photo/(c)
1997 Gary Braasch)

The NPR-A was set aside 80 years ago as an energy
storehouse for the U.S. military, but the reserve has
yet to send a barrel of oil to market.

The Bush administration hopes to change that and is
pushing an ambitious strategy for oil development in
the NPR-A as Congress refuses to open drilling in
ANWR.

Plans recently drafted by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) would open vast stretches of the 23
million-acre NPR-A to new oil drilling and relax
environmental restrictions in other areas where leases
already exist.

With oil development expanding west from Prudhoe Bay,
the focus on the petroleum reserve makes sense, said
Henri Bisson, the BLM's Alaska director. "It's just a
natural progression. The time is right for exploration
in the NPR-A," he said.

The BLM wants to open 8.8 million acres in the
reserve's northwestern third to oil development. That
plan would replace specific regulations -- like those
limiting truck travel over the delicate tundra and
restrictions on drilling in rivers and streams -- with
more general guidelines.

The proposal is cheered by industry backers. They have
high hopes for the reserve, which could hold 5.9
billion to 13.2 billion barrels of oil, according to
government estimates.

"The future of our industry and the future of our
state will really lie in the development of the
NPR-A," Mark Huber, vice president of the oil field
service company Doyon Universal Services, said at a
recent Anchorage public hearing.

But environmentalists have a different view.

A 'LEASE EVERYTHING' STRATEGY

"I don't know whether there is a strategy, other than
"lease everything'," said Stan Senner, director of
Alaska Audubon.

Senner's remark comes as the BLM is proposing to
change environmental safeguards in the reserve's
northeast section to match the more general ones
proposed for the northwest. The northeast section is
where companies have leased nearly 1.5 million acres
for exploration during the past four years.

The BLM may also allow drilling in and around the vast
Teskekpuk Lake, which sits near the Arctic coastline
and is currently off-limits to development. Until now,
its shores were considered too important to birds,
caribou and wildlife to allow oil rigs.

Critics say the BLM is caving to companies pushing to
cut costs. They point to the specifics of the new
rules for the northwest section, such as the allowance
for gravel roads and airstrips if they are "necessary
to carry out exploration more economically" and
drilling in rivers or streams if "it is determined
that there is no feasible or prudent alternative."

"Every single thing can be waived for economic
reasons, which makes it all meaningless," said Eleanor
Huffines of The Wilderness Society.

Geology justifies the proposals, BLM's Bisson said.

Beneath Teshekpuk Lake there may be as much as 2.2
billion barrels of oil, he said. It lies within the
same geologic formation that produced most North Slope
oil discoveries.

A strict interpretation of existing rules, including
mandatory buffers around streams, would make it
difficult to extract some of the oil, he said.

"We have more than sufficient protections to steer
away from sensitive areas," Bisson said. "But we also
have the ability to make an exception if there's no
reasonable alternative. I think it's a mistake to go
into a place and just absolutely say, "no
exceptions'."

Industry supporters like the proposed changes.

Clinton-era leasing restrictions were too extreme,
said Larry Houle, executive director of the Alaska
Support Industry Alliance, an oil field service
association. "There was a political agenda being
pushed by the stipulations, and it was an
anti-development agenda," he said.

Houle, who served on a BLM advisory panel, cited some
examples. One rule bars tundra travel unless there is
12 inches of frozen ground and six inches of snow
cover. Another requires three-mile buffers for
waterways. Instead of such prescriptive mandates, he
said, rules should emphasize performance goals.

Companies could abide by existing rules by using such
techniques as directional drilling, but choose not to,
said Anchorage environmental consultant Pamela Miller.

"If they felt the government was going to hold them to
the stipulations, they probably could figure out a way
to do it. But why should they? It's going to cost them
more money," Miller said.

Inupiat Eskimos of the North Slope also are concerned.

If the BLM decides to drop environmental protections,
"I don't think that Nuiqsut or any other village will
support development in NPR-A," said Thomas Napageak,
an elder from Nuiqsut, the Inupiat village on the
reserve's eastern border.

Copyrighjt 2003 Reuters Ltd

###

Bill Clinton rebuilt the Democratic Party in crucial ways. But Howard Dean is rebuilding it in a way Clinton missed. Party insiders would do well to make their peace with it.

Look for Dean (D-Jeffords) to beat Dick LoseHeart (D-Misery) in Iowa, and thrash unfortunately too little too late Sen. John Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) in N.H., meanwhile, Wesley Clark (D-NATO), who is REACHING voters despite the propapunditgandists attempts to caricature him as a "wooden soldier," "spooky," "wound too tight" and/or a "shamless opportunist," to come in second in N.H. and win some states on Super Tuesday and come in a strong second to Dean in the others....At that point, the other "major" contenders will be forced out of the race, and Dean and Clark will show the country how intelligent, principled men can compete head to head without destroying each other's chances (something I guess LoseHeart and Kerry can't understand -- they are spending money on ads attacking Dean instead of Bush). Once Dean and Clark meet in the middle sometime in Febuary, the only question remaining is which one will run at the top of the ticket, it will be Clark-Dean or Dean-Clark...That's the best case scenario...

Show up for Democracy in 2004, Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/1/tomasky-m.html

Is It Time to Believe?
Bill Clinton rebuilt the Democratic Party in crucial ways. But Howard Dean is rebuilding it in a way Clinton missed. Party insiders would do well to make their peace with it.

By Michael Tomasky
Issue Date: 1.1.04
Print Friendly | Email Article

As Democrats in Iowa and beyond prepare to start
voting, we can look back and identify four distinct
phases of this nascent presidential campaign: the
early, we-get-to-know-them phase; the preliminary
nuts-and-bolts phase, concerned with which candidate
hired which professionals; the money-chase phase; and,
most recently, the first winnowing phase, when
observers felt they finally knew enough about the play
of things to start making predictions.
These phases have had their distinct characteristics,
but they have one thing in common: In each of them,
Howard Dean was prematurely and mistakenly written
off. In phase one he was too abrasive; in phase two
he'd hired second-raters; in phase three he couldn't
possibly raise big money; and in the last phase he'd
peaked too early. The reality, instead, is that he and
campaign manager Joe Trippi have run a dazzlingly
brilliant and innovative campaign. Al Gore's
imprimatur or no, he could still be "stopped"—other
candidates in the field have positive attributes, and
voters haven't cast a ballot yet. But Dean just seems
to get stronger every week, challenging not only the
laws of politics but of Isaac Newton himself. Why?

Let's rewind the tape to December1988. the Democratic
Party had hit rock bottom. It had just lost its third
presidential election in a row, and this time with a
candidate who'd been 17 points ahead in the polls as
late as August. The party was riven by ideological
divisions. And it was losing the memory of itself as a
vibrant organism—no Democrat under 35 or so in 1988
had a living memory of a truly successful Democratic
president. Finally, there was no clear "comer" who
could save it, certainly not that gabby governor from
Arkansas who jabbered on and on at the 1988 convention
podium to such an extent that he became a national
curiosity, invited on The Tonight Show to explain
himself (yes, yes: publicity was the point).

It turned out that Bill Clinton was the comer the
party needed. He rebuilt it; indeed, he saved it. But
for the purposes of thinking clearly about the Dean
phenomenon, it's crucial to think about the particular
ways in which Clinton rebuilt the party, and one way
in which he did not.

Clinton rebuilt the party ideologically. He shed it of
some of its more hidebound ways. Whether one agrees
with, say, his support for welfare reform or NAFTA, it
must be said that those moves took some political
courage insofar as there wasn't much of a natural
constituency within the Democratic Party for his
positions. Moving something as large as a political
party off a marker on which it has stood for a
generation or two is no easy thing.

He also rebuilt the party as a fund-raising machine.
This, as we know, has had both its good and its ill
effects. But whatever the downsides, this rebuilding,
too, was necessary. From the stock-market boom to the
exorbitant price of gourmet mustards, the 1990s
culture was about money. Politics was not immune. The
Democrats, always cash-poor compared with the
Republicans—and especially so after losing three
presidential elections in a row—needed to join the
financial big leagues to be able to compete.

But there is one way in which Clinton did not rebuild
the Democratic Party: from the ground up. Beyond
rhetoric, and the occasional action, he didn't really
make it a party of the people. He and Al Gore did
energize a youth vote in 1992, and he made millions of
voters who'd been disaffected feel comfortable voting
Democratic again, bringing important states like New
Jersey back into the Democratic camp.

But he never situated the party as an entity that
represented the aspirations of its people—its most
committed members. Back to Newton: For every action,
there is an equal and opposite reaction. And the
reaction to bringing the party to the center and
allying it more closely with corporate donors was that
the people at the bottom of the totem pole felt a
little detached. (Remember: Fierce loyalty to Clinton
within the party's base didn't really kick into fifth
gear until the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when many
progressives defended Clinton less because of the man
himself than because of what they saw as a functional
coup d'état.)

This is where Howard Dean comes in. If one thinks of
the Democratic Party as rebuilding itself after its
disastrous 1980s, then Dean—or more appropriately,
"Deanism"—is a new and potentially more powerful stage
of the rebuilding process. Clinton rebuilt (forgive
the Marxist terminology, but it happens to fit) the
superstructure. Dean is rebuilding the base. "If
Clinton modernized the message," says Simon Rosenberg,
the most prominent centrist Democrat who's
enthusiastic about Dean, "then Dean is rebuilding the
party. In the '90s party, it was, 'Write us a big
check.' Regular people were left out of that equation.
Now, through new technology, we're getting them back
in."

There's a tricky thing about this rebuilding stage,
though: It excludes party insiders. It has nothing to
do with Washington. It's no wonder that Democratic
insiders, so accustomed to having complete ownership
of a process like a party primary campaign, should
dislike Dean and even fear him: He has stolen the
process right out of their hands. He is not "of" them
in any way, shape or form. In fact, his accumulating
successes merely serve to emphasize their irrelevance
to this rebuilding stage. No wonder they should take a
kind of emotional comfort in writing him off as the
new George McGovern; it's much easier to dismiss a
thorny thing than to come to terms with it.

It isn't clear—yet—that Dean can rebuild the potential
Democratic electorate beyond the party base. But it
isn't clear that he can't, either.

If Deanism was, and is, a natural and entirely logical
part of a larger historical process—there's still a
question: It's the right movement, sure, but is he the
right candidate?

The voters, the process and the man himself will tell
us that in time. Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and John
Edwards would all be perfectly good candidates. Each
has an argument. With regard to Wesley Clark, we can't
quite say yet whether he'd be a good candidate, though
he brings a few qualities to the table whose potential
appeal in November is obvious. And goodness knows, if
any of the above manages to overcome Dean and become
the nominee, he sure will have earned the title.

Unless, that is, he benefited from an insider-driven
process designed to block Dean at all costs. At this
point, after he has amassed the armies of small donors
and bloggers and volunteers, blocking Dean is not
blocking one man. It's blocking the hopes of millions
of Democrats who—understand the importance of
this—would walk through fire for a candidate for the
first time in their lives. That isn't something that
should be done cavalierly; in the long term, blocking
the active participation of these millions may do more
damage to the Democratic Party than four more years of
George W. Bush.

Besides, insurgents do win sometimes. Because the
standard historical analogies to Dean (McGovern, Barry
Goldwater) have now run their course, let me add two
more to the mix. The first is Andrew Jackson—invoked,
significantly, by Dean himself at the Dec. 9
endorsement event with Gore. Say all you want about
1828 being ancient history, but some things are
eternal. Bringing new constituencies into the process
and transforming politics through that infusion is one
of them. Yesterday it was the pamphleteer, today it's
the blogger; but the impulse and the ardor are the
same. Another is Harold Washington. It was impossible,
the experts said, for African Americans to elect a
black mayor in Chicago. Couldn't be done. Well, it
happened. He won the way Jackson did, which is the way
Dean is hoping to.

But ultimately, forget historical analogies. What's
important is not to ponder past Novembers but to focus
hard on this coming one.

Insiders need to start thinking about making their
peace with Deanism. The party—the (still) post-1988
party—needs a rebuilt base, and Dean is doing that in
a way that has no precedent. And instead of fretting
about all the ways Dean could lose, the insiders might
do better to spend some time thinking about how he
might win.

Because he might. It was interesting that, in the wake
of Gore's endorsement of Dean, it was conservative
commentator William Kristol who wrote the column that
most emphatically enumerated Bush's vulnerabilities.
Sure, Kristol may have had his own reasons for arguing
that Dean is competitive, but the facts of Bush's weak
points are real. He has the powers of incumbency,
money and a feared (actually, overly feared) political
operation. But his numbers are soft. Gore's 2000
states plus Ohio or Arizona is a long, long way from
being an impossible task—for Dean or for any of the
aforementioned.

So let the race begin. And expect the impossible. It
happens often.

Michael Tomasky
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc.
Preferred Citation: Michael Tomasky, "Is It Time to
Believe?," The American Prospect vol. 15 no. 1,
January 1, 2004 . This article may not be resold,
reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any
kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to
permissions@prospect.org.

Plame's leaker / Lack of progress calls for an independent counsel

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial: Given the failure of the Justice Department to produce results in its investigation -- not even a grand jury subpoena so far -- we now recommend that an independent counsel be appointed, and that the Justice Department be required to turn over any information that has been found so far.
Protect Whistleblowers from Bush Cabal Retribution,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03346/250311.stm

Editorial: Plame's leaker / Lack of progress calls for an independent counsel

Friday, December 12, 2003

There is no indication that the Justice Department has
made any progress in determining which Bush
administration official blew the cover of CIA
operative Valerie Plame five months ago.

This, in spite of President Bush's assignment of the
task to senior professionals at the department in
September, although he added publicly Oct. 7 that he
didn't know if the employee would be found out.

What someone in the administration is alleged to have
done is a federal crime, a violation of the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act, punishable by
up to 10 years in prison. The law, passed during the
administration of President Reagan, is intended to
protect the identities and lives of covert agents such
as Ms. Plame as they carry out espionage on behalf of
the United States overseas.

The leak was seen as revenge against Ms. Plame for a
revelation made by her husband, retired U.S.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He stated that the
administration had been told, after an investigation
he had carried out in Africa, that intelligence
stating that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger
was false.

Mr. Bush had nonetheless used the false information in
his 2003 State of the Union address to support his
contention that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear
weapons, a basis for the U.S. war against Iraq.

It is hard to believe that information supporting or
refuting the charge of a senior administration leak
isn't out there. Apart from syndicated columnist
Robert Novak, who put Ms. Plame's name in print,
reporters from ABC, NBC, Time and Newsday also have
been cited as having been leaked the information by
presidential political counselor Karl Rove.

When the matter first surfaced, this paper advocated
putting the investigation first in the hands of
nonpolitical Justice officials. Some members of
Congress were calling for the appointment of a special
independent counsel, given the possible conflict of
interest created by a Justice Department headed by
Attorney General John Ashcroft and the alleged
involvement in the affair of Mr. Rove, an Ashcroft
godfather.

Given the failure of the Justice Department to produce
results in its investigation -- not even a grand jury
subpoena so far -- we now recommend that an
independent counsel be appointed, and that the Justice
Department be required to turn over any information
that has been found so far.

It's clear now that Mr. Bush's underlings heard his
Oct. 7 message. The word in Washington today is that,
indeed, the administration official won't be found.

That is unacceptable in terms of the implications for
America's intelligence officers working in dangerous
circumstances overseas. It must not be allowed to
stand.

George Soros: A Lot of Name-Calling About My Donations

Most Americans still do not know who Richard Scaife is
or how much he has done to undermine free press and
our political system with his bankrolling of the "vast
reich-wing conspiracy" (read Blinded By the Right" by
David Brock or "Hunting of the President" by Gene
Lyonsand Joe Conason for corroboration). But why
doesn't the American electorate know? Because instead
of educating the public about Scaife and where he
money was going, the "US mainstream media" chose to
mock then First Lady now Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton for calling it what it is -- a
conspiracy...Now, of course, the American electorate
is going to hear a lot about George Soros, who is
contributing tens of millions of dollars to defeat the
_resident, but most of what they hear will be fed to
them by that very real "vast reich-wing conspiracy."
Take a few moments to read the noble Soros response...
George Soros under attack: Rather than a debate on the issues, there has been a lot of name-calling about my donations by such organizations as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups that I support and to intimidate other donors, those organizations imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law.
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-04.htm

Published on Friday, December 12, 2003 by the Miami
Herald
A Lot of Name-Calling About My Donations
by George Soros

Many other wealthy Americans and I are contributing
millions of dollars to grass-roots organizations
engaged in the 2004 presidential election. We are
deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush
administration is taking the United States and the
world.

If voters reject the president's policies, America can
write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration
and resume its rightful place in the world. But if
they endorse those policies, the United States shall
have to live with the hostility of the world and
endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence.

In this effort, I have committed $10 million to
America Coming Together, a grass-roots,
get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million to the
MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy
group that is airing advertisements to highlight the
administration's misdeeds. This is a pittance in
comparison with money raised and spent by U.S.
conservative groups.

Rather than a debate on the issues, there has been a
lot of name-calling about my donations by such
organizations as the Republican National Committee and
the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint
the groups that I support and to intimidate other
donors, those organizations imply that my
contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow
broken the law.

I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the
spirit of the law. Both America Coming Together and
the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are organizations that,
according to a specific reference in the U.S. tax
code, are entitled to receive unlimited contributions
from individuals. Both groups are fully transparent
about their motives and activities. Both file detailed
and frequent reports with government regulators.

The most recent campaign-finance law attempts to limit
the influence that special interests can gain by
financing candidates and so level the playing field
between the Republican and Democratic parties. My
contributions are made in that spirit.

President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage
because he has figured out a clever way to raise
money. He relies on donors he calls Pioneers, who
collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in
increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000
that any individual can give; and on those he calls
Rangers, who collect at least $200,000.

Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate
officials who are well situated to raise funds from
their business associates, bundle them together and
pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper
''credit'' to each individual donor of $2,000. Thus
they are buying the same level of access and influence
for their corporate interests that they previously
obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the
help of these Pioneers and Rangers, Bush is on track
to collect $200 million.

To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this
strategy, I have contributed to independent
organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate
their activities with the political parties or
candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the
ability to purchase influence in exchange for my
contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence.
My contributions are made in what I believe to be the
common interest. ACT is working to register voters,
and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the
national debate over Bush's policies.

I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish
that there were a different way to level the playing
field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org
Voter Fund is the best approach that I have found. I
have been an advocate of campaign-finance reform for
almost a decade, including the legal defense of the
current legislation. I recognize that every new
regulation has unintended adverse consequences, but
this does not mean that reform should be abandoned.

Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of
the 2004 experience. Some good proposals have already
surfaced, including one from the major sponsors of the
current campaign-finance legislation. This bill should
be supported.

Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the
federal match for small contributions and would raise
the spending limit for candidates who accept public
funding to $75 million -- changes that would reduce
the bias toward big-money donors. Free airtime for
candidates is also important. This would reduce the
cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of
commercials.

George Soros is chairman of Soros Management Fund.

Copyright 1996-2003 Knight Ridder

911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The President Of The United States

Just for the record...Ellen Mariani's open letter for
the _resident...

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5307.htm

911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The President Of The United States

Thursday, 27 November 2003

Mr. Bush,

This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want
you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a
Democrat and that this is not an attempt to ''bash the
Government''.

You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for
any and all acts that were committed to aid in any
"cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
As President you have a duty to protect the American
people. On September 11th you did not instruct your
staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to
advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive
the news of the attacks via the news networks.

In the months leading up to the attacks you were
repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American
soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you
were given information that had been uncovered that
the very real possibility existed that certain
undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to
destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned
the American people of this possible threat. Who were
you protecting?

When you took no responsibility towards protecting the
general public from the possibility of attack, you
were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when
you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold
the Constitution of the United States of America.

On the morning of the attack, you and members of your
staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you
chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary
School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo
op". While our nation was under attack you did not
appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued
on as if everything was "business as usual".

In the days following the attacks all air traffic was
grounded and Americans, including myself, were
stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban
was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in
Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my
daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later
found out that during this "no fly" period a number of
people were flown out of the country on a 747 with
Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people
were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or
Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and
who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact
that some of the people on the flight were members of
(or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and
members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people
allowed to leave because of the long-standing
relationships that your family has with both families?

It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to
happen to gather public support for a "war on
terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have
not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why
have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? All that has
happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for
87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown
to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the
"war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who
were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops
have and will continue to die for your lies. As an
American I can make this statement as it appears that
associates of your family may stand to prosper from
the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your
control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain
evidence and documents that were discovered by the
9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to
hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the
attacks of 9/11. Your reason for not releasing this
material is that it is a matter of "national
security". When in fact I believe that it is your
personal credibility/security that you are concerned
with. You do not want the public to know the full
extent of your responsibility and involvement.

After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act
were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap
your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever
they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this
without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that
this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated
in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers
to the following questions:

1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report
personally censored at your request?

2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and
Flight 175?

3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and
Flight 175?

4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air
traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show
the passengers boarding the doomed flights?

6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the
flights be released?

7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida)
go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and
order that flight records and files be removed? These
files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane
and flown out of the country. Where were they taken
and who ordered it done?

It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost
loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified
and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill.
We want our heroes brought back and given a public and
proud resting place where we all can pay our respects
and honor them. These innocent people never had a
chance as they were taken from us on that sad
September Day.

In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are
being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other
victims and their families and our nation as a whole,
has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to
and after 9/11!

I will prove this in a court of law!

Ellen M. Mariani

Global warming is killing us too, say Inuit

Well, since the RICO suit filed by 9/11 Ellen Mariani has fallen on deaf ears in the "US mainstream news media," I doubt the Inuits' compelling, poignant law suit will reach the air waves or the front pages either...But at least the best
newspaper in America, the UK Guardian, has given it appropriate coverage...

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1104241,00.html

Global warming is killing us too, say Inuit

Paul Brown in Milan
Thursday December 11, 2003
The Guardian

The Inuit people of Canada and Alaska are launching a
human rights case against the Bush administration
claiming they face extinction because of global
warming. By repudiating the Kyoto protocol and
refusing to cut US carbon dioxide emissions, which
make up 25% of the world's total, Washington is
violating their human rights, the Inuit claim.

For their campaign they are inviting the
Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights to visit the Arctic circle to see the
devastation being caused by global warming.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit
Circumpolar Conference, which represents all 155,000
of her people inside the Arctic circle, said: "We want
to show that we are not powerless victims. These are
drastic times for our people and require drastic
measures."

The human rights case was announced at the climate
talks in Milan, Italy, where 140 countries are trying
to put the finishing touches to the Kyoto protocol,
the first international agreement to reduce greenhouse
gases. The backing of Russia, which is hesitating
about ratifying the agreement, is required to bring
the protocol into force. The US is trying to persuade
the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, not to sign the
protocol.

The Inuit have no voice at the conference, since they
are not a nation state, but Mrs Watt-Cloutier said:
"We are already bearing the brunt of climate change -
without our snow and ice our way of life goes. We have
lived in harmony with our surroundings for millennia,
but that is being taken away from us.

"People worry about the polar bear becoming extinct by
2070 because there will be no ice from which they can
hunt seals, but the Inuit face extinction for the same
reason and at the same time.

"This a David and Goliath story. Most people have lost
contact with the natural world. They even think global
warming has benefits, like wearing a T-shirt in
November, but we know the planet is melting and with
it our vibrant culture, our way of life. We are an
endangered species, too."

Mrs Watt-Cloutier comes from Pangirtung, north of
Iqaluit, in Canada. The entire area should already be
ice-bound, and winter hunting would normally have
begun, but in Frobisher Bay, the home of both polar
bears and Inuit, the water is still clear. "We now
have weeks of uncertainty about when the ice will
come," she said. "In the spring the ice melts not at
the end of June but weeks earlier. Sometimes the ice
is so thin hunters fall through.

"The ocean is too warm. Our elders, who instruct the
young on the ways of the winter and what to expect,
are at a loss. Last Christmas after the ice had formed
the temperature rose to 4C [39F] and it rained. We'd
never known it before."

Among the problems the Inuit face is permafrost
melting, which has destroyed the foundations of
houses, eroded the seashore and forced people to move
inland. Airport runways, roads and harbours are also
collapsing.

The Washington-based commission, which is the
Americas' equivalent of the European court of human
rights, will be asked to rule against the US
government but has no power to enforce any action.
However, the Inuit believe the publicity the case will
provide, particularly with hearings in Washington,
will embarrass George Bush's government and educate US
public opinion about the consequences of profligate
ways of living.

"Europeans understand this issue but in America the
public know little or nothing and politicians are in
denial," Mrs Watt-Cloutier said. "We are hunters and
we are trained to go for the heart. The heart of the
problem is in Washington."

She hoped that by winning the case Inuit would win a
voice at climate talks. "The Inuit people see me as
one of the leaders, with the same status as the
ministers here. As a nation we are badly affected by
climate change, but in these negotiations we have no
voice.

"We intend to get one so our representative can sit
round the table with other ministers and demand action
to save our people."

Arctic dwellers

· Inuit means "the people" and is the generic name
given to indigenous people of the Arctic. Though the
word "eskimo", meaning "eaters of raw meat", is still
used to described Inuit, it is generally considered
derogatory.

· Inuit populations include Canadian Inuit, Alaska's
Inupiat and Yupik people, and the Russian Yupik.

· Inuit are descendants of the Thule people who
arrived in Alaska about AD500 and reached Canada in
1000. Alaskan Inuit now live mainly in the North Slope
boroughs and the Bering Straits region.

· Inuit rely heavily on subsistence fishing and
hunting whales, walruses and seals.

· The arrival of Europeans damaged the traditional
Inuit way of life and since the 1970s their leaders
have been campaigning for greater rights and asserting
their territorial claims.

· In more recent times Inuit have banded together to
fight against environmental damage to their homelands.

Alan Power

Some die, others profit

Des Moines Register: War profiteering has long been despised by Americans, and Halliburton's outrageous contract in Iraq ought to reopen that vein of moral outrage. Your government is paying the company more than twice what others are paying to bring in fuel from Kuwait...Vice President Dick Cheney is the former chief executive officer of the company. This may well be legal, but that doesn't mean it is proper.

End Bush Cabal War-Profiteering in Iraq, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c2125555/22982625.html

Editorial: Some die, others profit
$2.64 a gallon for gasoline for Iraq? Pay to
Haliburton is outrageous.
By Register Editorial Board

12/11/2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War profiteering has long been despised by Americans,
and Halliburton's outrageous contract in Iraq ought to
reopen that vein of moral outrage. Your government is
paying the company more than twice what others are
paying to bring in fuel from Kuwait, the New York
Times reported Wednesday.

Halliburton's defense of its pricing - that it's a
costly, dangerous undertaking and that the company can
only negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel - isn't
convincing.

Not when the United States is paying Halliburton an
average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline from
Kuwait while Iraq's state oil company pays 96 cents a
gallon and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support
Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 a gallon.

Halliburton has an exclusive contract. Vice President
Dick Cheney is the former chief executive officer of
the company. This may well be legal, but that doesn't
mean it is proper.

Attack? What Attack? Difficult to Prove Bush Knew Anything, Then or Now

The widow of one of the innocents killed in the 9/11
terrorist attacks is suing the _resident and other
prominent members of the Bush cabal under the RICO
Act. The LNS sent you the filing, two weeks ago, but
the "US mainstream news media" clearly has a blackout
on the story...A press conference was held in
Washington, D.C. yesterday...Nothing...Here is the
first mention of it that we could find...anywhere in
the US media, and it is not "mainstream"...James
Ridgeway, writing in the Village Voice...

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0350/mondo2.php

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
Attack? What Attack? Difficult to Prove Bush Knew Anything, Then or Now
December 10 - 16, 2003

Last week, Howard Dean raised the question whether
Bush had foreknowledge of a 9-11 attack. "The most
interesting theory that I've heard so far—which is
nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved—is that
he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean said.
Asked Sunday about this statement, Dean replied, "I
can't imagine the president of the United States doing
that"—but then said Bush should "give the information"
to the 9-11 Commission. When asked why he raised the
theory in the first place, Dean said, "Because there
are people who believe that. We don't know what
happened in 9-11."

At the same time, Phil Berg, a former deputy attorney
general of Pennsylvania, filed suit in U.S. District
Court in Pennsylvania on behalf of Ellen Mariani,
widow of Louis Neil Mariani, who was aboard Flight 175
when it hit the south tower on 9-11. Berg said the
suit was being brought by Ellen Mariani as part of an
effort "to get to the truth of what happened." The
attorney filed a 62-page complaint charging that
"President Bush and officials including, but not
limited to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, and
Tenet," had "adequate foreknowledge" of 9-11, yet
failed to warn the country or attempt to prevent it
and have been covering up the truth of that day ever
since. The suit claims that means they therefore
"abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband," so he is
suing the Bushies, under the RICO Act, for conspiracy,
obstruction of justice, and wrongful death. The suit
documents detailed forewarnings from foreign
governments and FBI agents, what it calls the
unprecedented delinquency of our air defense, and the
inexplicable half-hour dawdle by Bush himself at an
elementary school after hearing the nation was under
deadly attack. Berg's suit also notes the
administration's incessant invocation of national
security and executive privilege to withhold documents
and accuses the government of obstructing the
investigation.

Ellen Mariani dropped her previous attorneys to go
with Berg, who has a reputation as a political
activist in Pennsylvania. Following the Supreme
Court's decision in the Florida election case, he
wrote to the court demanding disbarment of Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence
Thomas, claiming they "must accept the consequences of
their partisan action." Berg demanded that the three
"voluntarily turn in their licenses in their
respective states or we will ask that disciplinary
action be undertaken, including disbarment as well as
summary suspension in their respective states for
violating the Rules of Court and not 'recusing'
themselves in the case of Bush v. Gore."

Where The Blame Lies

Regis Sabol, Intervention Magazine: "The evidence shows President Bush was asleep or incompetent or indifferent and the horror of 9/11 happened because his Administration did not act on overwhelming intelligence."

Reveal the Truth about 9/11, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=583

Where The Blame Lies

The evidence shows President Bush was asleep or
incompetent or indifferent and the horror of 9/11
happened because his Administration did not act on
overwhelming intelligence.

By Regis T. Sabol

President Harry S. Truman kept a plaque on his desk
with a simple message: The buck stops here.
Apparently, President Bush doesn’t believe that rule
applies to him.

In the wake of revelations that the CIA warned
President Bush a full month before 9/11 that Osama bin
Laden’s operatives were planning a major operation
involving the hijacking of passenger airliners, the
President, White House aides, Republicans, even some
Democrats and most of the press are tripping all over
themselves to absolve Bush of any specific blame for
the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

Surrounded by Air Force Academy cadets at a Rose
Garden ceremony, the president earnestly declared that
“had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes
to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done
everything in my power to protect the American
people.” National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice
echoed similar sentiments at a White House briefing.
After acknowledging that the president had “general”
information about Al Qaeda plans to hijack American
airlines, she pleaded that he and his advisors had no
idea that hijacked airplanes would be used as missiles
to crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
her implication being that such an idea was so
outlandish it was beyond comprehension.

Balderdash, Baloney, and B_______!

My response to these sentiments is balderdash,
baloney, and, well, you know what the third B stands
for. Indeed, these excuses are disingenuous, at best,
and much more likely deceitful. The evidence at hand
was more than sufficient to warrant a sustained high
level of alert both at home and abroad. At the very
least, they reveal a president asleep at the wheel and
top advisors oblivious to red flags waving in front of
their faces, including a clear warning from one of
their own, CIA Director George Tenet.

The excuses being made to excuse the inexcusable seem
to contradict one another. They range from not having
enough information “to connect the dots,” (the new
administration and media catchphrase) to having too
much information, more than the intelligence community
could possibly absorb. The latter is the rationale for
ignoring reports from FBI agents in Phoenix and
Minneapolis about Al Qaeda operatives attending flight
schools.

The truth, we are now learning, is that none of these
excuses hold water. Bush and his advisors had plenty
of evidence and had been made keenly aware of an
impending attack involving civilian airliners.

Could George Bush have acted to possibly prevent the
attacks of 9/11? Yes. Should the American people hold
him and his advisors to account for not preventing
these attacks? Absolutely!

For starters, let’s take the president and Ms. Rice at
their word; they had good reason to suspect that
terrorists intended to hijack American airliners, but
they had no idea the hijackers intended to kill
people. The hijackers, they suspected, would use the
airliners to negotiate the release of bin Laden allies
who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

Does this mean that hijacking an airliner or airliners
with hundreds of passengers did not justify taking
immediate action? What did Ms. Rice and the
president’s other advisors think that bin Laden’s
hijackers would do with these planes and their
passengers if their demands were not met? Meekly let
them go? We’re talking about a man who had
masterminded the first attack on the World Trade
Center (hint, hint), the bombings of two United States
embassies in Africa, and the attack on the S.S. Cole.
We’re talking about a man who has repeatedly urged his
followers to kill as many Americans as possible. What
were Bush, Rice, et.al. thinking?

What They Knew—or Should Have Known

In fact, The New York Times revealed Saturday that the
F.B.I. acknowledged it has known since 1996 “of a
specific threat that terrorists in Al Qaeda, Mr. Bin
Laden’s network, might use a plane in a suicide attack
against the headquarters of the C.I.A. or another
large federal building in the Washington area…” Not
only that, as far back as 1994, Algerian terrorists
seized a Paris-bound Air France flight and planned to
crash it into the Eiffel Tower or blow it up over
Paris. French commandos killed them before they
succeeded. Shouldn’t that act have provided a clue
about what terrorists might do if they could get their
hands on a fuel-laden airliner?

In 1999, a federal interagency intelligent report
predicted, “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to Al Qaeda’s
Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft
packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the
headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency or the
White House.” Was Ms. Rice unaware of this report? If
so, then she hadn’t done her homework.

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration had
published a warning on its website months earlier that
“Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes
make him and his followers a significant threat to
civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.”
Please note that last phrase—“particularly to U.S.
civil aviation.”

Actually, Bush first received warning of an impending
Al Qaeda operation the previous July. According to the
Washington Post, Richard Clarke, the government’s top
counter terrorism official, told officials of a dozen
federal agencies at a White House meeting July 5,
”Something really spectacular is going to happen here,
and it’s going to happen soon.” C.I.A. Director Tenet
“had been ‘nearly frantic’ with concern since June
22,” the Post said. And Ms. Rice, herself, no less,
warned on June 28, “It is highly likely that a
significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future,
within several weeks.” Nothing happened within a
couple weeks, so no one in the security hierarchy,
except for Tenet, took such a threat seriously. By
August, George W. was in Texas and just about everyone
else had fled the Washington heat.

Consider another factor. While it may be true, as the
administration asserts, that it would be impossible to
know exactly when and where the enemy would strike,
the intelligence community had received specific
information from Israeli and Russian intelligence that
Al Qaeda’s operation would involve American civil
aircraft. Wouldn’t it have made sense to have
drastically heightened security at the country’s major
airports, including those in Boston, New York, and
Washington? Why did the administration trust
minimum-wage security personnel to protect us from
terrorist attacks?

Didn’t the date September 11 ring a bell with anyone
in the administration? To Islamic guerilla
organizations, September 11 is what December 7 is to
Americans. It commemorates the date the Jordanian army
expelled the PLO from Jordan. The terrorists who
attacked the Israeli village at the 1972 Olympic Games
in Munich were known as the September 11 Movement. In
other words, September 11 was not some mere random
date chosen by bin Laden’s gang to carry out their
attacks. It had symbolic meaning. How could top
Administration security advisors not remember those
three awful days in September? Incidentally, and HBO
financed documentary, Three Days in September, had won
an Academy Award for best documentary film the
previous year. Another clue here might be the month,
September.

A Conspiracy of Lies

After 9/11, the administration compounded its
astounding failure to ignore the abundant evidence of
an impending attack by lying to the American people
about the existence of this evidence and the
president’s awareness of it. Up until just last week,
everyone in the administration from Bush on down had
steadfastly maintained the government had no warning
that Al Qaeda planned to hijack American airliners.

In other words, they lied to us. Bush lied to us.
Cheney lied to us. Rumsfield lied to us. Rice lied to
us. Powell lied to us. Fleischer lied to us. They all
lied to us. Of course, why should this come as a
surprise? This is an administration mired in secrecy
and deceit and lies.

Now that Bush and his minions have been caught in
their lies, they have chosen, instead, to attack
anyone who wants to know the truth. Bush described his
critics as second guessers and claimed he smelled
politics in the air. Cheney called any criticism
“incendiary. Such commentary is thoroughly
irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders
in time of war,” he intoned. In other words, all you
senators and congressmen, shut up! Ari Fleischer was
even more combative when he cited congressional
critics by name, as if they knew what the president
knew and were somehow responsible for that awful
slaughter, which, in turn, has led us into a war, the
end to which is nowhere in sight. Among his targets
were Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, chair of the Technology and Terrorism
Subcommittee of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Fleischer sneeringly asked the rhetorical question,
what did they know and when did they know it?

Well, they didn’t know and they weren’t responsible.
Feinstein told CNN last July that she “was deeply
concerned as to whether our house was in order to
prevent a terrorist attack.” Moreover, Vice President
Cheney’s office did not respond to Feinstein’s urgent
request that counter-intelligence programs be
improved. Finally, the only information members of the
Senate Intelligence Committee received was a two-page
summary of the president’s briefing.

Only Bush and his inner circle knew. And they did
nothing about it. And they didn’t tell anyone about
what they knew. While Bush was working out in is gym,
napping, and snacking on pretzels, Cheney, Rice & Co.
were not minding the store.

Mr. President, explain that to the families of those
aboard those three airplanes and to the survivors of
the thousands who died in New York and Washington.

Regis T. Sabol is contributing editor of Intervention
Magazine. You can email Regis at
regis@interventionmag.com

Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2003

The cockroach theory: Where there's one, there are many: finance rife with corruption

Molly Ivins: "And the corrupt corporate culture has in turn bought
the political system. Medicare "reform" is a huge
boondoggle for the drug companies. The energy bill is
nothing but corporate subsidies. We have seen people
like Dennis Kozlowski and Ken Lay loot their
corporations. We are now watching the looting of an
entire country. "

End the Looting of America, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16121

The cockroach theory: Where there's one, there are many: finance rife with corruption

AUSTIN, Texas -- I do not think it premature to
conclude that the entire financial industry of this
country is riddled with fraud. As Allan Sloan of
Newsweek observed, this is not a case of "a few bad
apples," it's the Cockroach Theory -- you see one, you
know there's a whole nest of the nasty maggots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bushwacked: Life in George W. Bush's America
By Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose
from Powells from Amazon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack A. Blum, a Washington lawyer and expert in
money-laundering and other forms of tax evasion, wrote
the following for an academic conference held earlier
this year at the University of Texas: "Corporate
managers have spent the last century developing tools
for avoiding regulation and taxation. They brag that
acts of tax avoidance are part of corporate
productivity. For them, each dollar of tax not paid
because of their machinations is the added value they
bring to a company. Tax avoidance is a profit center.
Avoidance of regulation and supervision is an equally
high priority. Corporate contributions and the
personal contributions of senior corporate managers
have funded anti-regulatory think tanks and
anti-regulatory scholarship. Political contributions
have turned theory into reality."

Blum points out that the tools used to avoid taxes and
regulation -- shell subsidiaries, partnerships and
joint ventures, foreign subsidiaries, special purpose
entities and sophisticated transfer pricing techniques
-- have long been in use, but:

"The difference is that when they were first used,
their purpose was to avoid state regulation and hide
from state law enforcement. ... Today ... the
techniques are being used to beat what is left of
federal taxation and regulation. Corporations have
turned international borders into barriers that block
national level taxation and regulation. The
international community has failed to produce
effective machinery for cooperation in the areas of
regulation and taxation, and as a consequence, the
social control of corporate behavior stops at the
border."
The social control of corporate behavior also stops
with this administration. George W. Bush's first
choice for chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Harvey Pitt, famously planned "a kinder,
gentler SEC." Pitt proved himself so unable to get
tough, even after Enron, that he was replaced with
William Donaldson, a former head of the New York Stock
Exchange -- but of course, that was before the stock
exchange was hit by its own scandals.

At the Treasury Department, John Snow, master of
paying no corporate taxes and the golden parachute, is
now in charge. Bush's Federal Power Commission, with
one member banished by Ken Lay of Enron and another
selected by him, couldn't be bothered to notice the
enormous fraudulent "energy crisis" in California
until $30 billion had been sucked out of that state.

Talk about the lunatics running the asylum. Former
lobbyists for special interests now dominate the top
of the bureaucracies -- not to regulate, but to
facilitate corporate rip-offs. Michael Powell at the
Federal Communications Commission thinks more media
mergers will be good for the nation. At the Interior
Department, it is rip and run, all-out exploitation of
natural resources, leaving nothing but a trash heap
behind -- a trash heap, incidentally, that the
taxpayers will have to pay to clean up, since the
Superfund for toxic waste cleanups has been allowed to
lapse entirely.

Richard Todd, writing about the mutual fund scandal in
the Times Sunday Magazine, asked:

"Were these laws and rules taken seriously by anyone
-- or was it common knowledge in the industry that
they were routinely flouted? Who was in on the deal?
Was all this done more or less in the open with a
genial nod and wink among hundreds of guys who
understood the game? Or was the money inhaled like
cocaine in a surreptitious instant in the back room?
Did non-players know? Did 'my' broker know?"
I don't know about his broker, but try talking to
young people in the financial industry, and you will
get an earful.

There is a hero in all this, New York State's attorney
general, Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer is not only doing a
hell of a job on his own patch, he has literally
forced the SEC into action. As Spitzer said before
breaking the latest financial scandal, the mutual fund
mess, "Heads should roll at the SEC."

Normally, the press would pick up this storyline:
"Huge mess, but one honest man fights valiantly
against corruption and powerful special interests."
But here's an interesting thing about media in our
day: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- one
of the weirdest publications on earth -- continually
derides Spitzer as "an ambitious politician." No
shine, Sherlock? What?! You cry in disbelief. Surely
no one in electoral politics is ambitious?! The Wall
Street Journal's editorial page itself should get, I
suspect, some of the credit for a corporate culture
gone mad with greeed (it needs three eee's).

And the corrupt corporate culture has in turn bought
the political system. Medicare "reform" is a huge
boondoggle for the drug companies. The energy bill is
nothing but corporate subsidies. We have seen people
like Dennis Kozlowski and Ken Lay loot their
corporations. We are now watching the looting of an
entire country.

Read more in the Molly Ivins archive.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal
monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling
author of several books including Molly Ivins Can't
Say That Can She?

Al Gore's backing of Howard Dean gives Democrats back their voice

Another U.S. GI died in Iraq today...For what?

Sidney Blumenthal, writing in the Guardian: Gore now calls the rightwing media a "fifth column" within journalism, and he's raising millions to build a TV network of his own as an alternative. In his own
way, he's absorbed the lessons of the past three years
and become a representative Democrat. His endorsement
of Dean is his commentary on his campaign and the
conduct of his party since.

Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1104370,00.html

'If I had to do it over again, I'd let rip'

Al Gore's backing of Howard Dean gives Democrats back their voice

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday December 11, 2003
The Guardian

Since the trauma of the 2000 election, the Democrats
have endured a history of loss and defeat, not only of
office and programme, but identity, self-confidence
and self-respect. As a congressional party that lost
its majority in 2002, it has seemed to be in a
nightmare that the party is incapable of escaping.
Republican bullying has been met almost inevitably by
Democratic cowering, the ruthless will to power by
timid retreat. Before this spectacle, Democratic
voters have felt themselves unrepresented and
voiceless. Until the presidential candidacy of Howard
Dean, their burning sentiments lacked expression. Now,
Al Gore's early endorsement of Dean dramatically
amplifies them and partly explains them.

Above all, Democrats are consumed with a rising sense
of injustice. They believe that democracy was
undermined when the votes were not counted in Florida
and the supreme court made George Bush president; that
the social contract in place since the New Deal is
being shredded; that internationalist alliances are
being shattered; that the president lied about the
reasons for war; that the Bush administration acts
with authoritarian impunity (refusing, for example, to
make public even the members of the vice-president's
energy policy panel); and that the media is being
overwhelmed by the din of a rightwing echo chamber
that masks itself as journalism.

In the face of constant provocation, Democrats see
their own party as hesitant, compromised, if not
complicit, and cowardly. "You're either with us or the
terrorists," Bush has repeated many times. The
Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan. Most
Democrats in the House and Senate backed the war
resolution on Iraq. Yet none of this prevents
Republicans from challenging their patriotism.

As recently as last week, after Senator Hillary
Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, returned from
inspecting Afghanistan and Iraq as a member of the
armed services committee, a Republican party flunky
and Bush family retainer named Scott Reed was trotted
out to smear the former first lady as "un-American"
when she called for more troops and international
support.

The Democrats' feelings for their congressional party
are inextricably linked to their feelings for Bush.
They saw Democratic legislators vote for regressive
Bush tax cuts in the belief that it would insulate
them from Republican assaults in the 2002 mid-term
elections, only to see enough Democratic senators lose
seats to tip the Senate. Time and again, even liberal
lions such as Edward Kennedy have been bamboozled on
education and Medicare.

The congressional Democrats have been in denial about
Bush's conservative radicalism. They preferred to
believe that fundamental comity still existed even
when it was being smashed. They gathered no clue about
the simmering among Democratic voters from the
phenomenon of Senator Robert Byrd, a silver-maned
irrelevance suddenly elevated to cult hero for his
opposition to Bush on the Iraq war.

All the major Democratic candidates running for
president from Congress voted for the war resolution.
Only Dean - the sole non-congressional candidate -
stood against it. The late entry, the former general
Wesley Clark, flip-flopped on the war, in effect
turning himself into a congressional Democrat,
declared that he had voted for Nixon, Reagan and the
elder Bush, and volunteered that he's for banning the
burning of the US flag, a hoary Republican demagogic
device.

Gore's endorsement of Dean is the most important since
grainy film was shown at the 1992 Democratic
convention depicting President Kennedy shaking hands
with a teenage Bill Clinton. Gore's endorsement is not
the passing of the torch to a new generation, but
another conferring of legitimacy. For Democrats, he
personifies the infamy of the last election. He is not
another politician, but the rightfully elected
president, by a popular majority of 539,895 votes.

But the Gore of today is not the Gore of 2000. The
careful political figure trying to distance himself
from Clinton and contorting his personality to project
likability has been tempered by defeat. "If I had to
do it all over again, I'd just let it rip," Gore said
a year ago. "To hell with the polls, the tactics and
all the rest. I would have poured out my heart and my
vision for America's future."

Gore now calls the rightwing media a "fifth column"
within journalism, and he's raising millions to build
a TV network of his own as an alternative. In his own
way, he's absorbed the lessons of the past three years
and become a representative Democrat. His endorsement
of Dean is his commentary on his campaign and the
conduct of his party since.

· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to
President Clinton and author of The Clinton Wars

· Sidney_Blumenthal@yahoo.com

STAFF SAY EPA BEING POLITICIZED AS NEVER BEFORE, Survey Cites Lack of Candor, Fear of Retaliation

Two more US GIs died in Iraq last night. For what?
Meanwhile, AnythingButSee's Ted Cope-Out *moderated* the Democratic presidential candidate debate last night. He gave a beautiful demonstration of how you survive in the Corporatist TV news business, well, 1) coast on your laurels from decades ago when there really was *news* on TV, 2) avoid making the Bush cabal look bad, and 3) fill the air time trivalizing, marginalizing, denigrating, caricaturing and tossing artificial fertilizer (as opposed to real manure, and supplied by Scaife's minions) at them to see if it sticks to them...Cope-Out made sure it took 19 questions to get to questions on any substantive issues at all...And of course, the shocking news story included in today's LNS, along with numerous corroborating news items posted to the LNS over the last two years, did not make it to Cope-out's cue cards...
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: Employees within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency say the agency faces unprecedented political pressure, with Bush Administration initiatives such as the Energy Plan taking precedence over pollution control, according to a survey released today
Restore the integrity of the Environmental Protection Agency, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.ems.org/rls/2003/12/10/staff_say_epa_be.html

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Contact: Chandra Rosenthal (303) 316-0809; Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

STAFF SAY EPA BEING POLITICIZED AS NEVER BEFORE, Survey Cites Lack of Candor, Fear of Retaliation

Washington, DC — Employees within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency say the agency faces unprecedented political pressure, with Bush Administration initiatives such as the Energy Plan taking precedence over pollution control, according to a survey released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The survey, conducted among employees of EPA's Rocky Mountain Region, also faults the honesty of agency public statements and reveals a deep fear of retaliation, particularly among managers and supervisors.

The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 8) of EPA covers six states: Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and the Dakotas. PEER developed survey questions with EPA employees and mailed out questionnaires to all staff in the region. Of the 675 surveys sent, nearly one-quarter (154 or 23 percent) were returned.

The strongest reaction by survey respondents was concern about political interference with environmental decision-making:

· More than three in four say that politics are shaping agency actions "more than they did five years" ago, with fewer than one in 16 expressing disagreement;

· More than half think that "promoting the President's Energy Plan and other Administration initiatives has become more important" than environmental protection, with fewer than one in six disagreeing; and

· Strong majorities register a sense that the agency is moving in the wrong direction and is becoming less effective.

As one employee writes in the essay portion of the survey, "this administration has politicized EPA to an extreme extent." An agency manager cites the need to put protection of the environment ahead of energy development "because literally the opposite is true at this time."

"In the trenches at EPA, both junior and senior staff see science becoming secondary to servicing industry, especially the energy industry," stated Chandra Rosenthal, Director of PEER's Rocky Mountain chapter and who oversaw the survey. "Politics now plays a preeminent role in day-to-day work at EPA."

The survey also reflects a significant fear of retaliation. When asked to respond to the statement "I am hesitant to perform controversial aspects of my job for fear of retaliation" nearly one third of all employees say they do. Significantly, an even higher proportion of managers and supervisors (42 percent) acknowledge fear of retaliation for doing their jobs.

The truthfulness of agency statements both to the public and internally to staff also draws criticism:

· Little more than one in three believe that their senior management "is committed to providing the media and the public complete and accurate information on controversial topics." More than two-thirds of management respondents disagree;

· More than half do not think management "candidly explains the basis for its decisions on controversial issues to the professional staff" with fewer than one quarter feeling the agency "is committed to transparency in conducting" its business; and

· Slightly more employees feel that EPA management do not "usually support recommendations for environmental protection made by Region 8 professional staff" while a strong plurality of employees perceive that the "interests of the regulated business community" are placed above "environmental protection and public health."

The verdict on regional leadership is mixed:

· More employees have no opinion of the performance of Regional Administrator Robbie Roberts than do and, of those that do, more than not feel that he is not "doing a good job as EPA regional Administrator";

As one professional staff member comments, "Robbie Roberts is invisible to most of the staff." Another laments that the regional office has "lost our autonomy – everything has to go through Headquarters before any action is taken."

· Respondents feel strongly that regional leadership "is committed to upholding environmental laws and regulations" but only one third "have confidence in the Senior Managers at Region 8;" and

· More than twice as many employees say morale is bad as those who say it is good. Paradoxically, EPA Region 8 scored highest of any EPA office in a recent "Best Places to Work" survey sponsored by the Partnership for Public Service and The Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation at American University.

One topic drawing more response than any from individual employees is the lack of consistent enforcement decisions. One manager maintains the best way to improve environmental stewardship was "being sued more often" by citizen groups. A staff person claims that due to "a lack of funding" that EPA ignores new toxic waste sites that previously would have been part of the Superfund Program: "Basically we can find sites, but then have no way to deal with them."

"These surveys are a way for employees to directly yet safely communicate with their real employers, the American public," added Rosenthal. PEER has conducted scores of similar surveys among federal and state agencies. This spring, PEER conducted a similar survey of EPA criminal enforcement staff. Those survey results triggered a programmatic review and top program managers have departed or been reassigned.

###

See full survey results

Read employee essays on how to improve environmental stewardship

View PEER's survey of EPA's criminal enforcement staff

Nobel winner Ebadi takes swipe at US in accepting Peace Prize

Another name for the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes...

Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031210/1/3gkfx.html

Thursday December 11, 1:43 AM
Nobel winner Ebadi takes swipe at US in accepting Peace Prize

Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, seized the opportunity to accuse the United States of using the September 11 attacks to justify violating international law and human rights.

"In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of September 11 and the war on international terrorism as a pretext," Ebadi said in her acceptance speech, without mentioning the United States by name.

"International human rights laws are breached not only by their recognized opponents..., but ... these principles are also violated in Western democracies," she added.

Ebadi, 56, received the prize from chairman of the Nobel Committee Ole Mjoes at a formal ceremony in Oslo's City Hall, marked by the absence of King Harald V of Norway who was recovering from cancer surgery.

The ceremony was attended by Queen Sonja, Crown Prince Regent Haakon Magnus, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit, among others.

In her speech, Ebadi also commented on prisoners detained at a US base in Cuba, saying they were "without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (UN) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Chosen for her democracy-building efforts and her work to improve human rights and women's rights in Iran, one of three countries in what US President George W. Bush has called the "axis of evil", Ebadi also pointed to selective application of UN decisions.

"Why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while some other resolutions of the council have no binding force?" she asked, pointing to the different treatment of Israel and Iraq.

"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly," she continued.

"Yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq... were subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation," she said.

Some observers had expected Ebadi to focus more of her criticism on her own country's regime, rather than on the US and the West, but Norwegian experts said she wanted to prove that she is not in the service of the West, as some Iranian extremists allege.

"I think Ebadi's main intention was not to appear as a puppet of the United States," Stein Toennesson, head of the Oslo Peace Research Institute (PRIO) told AFP, adding that Ebadi's comments on rights abuses by the Iranian government were relatively muted.

Ebadi made headlines when she became Iran's first female judge in 1974, and again when she was stripped of her post by the new ruling clerics of the 1979 revolution, who decided that women were by nature unsuitable for such responsibilities.

But it was when she served as lawyer for two of several dissidents murdered in 1999 -- in a spate of grisly killings that was eventually pinned on "rogue" agents from Iran's intelligence ministry -- that she really provoked the ire of the country's hardliners.

In June 2000, she was jailed for three weeks, and then a closed-door court handed her a suspended prison sentence of five years and barred her from practicing law.

Ebadi's appearance at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony Wednesday continued to provoke harsh reactions from her critics, who have even issued death threats over her decision to accept her award without a headscarf, or hijab.

Iranian women are required by law to keep their heads covered, even when travelling outside the country.

Iran's official television, which barely mentioned the Peace Prize ceremony Wednesday, showed only an archive photo of Ebadi with a headscarf.

That Ebadi also firmly shook hands with Mjoes when she accepted her prize will probably draw yet more fire from hardline groups like Basij, which criticized her for allegedly shaking hands with another man at Amir Kabir university several weeks ago.

The Basij group is believed to have been behind an attack on Ebadi last week, when around 50 hardliners stopped her giving a speech at Al-Zahra women's university in Tehran.

Ebadi reiterated that Islam and human rights were compatible.

"The discriminatory plight of women in Islamic states... has its roots in the patriarchal and male-dominated culture prevailing in these societies, not in Islam," she said.

The human rights advocate is the third Muslim and the 11th woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, which consists of a diploma, a gold medal, and a cheque for 10 million Swedish kronor (about 1.4 million dollars, 1.1 million euros).

According to press reports, Ebadi plans to donate her prize money to human rights groups in Iran, in particular to those concerned with children and prisoners of conscience.

At a separate ceremony in Stockholm on Wednesday, the winners of the Literature, Medicine, Physics, Chemistry and Economics prizes received their awards from King Carl XVI Gustaf in Stockholm's Concert Hall.

That ceremony was to be followed by a gala banquet for 1,300 guests at Stockholm's City Hall.

Far Fewer Polluters Punished Under Bush Administration, Records Show

Yes, more US GIs died in Iraq last night. And for
what? Well, no more than a neo-con wet dream.
The US electorate, I believe, know this...And Al "I'll
fight for you!" Gore is, in his own way, actually
fighting....fighting for "all that is Good in this
world," as Sam Gamgee put it...His endorsement,
today, of Howard Dead (D-Jeffords) was rich with
meaning and symbolism largely ignored in the "US
mainstream news media" reports. Gore and Dean
announced the endorsement in Harlem. It was the
African American vote that was most grotesquely
savaged in Fraudida. It is also three years to the day
since the Coup of 2000 was made a certainty through
the perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court. No
coincidences in any of this...Do not underestimate the
electoral impact of the war Gore rightly calls
"disasterous" and a "quagmire." Yesterday, the
Indonesian government (the world's largest Muslim
population) denounced the Bush policy in Iraq. The
world's press is filling with stories of how our
military is now using Sharon's tactics to "control"
the situation in Iraq. Our place in the world is lost
-- perhaps forever if we do not reject the _resident
and what he personifies. Gore's endorsement will turn
up the heat on Joe Lieberman ("D" - Sanctimonicutt),
Dick LoseHeart (D-Misery) and unfortunately, Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) -- all of whom chose the wrong
side of history on the _resident's foolish military
adventure in Iraq. By endorsing Dean, and hopefully
hastening the departure of these three from the race,
Gore has also given Wesley Clark (D-NATO) a boost and
a clear shot at coming in second in New Hampshire and
maybe first in South Carolina and elsewhere on Super
Tuesday. Anyway, after Iowa and New Hampshire, it will
more than likely be a two man race between Dean and
Clark, which could only be good (and economical) for
the Democrats. I still am thinking that Clark-Dean or
Dean-Clark is the best balanced ticket...Meanwhile,
here is some more revolting news on the incompetent,
corrupt and illegitimate cabal in the White
House...Kudos for courage to Knight-Ridder....

Save the Environment! Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1209-02.htm

Published on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 by
Knight-Ridder
Far Fewer Polluters Punished Under Bush Administration, Records Show
by Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is catching and
punishing far fewer polluters than the two previous
administrations, according to a Knight Ridder analysis
of 15 years of environmental-enforcement records.

Civil enforcement of pollution laws peaked when the
president's father, George H.W. Bush, was in office
from 1989-93 and has fallen ever since, but it's
plummeted since George W. Bush took office three years
ago. That's according to records of 17 different
categories of enforcement activity obtained by Knight
Ridder through the Freedom of Information Act.

It's very discouraging. We're concerned about people's
health. We have a job that we're supposed to be doing
and we're not doing it. And we should be.

EPA Official
William K. Reilly, the EPA administrator under the
first President Bush, said he told his enforcers that
"under no circumstances do I want the numbers to drop.
It's your job to bring in these cases."

Violation notices against polluters are the most
important enforcement tool, experts say, and they've
had the biggest drop under the current President Bush.
The monthly average of violation notices since January
2001 has dropped 58 percent compared with the Clinton
administration's monthly average.

Those pollution citations dropped 12 percent from 2001
to 2002, and another 35 percent from 2002 through the
first 10 months of 2003.

Punishing polluters - by fines or referrals for
prosecution - has dropped as well, but not as
dramatically. Administrative fines since January 2001
are down 28 percent, when adjusted for inflation, from
Clinton administration levels. Civil penalties average
6 percent less, when adjusted for inflation. And the
number of cases referred to the Justice Department for
prosecution is down 5 percent.

Some current EPA enforcement officials, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation from
their bosses, say they're getting the signal to slow
down enforcement cases.

"It's very discouraging," said one official. "We're
concerned about people's health. We have a job that
we're supposed to be doing and we're not doing it. And
we should be."

However, administrative orders to stop some polluting
activity - a quick technique used for more mundane
cases - are up 14 percent under the Bush
administration.

"There's definitely less emphasis on enforcement,"
said Dave Ullrich, who retired this summer after 30
years at the Environmental Protection Agency,
including jobs in enforcement and as a deputy regional
administrator.

The EPA will brief congressional officials Thursday on
its enforcement statistics and will outline new
counting methods.

Knight Ridder examined EPA data in 17 categories and
subcategories of civil enforcement since January 1989
and compared the records of the past three
administrations.

In 13 of those 17 categories, the Bush administration
had lower average numbers than the Clinton
administration. And in 11 of those categories, the
2003 average was lower than the 2001 average, showing
the trend increasing over time.

"It tells you somebody's not minding the enforcement
store," said Sylvia Lowrance, a 24-year EPA veteran
who was the agency's acting enforcement chief under
Bush from January 2001 to July 2002.

Bush administration officials said the EPA is
enforcing anti-pollution laws, just in a more
effective way.

"The agency has what we refer to as `smart
enforcement,'" EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said in
an interview with Knight Ridder. "Our focus is on
enforcement that changes behavior in a positive way."

That means working with companies to get them to fix
problems instead of being punishment-oriented, Leavitt
and his predecessor, Christine Todd Whitman, have
said.

"The point of smart enforcement is that you use the
best tool for each individual situation; compliance is
the goal," Leavitt said.

The Bush administration judges itself by how much
pollution is cleaned up and how much new control
technology is installed, rather than by citations,
penalties and prosecution, said J. P. Suarez, the
EPA's enforcement chief. By those yardsticks,
enforcement is up.

"Our upcoming numbers are going to show that our
pollution reductions are through the roof, the highest
they've ever been, in almost every category," Suarez
said in an interview Monday. He pointed to treatment
of billions of pounds of contaminated soil and
billions of gallons of tainted water. He also noted
that in the category of money that has to be spent on
clean-ups and pollution control, the Bush
administration figures "blow away the Clinton
administration."

But Lowrance and environmental officials from other
Republican administrations disagree.

"It's a sign that this administration is flat-out
falling down on the job," said Dan Esty, a deputy
assistant EPA administrator during the first Bush
administration and now director of the Yale University
Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

The statistics - examined by Lowrance and other former
top EPA officials in both Republican and Democratic
administrations - are the standard way the EPA
measured enforcement progress.

"They measure presence. They measure whether the
enforcement cop is on the beat," Lowrance said,
adding: "And increasingly the cop is absent."

In each of its annual budget requests to Congress, the
Bush administration has called for dramatic cuts in
money and staffing for EPA enforcement, only to be
rebuffed by Capitol Hill.

Of the 17 enforcement categories examined, the first
Bush administration had the highest numbers in nine
categories. Clinton had the highest numbers in five.
This Bush administration has the highest numbers in
three categories.

It often takes three years for a complicated pollution
case to work from beginning to end at the EPA. The
beginning - violation notices - are "when you really
get somebody's attention," Reilly said. He said he's
on the board of directors of a cruise ship company and
"when they get (a citation), all the alarm bells go
off. It's a big deal."

The first Bush administration averaged 195 citations a
month. The Clinton administration averaged 183. This
administration, through 33 months, has averaged 77 a
month, and that's falling every month. The Bush
average in 2001 was 90 violations a month. The 2002
average was 79. For 2003 through October, the average
is 51, but October 2003 saw a record-low 35 violation
notices.

By comparison, the first Bush administration never
averaged fewer than 105 citations a month.

When citations are broken down by the specific law
violated, the differences are even starker. The first
Bush and Clinton administrations averaged 134 notices
of water pollution violations a month. The current
administration is averaging 35 a month - down 74
percent. Air pollution notices dropped 44 percent
since the Clinton administration, and hazardous waste
notices fell 7 percent.

EPA enforcement chief Suarez said violation notices
are "poor thermometers" to judge the level of
enforcement because they vary from law to law and can
be triggered by small incidents. He said he doesn't
pay attention to how many citations his agency issues
and noted that EPA has never published
violation-notice statistics as a guide.

Others insist they are very important.

The drop in violation notices doesn't bode well for
the future, because "the flow of new cases into the
(enforcement process) for handling and settlement
prosecution is slowly drying up," said former EPA
civil enforcement chief Eric Schaeffer, who quit to
form an environmental-enforcement watchdog group.