June

Thursday, June 30, 2005

bases loaded
Good grief... so this its the game plan.1) Put John (Iran Contra) Negroponte in charge of all intelligence (the spies run the FBI, an end-run around the Constitution) : Check!2) Bolton goes to UN : as soon as Congress leaves town, Bush appoints him.3) Sell the Brownshirts on "Iran did 911." (Might even give The Daily Show a try... but the Brownshirts are enough.) And here's just the man for the job: that faithful handmaiden of the Right, Countdown to Crisis Ken Timmerman!Timmerman who was so certain of WMD in Iraq. Timmerman who spread disinformation linking Iraq with the Oklahoma bombing. Timmerman who is published by Reed Irvine's Right Wing Accuracy in Academia.With team Negroponte Bolton in place, all systems are secure. Unlike Iraq, there won't be those embarrassing leaks, no memos to come home to roost. There are no UN inspectors to disagree with the 'facts' and 'high probabilities.' The Scott Ridders can be disappeared, no more resolutions getting in the way. The lesson of the success of the outing Valerie Plame won't be lost on agents or whistleblowers: keep your head down. Novak will save Judith and she'll be back with her circumstantial evidence for whatever is wanted or needed. This White House gets away with everything.
posted by deborah @ 30.6.05

ACLU Forum
If you are interested in bona fide message-board interaction, I recommend either the ACLU Forum, which is a free-speech environment. You can reach this Forum at http://www.aclu.org/ under "Community."
posted by deborah @ 30.6.05

52 House members file FOIA request seeking documents related to Downing Street minutes
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2005-06-30 20:11. Congress
RAW STORY
Conyers and 51 Members File FOIA Request on Downing Street Minutes; Members Formally Seek Hearings in House
Representative John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, along with 51 other Members today submitted a broad and comprehensive FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking any and all documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war, RAW STORY has learned.
In addition, the Members also formally requested that the House Committees on Judiciary, Armed Services, International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence commence hearings on the Downing Street Minutes.
"This is the next stage of the Downing Street investigation and brings the investigation to a new more and more aggressive stage," one Democratic Judiciary aide said.
Following is the FOIA request, obtained by RAW STORY.
posted by deborah @ 30.6.05

Philemon

posted by deborah @ 30.6.05

When China Owns Our Utilities
t r u t h o u t - Lynn N. Hargis : " It is a great irony that on the day President Bush called for a thorough review of China's proposed acquisition of a California-based oil company, Unocal, the United States Senate voted 85-12 to send an energy bill to conference that would allow China to own local US public utilities, without a murmur from the administration, lawmakers or the media. Perhaps this is an example of the government and the press being unable to address something that is not literally exploding under their noses at the moment. Indeed, a reputable reporter and Enron veteran assured me that China wouldn't be interested in acquiring US utilities, because they couldn't ship the electricity to China! I gently suggested that the Chinese might want to buy utilities for the same reason that America's most famous investor, Warren Buffett, wants to buy utilities (or the reason he gives, anyway): to obtain steady, reasonable and reliable utility revenues (from captive utility customers). "
posted by deborah @ 30.6.05

Propaganda Techniques
George Mason U"Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common "tricks of the trade" used by successful propagandists (Marlin 102-106: Propaganda Critic: Introduction). These seven techniques are called: Name Calling Glittering Generalities Transfer Testimonial Plain Folks Card Stacking Band Wagon These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason. By pointing out these techniques, we hope to create awareness and encourage serious consideration of the influence of contemporary propaganda directed at us through the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence on our lives..."
posted by deborah @ 30.6.05
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Italy Says CIA Agents Guilty of Abduction, Issues Europe-Wide Arrest Warrants
watching americaThe Italian police say they have hard evidence that 13 CIA agents planned and executed what has become known as a 'rendition', when they abducted an Imam named Abu Omar from Milan and flew him to Egypt, where authorities are said to have tortured him. "
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

US suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official
Yahoo! News: "VIENNA (AFP) - The UN has learned of 'very, very serious' allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said. "
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

God is Still Speaking
The United Church of Christ
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

Civil liberties advocates question plan for new FBI division
By Shannon McCaffreyKnight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A White House plan to create a massive new domestic intelligence division within the FBI raised concerns on Wednesday among civil liberties advocates who feared it could lead to a return to the bureau's dark days of spying on Americans.
The nation's new intelligence czar, John Negroponte, will have a say over the budget of the new FBI national security section and will help select an official to oversee it.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Wednesday that agents working in the new division would continue to report to FBI Director Robert Mueller and to respect "the privacy rights and civil liberties of all Americans."
But Timothy Edgar, national security policy counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said giving the nation's spy chief power over the FBI was worrisome.
While FBI agents are bound by the nation's Constitution, he said, spies operate abroad with fewer constraints.
"What we could see is the spies in charge of the cops," Edgar said.
"You have a DNI (director of national intelligence) who is in charge of mostly secret foreign intelligence and now is also in law enforcement. So does that mean we have a secret police? Our concern is we could be going down that road."
Justice Department officials said they'd retain control over FBI agents' day-to-day operations but that key details still need to be worked out.
Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, said Wednesday that the national security service "is not something we've done before as a nation."
But, Hayden said, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the nation came to a "collective judgment" that it could no longer afford the long-standing walls between foreign and domestic intelligence gathering.
Allowing an outsider to help select a powerful post overseeing a massive chunk of the FBI's manpower is seen as a dramatic step at the bureau, which has guarded its turf over the years. But the FBI has been left vulnerable by a series of withering reports that assessed the bureau's missteps leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The changes at the FBI were part of a larger package of reforms recommended by a presidential commission investigating intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq. The White House on Wednesday accepted 70 of the panel's 74 recommendations, including the creation of a National Counter-Proliferation Center to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the appointment of an individual to oversee all human intelligence gathering, while keeping the CIA's clandestine service, the Directorate of Operations, intact.
White House Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend said Wednesday that she believed the reforms would result in a "fundamental strengthening" of the nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Under longtime director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI became notorious for spying on Americans such as Martin Luther King Jr., political dissidents and suspected communists. The Hoover years led to changes in the nation's intelligence-gathering laws.
Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Warren P. Strobel contributed to this report. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12016961.htm
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

Fw: CNN poll played into White House spin on Iraq, war on terror

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506290005
A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked respondents to respond "yes" or "no" to the question: "Is the War in Iraq part of the War on Terrorism?" But by asking respondents simply whether the statement is true, the poll, conducted June 24-26, ignored the circumstances that make it true. The Bush administration promoted Iraq's purported connection to terrorism as a rationale for the March 2003 invasion, and as a reason for the continued U.S. military presence in the region. But Iraq became a center of global terrorism only after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq sparked a terrorist insurgency, according to the CIA.
The CIA's National Intelligence Council -- the "the Intelligence Community's (IC's) center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking" -- identified Iraq as succeeding Afghanistan as the major new training ground for terrorists. "The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the council stated in a report titled "Mapping the Global Future: Pervasive Insecurity." The 9-11 Commission concluded that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the September 11 attacks.
The "yes" and "no" responses offered respondents no way to accurately answer the question: They could either respond "yes" and affirm the White House spin that Iraq is part of the "war on terror" without noting the Bush administration's duplicity in making that claim; or they could respond "no" and deny that Iraq has become a hub of terrorist activity and training, which indisputably has occurred.
Contact:CNN
CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366Phone: 404-827-1500Fax: 404-827-1906

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

The Genographic Project - Human Migration, Population Genetics, Maps, DNA
National Geographic: "Explore your own genetic journey with Dr. Spencer Wells. DNA analysis includes a depiction of your ancient ancestors and an interactive map tracing your genetic lineage around the world and through the ages."from phoebe:I got the results back from the my DNA sample and they have excited my imagination wildly.I belong to Haplogroup H. This group starts 150,000 years ago in Ethiopia, occurs only in Africa but derivitives are everywhere. Haplogroup H comes from Haplogroup L3, found mostly in East Africa. Some single person of L3 gave rise to Haplogroups M and N, from which all Eurasian lineages are descended. (I'm part of N.)My ancient people migrated north through Egypt, along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean (what is now Israel, Lebanon, Syria) and thence to eastern Turkey. The track then goes north, looping around the Black Sea into the steppes of Southern Russia. There it takes an abrupt, 90 degree left turn to the west, and makes a bee-line for the coast of Europe, in what is now Germany. That bee-line pretty much coincides with the westward migration of peoples out of the Caucauses -- the ones who became the Celts. So that part of my lineage probably confirms my Celtic ancestors.There's a secondary line that begins along the western Black Sea in what is now Roumania and joins the primary line in eastern Hungary. (Is this why I've always wanted to visit Bulgaria?)There's further information supplied that is pretty earth-shaking. To wit:"Eve," the (probably unfortunate) name given to the original human female, was born in Ethiopia 150,000 years ago. "Adam," the first human male identified from the Y chromosome, is also of African origin, but was born 60,000 years ago.Hmmmmm. So, what was Eve up to for 90,000 years? And, umm, doesn't this toss a bit of fat in the fire about the First Couple?But what fun! And, of course, the study confirms that we are all One.phPS The website for this study is at www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

Bush vs. Reality
MoveOn PACLast night President Bush tried to rescue his failed Iraq policy in a nationally televised address by connecting the Iraq war to the war on terror. He is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11—implying that Iraq attacked us in 2001. To keep Bush from changing the subject, we've started running a new TV ad about Iraq. But, to keep the advertising on the air we need to raise $250,000 today. Just $50 from 5,000 of us will make a big difference. Will you contribute to help stop Bush from changing the subject?
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05

Stay The Crooked Course
TomPaine.com: [...]A General Speaks The Truth"More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army, ret.), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of staying the course in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks.Her is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV s Panorama program :When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties.When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Halfway down he says, 'I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course...Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign 'intelligence reform' last summer, he wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post , observing, “No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents.”Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst, I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war. ..."
posted by deborah @ 29.6.05
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Fw: Sheila Provencher on Iraq
From: Michael Bersin
I posted the following on the Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/28/15321/4508
Well, someone has some explaining to do tonight. Not that he'll eventry.
Over a year ago, after a regular peace vigil in my community, I wrotethe following:
April 9, 2004
An individual in uniform, pristine desert camouflage, Arabic script overhis right pocket, a captain by his bars, briskly walked up to us andasked, "What's this about?" I replied, "It's about what's going on inthe world." He retorted, "You don't hear all of what's going on." Ianswered, "No, we don't." He walked away.
This is a fascinating dynamic, though not altogether unfamiliar.
Whenever the abject failures of the current administration garnersomething more than a passing notice on the public mind, others withaccess to the media, their enablers and sycophants aggressively descendto peck at and distract the public discourse like so many starvingharpies.
Facts are an inconvenience.
My favorite of their challenges - "You just don't hear about all of whatis going on." All as if they care. Or as if they make any effort to findout. Their conveniently packaged little world collapses when you askthem a few questions.
So, the media is not giving us the good news. And I thought thatparticular news channel was supposed to be "fair and balanced." Morelikely, as the trial judge stated, "wholly without merit."
Imminent threat. Weapons of mass destruction. Flowers and sweets. JudithMiller is a stenographer.
In the last fourteen months I've had more people than I can count comeup to me and claim (in uniform and without) that they were inintelligence and that I "just don't have all the information." And Iwonder, if they really did what they say they did, they shouldn't havebeen telling me, right?
And of all those people claiming to be really in the know and working inthat field of endeavor, I'm curious to what they thought on August 6,2001 when they read the brief titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike inUS".
Condoleeza Rice doesn't read footnotes, either.
So, we don't hear what's going on. To this day I'm not certain thecaptain understood the implications of my response.
Last night I attended a meeting at St. Mark's Catholic Church inIndependence, Missouri. Sheila Provencher[http://www.josefwalker.com/iraqpeace.htm], a member of an ecumenicalorganization [http://www.cpt.org/iraq/iraq.php] and recently returnedfrom 18 months in Iraq, spoke of her experiences (she will return toBaghdad in August) living among the population outside of the greenzone.
During her time in Iraq she interacted with Iraqis of many differentbackgrounds and the American authorities. This without body armor,bodyguards, or protective convoys. At one point she accompanied a teaminto Falujah. It was a powerful and compelling story. She spoke of theclimate of fear enveloping everything.
Among her experiences and observations, which she related [this from myless than adequate memory], the following struck me:
One day in her relatively quiet neighborhood an American patrol (with aHumvee) pulled up in front of her building. She went to speak with thesoldiers. As she was doing so, her landlady appeared at an upper window,very concerned about what was going on. In the conversation, the soldierunderstood the reaction - he stated, "Where we go bad things happen."
Sheila Provencher also addressed her assessment of the sectarianviolence in Iraq. She stated that her opinion has changed over the lastyear - now ""If the soldiers [American military presence] leave theremay be civil war, if they stay there will be civil war."
Maybe now I do know a little more about what is going on. I wonder ifdubya, his cronies, and our enabling media incompetents do, too.
posted by deborah @ 28.6.05

Scott Ritter on War with Iran
at Traprock Peace Center
posted by deborah @ 28.6.05

Krugman The Chinese Challenge
t r u t h o u t And here we are. Aren't you glad Bush has squandered our resources? Our power? Got us deep in the red? Has made the secret intelligence empire more secret, more sleazy, more empire-y? Made us so many friends? It's insane. The only thing that's makes sense is that he and the Sith Lords are creating their self-fulfilling doomsday scenario. Any day now, expect Jesus to drop in from the sky. Good god, we need some sanity in this govenment. "The China National Offshore Oil Corporation, a company that is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, is seeking to acquire control of Unocal, an energy company with global reach. In particular, Unocal has a history - oddly ignored in much reporting on the Chinese offer - of doing business with problematic regimes in difficult places, including the Burmese junta and the Taliban. One indication of Unocal's reach: Zalmay Khalilzad, who was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan for 18 months and was just confirmed as ambassador to Iraq, was a Unocal consultant.Unocal sounds, in other words, like exactly the kind of company the Chinese government might want to control if it envisions a sort of 'great game' in which major economic powers scramble for access to far-flung oil and natural gas reserves. (Buying a company is a lot cheaper, in lives and money, than invading an oil-producing country.) So the Unocal story gains extra resonance from the latest surge in oil prices.If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal. But it would be a lot easier to take that position if the United States weren't so dependent on China right now, not just to buy our I.O.U.'s, but to help us deal with North Korea now that our military is bogged down in Iraq."
posted by deborah @ 28.6.05
Monday, June 27, 2005

bookmark: wayback machine
BBC News West Asia Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

bookmark: Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
BBC News West Asia Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline:
"Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline"
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

bookmark: Unocal
Unocal and Bridas Woo the Taliban for Oil Pipeline Project
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

Take Action
What Part of "No New Nukes" Don't They Understand?
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

let's not play into Rove's hands
from deb: what's so funny about peace, love, and understandingre Rove's comments, ("Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers") we have the Daily Kos: Karl Rove's selective memory --
The mystery pollster reminds one of what was being said about what we thoughtback when:CBS/New York Times, 9/13-14/2001, n=959 adults (source: National Journal's Hotline).Should the U.S. take military action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, 76% of independentsShould the U.S. take military action against those responsible for attacks, even if it means innocent people are killed? Yes: 74% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, 67% of independents --- etc. Poll, poll, poll.And here we are saying, "See? Take that, Mr Rove! We were too united!"Let me understand this. Our vaunted "UNITY" was more important that reason, law, justice? Than understanding how our lapse in our vaunted law-unto-itself intelligence allowed 911 to happen? Than in trying to understand what motivated the act, what might prevent it? Than in taking responsibility for our part in it? (see Brzezinski's comments. Truth is, we courted the radicals. Empowered them. Created them. It was all so School of the Americas.)"We were truly united as a nation back then..." the blog goes on. United? Unity? You mean we demonstrated a mass identity? That it's more important to reflexively act as a group than as individuals? Is this a football game or is this civilization?None of this makes me feel good; not then, not now. A majority values revenge above justice? My friends, this tribal mentality is what 'terrorism' is all about. It makes it work, empowers it, defines its options.And there we were, reinforcing it.And here we are -- still reinforcing it. Have we learned nothing?And if you now plan to take some moral high ground against Bush, don't you see that this response just feeds you into Rove's hands?
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 118, Sec. 2441. Sec. 2441. - War crimes(a) Offense. -Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.(b) Circumstances. -The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).(c) Definition. -As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -(1)defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2)prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3)which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or(4)of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courthttp://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
Relevant citation (Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(iv) and (v)):Article 8 War crimes1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention . . . .(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To deal with despotic rulers, must we become despotic, become a nation ruled by the same? Terrorism wears a tribal mask; when we respond in kind with collective force—blunt and faceless—we only reinforce it. Individuals act, and individuals must be held accountable. If we don't nurture justice through law and the avenues of peaceful solutions, if we simply resort to the use of our unimaginably superior arms, what statement are we making to the world? What protocol do we establish? What will we be left to live with? Fear and suspicion have been exploited to sell war. Questions are not asked or answered. The obvious economic benefits to private oil's control of the Iraqi reserves are never discussed - indeed, they are obfuscated, even denied. In whose service is our military in this war? Our intelligence: who does it answer to? If we can't readily answer these questions, we no longer function as a Democracy. What then have we become? ~dmc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of liberty then I would say that in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will, but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.""What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body . . . "~Thomas Jefferson
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

[Negative-Capability] Re: World Tribunal on Iraq
from Suzanne:This tribunal was extremely important..a strong indication that we have the foundation for a global community that will stand for truth and justice and is willing to fight for the conscience and dignity of the human spirit...I keep seeing this spirit in small NGO's and civil societies....in people all over the world who will rise above the lies and greed and destructiveness of big corporations and governments...maybe we need to look to this same global community to help us make the changes we need here in the US.. Economic pressure and truth telling from other nations could be tremendously helpful....
*****
More Evidence Indicts U.S.Inter Press ServiceDahr JamailISTANBUL, Jun 27 (IPS) - New evidence on U.S. war crimes and violations of international law was presented at the concluding session of the World Tribunal on Iraq at hearings in Istanbul Sunday.The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is a 'peoples' court' set up byacademics, human rights campaigners and non-governmental organisationsto take an independent look at the Iraq record of the United States andother occupying powers such as Britain. The tribunal was inspired by theRussel Tribunal of the Vietnam war days.The three-day tribunal, the 21st in a series of meetings held over thelast two years, was held against a background of another spurt ofviolence that left 41 people dead in bombings Sunday. The dead includedfour U.S. soldiers, three of them women.The tribunal says it derives its legitimacy from the fact that a war ofaggression was launched on Iraq ”despite the opposition of people andgovernments all over the world.” It adds: ”However, there is no court orauthority that will judge the acts of the U.S. and its allies. If theofficial authorities fail, then authority derived from universal moralsand human rights principles can speak for the world.”The last sitting took place before a 'jury of conscience' that includedauthor Arundhati Roy and Francois Houtart who participated in the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal on U.S. Crimes in Vietnam. In all54 persons gave testimony on several aspects of the invasion and theoccupation of Iraq.”The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, ourintelligence, and our future,” Roy said at the hearings.. ”We recognisethat the judgment of the World Tribunal on Iraq is not binding ininternational law. However, our ambitions far surpass that. The WorldTribunal on Iraq places its faith in the consciences of millions ofpeople across the world who do not wish to stand by and watch while thepeople of Iraq are being slaughtered, subjugated, and humiliated.”Denis Halliday, former assistant secretary-general of the United Nationswho resigned in protest against sanctions on Iraq said during histestimony that ”the UN silently accepted the totally illegal no-fly zonebombing by the U.S../UK of Iraq culminating in softening up attackspreliminary to the unlawful invasion of 2003.”Halliday said that ”by these various means, the UN has itself destroyedthe basic human rights of the Iraqi people through the wilful neglect ofArticles 22-28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN failed to protect and safeguard the children and people before and afterthe 2003 invasion.”Thomas Fasy, associate professor of pathology at the Mount Sinai Schoolof Medicine in New York, provided evidence of a seven-fold increase incongenital malformations of Iraqi babies from 1990-2001.Fasy also testified that childhood cancers and leukemia in childrenbelow five in the Basra governorate increased 26-fold over 1990-2002.Fadhil Al Bedrani, a BBC and Reuters journalist who was in Fallujahduring the November siege, provided evidence of collective punishment ofcivilians by U.S. forces.Iraqi women's rights supporter Hana Ibrahim said women suffer 90 percentunemployment, and are often the victims of rape, lawlessness, forcedprostitution and kidnappings.”From the day that the occupation started in Iraq there was a systematicviolation of women and their rights,” she said.Herbert Docena, researcher with the group 'Focus on the Global South'who has studied Iraq's reconstruction and political transition pointedto the economic and political forces behind the invasion and occupationof Iraq.”As early as February 2003, the U.S. had finished drafting what the WallStreet Journal called 'sweeping plans to remake Iraq's economy in theUS's image',” Docena said. ”Just as the U.S. bombed out and physicallyobliterated almost all of Iraq's ministries, the plan entails the repealof almost all of its current laws and the dismantling of its existinginstitutions, except those that already fit in with the U.S. design.”The jury in its ruling ”recognised the right of the Iraqi people toresist the illegal occupation of their country.”It recommended ”immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all occupationforces” and called on ”the governments of the coalition to pay fullcompensation to Iraqis for any and all damages, and that all laws,contracts, treaties and institutions created under the occupation thatIraqi people deem harmful or un-useful to them be banished.”Other recommendations included immediate investigation of crimes againsthumanity by U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister TonyBlair, and every other president of countries belonging to the coalition.In addition, the jury called for a process of accountability to bring tojustice journalists and media outlets that lied and promoted theviolence against Iraq, as well as corporations who have profited fromthe war.
Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
_______________________________
(c)2004, 2005 Dahr Jamail.All images and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the DahrJamailIraq.com website. Any other use of images and text including, but not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward Dahr's dispatches via email.What we are looking for is what is looking.- St. Francis of Assisi"To look with the eyes and see with the heart is the secret of the Philosopher's Stone." ~Petrus Bonus
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05

[Negative-Capability] UK theatre in trouble
from phoebe :
Our friends across the pond are having their difficulties with the RadicalRight just as we are here. This article from the Sunday Telegraph isdisturbing:
~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm proud of this play we're planning - but I'm not prepared to do sevenyears in jail for it."Nicholas Hytner --Sunday Telegraph
In the autumn, the National Theatre will mount a production of a majornew play by Howard Brenton about St Paul. Or at least, we will ifpeople who haven't read it, but think they might be offended by it, donot succeed in persuading the Government that it falls foul of the newBill on religious hatred. That Bill, which passed its second readinglast week in the Commons, will make "incitement to religious hatred"an offence punishable by up to seven years in prison. Paul, althoughwritten from a secular point of view, is a serious (if irreverent)exploration of religious faith. I will be very proud to put it on -but I am not sure I am prepared to do seven years inside for it.
I have already received a sizeable mailbag of letters from people whoknow nothing about Paul, but think it ought to be banned. Some of themthink I should be sent down for even contemplating producing it,though their preferred destination is Hell rather than Pentonville. Alot of them think that the play will incite "hatred of Christianity"and of Christians. They are wrong: the play takes as its startingpoint the inspirational beauty of much of St Paul's teaching. But theSikhs who protested outside the Birmingham Rep Theatre last Decemberwere also wrong: they thought that Behzti was an attack on Sikhism.Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, the author (she is herself a Sikh) emphaticallyinsists it is not. Ignorance, however, did not stop Behzti's opponentsfrom persuading the Birmingham Rep to abandon it, nor did it preventthem from forcing its author into hiding.
The response of the Home Office minister Fiona McTaggart - someonewhose job I thought was to defend free speech - was deeply depressing.She refused to defend either the theatre or the playwright andinsisted on the moral equivalence of the writer and her violentassailants. The mob of stone-throwing protesters, she said, weremerely exercising their free speech, which "is as important as thefree speech of the artist".
If the "protesters" had merely wanted to argue about the play, or toexpress their opposition to it, however vehemently, I would agree withthe minister entirely. But that's not what they wanted to do. Theywanted the play banned - and they threatened to kill the author andburn down the theatre unless it was. Does anyone in the Governmentreally think that threatening to kill writers and burn down theatresshould be accorded the same rights under law as putting on plays inthe first place? If so, there will soon be no drama at all in Britain.I might as well pack up and go home - because half the repertoire ofthe National Theatre would go to the wall.
One of our jobs in the theatre is to put on shows that will provoke,ridicule and offend. Some plays do that in a more extreme way thanothers: Schiller's Don Carlos, recently a huge success in the WestEnd, is at least partly designed to generate hatred of the CatholicChurch. Under the new legislation, someone who launched a prosecutionagainst a producer who put on Don Carlos on the grounds that it"incites religious hatred" would have an unanswerable case. The PrimeMinister has insisted this is hysterical scare-mongering. He haspromised that there will never be a prosecution against anyone forartistic expression. But the wording of the legislation isunequivocal. It makes incitement to religious hatred a punishableoffence. It means the only force blocking prosecutions of plays andfilms which people find deeply offensive, and which they believeincite religious hatred, is the good sense of the Attorney General.
I do not doubt Lord Goldsmith's sanity, but it's no excuse for a badlaw. There is a new climate of religious intolerance in Britain.Whatever the Government says, this new Bill is pandering to thatintolerance. It will lead to an unstoppable flood of demands fromreligious leaders for prosecutions of their critics. It has massivelyraised expectations among the Muslim community, many of whom think itprovides them with a blasphemy law. There will be only anger anddisappointment when prosecutions do not occur, and who is to know howlong it will be before the political pressure on some future attorneygeneral to prosecute a provocative work of art becomes intolerable?
There is no doubt that some communities are suffering poisonousattacks from racists and bigots seeking to hide behind religiouslanguage to incite race hate, but there are better ways of tacklingthis very serious problem than by undermining our essential civilliberties. I support wholeheartedly the existing race hate laws, andof their use to squash racist abuse. They should be extended to coverthe use of religious words as a proxy to cover racial hatred; and infact the Liberal Democrat peer Anthony Lester has proposed anamendment that would achieve just that.
What I deplore is the new legislation, which could easily be used tosquash the legitimate questioning and probing of religious ideas. Itis as all-encompassing as it is imprecise, and would stifle those whowould otherwise produce, publish or fund a provocative work but mayperfectly properly not want to risk prosecution for so doing.
Meanwhile, the Home Office minister Paul Goggins has confirmed thatall religious groups will be protected under the Act, including, hesays, Satanists. For myself, I have always had a soft spot for the oldGreek gods. Were I to advocate human sacrifice as a way of appeasingthem, I presume I could look to the new law to protect me from thosewho would incite hatred against beliefs that were shared by some ofthe founding spirits of Western Civilisation.
Surreally, one consequence of the Bill might be that anyfaux-religious freak will be able to claim its protection for theproselytising of all sorts of disgusting nonsense. You could beprosecuted as easily for inciting hatred of Satanists as forpublishing the works of Martin Luther.
So why has so manifestly dodgy a solution been proposed for a genuineproblem? Cynics might claim that the Government, having offended andalienated much of the Muslim community by its conduct over the war inIraq, is trying to win it back again by passing a totally unnecessarylaw. Before the election, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, wrote aletter to Muslim groups in which he apologised for his failure to getthe Bill through Parliament. He blamed the opposition parties fordelaying it, and insisted it would not happen again once theGovernment was re-elected. Many Muslims, including Dr Saddiqui of theMuslim Parliament, nevertheless oppose the Bill.
The extremist end of Islam - the fanatics who wanted Salman Rushdiekilled, and who, like my hellfire-breathing Christian correspondentswant their beliefs to be immune from criticism of any sort - will notbe appeased by it. They will simply see it as a staging post for amore extreme law: one which will extend blasphemy legislation to coverall religions.
The Government, it seems, is willing to help them. In its presentform, this unnecessary law will represent the most serious threat tofreedom of speech since the old Lord Chamberlain's office, when playswere censored or banned because they didn't fit in with the LordChamberlain's view of what was "decent" or conducive to public morals.But more than that, it will mark an attack on the values of thefreedom of thought and religious tolerance that are the heritage ofthe Enlightenment. All of us who are not religious fanatics want afree and tolerant society. The history of the last 500 years showsthat we cannot achieve a free and tolerant society by ceding ground toreligious extremists.
_____________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus Atkinson aims to scupper 'creepy' ban on inciting religious hatred The Independent - United Kingdom, Jun 21, 2005The comedian Rowan Atkinson is leading a final attempt to scupper the Government's 'creepy and disturbing' plans to bring...
Top theatre director raises concerns over religious hatred bill The Scotsman - United Kingdom, Jun 21, 2005FILMS and plays ranging from Monty Python's Life of Brian to a 200-year-old theatre production recently performed in the...
Atkinson makes final bid to stop religious hate Bill The Independent - United Kingdom, Jun 21, 2005 The comedian Rowan Atkinson is leading a final attempt to scupper the Government's 'creepy and disturbing' plans to bring...
Celebrities join fight to amend bill on religious hatred The Guardian - United Kingdom, Jun 21, 2005 Opposition parties, celebrity figures and Labour rebels are to combine to curb the government's proposals to introduce a...

________

Okay, here's what we must ban from the stage to make all the Fundies of the world happy.
The entire Greek and Roman canon.
All the works and derivative works from China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, and India, including and probably especially such works as the Ramayana.
Most, if not all, of the work of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Jonson, and Webster.
All of Moliere.
Most, if not all, of the works of Goethe, Schiller, and Lessing.
All of the Restoration plays.
John Gay's The Beggar's Opera and all remakes of same.
All of Sheridan.
The operas of Mozart, Verdi, and Puccini.
All of the French 19th century plays such as La Dame aux Camellias; most, if not all of the "well-made" plays.
All of Ibsen.
All of Checkov.
All of Shaw and Pinero.
All of Brecht.
All of the Surrealists, Dadaists and the French avant-garde.
Most, if not all, of Pinter, Bond, O'Neill, Miller, Beckett and their ilk.
This, off the top of my head.Bugger 'em, say I.phoebe
______________________

ENCORE ENCORE (FROM THE WINGS, WHERE ELSE!)
AND DON'T FORGET 'angels in america', probably the most profoundly religious play I have ever seen!
Carroll
posted by deborah @ 27.6.05
Sunday, June 26, 2005

What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding: playing into Rove's hands
from debre Daily Kos: Karl Rove's selective memory --
The mystery pollster reminds one of what was being said about what we thoughtback when:CBS/New York Times, 9/13-14/2001, n=959 adults (source: National Journal's Hotline).Should the U.S. take military action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, 76% of independentsShould the U.S. take military action against those responsible for attacks, even if it means innocent people are killed? Yes: 74% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, 67% of independents --- etc. Poll, poll, poll.And here we are saying, "See? Take that, Mr Rove! We were too united!"Let me understand this. Our vaunted "UNITY" was more important that reason, law, justice? Than understanding how our lapse in our vaunted law-unto-itself intelligence allowed 911 to happen? Than in trying to understand what motivated the act, what might prevent it? Than in taking responsibility for our part in it? (see Brzezinski's comments. Truth is, we courted the radicals. Empowered them. Created them. It was all so School of the Americas.)"We were truly united as a nation back then..." the blog goes on. United? Unity? You mean we demonstrated a mass identity? That it's more important to reflexively act as a group than as individuals? Is this a football game or is this civilization?None of this makes me feel good; not then, not now. A majority values revenge above justice? My friends, this tribal mentality is what 'terrorism' is all about. It makes it work, empowers it, defines its options.And there we were, reinforcing it.And here we are -- still reinforcing it. Have we learned nothing?And if you now plan to take some moral high ground against Bush, don't you see that this response just feeds you into Rove's hands?TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 118, Sec. 2441. Sec. 2441. - War crimes(a) Offense. -Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.(b) Circumstances. -The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).(c) Definition. -As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -(1)defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;(2)prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;(3)which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or(4)of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courthttp://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htmRelevant citation (Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(iv) and (v)):Article 8 War crimes1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention . . . .(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To deal with despotic rulers, must we become despotic, become a nation ruled by the same? Terrorism wears a tribal mask; when we respond in kind with collective force—blunt and faceless—we only reinforce it. Individuals act, and individuals must be held accountable. If we don't nurture justice through law and the avenues of peaceful solutions, if we simply resort to the use of our unimaginably superior arms, what statement are we making to the world? What protocol do we establish? What will we be left to live with? Fear and suspicion have been exploited to sell war. Questions are not asked or answered. The obvious economic benefits to private oil's control of the Iraqi reserves are never discussed - indeed, they are obfuscated, even denied. In whose service is our military in this war? Our intelligence: who does it answer to? If we can't readily answer these questions, we no longer function as a Democracy. What then have we become? ~dmc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of liberty then I would say that in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will, but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.""What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body . . . "~Thomas Jefferson
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05

consider this...
Tomgram: Michael Klare on a Saudi Oil Bombshell
"Imagine, just for the sake of argument, where we might be today, energy-wise, if Americans -- and American legislators –- had actually taken Jimmy Carter's famed 1979 "moral equivalent of war" speech on energy conservation seriously, but rejected his Carter Doctrine and the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force that went with it -- both of which set us on our present path to war(s) in the Middle East. Here's part of what Carter said to the American people on television that long-ago night..."
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05

T. Michael Moseley - SourceWatch
SourceWatch:US Air Force Lieutenant General T. Michael Moseley, in "a [July 19, 2003,] briefing to military commanders, ... acknowledged that the Air Force launched offensive operations against Iraq in June 2002. Three months before President George W. Bush appeared before the United Nations to present a case for 'disarming' Iraq, five months before the adoption of UN Resolution 1441 threatening 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, and a full nine months before the war was officially announced, the Bush administration had already ordered combat operations to begin."In the midst of closed-door congressional inquiries and media speculation over whether the Bush administration went to war on the basis of 'manipulated' or 'faulty' intelligence, the response to Moseley's statements has been a deafening silence. Apart from news reports of Moseley's briefing in the weekend Washington Post and New York Times, nothing has been said about what amounts to an admission that the Bush administration lied to the American people for months about its intentions and operations in Iraq."Even as US planes were systematically destroying Iraqi air defenses and communications grids in preparation for a land war, under cover of patrolling the so-called 'no fly' zone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm) in the south of the country, Bush was repeatedly insisting that he had made no decision on invading Iraq and was 'hoping for peace.' Moseley's briefing exposes the entire effort to secure United Nations backing and resume weapons inspections as nothing more than a cynical charade, behind which Washington carried on an air war to facilitate the rapid introduction of ground troops once war was publicly proclaimed."According to Moseley, the Air Force received its orders from the White House to begin the preparations for a war on Iraq in late 2001--following the September 11, 2001 attacks."Source: James Conachy, "Military review reveals more government lies: US launched air war against Iraq in 2002," (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/air-j24.shtml) wsws.org, July 23, 2003.
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05

How the Leaked Documents Questioning War Emerged
from phoebe:
How the Leaked Documents Questioning War Emerged from 'Britain's DeepThroat'By Michael SmithThe Sunday Times UKSunday 26 June 2005
It started with a phone call and has now swept across America: Michael Smith tells the tale of his 'Downing Street memo' scoop.It began with a phone call from a friend nearly 10 months ago - somebody well-placed who had given me a few stories before. But he wasn't really a journalistic source, though he has now been dubbed "the British Deep Throat" by some of the US press.He was just a friend. So I had no great expectations of the meeting we arranged in a quiet West End bar. I was just expecting a convivial drink, with the usual exchange of gossip, the catching-up on how our lives were going.Almost immediately it was clear that this time it would be something more. The place was empty, but my friend chose the most secluded spot he could find. He was clearly nervous. He wasn't sure if I'd be interested in what he had, he said. It was about the run-up to the war. "All the Butler stuff," he said, referring to Lord Butler, who had reported on the failures of intelligence over Iraq.He thrust two sheets of paper into my hand. It was a "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter from Jack Straw to the prime minister written in March 2002, a year before the invasion.In the letter the foreign secretary said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction worth talking about and that, in part as a result of a lack of US preparation, post-war Iraq was likely to become a very nasty place.It was, in short, remarkably prescient and would make a pretty good story, I said, with some understatement. Well, I've got five others just like it from the same period, said my source. "Most say stuff just like that, or worse."The documents covered the period running up to a summit between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. At that time the swift victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan had left hawks in the US administration openly briefing that Iraq was next.Most of the leaked documents were designed to brief ministers or Blair on whether backing the US plans to get rid of Saddam would be sensible and legal. They set out the merits and dangers of taking part. Their gist was that there weren't many merits. The documents made it pretty clear that it wasn't sensible, it wasn't legal and it was very risky.The document that seemed to encapsulate the problems was another "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter to Blair. It was written by his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning."I think there is a real risk that the (US) administration underestimates the difficulties," Manning wrote. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it."When I reported these documents I was surprised to find that there was no real interest in them in America. The story swiftly died away.Then eight months later, in the run-up to Britain's general election, with the focus on the attorney-general's advice to Blair on the legality of war, somebody else gave me further, even more startling documents. They concerned a meeting in Downing Street on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion, when Blair was insisting to the public that all options on Iraq were still open.One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would "back military action to bring about regime change". It added that ministers had no choice but to "create the conditions" that would make military action legal.The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said "military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had "made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin".After reporting these secret memos, which revealed the dubious manoeuvrings of government, I expected the US press to react. Surely there would be a storm of anger over the way in which the American public had been deceived into going to war? But still there was no interest. Then slowly something astonishing happened.
People power took over.
The Sunday Times website was inundated with ordinary US citizens wanting to read the minutes of the July meeting. Bloggers set to work passing the word.Six ordinary, patriotic citizens with no political axe to grind were so outraged to discover the truth about the path to war that they set up their own website, naming it after the minutes, which had become known as the Downing Street memo.The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime".Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the "spikes of activity" as their US colleagues.
Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.
If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair's legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.
Last week one US blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, unearthed more unsettling evidence. It was an overlooked interview with Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley, the allied air commander in Iraq, in which he appears to admit that the "spikes of activity" were part of a covert air war.
From June 2002 until March 20, when the ground war began, the allies flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq, attacking 349 carefully selected targets. The attacks, Moseley said, "laid the foundations" for the invasion, allowing allied commanders to begin the ground war.The bloggers may have found their own smoking gun.
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05

The Naked and the Dead -
My god. from mike:

This really shocked me and is has the potential to take on Abu Ghraib, Bhagram and Guantanamo proportions in the world's view of what the US is doing and what's going on in Iraq. Dont take the warning lightly, it is very disturbing, not to be viewed before sitting down to your Sunday lunch (Tony):

Did U.S. Soldiers Shoot Iraqi Kids and Plant Weapons On Their Bodies?Warning:This reports contain images that should only be viewed by adults.http://snipurl.com/fu04

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

This is how fascism comes.Bush administration officials join ranks of tyrannyBy Robert ZallerIt comes through creating legal nonpersons of citizens and noncitizens alike. It comes through violating human rights standards, sanitizing torture, and condoning murder.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9272.htm
-------------------------------------------

US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, says anti-war tribunal : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/154590/1/.html
******************
If you don't understand that whatever appears is meditation,What can you achieve by applying an antidote?Perceptions are not abandoned by discarding them But are spontaneously freed when recognized as illusory. Niguma
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05

unforgivable
"Listen to what this caller, a liberal who lost two sons in Iraq, has to say."Isn't it amazing, the balls of the chickenhawks?It's unforgivable the way our troops -- our neighbors, our family, our children -- have been lied to, drugged, sent into impossible situations without planning or even proper provisions. Since Bush didn't listen to his own generals, how much thought did he give to the man or woman on the ground?
posted by deborah @ 26.6.05
Saturday, June 25, 2005

VERY interesting...
Chinese Bid for Unocal Stirs Up IssuesEspecially this part:"In 1988, congressional critics, worried that the U.S. was selling off family jewels, sought to beef up the process by giving the president authority to block foreign deals if they threatened national security.That trigger has been pulled once, and the target was China, according to trade experts. In 1990, amid concerns over Chinese acquisitions of sensitive U.S. technology, then-President George H.W. Bush ordered China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corp. to sell its interest in Mamco Manufacturing Co., an aerospace firm that supplied Boeing Co."Hm.(And goodness. Even fundi's like Gary Bauer have their panties in a bunch over this:"And Speaking of Outrage -- My four word invitation to you to tell me what you think about the attempted take over of Unocal by a Chinese Communist government-owned company resulted in an avalanche of responses - 99% against! Thank you for the feedback, which I am passing on to Capitol Hill and the White House."Where are they when our children need protecting from things like the vaccine induced Autism epidemic?
Mr. Frist and the CNP Sith Lords have such odd priorities...)
Let's follow the money. er, oil...4/28/2005

Unocal Net Income Soars 69 Percent on Oil Prices and the classic Why war? -- it goes back, doesn't it?and certainly--Doubt grows over preventive war .... by the day.
posted by deborah @ 25.6.05

The Crusader's mindset: end justifies all means
Editorials from The Roanoke Times:
"Dick Cheney should confront realityGen. Abizaid's testimony confirmed the Iraq insurgency is far from its 'last throes.' Still, the vice president shows persistent disdain for that truth.The Roanoke TimesDick Cheney, meet reality.The vice president's long-overdue introduction to reality came courtesy of Gen. John P. Abizaid's testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee that directly contradicted Cheney's rosy assessment of an Iraq insurgency in its 'last throes.' Abizaid made it clear that the insurgency was every bit as strong as it was six months ago and that foreign fighters were still joining the battle. A few days before, Abizaid told the Houston Chronicle that the United States was in for an indefinite fight that would 'cost in blood and treasure.'Cheney remained as resistant to such assessments as he was to giving any consideration prior to the war that his belief that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq might be wrong. 'If you look at what the dictionary says about 'throes,' it can be a, you know, a violent period, the throes of a revolution,' Cheney said on CNN after Abizaid's testimony.As American confidence in President Bush's adventure in Iraq erodes, such persistent disdain for confronting reality will not offer much comfort.Nor will the kind of partisan rhetoric exercised by White House adviser Karl Rove, who said the liberal response to the 9/11 attacks was to offer 'therapy and understanding to our attackers,' while conservatives 'prepared for war.'Unfortunately, they mostly prepared for the wrong war. From the beginning, the real focus of the Bush administration was on Iraq, not Afghanistan, whose ruling Taliban had provided a safe harbor and training ground for al-Qaida.Once the Taliban fell, resources were quickly diverted from the fight to wipe out al-Qaida and bring Osama bin Laden to justice to preparing for the invasion of Iraq - which had no connection to the terrorist attacks.That invasion, according to a report by the CIA, turned Iraq into a training ground that will produce more proficient terrorists than Afghanistan. The report says that Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills in Iraq's urban environments. Once the insurgency is over, the CIA fears the terrorists will disperse and take those skills around the globe.Calls for Rove to apologize for his remarks miss the broader point. Though his comments inexcusably ignored the shared outrage and national unity that marked the months after 9/11, the real apology should come from Cheney, President Bush and the other architects of the disastrous Iraq war."

__________________

Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998, p. 76Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in hismemoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence servicesbegan to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before theSoviet intervention. In this period you were the national securityadviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair.Is that correct?Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aidto the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Sovietarmy invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretlyguarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3,1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid tothe opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, Iwrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in myopinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. Butperhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked toprovoke it?B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but weknowingly increased the probability that they would.Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that theyintended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States inAfghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basisof truth. You don't regret anything today?B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It hadthe effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you wantme to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border,I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving tothe USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow hadto carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict thatbrought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Sovietempire.Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamicfundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban orthe collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or theliberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeatedIslamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard toIslam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in arational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leadingreligion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there incommon among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asiansecularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.Translated from the French by Bill Blum
posted by deborah @ 25.6.05
Friday, June 24, 2005

Scott Ritter talk and article from 9/11/ widow
from suzanne:

This is a terrific article:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2336

Also, I heard Scott Ritter speak last night at the Trap Rock Peace Center and he presented some pretty strong evidence for the intent of the US to do some regime changing in Iran...To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. We have been flying over Iranian air space for months which is an act of war . Also we're interfering in their election and actually undermining the possibile success of a moderate pro-western leader and so we can continue to have the mullahs as an excuse for a repressive government in alk Iran. The media is doing the same propaganda routine it did in preparing the population for war in Iraq. It all makes me quite sick....

I like Scott Ritter. He's an extremely patriotic man, was in the marines, raised in a a republican family and speaks to the need to educate people about the constitution what it stands for and how it is being abused by Bush and company. I didn't stay for the question and answer period which probably went on for hours...He thinks it will take generations to build a responsible citizenry to take back our country...he said we've become blinded by consumerism and no longer have any idea what it means to be a responsible citizen...Glad I was there....
posted by deborah @ 24.6.05
Thursday, June 23, 2005

cyberjournal.org home page
Welcome!
This website is dedicated to the liberation of the human spirit and the establishment of a livable world.
posted by deborah @ 23.6.05

Stop Global Warming
Virtual March on WashingtonWhy Join the March?From the vanishing glaciers in Montana to the damaged coral reefs of Florida; to sinking villages in Alaska and wild fire outbreaks in California, the impacts of global warming are a part of daily life across the United States. It is crucial that you join the March because the consequences of doing nothing are unimaginable.It affects everyone. Young, old, rich, poor, urban, rural, right wing, left wing, those in the middle. Global warming is a national security problem, an economic problem, and a public health problem. And it's not going to get better unless we act nowAmericans from all regions and walks of life need to join together and urge our leaders to take action to stop global warming. Leading scientists, political and religious leaders, prominent Americans and concerned citizens have joined but change can't happen without you.It is through our numbers and personal stories that we will spur our community, government and business leaders to take action against global warming. We hope that you will join the March, and invite your family and friends to march with you.As a Marcher, you will receive a personal page where you can tell your family and friends your reasons for marching, track your progress and ask others to join the March. You will also receive email updates on March stops, breaking news and ways that you can take action.Visit http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ regularly for:
Tips on little changes in your daily life that make a big impact,
(Up-to date information about the March,
Breaking news reports,
Essays on "Why I Joined the March" written by everyone from Arctic experts and political leaders to your next door neighbor, andWays to connect with other Marchers.
Together we will march toward a solution to the problem of global warming.
Click here to Join the March today!
posted by deborah @ 23.6.05
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

The Deep Throat File
FBI Memos Detail Mark Felt's Involvement inEfforts to Identify Secret Watergate Source
posted by deborah @ 22.6.05

AFTER THE VOTE ON THE EU TREATY
From: mike
Why France said non
http://mondediplo.com/2005/06/02frenchno
_________________________
Re: AFTER THE VOTE ON THE EU TREATYfrom suzanne:I saw this a few days ago and meant to ask you what you thought of it. My cousins in Germany feel similarly and think there are advantages to cooperation between European nations but not in moving toward one large EU government... I think we could see a time here also when individual states begin to fight against federal mandates and work to return more power to the states. In that sense I have always been a little conservative...I like the ideas of E F Schumacher..."Small is Beautiful" as the best way for our economies to reflect the needs of people....economics as if people mattered....hopefully we will find creative ways to take care of one another locally and become better, more conscious consumers...It's always healthier when power, political and economic, remains in the hands of the people. That's what the founding fathers of the constitution intended for the US ..and how far we have strayed from those protections for the good of the people. I'm glad that people in France and Europe are strong enough to demand the type of governance they want....we could learn something from you...as time passes people here are becoming less afraid of more terroist attacks and it will become more difficult to rule on fear and nationalism....people are beginning to wake up ...ever so slowly
______________________
Re: AFTER THE VOTE ON THE EU TREATY
from mike
The major problems with this document are two: One, that it is both a a treaty AND a consitution. and two, that the entirety is unchangeable except by 100% concensus which is madness.Couple this to the fact that those who created this so-called constitution are known elitists (Giscard and company), and the fact that it in no wise brings ANYthing to those of us on the ground... It was a useless attempt.Hopefully - and I really mean hopefully! - we're dealing with politicians here, remember - the next will be slightly closer to "real".When it comes to government, my models are all the ancient Chinese... Lao's model, and that of Confucius himself, as opposed to how it was interpreted by his self-proclaimed disciples... As you say: keep it small, keep it loose...
posted by deborah @ 22.6.05
Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Stop Bolton
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05

Limbaugh baselessly suggested Downing Street memo "may be a fake"
[Media Matters for America]
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05

The Terminator model
Unmanned Vehicles for U.S. Naval Forces: Background and Issues for Congress PDF file abstract:"Unmanned vehicles (UVs) are viewed as a key element of the effort to transform U.S. military forces. The Department of the Navy may eventually acquire every major kind of UV. Navy and Marine Corps UV programs raise several potential issues for Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant."
***
“Falluja-The day After”
***
"While U.S. forces try to sort out who deserves death, it's easy enough for news watchers to puff up with pride over the latest advances in American military technology. Glorification of the Pentagon's new weaponry encourages us to feel better about what is being done in our names. But no amount of hype can change the fact that all the weapons are instruments of death." ~ Norman Solomon, Picture-Perfect Killers
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah yes. Keeping us safer...When Bush "unsigned" us from various treaties that have kept us safe in a time tested, proven way, we were concerned. Why? we asked. What next? we wondered.We all know the first part of Ann Coulter's most famous statement. The rest is more telling:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."So it goes. Coulter did exercise the presence of mind to not remind us what Hitler did at home to his own unconverted, but the wise can extrapolate from any direction. But she brings to mind another quote:
The contemporary West is not - despite our constant calling of them to memory - built on Auschwitz and Treblinka, to which we have said 'No'. It is built on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to which we have said 'Yes'." ~Desmond Fennell: The Revision of European HistoryNow, my point: Last summer, Senate Republicans voted for nukes by a 55-42 roll call (No difference between parties, Mr. Nader?), rejecting a Democratic amendment to the defense authorization bill that would have eliminated funding for research into mini-nuke "bunker-buster" warheads. (Re bunker-busters, see blog below.)If confronted, they'll argue that such a wonderful weapon will pinpoint its payload, clean out those underground hidybins of vermin, and save civilian lives. But nukes is nukes, with a killing power that lasts and lasts and lasts -- as well as causes birth defects. A pinpoint Armageddon? Nukes is nukes, and breaking the long held taboo against them should scare the hell out of even the best cloth-coated Republican. http://www.policyscience.net/mcnamara.pdf
Extrapolate...............
****************************
His life has always been a matter of others doing his dirty work for him, others bailing him out. And in that moment it shows." ~Joshua Micah Marshall on George W Bush
******************************

"What are you?" Trout asked the boy scornfully. "Some kind of gutless wonder?" This, too, was the title of a book by Trout, The Gutless Wonder. It was about a robot who had bad breath, who became popular after his halitosis was cured. But what made the story remarkable, since it was written in 1932, was that it predicted the widespread use of burning jellied gasoline on human beings.It was dropped on them from airplanes. Robots did the dropping. They had no conscience, and no circuits which would allow them to imagine what happens to people on the ground.Trout's leading robot looked like a human being, and could talk and dance and so on, and go out with girls. And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable. But then he cleared that up, and he was welcomed to the human race. ~KURT VONNEGUT, Slaughterhouse-Five

*******************************
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05

Nuclear Bunker Busters Are Dangerous, Ineffective, and Unneeded
Federation of American ScientistsNuclear earth-penetrating bunker busters do not penetrate the earth very far and are not even very good at busting bunkers. This video illustrates what really happens and how we have to solve the military problem of buried targets.
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05

resource : Iran-Iraq War
MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONFMFRP 3-203 -
"Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War,10 December 1990 "
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05

war and war crimes
For those who support the war, we see blind support, based not on ethics, law, or high-level moral reasoning, but on ideology -- the NeoCon pragmatism; the fear of the generic all purpose bogey, Terrorism; the dogmatic faith-based 'reason' of the fundamentalists: right or wrong, God appointed Bush. Who are we to question? Makes it easy to sleep at night. Beyond the abuse and degradation of prisoners (Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know), what isn't understood is the illegality of the war. The Downing Street Memos make clear that the reasons for the war were invented, planted, justified with lies.Dana Milbank's scathing, dishonest piece on the Conyer's Meeting last week paints it all as dress-up, pretend. What it really was, was a teach-in for most Americans, and like the Downing Street Memo itself, a wake-up call. What's really lacking in America is an understanding of war itself: its history and the laws we've made, lessons hard won -- because it's only law that in any way justifies these horrid acts. We've had unofficial, undeclared wars going on for so long, that the idea of legality, justice rarely even enters into the debate. Morality is simply balancing an account, eye for eye, tit for tat, winner take all, simply because he is the winner. Are we justified? We didn't think so back when Bush went around the UN. But suddenly, the polls said we agreed with him.
Did anyone ask you? Did your representative represent you?
When is it "right" to invade another nation? What were the Nazis tried for in Nuremburg? Why does Bush find it okay for America to have WMD if their possession, and suspected possession alone, has become a reason to unleash them on another nation -- a reason to kill not just soldiers, but civilians by the thousands? A nation whose population is more than half made of children.Dirty bombs, the stuff of terrorists. What is depleted uranium but a dirty bomb. Who is the terrorist?These are simple questions. Our humanity asks them of us.War crimes.TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 118, Sec. 2441. Sec. 2441. - War crimes(a) Offense. -Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.(b) Circumstances. -The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).(c) Definition. -As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -(1)defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;(2)prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;(3)which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or(4)of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
------------------------------
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Relevant citation (Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(iv) and (v)):Article 8 War crimes1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention . . . .(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives ...-
-----------------
With the Downing Street Memo, we have impeachable offenses:"If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress."
--------------------------
Gutless wonderism: bombs.
--------------------------

Preemption Stop Sleeping -- a wealth of informationAll of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing. ~President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet UnionOur position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions. ~Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening statement to the tribunalAnd what an immense mass of evil must result, and indeed does result, from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen. ~Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You~The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy.Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy. ~Arthur Schlesinger Jr."Self-defense is an inherent right of states that is often used to justify armed attacks. As Francis A. Boyle has pointed out in reference to the Bush administration's "preemption doctrine", preemptive self-defense was the argument advanced by the defense lawyers for the Nazis at the Nuremburg tribunals to justify their wars of aggression. This argument was rejected, and the war criminals were sentenced to death by hanging, life imprisonment, and some lesser terms. The indictments were for conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. .." much more

--------------------------------------------------------
Looking back, we see the sell was smooth, woven of myths, woven of fears by an industry that studies what we think and how we buy, and knows exactly how to sell us anything. The lies of Fox news and Clear Channel prevail, and continue to distort America's thinking. (Please note: FOX NEWS and DirecTV are owned by ultra Right-wing Rupert Murdoch.)Bush is now defended by those who say he tried all avenues, all alternatives, that war (invasion) was his only choice. This is not true. Our MoveOn efforts were in support of keeping the UN inspectors working, a strategy proven to work, to keep us safe; a strategy undermined by this administration.The corporations that profit from the blank checks given this endeavor (as in the 89 Billion Kerry voted against) are multinationals. In no way do they serve, answer to, or benefit the United States and its people. Your taxes go to enrich these corporations while they pay no taxes in reaping their fortune. Moreover, our US enlisted forces are being used to protect them. They lose their lives and are forced to kill innocents -- women and children -- to protect these corporations' foothold in Iraq.The member of the Armed Forces of the United States sign a pledge to uphold the Constitution. This is what they've given life and limb to do. Not to protect Halliburton, Bechtel, and other private industries who have used this administration and the Republican Congress in search of profit. Not to be fodder for a NeoCon vision, "The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity" as detailed by the Rand ("Superior minds in action!") Corporation. Not to extend the borders of Israel in some Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwall, Tom Delay, Gary North Rapture based psychosis based on a thoroughly un-historic interpretation of the Bible: that which Bush imagines he is "sent" to serve. Not to serve the Saudis and avenge their own people and purposes.Contrary to what we were told with firm assurance, no weapons of mass destruction were found. None were used in the war in their defense. Our own CIA (link) finds no evidence Hussein sought to arm terrorists. Not one of the 911 hijackers was Iraqi. Bin Lauden and Saddam, as ever, hate each other and are at odds. All just as we found in researching 13 MYTHS.
Bush misled this nation into an aggressive act of war by using distortion, and supposition presented as fact: Every justification made in those weeks prior to war has been, in fact, proven false, and were considered so immediately by those outside the Bush administration. Hunches do not justify invasion, aggression, the killing of innocents or soldiers on either side.Worse, when a member of our intelligence force refused to play along, refused to lie, his wife’s (Valerie Plame) safety was compromised in an act of political revenge. Under Title 50, Chapter 15, section 421, it's a felony to divulge the identity of a covert intelligence operative, and left unchecked, it send only one message: agents beware. And such a message to send the members of your intelligence services… and why would anyone want to send it? Keeping agents from stepping forward with truth can only harm us. Wasn't that a lesson of 9/11?
To deal with despotic rulers, must we become despotic, become a nation ruled by the same? Terrorism wears a tribal mask; when we respond in kind with collective force—blunt and faceless—we only reinforce it. Individuals act, and individuals must be held accountable. If we don't nurture justice through law and the avenues of peaceful solutions, if we simply resort to the use of our unimaginably superior arms, what statement are we making to the world? What protocol do we establish? What will we be left to live with? Fear and suspicion have been exploited to sell war. Questions are not asked or answered. The obvious economic benefits to private oil's control of the Iraqi reserves are never discussed - indeed, they are obfuscated, even denied. In whose service is our military in this war? Our intelligence: who does it answer to? If we can't readily answer these questions, we no longer function as a Democracy.
What have we become?
posted by deborah @ 21.6.05
Monday, June 20, 2005

MissPoppy.com SurveyDo you watch network news on TV?"yes 26%no 42%only if there's a psychic on32%
[ return to survey ]
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

The White House's White-Out Problem
Think Progress
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

Enjoy The Draft
Enjoy The Draft: "Draft 101 - Can't I just dodge the draft?"
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

Fighting the Right: Tools for turning the tables
The Raw Story "From mass mailings to Sunday morning talk shows, the left can cast itself as mature adults who believe in accountability vs. the right as immature adolescents who can't be trusted to balance budgets, play fair, take responsibility, or tell the truth."
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

Leaked emails prove CPB chairman Tomlinson misrepresented prior contact with White House
Leaked emails prove CPB chairman Tomlinson misr ... [Media Matters for America]
The cancer spreads to PBS. TAKE ACTION
**********
An open letter to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board of directorsJune 14, 2005Corporation for Public Broadcasting 401 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-2129 Dear Board Members,I was troubled to read in The Washington Post that former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison is the "leading candidate" to be the next president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a position to which the CPB board of directors would appoint her.As you know, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established to shield American public broadcasting from political pressure. While Ms. Harrison has an impressive resume as a Republican activist and political appointee within the Bush administration, she lacks any experience in public broadcasting or independent journalism. I find it implausible that CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson and your board cannot find a leading candidate who has the kind of extensive, relevant experience the position demands.More troubling, by appointing a Republican activist to manage an organization designed to protect public broadcasting from political pressure, the board would be signaling to those who have treasured public broadcasting as a bastion of fairness and balance that it is now vulnerable to political manipulation. From Rush Limbaugh to the Fox News Channel, there is no shortage of conservative media in the United States. If CPB is committed to continuing to provide a nonpartisan alternative to such outlets, turning over the reins to a former co-chairwoman of the Republican Party is on odd way to accomplish that goal.I urge you to find another candidate to lead CPB, hopefully one with more experience in public broadcasting than in partisan politics.Sincerely,David Brock
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

Reid, Dems Repel Bolton Again
Why? Where to begin...
President Bush is "continuing to hold back pertinent information
about Mr. Bolton's tenure as under secretary of state for arms control."more

John Bolton once said the United Nations is valuable only when it directly serves U.S. interests. CNN"The Democratic document accuses Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for arms control, of "four distinct patterns of conduct" the minority party says disqualify him for the post.It says that Bolton regularly tried to stretch intelligence to fit his views.It says he exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance for alternative views, repeatedly trying to fire intelligence analysts who disagreed with him.It accuses him of making "misleading, disingenuous or non-responsive statements" to the Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing.The conclusions were based on more than 30 interviews, a review of public documents, media reports and documents provided by the Bush administration, the panel's eight Democrats said.Their case centers around testimony during confirmation hearings in April that Bolton bullied subordinates and tried to get intelligence analysts who disagreed with him fired or reassigned.[...]The minority report says other interviews show Bolton attempted for months to have Westermann removed from his post but that Bolton testified under oath he "made no effort to have discipline imposed" on the analysts."Bolton's effort to minimize the significance of his efforts is disingenuous," the report says.The report details attempts by Bolton to punish another State Department analyst he believed was withholding documents and two State Department analysts who disagreed with him on policy matters.The accounts were drawn from other interviews with committee staffers.And it accuses Bolton of personally traveling to the CIA to seek the removal of an analyst who disagreed with him on Cuba, although Bolton has denied the charge."By itself, Mr. Bolton's credibility problem on intelligence matters makes him the wrong man for the U.N. job at this critical time," the report says.Democrats also criticize Bolton for his sometimes blunt comments about the United Nations, including a 1994 statement that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." "Ray McGovern also mentioned John Bolton during his testimony at the Conyers’ hearings yesterday. McGovern had a 27-year career as an analyst with the CIA. During the Reagan administration, he was the senior intelligence briefer of then Vice President George H. W. Bush. He is the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. McGovern described in some detail the troubling changes in the way intelligence has been collected and assessed since the Bush administration took power.Under questioning by Maxine Waters, he said that Vice President Dick Cheney’s working trips to CIA headquarters “were not unusual -- they were unprecedented.” Even the senior Bush, who had been head of the CIA, never came to CIA headquarters when he was vice president, McGovern said. During the past four years, McGovern said, the agency has lost all independence, primarily because independent analysts are leaving or being purged by an administration that insists on fixing the intelligence and facts around their policies. If John Bolton goes to the UN, McGovern warned, the remaining independent analysts will go -- leaving the country blind."[...]"We have a legal document from within the Bush administration that shows a similar concern with prosecution for war crimes: in his infamous Torture Memo of January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales advises President Bush not to apply the Geneva Conventions because it “substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” Sending John Bolton to the UN would be another way of protecting top administration officials, in this case from international prosecution for war crimes."Buzzflash 4/26/05"A full month before Bush announced he was attacking Iraq and even publicly admitted it was going to happen, regardless of national and international protests against it or that there were no facts to support it, Bolton was telling people he had "no doubt" it was going to happen. From HaaretzDaily.com, Feb. 18, 2003: U.S. official says Syria, Iran will be dealt with after Iraq war U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards. Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon said.Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.Somone should send warmongers like Bolton to stand at a checkpoint in Fallujah, not to represent the U.S. at the United Nations."
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05

Summer Moon Illusion
June 20, 2005: Sometimes you can't believe your eyes. This week is one of those times.
posted by deborah @ 20.6.05
Sunday, June 19, 2005

British Documents: The Pentagon Papers of Our Time?
British Documents: The Pentagon Papers of Our Time?: "In trying to explain the lagging coverage of the memos by American newspapers--let alone broadcast outlets for whom such matters were beneath the radar--Michael Smith in a Washington Post on-line chat on Thursday offered this opinion: "[A]s the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude: "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do?" Smith continued: "It is one thing for the New York Times or the Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting within the Prime Minister's office.Think of it this way: All the key players were there (at Downing Street). This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the U.N. to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we aren't preparing for what happens after and no one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable--are you kidding me?"
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of War
Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of War: "'No one has been held accountable for the blunders, from the bad intelligence before the war to the failure to provide sufficient troops during the conflict and since. Fixing responsibility is long overdue.'"
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

prophetic
Richard E. Rubenstein - US NewImperialism
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

Judy Judy Judy: More Miller
MySA.com: Metro State"It's becoming an epidemic, a form of attack on the press," Miller said. No it's not. This story is a big piece of -- well, distraction. It's sleight of hand and circumvention, dancing away from the real stories related to the breaking Downing Street floodtide, stories like 1) Miller's factless scare tales in the NYTimes about smallpox and WMD, and 2) the real Valerie Plame case, in which an agent was outed in an act of political revenge, which also happened to be the commission of a felony: under Title 50, Chapter 15, section 421, it's a felony to divulge the identity of a covert intelligence operative. Review: Point 1)the WMD and the smallpox question:The below, another angle on the distortions that were used to sell the war. First, a NY Times letter:To the Editor:Reassessment of the smallpox vaccination goal is needed(editorial, May 12, 2003), and it will require a frank examinationof the origins of the goal and of the resistance in themedical community.Some of us urged our colleagues to resist vaccinationbecause of the potential harm and the heavy burden theprogram imposes on public health resources. Also, the needfor the program was based largely on intelligence estimatesthat were presumably of the same quality as the"intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.Some of us suspected that one goal of the vaccine programwas to generate support for the war. There should be anindependent investigation into whether such intelligenceexisted and whether there was manipulation to justify apolitical agenda. If there was, officials should be heldresponsible for the deaths and illnesses attributed tovaccination.HILLEL W. COHENSHARON L. EOLISBronx, May 12, 2003The writers are, respectively, an assistant professor ofepidemiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and anurse practitioner at Cabrini Medical Center.
***
Did they say deaths and illnesses? Yes: Second worker dies of heart attack after smallpox vaccination
LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press writerThursday, March 27, 2003There were at least three confirmed CIVILIAN deaths.The allegation used to sell the war was that Iraq possesses the smallpox virus, obtaining it from the Russian stock. This was a myth, assumed widely. There was never any proof for it, just speculation--and that speculation began with (who else?) Judith Miller (see below; and Judith Miller is a story in herself), followed up by stories that intelligence sources were "investigating", all of which worked to give the speculation credibility with no further development of fact.The WMD 'stories.'more.much more. Point 2) Think "Yellow Niger."
What I Didn't Find in Africa Who exposed whistleblower's wife?
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

Rice Says Administration Told Americans Iraq Would Be A "Generational Commitment"
Think Progress
Do you want some coffee while you're waiting?LOUIS(to Spengler)Do I?SPENGLERYes, have some.(Janine goes to the tableand puts some water up toboil)Vinz, what sign are you waiting for?LOUISGozer the Traveller will come in one of thepre-chosen forms. During the rectificationof the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as avery large and moving Torb. Then of coursein the third reconciliation of the last ofthe Meketrex supplicants they chose a newform for him, that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubsand Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted inthe depths of the Sloar that day I can tellyou.
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

Knight Ridder in Shining Downing Street Armor
The Snarky CatKnightRidder Washington Memo Special Report
The decisions, policies and intelligence behind the Iraq War• Amidst doubts, CIA hangs on to control of Iraqi intelligence service, 5/8/05 •"Downing Street" memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy, 5/5/05 • Big gaps remain in intelligence on al-Qaida, report finds, 3/31/05 • U.S. intelligence on Iraq `dead wrong,' commission finds, 3/31/05 • Old problems dog new intelligence gathering, panel concludes, 3/29/05 • CIA, Pentagon reject recommendation on paramilitary operations, 2/16/05 • Analysis: Iraqi insurgency growing larger, more effective, 1/21/05 • New intelligence reports raise questions about U.S. mission in Iraq, 1/17/05 • U.S. intelligence report forecasts India, China will be major powers in 2020, 1/13/05 • U.S. isn't winning against Iraqi insurgents, agencies warn, 12/17/04 • After day of cabinet resignations, many fear a shift to the right, 11/17/04 • Bush administration planning to increase pressure on Iran, 12/7/04 • Bush expected to capitalize on victory by moving quickly in Iraq, 11/3/04 • Post-election purge, reform appears likely within CIA, 10/22/04 • Post-war planning non-existent, 10/17/04 • Iraq reconstruction efforts overcome by ongoing violence, 10/16/04 • Iraq's future path uncertain because of insurgency, 10/17/04 • Surge in violence threatens Iraq elections, U.S. exit strategy, 9/14/04 • Terror arrests part of global effort to foil attacks, 8/5/04 • Former CIA director used Pentagon ties to introduce Iraqi defector, 7/15/04 • Intelligence experts cast doubt on ties between Iraq, al-Qaida, 6/21/04 • Alliance between Chalabi, U.S. conservatives now in ruins, 5/28/04 • Relationship with Chalabi proves costly for Bush administration, 5/24/04 • Officials investigate how INC's Chalabi obtained U.S. intelligence, 5/21/04 • Iraqi group linked to questionable intelligence loses U.S. funding, 5/18/04 • White House released claims of defector deemed unreliable by CIA, 5/17/04 • Iraqi exile group may have violated rules barring it from lobbying, 4/22/04 • Intelligence memo before 9-11 noted suspicions of possible hijackings, 4/10/04 • As fighting continues, quest to bring democracy to Iraq nears failure, 4/10/04 • Senior U.S. officials say battle could be turning point in Iraq, 4/6/04 • INC supplied defectors who were sources of questionable pre-war information, officials say, 4/3/04 • With 90 days to handover of Iraq control, U.S. faces big obstacles, 4/2/04 • Faulty intelligence continues to plague U.S. efforts in Iraq, 3/19/04 • Iraqi exile group fed false information to news media, 3/15/04 • White House responds to Knight Ridder article, 3/12/04 • CIA director disputes Cheney assertions on Iraq, 3/9/04 • Doubts cast on efforts to link Saddam, al-Qaida, 3/2/04 • Iraqi National Congress faces growing number of investigations, 2/27/04 • Rumsfeld advisor who vocally endorsed Saddam's ouster resigns, 2/25/04 • Officials: U.S. still paying millions to group that provided false Iraqi intelligence, 2/21/04 • Most pre-war information from Iraqi defectors was iffy, officials say, 2/13/04 • Panel to probe whether officials exaggerated prewar intelligence, 2/12/04 • Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment, 2/9/04 • What went wrong with Iraq intelligence? 2/6/04 • Intelligence officials warned that Iraq WMD information was iffy, 2/6/04 • Knight Ridder journalists honored for stories on war planning, 2/4/04 • Iraq intelligence efforts led by Cheney magnified errors, officials say, 2/2/04 • More Iraqis supporting resistance, CIA report says, 11/11/03 • Saddam wanted secret negotiations with U.S., officials say, 11/5/03 • CIA investigated tip on WMD from previously discredited source, 10/14/03 • Questions, criticism surround information that led to start of war, 7/18/03 • No real planning for postwar Iraq, 7/11/03 • Bush administration pushed for proof linking Saddam, al-Qaida, 7/3/03 • Internal review backs CIA on Iraq, but notes lack of details, 7/2/03 • U. N. committee finds no connection between Iraq, al-Qaida, 6/26/03 • White House was warned of dubious intelligence used in speech, official says, 6/12/03 • Bush, Aides made some prewar claims they couldn't back up, documents say, 6/6/03 • Failure to find weapons in Iraq leads to intelligence scrutiny6/2/03 • Troubling questions over justification for war in Iraq, 5/31/03 • Bush Administration scoffs at Iraq's weapons report, 12/20/02 • Infighting among U.S. intelligence agencies fuels dispute over Iraq, 10/27/02 • Some in Bush administration have misgivings about Iraq policy, 10/8/02 • CIA report reveals analysts' split over extent of Iraqi nuclear threat, 10/4/02 • Lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons worries top U.S. officials, 9/6/02 • Planning Unit Is Another Sign Bush Is Preparing to Oust Saddam, 8/16/02 • Top Senate Republican Joins Push for Congressional Approval of any Iraq Attack, 8/1/02 • Lawmakers to grapple with Bush's Iraq Policy during hearings, 7/22/02 • Iran - not Iraq - is top terrorism sponsor, U.S. report says, 5/22/02 • Bush's unconditional declaration of war raises questions, concerns, 3/8/02 • Iraqi opposition leader suspected of misusing U.S. funds, but may get more, 2/20/02 • Bush has decided to overthrow Hussein, 2/13/02 • Bush's 'axis of evil' statements cause worldwide controversy, 1/31/02 • Former CIA Director Looks for Evidence that Iraq Had Role in Attacks, 10/11/01 • Experts say Iraq, Hussein not likely tied to terrorist attacks, 9/22/01
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

British bombing raids were illegal
Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal advice - Sunday Times - Times Online
Leaked advice shows military action before Iraq war was “not consistent with” UN law Read the legal advice Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal advice This is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal advice appended as Annex A to the Cabinet Office briefing paper on Iraq of July 21, 2002. This advice was originally written in March 2002. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source. To see Cabinet Office briefing paper: click here; To see original Downing Street memo: click hereCONFIDENTIAL IRAQ: LEGAL BACKGROUND(i) Use of Force: (a) Security Council Resolutions(b) Self-defence(c) Humanitarian Intervention(ii) No Fly Zones(iii) Security Council Resolutions relevant to the sanctions regime (iv) Security Council Resolutions relevant to UNMOVIC(I)Use of Force: (a) Security Council Resolutions relevant to the Authorisation of the Use of Force1. Following its invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the Security Council authorised the use of force against Iraq in resolution 678(1990); this resolution authorised coalition forces to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw, and to restore international peace and security in the area. This resolution gave a legal basis for Operation Desert Storm, which was brought to an end by the cease-fire set out by the Council in resolution 687 (1991). The conditions for the cease-fire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations. Resolution 687 (1991) suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force in resolution 678 (1990).2. In the UK’s view a violation of Iraq’s obligations which undermines the basis of the cease-fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member states. We are not aware of any other state which supports this view.3. The authorisation to use force contained in resolution 678(1990) has been revived in this way on certain occasions. For example, when Iraq refused to cooperate with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1997/8, a series of SCRs condemned the decision as unacceptable. In resolution 1205 (1998) the Council condemned Iraq’s decision to end all co-operations with UNSCOM as a flagrant violation of Iraq’s obligations under resolution 687 (1991), and restated that the effective operation of UNSCOM was essential for the implementation of that Resolution. In our view these resolutions had the effect of causing the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1991) to revive, which provided a legal basis for Operation Desert Fox. In a letter to the President of the Security Council in 1998 we stated that the objective of that operation was to seek compliance by Iraq with the obligations laid down by the Council, that the operation was undertaken only when it became apparent that there was no other way of achieving compliance by Iraq, and that the action was limited to what was necessary to secure this objective.4. The more difficult issue is whether we are still able to rely on the same legal base for the use of force more than three years after the adoption of resolution 1205 (1998). Military action in 1998 (and on previous occasions) followed on from specific decisions of the Council; there has now not been any significant decision by the Council since 1998. Our interpretation of resolution 1205 was controversial anyway; many of our partners did not think the legal basis was sufficient as the authority to use force was not explicit. Reliance on it now would be unlikely to receive any support. Use of Force: (b) Self-Defence5 The conditions that have to be met for the exercise of the right of self-defence are well-known:i) There must be an armed attack upon a state or such and attack must be imminent;ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable;iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.iv) The right of self-defence may only be exercised until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to ensure international peace and security and anything done in exercise of the right of self-defence must be immediately reported to the council.6. For the exercise of the right to self-defence there must be more than “a threat”. There has to be an armed attack actual or imminent. The development or possession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack. During the Cold War, there was certainly a threat in the sense that various states had nuclear weapons which they might, at short notice unleash upon each other. But that did not mean the mere possession of nuclear weapons, or indeed their possession in time of high tension or attempt to obtain them, was sufficient to justify pre-emptive action. And when Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, on 7 June 1981 it was “strongly condemned” by the Security Council (acting unanimously) as a “military attack in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct.”Use of Force: (c) Humanitarian Intervention7. In the UK view, the use of force may be justified if the action is taken to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. The limits to this highly contentious doctrine are not clearly defined, but we would maintain that the catastrophe must be clear and well-documented, that there must be no other means short of the use of force which could prevent it, and that the measures taken must be proportionate. This doctrine partly underlies the very limited action taken by allied aircraft to patrol the No Fly zones in Iraq (following action by Saddam to repress the Kurds and the Shia in the early 90s), which involves occasional and limited use of force by those aircraft in self-defence. The application of this doctrine depends on the circumstances at any given time, but it is clearly exceptional.(ii) No Fly Zones (NFZs) 8. The NFZs over Northern and Southern Iraq are not established by UN Security Council Resolutions. They were established in 1991 and 1992 on the basis that they were necessary and proportionate steps taken to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Prior to the establishment of the Northern NFZ the Security Council had adopted resolution 688 (1991) on 5 April 1991 in which the Council stated that it was gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which had led to a massive refugee flow, and that it was deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved. The resolution condemned that repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq immediately end the repression. In our view, the purpose of the NFZs is to monitor Iraqi compliance with the provisions of resolution 688. UK and US aircraft patrolling the NFZs are entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems.9. The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, anddoes not contain any provision for enforcement. Nor (as it is sometimes claimed) were the current NFZs provided for in the Safwan agreement, a provisional agreement between coalition and Iraqi military commanders of 3 March 1991, laying down military conditions for the cease-fire which did not contain any reference to the NFZs.(iii) Security Council Resolutions relevant to the sanctions regime 10. The sanctions regime against Iraq was established by resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, which, following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, decides that all states shall prevent the import into their territories of any commodities originating in Iraq, the sale or supply to Iraq of any commodities other than medical supplies, and, in humanitarian circumstances, food stuffs, and that Iraqi funds and financial resources should be frozen. Resolution 661 remains in force. The major exception to the sanctions regime is the oil for food programme, which was established by resolution 988 (1995) and permits oil exports (in unlimited amounts following resolution 1284 (1999)) by Iraq on condition that the purchase price is paid into an escrow account established by the UN Secretary-General, and the funds in that account are used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people through the export of medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs. The escrow account is also used to fund the UN Compensation Commission and to meet the operating costs of the UN, including those of UNMOVIC (see below).11. The oil for food programme is renewed by the Security Council at (usually) 6 Monthly intervals, most recently by resolutions 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001. Under that resolution the Council also decided that it would adopt, by 13 May 2002, procedures which would improve the flow of goods to Iraq, other than arms and other potential dual use goods on a Good Review List. The US are currently reviewing the final details of the list with the Russians.12. In resolution 687 (1991) the Council decided that the prohibition against the import of goods from Iraq should have no further force when Iraq has completed all the actions contemplated in paragraphs 8-13 of that resolution concerning Iraq’s WMD Programme. Iraq has still not complied with this condition. Under paragraph 21 of resolution 687, the council decided to review the prohibition against the supply of commodities to Iraq every 60 days in the light of the policies and practices of the Iraqi government, including the implementation of all the relevant resolutions of the Council, for the purpose of determining whether to reduce or lift them. These regular reviews are currently suspended as a result of Iraqi non-compliance with the Council’s demands.13. The intention of the Council to act in accordance with resolution 687 on the termination of these prohibitions has been regularly reaffirmed, including in resolution 1284 (1999). Paragraph 33 of that resolution also contains a complex formula for the suspension of economic sanctions against Iraq for renewable periods of 120 days, if UNMOVIC and the IAEA report cooperation in all respects by Iraq in fulfilling work programmes with those bodies for a period of 120 days after a reinforced system of monitoring and verification in Iraq becomes fully operational. Iraq has never complied with these conditions.(iv) Security Council Resolutions relating to UNMOVIC14. UNMOVIC was established by resolution 1284 (1999) to replace the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) established under resolution 687 (1991) (the ceasefire resolution). UNMOVIC is to undertake the responsibilities of the former Special Commission under resolution 687 relating to the destruction of Iraqi CBW and ballistic missiles with a range of over 150 kilometres and the on-going monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with these obligations. Like the Special Commission, UNMOVIC is to be allowed unconditional access to all Iraqi facilities, equipment and records as well as to Iraqi officials. Under paragraph 7 of resolution 1284 UNMOVIC and the IAEA were given the responsibility of drawing up a work programme which would include the implementation of a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification (OMV) and key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq, which constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance. There are currently no UNMOVIC personnel in Iraq, and the reinforced OMV system has not been implemented, because of Iraq’s refusal to cooperate.
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

AP covers the Downing Street Memo
Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War(06-19) 07:17 PDT LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) --When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war."U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law."The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw."But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.The Sunday Times this week reported that lawyers told the British government that U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in the months before the war was illegal under international law. That report, also by Smith, noted that almost a year before the war started, they began to strike more frequently.The newspaper quoted Lord Goodhart, vice president of the International Commission of Jurists, as backing the Foreign Office lawyers' view that aircraft could only patrol the no-fly zones to deter attacks by Saddam's forces.Goodhart said that if "the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority," the Sunday Times reported.The eight documents reported earlier total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found."The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington."We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state."It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks.""In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law."If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."___On the Net:
hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/fcolegal020308.pdfhosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf
hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/meyer020318.pdf

hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ods020308.pdf

hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ricketts020322.pdf

hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/straw020325.pdf

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/06/18/international/i190155D86.DTL©2005 Associated Press
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05

George E. Lowe Says "It Can Happen Here"
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEWHasn't "It" Already? A Fascist Christian AmericaLowe takes the reader on a journey through the strange permutations of Christian extremism and the danger it presents to America as a Constitutional democracy. Moreover, the Christian fanatics seek a World War III, because it will lead to the triumphant return of a resurrected Christ and a transformed Israel."They're planning ... to create a nation where you can change the Constitution with simple majorities, where you can pass laws with simple majorities, where you can pack the courts and thereby create a Christian nation through a simple majority vote. ... The whole thing is one of the grand coup d'etats of all time. That's what we're seeing."* * *
posted by deborah @ 19.6.05
Saturday, June 18, 2005

The War in Iraq
Raw Story: : "The Path of War Timeline "
posted by deborah @ 18.6.05

Email to Send to Supporters, Activists, Members, Friends
AfterDowningStreet.org:Urge your congress member to support a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush.http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.I'm supporting Global Exchange, Gold Star Families for Peace, Democrats.com, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy Rising, the Rainbow Push Coalition, the Velvet Revolution, and many other groups in the http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ coalition. These groups are asking their members to contact their Representatives to urge support of a Resolution of Inquiry.You should do so too:http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39Please forward this message to anyone who would be interested.More Information:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
posted by deborah @ 18.6.05

Goldsmith: MSM, Meet DSM
(DV)MSM, Meet DSMby Patricia GoldsmithOn June 14, Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent, gave her take on mainstream media (MSM) coverage of the Downing Street Memo (DSM). She said, “There have been anti-war groups and anti-Bush groups who’ve tried to generate this [coverage] on the Internet, but . . . there’s no smoking gun here,” because “if you go back to Bush’s own comments [in 2002], you had to be brain-dead not to know what he was up to.” On June 15, The Washington Post took the same position, even more emphatically: “The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s prewar deliberations.” This might come as a surprise to George Bush and Tony Blair, who were claiming as recently as last week that war with Iraq was, as they claimed in July, 2002, a last resort undertaken only after all other options were exhausted. In their joint press conference on June 7, George Bush answered his first question about the DSM saying, “And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. . . . Look, both of us didn’t want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It’s the last option.”....(full article)...excerpt:"The Associated Press, whose slowness in picking up the DSM has been cited by other organizations as a factor in their own delays, ran with the story when it finally broke, and took it further, connecting it to John Bolton. “Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a UN tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved,” wrote Charles Hanley, a special correspondent for the AP. [5]The official was Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), who was dangerous to the Bush admininstration’s case for war because he wanted to send chemical weapons inspectors to Iraq. Hanley concluded, “The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein’s regime.” [6]Ray McGovern also mentioned John Bolton during his testimony at the Conyers’ hearings yesterday. McGovern had a 27-year career as an analyst with the CIA. During the Reagan administration, he was the senior intelligence briefer of then Vice President George H. W. Bush. He is the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. McGovern described in some detail the troubling changes in the way intelligence has been collected and assessed since the Bush administration took power.Under questioning by Maxine Waters, he said that Vice President Dick Cheney’s working trips to CIA headquarters “were not unusual -- they were unprecedented.” Even the senior Bush, who had been head of the CIA, never came to CIA headquarters when he was vice president, McGovern said. During the past four years, McGovern said, the agency has lost all independence, primarily because independent analysts are leaving or being purged by an administration that insists on fixing the intelligence and facts around their policies. If John Bolton goes to the UN, McGovern warned, the remaining independent analysts will go -- leaving the country blind.Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the memos: international law. DSM II [7] instructs the ministers reading it that since Tony Blair had already agreed to join George Bush in attacking Iraq, “it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action.” The document says that the US and UK have no grounds for war and then goes on to offer strategies for luring Saddam into an actionable casus belli.This throws a whole new light on the Bush administration’s willingness to sink so much political capital into the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN, as well as the Republican Party’s relentless efforts to undermine the UN, and, if possible, remove Kofi Annan. After all, the UN is the institution that has declared the war with Iraq to be illegal.The Memos show that British Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a written opinion from their attorney general stating that the war would be lawful, because Boyce refused to put British soldiers at risk of being tried for war crimes. Attorney General Goldsmith was openly dubious but finally gave a terse pronouncement that the war would be legal. But with the release of DSM VII, an eight-page legal options memorandum, it is now clear that, in fact, all the legal justifications for war were found to be lacking. [8]As a result, Admiral Boyce told the London Observer that if British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal Court, the ministers who were privy to these documents should be tried, too. When asked if he thought Blair and Goldsmith should be included, Boyce shot back “Too bloody right.” [9]We have a legal document from within the Bush administration that shows a similar concern with prosecution for war crimes: in his infamous Torture Memo of January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales advises President Bush not to apply the Geneva Conventions because it “substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” Sending John Bolton to the UN would be another way of protecting top administration officials, in this case from international prosecution for war crimes.And that explains it. Our overtly, proudly patriotic MSM -- whose economic interests just happen to coincide with those of the pro-corporate Bush administration -- could not even conceive of a line of inquiry that might lead to the revelation that our leaders have committed, not just impeachable offenses against our constitution, but war crimes and crimes against humanity.FOOTNOTES1) http://mediamatters.org/items/2005061500052) www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/15/1345223&mode=thread&tid=253) http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3317129a12,00.html4) http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=62215) “The Downing Street Memo Story Won’t Die,” Jefferson Morley, The Washington Post, June 7, 20056) Ibid.7) www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/061705Zeese/061705zeese.html
8) Ibid.9) “Downing Street II,” Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com, 6-13-05.
posted by deborah @ 18.6.05

Conyers Slams Washington Post
truthoutLetter to the Post. A must read.
posted by deborah @ 18.6.05

Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight
Associated PressFriday, June 17, 2005; Page A06
posted by deborah @ 18.6.05
Friday, June 17, 2005

Why did Bush classify Reagan's papers even before 9/11?
Why? Listen...Thursday, November 14th, 2002"Spider's Web": The Secret History of How the United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein; a Conversation with the Journalist Who Broke the Iraqgate Scandal That Involved President George Bush, James Baker and Donald RumsfeldListen to Segmenthttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0312256
With Iraqi President Saddam Hussein insisting that Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction we are going to spend the rest of the hour looking at how the United States helped illegally arm Iraq in the 1980s. It was a scandal that took on Tom Clancy-like proportions: It involved a president, George Bush the First; future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; the current FBI head Robert Mueller and, in a minor role, even Henry Kissinger.Over 10 years ago a reporter for the Financial Times named Alan Friedman uncovered the shocking story. He revealed that:President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker had committed billions of taxpayer dollars to assist Saddam Hussein.Bush and Baker allowed the export of U.S. technology that would directly help Baghdad build a massive arsenal of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. The arms were given to help Iraq fight Iran.The CIA helped orchestrated illegal arms deals that involved Pinochet supporters in Chile, the apartheid regime in South Africa as well as most of the major NATO allies in Europe. All of this was to prop up a man that President Bush and later his son would compare to Hitler."If the United States and its other allies had not provided a steady and thorough and substantial buildup of Iraq through the 1980s and right through Operation Desert Storm, Iraq today would not be a country with vast mobile missile launchers, good inertial navigation missile technology, rough, crude radioactive potential plutonium, chemical and biological weapons technology, and an assortment of other hardware and arsenal they've had," Friedman told Democracy Now!The scandal was known as Iraqgate. Today it is a mostly forgotten story even though it was a topic of concern of many leading politicians 10 years ago."Congressman (Charles) Schumer, today Senator Schumer, was on the vanguard of those investigating the illegal arming of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush's foot soldiers and by people connected to the Bush administration," said Friedman. "Al Gore knew and knows what happened, Senator Kerry knows what happened. There are a number of U.S. senators and some prominent Democrats and Republicans who know what happened. Why aren't they speaking out today? I'm the guy who broke the story, that's a question for you people in America to answer."As weapons inspectors plan to return to Baghdad next week, we will spend the rest of the hour with Alan Friedman as he unravels what he dubbed the spider's web: the secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq.Guest:Alan Friedman, global economics correspondent for the International Herald Tribune.

_______________________
Alan Friedman's forgotten bookSpider's Web: The Secret History of How the U.S. Illegally Armed IraqBy Shannon SoignierAlan Friedman was a correspondent with the Financial Times when he wrote this book more than a decade ago. Today, one reads his monumentally important book (key to understanding the current involvement with Iraq) with a sense of realigning perspective. Even on the Abe Book's website (45 million used titles in stock at www.abebooks.com) they did not have one copy of Alan Friedman's book for sale! A few copies show up on the Alibris site (www.alibris.com), but no picture of the book or author information to speak of. Why? Perhaps the subject material explains the obscurity of Friedmans' book. Perhaps, in a future feature, we will have direct contact with Alan Friedman, who now lives in Rome as a correspondent for the International Herald Tribune. Listen to a streaming interview with Alan Friedman and Democracy Now! about his book just prior to the U. S. invasion of Iraq.Although written in 1993, "Spider's Web: is important for understanding the war in Iraq and U.S.- Iraqi relations. "Spider's Web" exposes a clandestine world that was created in order to supply Saddam Hussein armaments during the Iran-Iraq war. Presidents Reagan and Bush pursued policies in direct contravention of existing law and of their own public statements.In the 1980s, war had erupted between Iran and the Iraq, two countries both considered enemies of the U.S. Iran, having overthrown the Shah and in the process humiliated the U.S., was judged to be the greater evil. While contending that it was neutral, the U.S. tilted to Iraq and Saddam. William Casey, head of the CIA at the time, was the strongest proponent of assistance to Saddam.Many in the White House and in the State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture Departments were shocked and firmly opposed to this policy. But in both the Reagan and Bush administrations, a green light for Saddam's purchases permitted him to create a formidable high-tech military machine. Sales of almost any item were permitted including components for atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. All of these activities were in direct violation of existing laws and regulations relating to the transfer of military equipment. To pay for this equipment, Iraq obtained loans guaranteed by the U.S. federal government. What was unique about the loans is that they were arranged by the U.S. Agriculture Department. Iraq was buying American food, then reselling it at a profit, and using the proceeds to purchase armaments. Numerous ordinary individuals were drawn into the periphery of this operation including a salesman who spoke Arabic and worked for a supplier, a trucker who hauled British supplies to Europe and the Middle East;, and a banker at an Atlanta bank that processed all the loans. Each profited from the arrangements, but all eventually grew wary of the operation and suffered for their involvement.President Bush and James Baker were actively pushing their pro-Iraq policy in the summer of 1989 when these undercover operations began to unravel. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the policy was suddenly reversed. Saddam became "Hitler," and the White House now embarked upon a cover up - but too late - the clandestine operations were leaking out.Henry Gonzalez, head of the House Banking Committee, pressed for public hearings. The Commerce Department's top export official was fired when he appeared before the committee and told the truth. An independent counsel friendly to the administration was hired whose findings provided a whitewash of the affair. But loose ends still remained.The book provides ample notes of sources to support the statements. In addition, there are three appendices of actual relevant documents. Two presidents knowingly violated their oath of office. They defied critically important laws dealing with the national defense of the country. They armed, with the most sophisticated weapons, a rogue state, a potential enemy, a country that did, in fact, become an enemy and has been embargoed in order to remove those armaments.It is unfortunate that a scandal of such monumental proportions did not get proper news coverage. The cover up was not 100 per cent effective. But the news media, which continually exploits an O. J., a Princess Diana, or an Michael Jackson story for days on end on the front page or as the lead item on television and radio, gave this major scandal scant coverage.- S. SoignierFree Press Editor's Note: Over 10 years ago a reporter for the Financial Times named Alan Friedman uncovered a shocking story. He revealed three important facts: + President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker had committed billions of taxpayer dollars to assist Saddam Hussein. + Bush and Baker allowed the export of U.S. technology that would directly help Baghdad build a massive arsenal of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. The arms were given to help Iraq fight Iran. + The CIA helped orchestrated illegal arms deals that involved Pinochet supporters in Chile, the apartheid regime in South Africa as well as most of the major NATO allies in Europe. All of this was to prop up a man that President Bush and later his son would compare to Hitler. "If the United States and its other allies had not provided a steady and thorough and substantial buildup of Iraq through the 1980s and right through Operation Desert Storm, Iraq today would not be a country with vast mobile missile launchers, good inertial navigation missile technology, rough, crude radioactive potential plutonium, chemical and biological weapons technology, and an assortment of other hardware and arsenal they've had," Friedman told Democracy Now.The scandal was known as Iraqgate. Today it is a mostly forgotten story even though it was a topic of concern of many leading politicians 10 years ago. "Congressman (Charles) Schumer, today Senator Schumer, was on the vanguard of those investigating the illegal arming of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush's foot soldiers and by people connected to the Bush administration," said Friedman. "Al Gore knew and knows what happened, Senator Kerry knows what happened. There are a number of U.S. senators and some prominent Democrats and Republicans who know what happened. Why aren't they speaking out today? I'm the guy who broke the story, that's a question for you people in America to answer."
posted by deborah @ 17.6.05

t r u t h o u t - Joe Conason
t r u t h o u t - Joe Conason A Press Coverup: "Only a very special brand of arrogance would permit any employee of the New York Times, which brought us the mythmaking of Judith Miller, to insist that new documentary evidence of 'intelligence fixing' about Saddam's arsenal is no longer news. The same goes for the Washington Post, which featured phony administration claims about Iraq's weapons on Page 1 while burying the skeptical stories that proved correct. "
posted by deborah @ 17.6.05

Dear MoveOn member,Yesterday, Congressman John Conyers delivered 560,000 petition signatures to the White House--including more than 360,000 from MoveOn members--demanding that President Bush address smoking-gun evidence of deception in the Downing Street Memos.1After holding nearly four hours of hearings about the Downing Street Memos on Capitol Hill, the Congressman went over to The White House accompanied by a dozen leading Democrats. They marched solemnly towards The White House gate as swarms of media clicked, filmed and shouted questions. As they approached the gate to White House grounds a lone, young Bush staffer met the delegation--he literally trembled when Conyers said they had come to deliver the signatures of 560,000 Americans demanding the truth about Iraq. The White House staff refused Conyers entrance to see the president but accepted the petitions.MoveOn members made a huge difference here--shooting up the number of petition signers at a critical time in the drive to bring attention to the Downing Street Memos.And thanks in part to your pressure and Congressman Conyers' high profile hearings and petition delivery, the media has finally begun to cover the scandalous Downing Street Memos--we counted 1,600 news stories in Google today. The Seattle Times, Denver Post, Boston Globe, CNN, ABC and hundreds of other media outlets have been forced to report on the memos.2Howard Kurtz, media columnist for The Washington Post, wrote about the surging coverage of the Downing Street Memos, noting that:A wide range of critics, including the ombudsmen of the NYT and WP, says the press bobbled the ball on the Downing Street Memo. The memo may not be the slam-dunk about the Bush administration fixing intelligence that its supporters believe--the British author cites no specifics as proof--but it was a newsworthy and provocative development, as the press is belatedly realizing.3Now the press is taking notice because they couldn't ignore it anymore.You played a big role here. Thanks so much for everything you do.--Tom, Matt, Justin, Micayla and the MoveOn PAC TeamFriday, June 17th, 2005Sources:1. "Bush pressed to answer 'Downing Street Memo' questions," AssociatedPress, June 16, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=7502 . Google News search for 'Downing Street Memo' http://www.moveon.org/r?r=7513. "Backlash on the Left," The Washington Post, June 15, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=752PAID FOR BY MOVEON PACNot authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
posted by deborah @ 17.6.05

Pressing The Basement Revolution
TomPaine.com - Pressing The Basement Revolution: "The Downing Street Memo reveals, for the first time, that the highest British officials, including the prime minister, were aware that the Bush administration was planning to 'fix the facts' around the policy, i.e., to deceive the Congress and people of the United States into war. Deceiving the Congress is a felony, and it is the president who, in the March 19 Congressional Record , submitted to Congress his case for war. If that case is knowingly false, the president has commited a felony that is an impeachable offense."
posted by deborah @ 17.6.05
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Democrat Urges Inquiry on Bush, Iraq
"Democrat" urges inquiry? How about the 122 members of Congress who signed the letter to the Bushites, and the over 550,000 signers of the Downing Street Memo petition? How about the Brits on the other side of the puddle who urge their own inquiry? How about all the people who quit in protest along the way? All those who know the truth, and will, one by one, say so? This isn't going to go away, be covered up, laughed off. We won't let it.Bush, Iraq - Yahoo! NewsBy PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 1 minute agoWASHINGTON - Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.New York Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record) was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq."Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) and other Democrats on the HouseJudiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo." The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has — to put it mildly — come into question," he said.In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed."We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said."It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time."This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1. It also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concluded the U.S. military had given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, said that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05

The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000
from phoebe:TBRNews.orgThe death toll for American soldiers is Iraq has passed 1700. Or has it? It would appear that the Defense Dept just counts those killed on the ground. Those who die en route to hospital are not counted, and that may be as high as 7000. The real reason that photographs of returning coffins are not photographed?ph
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05

C-Span2 will re-air the Conyer's hearing on the Downing Street Memo, Friday 8 PM est
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05

Boltonization
John Bolton's Yellowcake - by Ray McGovern
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05

SPIDER'S WEB
Once again: Why did W Bush classify Reagan's papers, which were due to be released, even BEFORE 911?Book mentioned at Downing Street Memo Conyer's hearing:Books: SPIDER'S WEBby ALAN FRIEDMANThursday, November 14th, 2002"Spider's Web": The Secret History of How the United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein; a Conversation with the Journalist Who Broke the Iraqgate Scandal That Involved President George Bush, James Baker and Donald RumsfeldListen to Segmenthttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0312256With Iraqi President Saddam Hussein insisting that Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction we are going to spend the rest of the hour looking at how the United States helped illegally arm Iraq in the 1980s.It was a scandal that took on Tom Clancy-like proportions: It involved a president, George Bush the First; future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; the current FBI head Robert Mueller and, in a minor role, even Henry Kissinger.Over 10 years ago a reporter for the Financial Times named Alan Friedman uncovered the shocking story. He revealed that:President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker had committed billions of taxpayer dollars to assist Saddam Hussein.Bush and Baker allowed the export of U.S. technology that would directly help Baghdad build a massive arsenal of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. The arms were given to help Iraq fight Iran.The CIA helped orchestrated illegal arms deals that involved Pinochet supporters in Chile, the apartheid regime in South Africa as well as most of the major NATO allies in Europe. All of this was to prop up a man that President Bush and later his son would compare to Hitler."If the United States and its other allies had not provided a steady and thorough and substantial buildup of Iraq through the 1980s and right through Operation Desert Storm, Iraq today would not be a country with vast mobile missile launchers, good inertial navigation missile technology, rough, crude radioactive potential plutonium, chemical and biological weapons technology, and an assortment of other hardware and arsenal they've had," Friedman told Democracy Now!The scandal was known as Iraqgate. Today it is a mostly forgotten story even though it was a topic of concern of many leading politicians 10 years ago."Congressman (Charles) Schumer, today Senator Schumer, was on the vanguard of those investigating the illegal arming of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush's foot soldiers and by people connected to the Bush administration," said Friedman. "Al Gore knew and knows what happened, Senator Kerry knows what happened. There are a number of U.S. senators and some prominent Democrats and Republicans who know what happened. Why aren't they speaking out today? I'm the guy who broke the story, that's a question for you people in America to answer."As weapons inspectors plan to return to Baghdad next week, we will spend the rest of the hour with Alan Friedman as he unravels what he dubbed the spider's web: the secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq.Guest:Alan Friedman, global economics correspondent for the International Herald Tribune.

amazon reviewsReviewer:
Philip Greenspan (Spring Valley, New York United States) - ... When the U.S. government clandestinely - with junior partners Briton and Italy and bit players, France, Germany, and Japan - provided Saddam Hussein with sophisticated military high tech weapons and biological and chemical warfare items it was well aware of what a despicable tyrant he was."Spider's Web" exposes a deplorable sub rosa world that was created in order to supply Saddam Hussein armaments during the Iran-Iraq war. Presidents Reagan and Bush pursued policies in direct contravention of existing law and of their own public statements.It was no secret that Saddam was a despicable character, who--among innumerable criminal acts--was not averse to murdering his own people--the Kurds, with poison gas.War had erupted between Iran and the Iraq, two countries both considered enemies of the US. Iran having overthrown the Shah and in the process humiliated the U.S. was judged to be the greater evil. Accordingly-while contending that it was neutral-the U.S. tilted to Iraq and Saddam. William Casey, head of the CIA at the time, was the strongest proponent of assistance to Saddam. He did not just tilt but in the vernacular "gave away the store".In Europe, Margaret Thatcher was a strong advocate for strengthening Iraq, as was the Italian government. Other governments, namely France, Germany and Japan, did not want to miss out on good commercial possibilities and joined in. Some also sold to the Iranians. All except the U.S. and England dropped out when Iraq did not pay its bills.Many in the White House and in the State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture Departments were shocked and firmly opposed to this policy. But in both the Reagan and Bush administrations a green light for Saddam's purchases permitted him to create a formidable high-tech military machine. Sales of almost any items were permitted including components for atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. There were even instances where the CIA would purchase Russian equipment in the Eastern European black market to service his existing Russian equipment!All of these activities were in direct violation of existing laws and regulations relating to the transfer of military equipment. Various subterfuges were developed such as sales to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These countries then transferred what they received to Iraq. To pay for this equipment Iraq obtained loans guaranteed by the federal government. What was unique about the loans is that they were arranged by the Agriculture Department. Iraq was buying American food, then reselling it at a profit, and using the proceeds to purchase armaments.Numerous ordinary individuals who happened to be in the right place at the right time (or perhaps in the wrong place at the right time) were drawn into the periphery of this nefarious operation. A salesman who spoke Arabic and worked for a supplier; a trucker who hauled British supplies to Europe and the Middle East; a banker at an Atlanta bank that processed all the loans. Each profited from the arrangements but all eventually grew wary of the operation and eventually suffered for their involvement.President Bush and James Baker were actively pushing their pro-Iraq policy, in the summer of 1989, when these undercover operations began to unravel. Two employees at the Atlanta bank reported some of the suspicious activities that had occurred there prompting the U.S. attorney in Atlanta to investigate.When Saddam invaded Kuwait the policy was suddenly reversed. Saddam became "Hitler"; and the White House now embarked upon a cover up-but too late-the clandestine operations were leaking out.Henry Gonzalez, head of the House Banking Committee, pressed for public hearings. The Justice Department objected-the Atlanta investigation would be jeopardized-sensitive national security concerns. The Commerce Department's top export official was fired when he appeared before the committee and told the truth.An independent counsel friendly to the administration was hired whose findings provided a whitewash of the affair. But loose ends still remained. The government tried to resolve the Atlanta case by making the bank manager the fall guy for the entire operation. So many peculiarities had occurred in the pretrial and Congressional hearings that Judge Marvin Shoob in an extraordinary ruling blasted the government's handling of the case.The book provides ample notes of sources to support the statements. In addition there are three appendices of actual relevant documents.What conclusions can we draw. Two presidents knowingly violated their oath of office. They defied critically important laws dealing with the national defense of the country. They armed, with the most sophisticated weapons, a rogue state, a potential enemy, a country that did in fact become an enemy and has been embargoed in order to remove those armaments.It is unfortunate that a scandal of such monumental proportions did not get proper news coverage. The cover up was not 100 per cent effective. But the news media which continually exploits an O. J., a Princess Diana, or an Elian story for days on end on the front page or as the lead item on television and radio gives this major scandal scant coverage.O where o where has our news media gone, o where o where can it be!November 9, 2004Reviewer:Patrick Carkin (Concord, NH) - See all my reviews Quite simply, this is the book to read to begin your research on how the US policy towards Iraq has brought about so much conflict, strife and confusion. As offered with plain and clear irrefutable evidence, including copies of actual government memos, this book shows how many US politicians (many of them Republicans in the current Bush administration!) assisted Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. This was no mere minor fling. The US government was in bed with Saddam and the Ba'ath Party since the very beginning when they (the party) overthrew the nationalist government with assistance of the CIA. At the time our government provided hit lists to the Ba'athists. One of the hit-men who received those lists was none other than Saddam Hussein. And it off it went . . . After this book I highly recommend Said Aburish's "Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge" which exposes further Saddam's brutalities and the complicity of the US government and how they helped him rise to power and stay there. From there readers should check out "George Bush's War" by Jean Edward Smith which shows, again with factual concrete evidence, how the US once again coddled Saddam right up until 24 hours after the invasion of Kuwait and then did a massive switcheroo and altered US foreign policy by _finally_ opposing Saddam and his brutal regime. Add it all up, beginning with this book, and you have a much clearer picture as to why many people across the globe, especially Arabs and Muslims, are skeptical of US motivations in Iraq today.Reviewer: Anne Sherwood - This is a very important book which uncovers and describes in meticulous and uncompromising detail how the Republican administration, together with William Casey's CIA, secretly armed Saddam Hussein with atomic, chemical and nerve agents breaking domestic and international law and then lying about these clandestine activities to the American people. Spider's Web is an outstanding book and one which George Bush Sr might want to read to his "Fortunate Son" at bedtime. This just might help the current President gain a clearer understanding and deeper perspective of the historical and illegal trading relationship which created Saddam's huge war machine at a time when he was George Shultz and George Bush Sr's close friend in the Middle East. Why does the American Mainstream Media fail to hold US politicians to account on their past illegal dealings with foreign dictators which Washington helped to create? Maybe they lack information, confidence or courage? Or maybe some American journalists just don't care what's done in America's name by the White House? But the buck for Saddam's creation and arming stops in Washington D.C. ...and at a desk in the Oval Office which was once chaired by Ronald Regan and George Bush Sr. Read this book.
___________________________________
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05

PALAST FOR CONYERS
THE OTHER ' MEMOS' FROM DOWNING STREET AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE"Greg Palast, unable to attend hearings in Washington Thursday, has submitted the following testimony:Chairman Conyers, It's official: The Downing Street memos, a snooty New York Times "News Analysis" informs us, "are not the Dead Sea Scrolls." You are warned, Congressman, to ignore the clear evidence of official mendacity and bald-faced fibbing by our two nations' leaders because the cry for investigation came from the dark and dangerous world of "blogs" and "opponents" of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush.On May 5, "blog" site Buzzflash.com carried my story, IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED," bringing the London Times report of the Downing Street memo to US media which seemed to be suffering at the time from an attack of NADD -- "news attention deficit disorder."The memo, which contains the ill-making admission that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed" to match the Iraq-crazed fantasies of our President, is sufficient basis for a hearing toward impeachment of the Chief Executive. But to that we must add the other evidence and secret memos and documents still hidden from the American public. Other foreign-based journalists could doubtless add more, including the disclosure that the key inspector of Iraq's biological weapons, the late Dr. David Kelly, found the Bush-Blair analysis of his intelligence was indeed "fixed," as the Downing Street memo puts it, around the war-hawk policy.Here is a small timeline of confidential skullduggery dug up and broadcast by my own team for BBC Television and Harper's on the secret plans to seize Iraq's assets and oil.February 2001 - Only one month after the first Bush-Cheney inauguration, the State Department's Pam Quanrud organizes a secret confab in California to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. US oil industry advisor Falah Aljibury and others are asked to interview would-be replacements for a new US-installed dictator. On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.October/November 2001 - An easy military victory in Afghanistan emboldens then-Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to convince the Administration to junk the State Department "coup" plan in favor of an invasion and occupation that could remake the economy of Iraq. And elaborate plan, ultimately summarized in a 101-page document, scopes out the "sale of all state enterprises" -- that is, most of the nation's assets, ". especially in the oil and supporting industries." 2002 - Grover Norquist and other corporate lobbyists meet secretly with Defense, State and Treasury officials to ensure the invasion plans for Iraq include plans for protecting "property rights." The result was a pre-invasion scheme to sell off Iraq's oil fields, banks, electric systems, and even change the country's copyright laws to the benefit of the lobbyists' clients. Occupation chief Paul Bremer would later order these giveaways into Iraq law.Fall 2002 - Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, is brought in by the Pentagon to plan the management of Iraq's oil fields. He works directly with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. "There were plans," says Carroll, "maybe even too many plans" -- but none disclosed to the public nor even the US Congress.January 2003 - Robert Ebel, former CIA oil analyst, is sent, BBC learns, to London to meet with Fadhil Chalabi to plan terms for taking over Iraq's oil. March 2003 - What White House spokesman Ari Fleisher calls "Operations Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) begins. (Invasion is re-christened "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.)March 2003 - Defense Department is told in confidence by US Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso that Iraq's fields are incapable of a massive increase in output. Despite this intelligence, Dep. Secretary Wolfowitz testifies to Congress that invasion will be a free ride. He swears, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. .We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," a deliberate fabrication promoted by the Administration, an insider told BBC, as "part of the sales pitch" for war.May 2003 - General Jay Garner, appointed by Bush as viceroy over Iraq, is fired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The general revealed in an interview for BBC that he resisted White House plans to sell off Iraq's oil and national assets."That's just one fight you don't want to take on," Garner told me. But apparently, the White House wanted that fight.The general also disclosed that these invade-and-grab plans were developed long before the US asserted that Saddam still held WDM: "All I can tell you is the plans were pretty elaborate; they didn't start them in 2002, they were started in 2001."November/December 2003 - Secrecy and misinformation continues even after the invasion. The oil industry objects to the State Department plans for Iraq's oil fields and drafts for the Administration a 323-page plan, "Options for [the] Iraqi Oil Industry." Per the industry plan, the US forces Iraq to create an OPEC-friendly state oil company that supports the OPEC cartel's extortionate price for petroleum. The Stone WallHarper's and BBC obtained the plans despite official denial of their existence, then footdragging when confronted with the evidence of the reports' existence.Still today, the State and Defense Departments and White House continue to stonewall our demands for the notes of the meetings between lobbyists, oil industry consultants and key Administration officials that would reveal the hidden economic motives for the war. What are the secret interests behind this occupation? Who benefits? Who met with whom? Why won't this Administration release these documents of the economic blueprint for the war? To date, the State and Defense Department responses to our reports are risible, and their answers to our requests for documents run from evasive to downright misleading. Maybe Congress, with it's power of subpoena, can do better.Blogs, the Media and DemocracyLet me conclude with a comment about those pesky "blogs" that so bother the New York Times. We should stand and offer a moment of quiet gratitude to the electronic swarm of gadfly commentators who make it so much harder for the US media to ignore news not officially blessed. Yes, Judith Miller's breathless reports for The Times that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction may have maintained "access" for the mainstream press to its diet of White House propaganda, but the blogs insure that, whatever nonsense the US press is biting on, the public need not swallow.
"********
"This week Greg Palast's investigative team was named winner of a 2004-5 Project Censored award from the California State University at Sonoma Journalism School for their exposé of the secret US plans to seize Iraq's oil assets. Special thanks to the chief investigator on Iraq, Leni von Eckardt, as well as additional support from Matt Pascarella. The investigation was conducted for Harper's Magazine, BBC Television Newsnight and "blog" outlet TomPaine.com.View the BBC television reports and the Harper's and related reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/"
posted by deborah @ 16.6.05
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Hearings and Rally in Washington June 16
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
This is our chance to see the truth come out!
HEARINGS AT 2:30 PM, RALLY AT 5 PM ON THURSDAY.
Get the details and flyers.Watch on C-Span 3.
Listen on Pacifica Listen on RadioLeft Read on PDA Blog Buy DVD.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.
READ MORE.
Write Your Rep.
Sign Conyers' Letter. Sign Kennedy's Petition. Contact Media.
Contact TV. Tell Others. Get Flyers. Send Postcards.

posted by deborah @ 15.6.05

The Smoking Gun
QuickTime DSL 56K Windows Media DSL 56K
RealMedia DSL 56K New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq
posted by deborah @ 15.6.05
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

The Downing Street Memo Petition
Take Action: Sign the letter. Join hundreds of thousands of Americans and 89 members of Congress in asking President Bush to explain the revelations in the "Downing Street Memo."
posted by deborah @ 14.6.05

The Politics of Dominionism
Carolyn Baker: "May 12, 2005The Politics of DominionismThe New Religious Right in America"Let us not overlook the obvious: Dominionism is about dominion--over women, children, the poor, people of color, alternative sexual orientations, and the earth. It fits so nicely with fascist tyranny.Christian fundamentalism is fundamentally UN-American. Dominonists clearly desire a revised United States Constitution that will institute a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. As Katherine Yurica has so assiduously reported, the Domionist agenda would shred the Constitution and end the democratic republic our Deist founding fathers hammered out for five grueling months in 1787 in Philadelphia."
posted by deborah @ 14.6.05

Car Church (we like it loud)
from Suzanne:This is the lead song on Bruce Springsteen's new CD. I've been letting it play over and over again in the car for weeks.. very good for car church, Deborah...One has to wonder if Bruce Springsteen had the soul of an American soldier speaking to him when he wrote:DEVILS AND DUSTI got my finger on the triggerBut I don’t know who to trustWhen I look in your eyesThere’s just devils and dustWe’re a long , long way from home, BobbieHome’s a long long way from usI feel a dirty wind blowingDevils and dustI got God on my sideI’m just trying to surviveWhat if what you do to surviveKills the things you loveFear’s a powerful thingIt can turn your heart black you can trustIt’ll take your God filled soulAnd fill it with devils and dustWell I dreamed of you last nightIn a field of blood and stoneThe blood began to dryThe smell began to riseWell I dreamed of you last nightIn a field of mud and boneYour blood began to dryThe smell began to riseWe’ve got God on our sideWe’re just trying to surviveWhat if what you do to surviveKills the things you loveFear’s a powerful thingIt’ll turn your hear black you can trustIt’ll take your God-filled soulFill it with devils and dustNow every woman and every manThey want to take a righteous standFind the love that God willsAnd the faith that He commandsI’ve got my finger on the triggerAnd tonight faith just ain’t enoughWhen I look inside my heartThere’s just devils and dustWell I’ve got God on my sideAnd I’m just trying to surviveWhat if what you do to surviveKills the things you loveFear’s a dangerous thingIt can turn your heart black you can trustIt’ll take your God-filled soulFill it with devils and dustIt’ll take your God-filled soulFill it with devils and dustthe beauty and the power of Bruce Springsteen's music is his amazing ability to connect with the soul and humanity of ordinary folks; soldiers lost and wondering what they hell they are doing being shot at in the sand and working men watching their jobs move to China....for me this song captures all of the pain and anbiguity of young boys being sent of to kill and be killed for "they know not what." Would there were more musicians writing songs of peace and justice..and asking our youth to question what is happening in this country....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CB writes:>>IT ISN'T EXACTLY THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, IS IT?Nor yet the MARSEILLAISE....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Deborah writes:No, it's art speaking for the times... those boys come home as walking ghosts, the very soul sucked from them. And they're supposed to fit back in. Bruce's song is is a song for them: "we understand..." -- as we understand that we can't. But we stand by them. We stand by them. In all the pain of this thing we can't stop, we stand by them.Rolling Stone had a great and depressing article on the returning troops a few months ago. Heart breaker. Of our karate teacher's 3 sons, 2 will see Iraq. One there now, another heading out -- "deployed." when he gets the word. The local guard is all there, yellow ribbons on the fence.And now that we have Downing Street and some momentum, we have Michael Jackson all over the news. That's another way they bury things they don't want us to know.x'sPS. speaking of the Jacksons, re Janet Jackson's nipple hardwear--oddly enough, it was the Black Sun glyph"BLACK SUNOne the other side of Daäth, the reverse of beauty, the hideous God, Baphomet, the Black Sun (or Black Snake) is the opposite equivalent of Tiphareth, Osiris or Apollo. The Black Sun and The Black Moon may also stand for the names of secret societies known to very few." etc.google Black Sun Glyph .... (scary stuff!)Reminds me of what mary wrote awhile back:From: marysk...Date: Tue Dec 26, 2000 3:55 pmSubject: Re: [Negative-Capability] Millennial Anxiety and Timeless Gnosis(note: I'd mentioned a website. Mary L's response below is to that. Deborah )Hi, Deb, Yeah, I used to know some of those folks. A few were great, but I suspect some of them of being crypto-fascistic. Too conspiratorial, in my experience. I met a whole troupe (troop) of them (Occitanie-variety) at midnight on the Solstice up in the ruins of the chateau of Montsegur - where I had thought I was vigiling alone on my birthday. They set up their altar and candles below me as I watched, astounded, then removed their brown robes and stood in serried ranks all in pure white military uniforms around one in the morning! And when I revealed myself, with joy and bad French, they treated me with reluctant friendship - but stole my film while I slept!To me, the base - the root - level of the Tree of Life often informs the rest more than the other way around.M. (Mary)
posted by deborah @ 14.6.05

HEART AND SOUL: LUCID LIVING and the STAND-UP PHILOSOPHY TOUR
TIMOTHY FREKE writes:06_02_2005 - 15:05 GST My new book LUCID LIVING has just come out in the UK (and is unofficially already available in the US), and my stand-up philosophy tour has started. I have never felt so busy and so privileged to be putting this message of awakening out there. I've been receiving some great reviews which you can read on the LUCID LIVING website banner. This has been very encouraging, because I feel I have steeped out into new territory with this little book and am pleased to feel people are getting it!My favourite review has come in from an extraordinary lady called Alice Howell with whom I have had the pleasure to be in email communication. She is herself the author of a number of amazing books, such as THE DOVE AND THE STONE and THE BEEJUM BOOK, which is a magical and profound children's book that my kids adore. Alice is a respected authority on Carl Jung and a very wise lady who is now in her eighties. I am planning to stop off and visit her when I come to the US for my stand-up philosophy tour, as she has had a stroke and finds it difficult to travel these days. Alice really got the LUCID LIVING book, which was a great boost for me. She ended her review with these wonderful words, which sum up entirely my greatest aspiration for this little book: 'You are holding in your hands a true Gospel of Love for the future to come.'workshops, from Debbie's email (contact her through the website) : There's a lot happening right now with the launch of Tim's new book LUCID LIVING and the start of his STAND-UP PHILOSOPHY TOUR. Here's what's new - more information on timothyfreke.com:a.. I am delighted to announce EXPERENCING GNOSIS weekend seminars in Norway (9 - 11 Sept), Northern Ireland (23 - 25 Sept) and the UK (Oct 14 - 16). And we still have a few places available for the US seminar in Denver (July 22 - 24) - see Talks, Seminars, Media.b.. Tim is being featured in a BBC World Service series called HEART AND SOUL which has already started and is running for 4 weeks - you can hear it on the web - see Interviews and Articlesc.. Tim has two new dates for his stand-up philopshy tour in Northern Ireland in June - see Talks, Seminars, Media See the website Seminars banner for video of Tim talking about his seminars and their transformative power, as well as inspiring comments from participants in previous events ."
posted by deborah @ 14.6.05

Cross-Cultural Solutions
Volunteer abroad and experience another culture like never before, while working side-by-side with local people in a fascinating region of the world.
posted by deborah @ 14.6.05
Monday, June 13, 2005

Plasma in reactors echoes distribution of galaxies
New Scientist Breaking News: "Nuclear fusion reactors could be used to study what the universe was like just after the big bang. So claims a physicist who noticed that the plasma created inside these reactors is distributed in a strikingly similar way to galaxies in today's universe."
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05

Bombshell As Six More British Documents Leaked
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9125.htm06/13/05 - - Six new secret British documents have been leaked and are provided below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source, RawStory.com has verified the authenticity .Iraq options paper: Full text The following, titled "IRAQ OPTIONS PAPER," was prepared and dated March 8, 200. It presents possible courses to war. ContinuedBritish foreign secretary Straw says case for Iraq is weak the following is purported to have been penned by the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw--U.S. equivalent of Secretary of State--concerning a possible war in Iraq. Straw indicates the case for war is weak; that the Iraq situation has remained unchanged; and that the United States would not have gone to war without September 11. Continued.Condi committed to regime change in early 2002 The following, is purported to be written by Blair foreign policy advisor David Manning, indicates that now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was committed to "regime change" in early 2002. It also outlines some problems a postwar Iraq might face. ContinuedIraq: The British legal background The following was said prepared as an Iraq legal background for war. It is not dated. Continued'What has changed is not the pace of Saddam's WMD programs' 06/13/05 - - This memorandum, said from Blair political director Peter Ricketts and dated Mar. 22, 2002, indicates the challenges that an Iraq war would face. It indicates that it would have been carbon copied to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and President George W. Bush. "The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes," the document says. Continued'The need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors' The following is said from Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to the US from 1997 through February 2003, and dated in March of 2002. Strikingly, the document speaks of a "need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors" and suggests British intelligence and diplomacy draws a great deal on articles written by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker. It also describes a meeting with then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. Continued.orig:The Raw Story A rational voice - Alternative news: "We're slowly converting the UK Iraq docs into text format to make them more accessible"Iraq options doc - British foreign sec. wrote Iraq case weak - Condi saw regime change in 2002 - Legal primerIraq WMD program 'hadn't changed' - 'Need to wrongfoot' Saddam
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05

Icarus (Armed with Vipers) Over Iraq
TomDispatch - Tomgram: "The odd thing is this: No sooner had we human beings risen above the earth in powered flight -- think Icarus -- than we expressed the wonder of that event by dropping bombs from the planes that took us into the heavens. After that, it was just a straight line up (or do I mean down?) for the next near century.Look at it this way: the Wright Brothers' 'whopper flying machine' leaves the beach at Kitty Hawk for the first time on December 17, 1903. That initial flight lasts all of twelve seconds before the plane hits the sand 120 feet away. Later the same day, the plane flies 859 feet in 59 seconds before, on a final flight, it totals itself and is no more. Only five years later, the Wright brothers are demonstrating their new invention in the skies over Washington for the U.S. Army Signal Corps. By 1911, two years short of a decade after its invention, the plane is wedded to the bomb. According to Sven Lindqvist's (irritatingly organized but fascinating) labyrinth of a book, A History of Bombing, one Lieutenant Giulio Cavotti 'leaned out of his delicate monoplane and dropped the bomb -- a Danish Haasen hand grenade -- on the North African oasis Tagiura, near Tripoli. Several moments later, he attacked the oasis Ain Zara. Four bombs in total, each weighing two kilos, were dropped during this first air attack.'On the 'natives' in the colonies, naturally enough. What better place to test a new weapon? And that first attack, as perhaps befits our temperaments, was, Lindqvist tells us, for revenge, a kind of collective punishment called down upon Arabs who had successfully resisted the advanced rationality (and occupying spirit) of the Italian army. Given where we've ended up, it would be perfectly reasonable to consider this moment the beginning of modern history, even of modernism itself..."
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05

Conversation with Albie Sachs
Suffering, Survival, and Transformation
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05

Take Heart
Things might move now because they hang on the courts -- which they haven't totally locked up.The Valerie Plame case, for all the shouting about protecting sources and Judith Miller, is about an act of political revenge which also happened to be the commision of a felony: under Title 50, Chapter 15, section 421, it's a felony to divulge the identity of a covert intelligence operative. Thank the gods for Patrick FitzgeraldAnd with the Downing Street Memo, we have impeachable offenses: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/letter.pdf"If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress."As for sending John Bolton to the UN, it's a step of high utility. He and Negroponte can create or deny any evidence they desire in plotting their next wars. With UN "approval' it's no longer the blatant brazen Crimes Against Peace in the guise of preventive (pre-emptive -- what's in a name?) war. They can dress it up as peace making. Blessed be the peacekeepers. Bitter bitter bitter.If you -- each individual -- can stand up for truth, that's all we've ever had. The heart that lights and carries that lonely candle forth.Justice. The optimism of Jefferson rested with the god of nature. Take heart.The word is getting out: Could memo sink Bush?Hinchey, others demand answers on Downing Street MemoBy Dave Richardson Times Herald-Recorddrichardson@th-record.comWhat if President Bush lied to Congress and the American people, used those lies to gain congressional approval for military action against Iraq and launched a war that killed 1,700 Americans and tens of thousands of others?That might have been a hypothetical question a month ago; it might not be hypothetical anymore.In fact, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, says the answer to the question could lead to the impeachment of President Bush.The release of an explosive piece of paper called the Downing Street Memo has Hinchey, almost 90 members of Congress and people around the world in an uproar.The memo provides the closest thing to proof Bush may have lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and led the nation into an unnecessary war, Hinchey and others say.'Attacking Iraq was something the administration focused on from the very beginning,' Hinchey said. 'Bush made the policy, then altered, twisted and distorted the facts to fit the policy.'According to published reports in Britain, the Downing Street Memo, written in July, 2002 details a conversation in which British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British intelligence, and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw discuss a meeting held with U.S. officials on Iraq.In the memo, Dearlove warns Blair that Bush had already decided to attack Iraq – months before Bush brought the question to the U.N., and while he continued to deny, both to Congress and publicly, any plans to do so. Dearlove warned that Bush sought to justify that policy by fabricating evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."There was a perceptible shift in attitude," the memo quotes Dearlove as saying. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."The Times of London made the memo public May 1, and has continued to hammer it in its pages.High-ranking current and former members of both in the British and U.S. governments have reportedly confirmed the memo's authenticity.Until now, the story has been largely ignored by the U.S. news media and dismissed by the Bush administration. But it has prompted massive interest and widespread outrage abroad and is a hot topic on internet blogs.In the U.S., that outrage is also growing.On May 5, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, sent a letter to Bush demanding answers about the memo."If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration," Conyers wrote.The letter was signed by 88 other members of Congress. Conyers has at least 90,000 signatures on a petition demanding the same, and hopes to have more than 500,000 soon.Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy has a similar petition, and California Rep. Maxine Waters has vowed to introduce daily amendments to pending House legislation demanding Bush answer questions raised by the memo.Hinchey signed Conyers' letter, and had harsh words for Bush. "The Downing Street Memo confirms a lot of information coming from insiders in the administration and the intelligence agencies, and says clearly that they fixed the facts around the policy," Hinchey said.So far there has been no official response to Conyers' letter."They are trying to ignore the letter, but we will be back to them on this. We will continue to press this," Hinchey said. "It's outrageous. It goes against everything this country stands for."Representatives of both Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton declined to comment directly on the memo or on the House response to it.Still, calls for a congressional inquiry into the questions raised by the memo are growing louder, with some even discussing a Bush impeachment."If the president intentionally twisted the facts about the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, and lied to Congress about it, and then elicited authorization from Congress to launch a war that's caused the deaths of 1,700 U.S. men and women along with tens of thousands of others, that is definitely an impeachable offense," Hinchey said.Downing Street excerptsKey excerpts from the Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, as reported May 1 in the Times of London. The memo details a conversation between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and key ministers about a meeting held with U.S. officials on Iraq months before the Bush administration officially decided to go to war."Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and (weapons of mass destruction.) But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.""But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.""There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath of the war."Yesterday, the Times released details of a briefing paper written two days before the Downing Street memo. The Times reported:"Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.""The briefing paper warned that regime-change was not a legal option, the U.S. and Britain would find it 'necessary to create the conditions' to make the invasion legal."
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05

war begets war begets war...
U.S. expands its fight on terrorists in AfricaBy Eric SchmittThe New York TimesSATURDAY, JUNE 11, 2005
posted by deborah @ 13.6.05
Sunday, June 12, 2005

DU: A Scientific Perspective
If half this info on depleted uranium is correct, we are in deep trouble....
SuzanneAn Interview With LEUREN MORET, GeoscientistBy W. Leon Smith/Nathan DiebenowMay 13, 2005, 07:20excerpt:MORET: "A young veteran named Melissa Sterry of Connecticut has introduced a bill into the Connecticut Legislature requiring independent testing of returning Afghan and Gulf War veterans going back to 2001. She said that she did it because she's sick, and her friends are dead, and that's from serving in the 2003 conflict. I have been following the bill and talking to her. Yesterday, she testified twice at the United Nations. I said, 'Why don't we get this bill all over the U.S. in state legislatures because it informs the public and get the local media to cover it.'The U.S. has blocked any accountability at international and national levels. There's a total cover-up just like with Agent Orange, the atomic veterans, MKULTRA, the mind control experiments the CIA did. This is more of the same, but the issue is much, much worse because the genetic future of all those contaminated is effected. Now vast regions around our world, as well as our atmosphere, are contaminated with the depleted uranium. They've used so much. It's the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese professor calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been released into the atmosphere. That's really an underestimate."
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05

Democracy in Action?
t r u t h o u t - Chip Pitts
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05

Robert G. Joseph
Individual Profile
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05

Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief - by Tom Barry
by Tom Barry: "The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the militarist political camp.Moving into the old job of John Bolton, the administration's hardcore unilateralist nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Robert G. Joseph is the right wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy."
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war "excuse" - Sunday Times - Times Online
One of the things propagandists have always done is bury things they don't want known. They might let another event out-shout it; they might associate a name, a point, a concept with something else -- and sink THAT. Both were done with Bush's awol record, something the loyal opposition had gathered info about for years. As the public woke up to the issue, a bogus but truthful memo was planted in the right hands, followed by a blitz of "bloggers" who cried bogus!, and were shocked! shocked! that such a bogus memo could smear their leader. As the shock and bogus were hyped, they became the big story, and down went Rather, a good man long targeted by the Right. (I remember him on 9/11, the voice of reason and calm as FOX and puppets foamed at the mouth and called for war.) People looked up for a moment, swallowed it whole, filed BUSH, AWOL, under RATHERGATE (tut, tut, liberal journalist!) and went back to sleep. How easy it was to bury the truth. How vast the scope and power of their control.Princess Leia once said, "They let us go. It's the only reason for the ease of our escape." Her words come back to me any time something as good as the Downing Street Memo comes our way. As it breaks, remember and work with care, O my brothers.Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military actionThe smoking cannon
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05

more Downing Street
BuzzFlash Mailbag June 10, 2005: "Subject: Several headlines re Downing Street MemoSeveral members and advisors to Tony Blair quit just about the time of the Downing Street memo. All were questioning the legality of the war.John Conyers has a request for anyone with information to email him. Perhaps if someone did some research and published the following - google Clare Short quits, Robin Cook quits, Lord Goldsmith's secretary quits (Elizabeth Wilmhurst). If we could just get the attention of someone in congress who would speak with them ... They all quit Blair's government because of their personal objections to the war in Iraq. Below are some links to their stories:Cook quits over Iraq crisisClare Short Quits Post Over IraqAdviser quits Foreign Office over legality of war[Media-watch] Aide quits over 'illegal' war - Sunday Times - 17/10/2004Perhaps the trigger of the smoking gun is in the UK?????A BuzzFlash Reader "The Sunday Times articleOctober 17, 2004Aide quits over 'illegal' warRichard WoodsA SENIOR official who helped draw up Tony Blair's dossier on weapons of mass destruction has quit in disgust over what he regards as the illegal war in Iraq.Carne Ross, who was Britain's Iraq expert at the United Nations before the war, said he has resigned in "total disillusionment" with the government's behaviour over the conflict.Ross, first secretary in Britain's delegation to the United Nations, was responsible for negotiating policy and drawing up resolutions as Blair and George W Bush began to prepare the case for war. He was involved in the initial preparation of Blair's dossier on weapons.The resignation is likely to prompt new demands for Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, to reveal his advice to Blair over the legality of the conflict.Ross is understood to believe the evidence was "unambiguous" that Iraq posed little or no threat so the legal case for war was flawed. He and other officials are believed to have raised their concerns with ministers. Ross said yesterday: "I am happy to confirm that I resigned because of the war, but I cannot comment further."He is the second senior Foreign Office official to quit over the war following the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmhurst, a deputy head in the Foreign Office legal department, in March 2003 because she felt the war was illegal.Blair claimed the war was legally justified because there was clear evidence Saddam had not disarmed and posed a serious threat. This argument has now been undermined by the official post-war report of the Iraq Survey Group which found Saddam had no such weapons.Last week Ross declined to expand on why he resigned, saying he had been advised he might face legal action if he did so. He quit only recently because he was due to return to the Foreign Office from the UN as head of conflict resolution.The government has refused to publish Goldsmith's advice in full, claiming legal confidentiality. Westminster insiders say the real reason is that grave doubts about the legality of the war persisted at the highest levels right up to the invasion."It is a major scandal," said one senior figure familiar with the details. "It has to do with the attorney-general's view, which was that the war was illegal. It's all been hushed up."According to two sources, concerns first arose in 2002 when the Foreign Office legal department advised the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a legal case for war had not been made. When Straw disagreed, senior officials, believed to include Sir Michael Wood, head of the Foreign Office's legal department, as well as Wilmhurst, went to Goldsmith to ask him to intervene. Wood declined to comment last week.Goldsmith was reluctant because, said more than one source, the attorney-general believed a war would be illegal. "But he didn't write it down," said one source. "He knew that the prime minister didn't want him to give a formal opinion at that stage."Goldsmith continued to think there was no good legal basis for war, said one source, "until the beginning of March 2003 . . . when the guns were practically ready to fire".Finally, on March 7, 2003 he sent a formal minute to Blair giving his opinion. The government later published a precis of his advice arguing war would be legal. However, sources said his full minute runs to up to 20 pages and contains "serious qualifications" that have never been revealed.
posted by deborah @ 12.6.05
Saturday, June 11, 2005

Animal Magnetism"His ambition is to dissolve the boundaries between man and other species, between art and nature, between now and forever."
posted by deborah @ 11.6.05
Friday, June 10, 2005

GO FORTH
"Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you." ~Thomas Jefferson
The time has come:
Arise, Freeway bloggers, paintinghttp://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ everywhere...
Go forth!http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/Flyers to post at any given space. Good civics lesson, pamphleteering. And free! Get the kids involved. Time honored. Time well spent. Lots of good prints to make here... go forth and staple up!Tuck this into books at the bookstore, on shelves at the grocery:****MEMORANDUMTo: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.From: John C. Bonifaz1Date: May 23, 2005RE: The President’s Impeachable OffensesThe recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.The Downing Street MemoOn May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked “Secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only,” consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.Why a Resolution of Inquiry is JustifiedOn May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw “no need” to respond to the letter. “British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,” The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”3 James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina’s ratification convention:The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. “The powers relating to impeachment,” Jordan said, “are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.” Impeachment, she added, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...”6 Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.7If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.The following is suggested language for this resolution:Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.ConclusionThe Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.________________________________________1 The writer is an attorney in Boston specializing in constitutional litigation. In February and March 2003, John C. Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of United States soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress (led by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich) in a federal lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz is the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks-NY, 2004, foreword by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), which chronicles that case and its meaning for the United States Constitution.British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”2 The full text of the Downing Street Memo can be found at http://jungcircle.com/muse/www.downingstreetmemo.com.3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 (Washington: 1836), vol. 3 at 500.4Id., vol. 4 at 127.5 The full text of Representative Jordan’s opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee on July 25, 1974, can be found here. 6 The full text of the President’s March 18, 2003 letter can be found here.7 As Dean writes:With one pathetic (yet false) exception, this report explains that the president made his determination by inexplicably relying on alleged congressional findings of fact, which did not exist. Congress made no such findings, and if it had done so, it surely would not have required the president make his determinations. Bush, like a dog chasing his tail who gets ahold of it, relied on information the White House provided Congress for its draft resolution; then he turned around and claimed that this information (his information) came from Congress. From this bit of sophistry, he next stated that these congressional findings were the basis of his “determination.”Worse Than Watergate at 148-149.
posted by deborah @ 10.6.05

Bonifaz Memo to Conyers
After Downing Street Dot Org :: In Support of a Resolution of Inquiry: "The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
posted by deborah @ 10.6.05

welcome home
Elizabeth, it surely is most fit[Logic and common usage so commanding]In thy own book that first thy name be writ,Zeno and other sages notwithstanding;And I have other reasons for so doingBesides my innate love of contradiction;Each poet–if a poet–in pursuingThe muses thro' their bowers of Truth or Fiction,Has studied very little of his part,Read nothing, written less–in short's a foolEndued with neither soul, nor sense, nor art,Being ignorant of one important rule,Employed in even the theses of the school-Called–I forget the heathenish Greek name[Called anything, its meaning is the same]"Always write first things uppermost in the heart."ELIZABETH by Edgar Allan Poe1850
posted by deborah @ 10.6.05

After Downing Street Dot Org
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.READ MORE. Write Your Rep. Sign Conyers' Letter. Sign Kennedy's Petition. Contact Media. Contact TV. Tell Others. Get Flyers. Send Postcards.
posted by deborah @ 10.6.05
Thursday, June 09, 2005

Tell the Truth About Iraq
link: Last month the Times of London published a “smoking gun” memo on President Bush’s lies leading up to the Iraq war. Six months before the invasion the administration admitted to British officials that, contrary to what the American public was told, the White House was determined to go to war and was “fixing” intelligence on WMDs to justify the move."Bush has refused to address the evidence in the "Downing Street Memo," but pressure is building from the people and the press. Representative John Conyers has launched a citizens petition to demand answers. When we reach 500,000 signers Rep. Conyers will personally deliver your comments to the gates of the White House. Help get out the truth – please sign today.Click here for the full text of Rep. Conyers's letter."
posted by deborah @ 9.6.05

Keeping America's Promise
Nightmare AdMyself, my children, are included in this number, as we have been for the past two years. We'd taken a new job, moved 1,000 miles, health insurance on par with what we'd always had promised, or we would never have taken the job.The insurance never happened.The employer lied to us.There is no recourse in America. Not in this state.The rights that labor fought and died for are gone with the unions and with every court case that strikes them down. We lose all ground. This is what the "free-market" pro-business Right has brought us: back to the robber barons, winner take all.How did this happen -- how, in the land of the free, the home of the brave?How? Play by play.As Paul Krugman writes,"... middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power. Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on.These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead. For example, it's a plain fact that the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich, especially those who derive most of their income from inherited wealth. Yet this year's Economic Report of the President, in a bravura demonstration of how to lie with statistics, claimed that the cuts "increased the overall progressivity of the federal tax system."Who runs the world? Not even nations. Powerful corporations run the world. Who gives them power? They answer to their stock holders. If you own assets, you're part of that empowering. Who is using the money you invest, and what are they doing with it? If you don't know, don't care, you're part of the problem.Please have a look at this piece of propaganda by Ann Coulter. It's now gone from the Townhall Website, but available here in archive. (I'll blog it *below in case THAT vanishes. This is mean, but we're in a mean company with Coulter. Notice the picture of her there. It was before her recent plastic surgery that's made her less hard to look at. Still, she remains as ever, an abomination, a traitor to her sex and species.)"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view... Bush will give us a free market in oil so we can afford to keep the lights on. ... Cardigan sweaters or SUVs? Over to you, America."~Ann CoulterRe Ann's commets, objectively the Coulter piece is pure distortion. Had those environmentalist 'nuts' in Congress been able to implement their energy plans supporting alternatives to carbon based fuels, think where we could be now. Reagan's triumph was robbing his own children and grandchildren, and it was arranged politically. (The W Bush Whitehouse acted months before 9/11 to block the release of Reagan's Presidential papers. Why?) Reagan's solution to the '73 artificial energy crises created by OPEC was political rather than economic. Now we reap what we've sown. For insight into the games we've played in the region:link: thankslink: arminglinkThe truth is, the fact is, the reality is, resources on the earth are limited. An economic system that assumes the opposite and depends on unlimited growth -- the creation of 'need' -- is built on lies. Symbiosis is the principle of what endures, a fact written eveywhere in nature. All else is a flash in the pan. Eating your seed corn. A cancer. As for the comment about interference with the Free Market system causing the problems, that's really funny when oil is one of those US's most heavily subsidized industries. Indeed, in oil's case, if the Free Market had been left to rule, if producers and consumers paid the true price for it, we would have been off of oil and on to other technologies long a go. link: vehicles“There never was a good war nor a bad peace.” -- Benjamin Franklin, September 11, 1783
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Ann Coulter (link
October 12, 2000
Oil good; democrats bad
Al Gore's idea of "standing up to 'Big Oil'" is for all of us to ride bikes and wear heavier coats in the winter. We're supposed to ratchet back our expectations so that we don't disturb some migratory bird by drilling for oil in Alaska.This is nothing more than warmed-over Jimmy Carter lecturing us to turn down the thermostat as he sat by the fire in that ridiculous cardigan sweater. Democrats love energy policies that don't involve the creation of new energy. They just want to harangue us into giving things up. "Environmentally friendly" means a life of austerity.What does he think we are -- Swedes? We're Americans. This is a prosperous country. We will not live like Swedes. We want 18-ton Ford Exploro-cruisers, cell phones, CDs, hot showers, blow dryers, DVD players and jet skis.Fuel is the metric of prosperity, and conservationism is an acknowledgement that we are in decline of prosperity -- that this is the beginning of the long bleak twilight of civilization. If you posit that we have fixed energy sources and we have to ration them, then we are dying as a species.The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view.Producing oil isn't so bad for the environment anyway. During World War II, our boats were going at breakneck speed to get oil to England (what with the war and all). There were oil spills everywhere. Half the beaches in the United States were slathered in oil. Six weeks later all the birds were back.You couldn't get rid of the environment if you tried. Alaska is immense, caribou love the Alaskan pipeline, they've grouped there, frolicking and leaping over the pipeline ... but I'm lost in an irrelevancy. The point is: We need oil for our CAT scan machines, airplanes, computers and refrigerators.Al Gore billed his energy plan as "a new, bold way of thinking" and then went on to propose tax credits for solar-powered cars and hand implements for farming. (These are some of the "right people" deserving of tax breaks under a Gore regime.) If Bush is in the pocket of the "Big Oil," then Gore is in the pocket of "Big Windmills."Bush responded by saying, That's not an energy policy! He sensibly proposed that we explore for more oil with the latest environmentally sensitive technologies to ensure our lessened dependence on OPEC and oil-controlling lunatics like Saddam Hussein.Let's see, who should go get the oil from our domestic oil reserves? Big Jell-O companies? Big Car companies? The trial lawyers? No! The oil companies. Somebody has to get the stuff that runs our DVD players and allows us to go to the bathroom indoors. Being for a free market in oil is called being for "Big Oil."Meanwhile, pretty much every "energy crisis" this country has ever experienced can be traced back to some government policy mucking up the free market.President Nixon was the first to instigate government interference in the oil market. He instituted "Project Independence" in 1974 with the expressed goal of making America independent of foreign oil. Just 15 years later, America's dependence on foreign oil had risen from 35 percent to 45 percent.Sweater-wearing Jimmy Carter instituted his own macho energy policy, Project MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War), against foreign oil. He established import quotas, placed rations on oil and signed a "windfall profits" tax.Anticipating nuts like Gore, Carter also encouraged the development of alternative sources of fuel, including oil shale and solar power. (And that's why we're all driving solar-powered cars today.) Congress jumped on the nut-case bandwagon and issued an official declaration stating that bicycles are "the most efficient means of transportation." This was a really loopy country in the '70s.Massive gas shortages ensued, gas lines became interminable serpentine nightmares, and America's reliance on imported foreign oil doubled. Finally, a man entered the Oval Office and rescued the country from its terminal silliness. On the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, his first executive order was to lift all energy price controls. Oil prices soared in the short term (damn those oil companies!), but as a consequence, domestic production and exploration skyrocketed -- triggering a 20-year low in oil prices.Bush will give us a free market in oil so we can afford to keep the lights on. Gore will boldly lead us into the post-industrial Dark Age. Cardigan sweaters or SUVs? Over to you, America.
posted by deborah @ 9.6.05

please watch this
BUSHFLASH"Recently a political scientist, Dr. Lawrence Britt, wrote an article naming fourteen characteristics of fascism. http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7/He based his study on an examination of the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet. (For the record, we need to remind ourselves that four of these men were Roman Catholics never excommunicated by their church -- all except Suharto.) A summary of Britt's points follow.1. Powerful and continuing nationalism employing constant use of patriotic slogans, symbols, songs, flags.2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights because security needs outweigh human rights which can be ignored.3. Using enemies as scapegoats for a unifying cause.4. Supremacy of the military.5. Rampant sexism including more rigid gender roles and anti-gay legislation.6. Controlled mass media.7. Obsession with national security driven by a politics of fear.8. Religion and Government are intertwined especially in rhetoric employed by its leaders.9. Corporate power is protected -- industrial and business aristocracies put government leaders into power and keep them there creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.10. Labor power, which represents one of the few threats to fascism, is suppressed.11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts and hostility to higher education along with censorship of arts or refusal to support the arts.12. Obsession with crime and punishment.13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.14. Fraudulent Elections."see also:t r u t h o u t - US and UK Bombing Raids Tried to Goad Saddam into War: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052905X.shtml"The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown. The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive. The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make 'regime change' in Iraq legal. Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that 'the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime'."Crossing Nuclear ThresholdsCommentary: The Bush administration is slowly, and quite consciously, blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional war-fighting options"Oh my heart be strong.Watch the pitt:William Rivers Pitt Stand with Us -- 06.08.05http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htmWhat strikes me is the tribal nature of response on all sides. Bush America knows how to stir up a religious war: the response, pure tribal. And tribal begets tribal.*************"Truly, truly, I say to you,unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies,it remains alone;but if it dies, it bears much fruit."Rachel Corrie. How odd, her name Kore -- buried in the earth to the grief of the mothers. Her hair, golden, the barley that rises in the spring. How many Rachel Corries?I've noticed that many stories have disappeared from the net. But if you search the site with Google, you get links, and the cache is still there. Look here, and use the cache link below each url:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-09,GGLD:en&q=site:www%2Epalsolidarity%2Eorg+Rachel+CorrieTo deal with despotic rulers, must we become despotic, become a nation ruled by the same? Terrorism wears a tribal mask; when we respond in kind with collective force—blunt and faceless—we only reinforce it. Individuals act, and individuals must be held accountable. If we don't nurture justice through law and the avenues of peaceful solutions, if we simply resort to the use of our unimaginably superior arms, what statement are we making to the world? What protocol do we establish? What will we be left to live with? Fear and suspicion have been exploited to sell war. Questions are not asked or answered. The obvious economic benefits to private oil's control of the Iraqi reserves are never discussed - indeed, they are obfuscated, even denied. In whose service is our military in this war? Our intelligence: who does it answer to? If we can't readily answer these questions, we no longer function as a Democracy. What then have we become?
posted by deborah @ 9.6.05

Congressman John Conyers Talks About Bush Lying America Into War
Congressman John Conyers: Hold Bush AccountableThanks, Buzz. Wow. Nice.
posted by deborah @ 9.6.05
Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Bush Team Appears to End Effort to Oust Atomic Chief
New York Times: "Administration officials have been acknowledging for months that they have been unable to convince any of their major allies that Dr. ElBaradei should be ousted."
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

The Genographic Project - Human Migration, Population Genetics, Maps, DNAExplore your own genetic journey with Dr. Spencer Wells. DNA analysis includes a depiction of your ancient ancestors and an interactive map tracing your genetic lineage around the world and through the ages.
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

review: a trip to my Congressman
22 Jan 03:re: The Downing Street Memo
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force..."
We need to make sure it doesn't reinforce a favorite point of dis-information. Remember that SADDAM DID NOT KICK THE UN INSPECTORS OUT.
http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html .
"ACTION ALERT:There They Go Again: The Washington Post's Iraq Tall TaleMarch 6, 2000Since January 1999, the Washington Post has spun a tall tale about the 1998 collapse of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq and the U.S.-British airstrikes that followed. Not only has the Post rewritten Iraqi history, but the paper's new version of events contradicts its own coverage from the time of the airstrikes. Despite running several letters to the editor pointing out the mistake, the paper has repeated the error again and again. How many times can one newspaper get the same fact wrong?The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998. Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq, had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N. weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced he would launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for their safety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-British bombing proceeded.The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."But in the 14 months since then, the Washington Post has again and again tried to rewrite history--claiming that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Despite repeated attempts by its readers to set the record straight in letters to the editor, the Post has persisted in reporting this fiction.Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.According to the Post, a New York diplomat "generally sympathetic to Washington" argued--along with French, Russian, Chinese, and U.N. officials--that Butler, working in collusion with the U.S., "deliberately wrote a justification for war." "Based on the same facts," the diplomat said, "he [Butler] could have just said, 'There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"What follows is a chronology of the Washington Post's 14-month reign of error. On at least five separate occasions, the Post falsely reported that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in December 1998. In three of these instances, the gaffe was made by foreign affairs columnist Fred Hiatt or by the Post editorial page, which Hiatt now edits.Of course, the Post is not alone. The New York Times made the same mistake seven times (1/8/99, 4/16/99, 8/20/99, 10/28/99, 11/18/99, 12/17/99, 2/1/00) before finally printing a correction on February 2, 2000. The Chicago Tribune (12/18/99), Boston Globe (10/21/99), Washington Times (11/5/99), AP (12/2/99), NewsweekM (8/30/99), USA Today (12/9/99) and NBC News (12/19/99) have all made the same error. ... more"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnnaWMD IN IRAQ Evidence and ImplicationsHistoryThe legacy of the occupation
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

Downing Street Memo
Democracy For AmericaI've Read the Memo ... and Every Other American Should, Too"Americans have paid dearly for the Iraq war -- in lost lives, misspent fortune, and blown international prestige. But to make matters worse, a recently-revealed British government memo now all but confirms that the Bush administration was determined to lead our country into war -- even if it required fixing the evidence to do so.We've got to act. Together, we have the power to spread the word about the Downing Street Memo -- and put the American people on course for a long-needed debate about the war's untold damage the to our troops, our strength abroad, and our reputation.All Americans deserve the truth about the Downing Street Memo and the lies that led to war. Starting with my friends, family, and co-workers, pledge to spread the word about the memo."
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

The Anti-Christ and I
Steve Weissman: " Our Constitution tells us to keep God and government separate, but a new Supreme Court will likely overrule what the words plainly say and permit increasing application of 'Biblical law.' What better way to fuel ungodly religious strife? "
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

Night Thoughts
The Print and The Book
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

You really want that dish?
A Present for MurdochTold you. Murdoch's News Corporation controls one of the country's largest direct-broadcast satellite services, DirecTV.
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

Iraq Dispatches: Things are getting worse by the day.
"As so many of my Iraqi friends continue to say, 'This is the freedom and democracy that America has brought us.' "
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

The Best of Susan Sontag
Tomdispatch"Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy -- which entails disagreement, which promotes candor -- has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. 'Our country is strong,' we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be." ~Susan Sontag
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

to this cup...
To this cup, I pay homage.To the designer of this cup,to the workers who made this cup,who mined the ores, I pay homage.To the workers who dug the clay,ground the glazes, the farmerswho fed those workers I pay homage.To the great cycles which give usclean air, clear water, to all living things,all the earth, I pay homage.To this tea, I pay homage.To the growth in the bud,to the cells exchangingair, water and light, I pay homage.to the workers who grew, tended,picked the tea, who packed, transported,distributed the tea, I pay homage.To the great cycles which give usclean air, clear water, to all living things,all the earth, I pay homage.To this water, I pay homage.To the rain which falls,to the rivers, the dams,the builders and plumbers, I pay homage.To the oceans and the sun,the great trade windsand the world’s turning, I pay homage.To all the cycles which bring usclean air, clear water, to all living things,all the earth, I pay homage.Tea CeremonyMichael Cope© 2004From: Scenes and VisionsPublisher: Snailpress, Cape Town, South Africa, 1990ISBN: 0-9583135-2-0Kwela: "Michael Cope's poetry celebrates the particularity of image, person and story, while evoking a recognition of how each minute particular simultaneously resonates into the wider living system. Implicit in this approach is a critique of the globalising systems of business, money and power which obscure this way of seeing. While attempting to articulate the ecological, social and spiritual cost of such development, the poems suggest, through a variety of voices and genres, the possibility of another view."
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05

Ike
In the first part of this quote, he's speaking to the rise of military and intelligence -- and it's prophetic since they grew to unhealthy proportions from Truman onward:"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.* Their number is negligible and they are stupid."* Haroldson Lafayette Hunt, billionaire founder of the Hunt Oil Company, had often been a champion of conservative causes. For background on Eisenhower's relations with Hunt see Galambos, Columbia University, vol. X.Full letterThese words ring more true everyday:"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
posted by deborah @ 8.6.05
Tuesday, June 07, 2005

"Watergate offenders rewrite history
The Sentinel Online - Editorial: By Francis Volpe, June 7, 2005[...]"So it turns out that Linda Lovelace wasn't Deep Throat after all. Who knew?This solicitous attitude toward people with vested interests illustrates where today's media goes wrong. Cowed by the right-wing noise machine, too many editors and TV guest bookers are insisting on two sides for every story, even if they have to make one of them up out of whole cloth.Which is nonsense. There is no Bizzarro World in which Mark Felt did the wrong thing by helping expose the lengthy litany of felonies and misdemeanors we now refer to collectively as Watergate. Encouraging people who wear their biases on their sleeves to denigrate Felt is dimwitted hackery.George Will quoted a Karl Marx saying on Sunday that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. And as it happens, a similar principle applies here. Because there's a new Deep Throat running around Washington — the person who told columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.And if you're willing to accept Watergate as the tragedy, then clearly the farce is an anonymous source targeting Plame to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who refuted a key lie about Iraq's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.Two other reporters who spoke to the informer are facing jail for not identifying him to a grand jury — but Novak appears to be in no jeopardy, even though he's the one who disclosed Plame's job publicly.Predictably, Novak also dissed Felt for his contribution to history last week. If that's what Novak really thinks, perhaps he should exhibit some intellectual consistency and tell us who his cracked-mirror image Deep Throat really is."
posted by deborah @ 7.6.05

t r u t h o u t - 'Lactivists' Mobilize to Promote Right to Breast-Feed in Public
link"The flurry of moves come as the number of American women who choose to breast-feed has climbed from about half in 1990 to close to 70 percent. Many otherwise apolitical women say they found themselves unexpectedly transformed into lactivists after fielding a nasty comment or being asked to stop nursing in public." 70%! Beautiful! Let's come back and live in our bodies.
posted by deborah @ 7.6.05

The Warrior's Path
Observing karate practitioners of all ages, I'm struck by how much empathy and intuition and general good heartedness they demonstrate. Of all sports and all team play, it strikes me this way. It's not about ego and winning. It's about mastery. Growth. It builds nice people. I asked a black belt if he even dreamt he was doing martial arts. He said no. Never. Made me wonder.Now yoga, and the practice of natural childbirth -- these are states I've experienced. Both are waking dream states, characterized by a distortion of the flow of time and space, the uc breaking into consciousness. But watching karate, it seems to me to be it's own extreme state of this, a meld of physical consciousness -- like dance -- a mind body yoga, yes -- BUT in this instance,the meld takes itself outward, whole and in union, as it reaches out in sparring to connect intuitively with another in this state. It's a dance, cooperative, but it's not predetermined. It's movement and intuition of movement. We read body language -- something we demonstrate that we miss often enough, relying as we must on pure word (with supplements of image, song, parable, poem: art left to speak all else of psyche's richness) -- and language the tool of thought. But this is a physical language developed to a high degree. Anyway, falling all over myself here trying to paint a picture of an intuition. But maybe you could expand on this for me. It seems also a very good therapy, developing a trust of self and other. It seems very healing and harmonious. How odd. Dance of life and death. Martial arts... war. Aggression, protection. Ancient, tapping back across thousands of years. Yet those kids and adults sparring here in the moment demonstrate such love and admiration for each other... How hungry we are for a teacher... to connect. To be real in the moment. Something besides words, words, words. deborah----------------------------------------------------------------------------Had a wonderful reply -- which is why I share this:How synchronistic, it seems to me... from what I am reading at this very moment, lol:"I don't doubt that at the dawn of martial arts, the main goal was to beat up one's opponents in the most effective way possible. But then, indirectly, the alchemy of martial arts began to strike some chords deep within the spirit of many individuals, transforming living war-machines into poets, artists, and philosophers. Certainly, the gods of martial arts had lots of fun. Like skilled magicians, they stuffed their magic hat with a fighting method, and pulled out a way of facing life: changing one's self and the world through a somatic discipline."In martial arts circles as well as in popular culture, the concept of 'the way of the warrior' is the subject of much hype. The idea underlying it views martial arts not simply as methods to break bones, but as paths for self-perfection and character building. The word 'warrior,' however, is employed in so many fields, besides its original, somewhat bloody context, with so many different meanings attached to it, that it is hard to use it without sounding foolish. Yet, the sometimes misguided popularity of the 'warrior' idea shows how powerful it is as an archetype. It speaks of beautiful qualities which are as rare as pygmy basketball players: a willpower that can't be broken, the discipline to transform dreams into reality, the ability to get up with one's confidence unshaken after being knocked down countless times, the commitment to fight not just for one's personal goals but for everything and everyone deserving help. The warrior doesn't simply talk about 'how things should be,' but acts in a way to make them happen. Being a warrior means having the strength and passion to follow one's visions."Martial arts bring us back to something... primal. In the fighting arts, it is our own physical well-being that is on the line. The fear of violence, the fear of being the bull's eye for an attack of overwhelmingly superior physical force, the fear that women, men, and animals alike feel when a stronger, meaner predator assigns them the role of the prey: these are the forces that martial arts play with... The very physical nature of our existence makes it impossible to completely escape this primordial fear... Through practice of the fighting arts, the martial artist stares his own fear in the eyes... Every fight is a battle against our own limits and weaknesses. Much like a doctor injects a disease into a patient in order to allow him to build antibodies and be immunized against this very same disease, martial arts uses small-scale violence in order to immunize its practitioners against the fear of violence. Physical aggression, the most dramatic, obvious, and scary manifestation of conflict, is the training tool used... to lose all fear of conflict."The moment Fear begins to lose its grip on us, every instant of daily existence can become more peaceful and enjoyable: a fifty-pound weight being lifted off our shoulders. Only then does it become possible for serenity to come dancing into our lives. Thanks to the confidence developed through training, this serenity runs deep and cannot be easily threatened by the fear of conflicts, verbal or physical... The martial artist doesn't chat about spirituality. He or she puts it into action."Ooops, the magic word just escaped my lips: spirituality... Forgetting that true spirituality is not ascetic or against life, both its friends and foes call 'spiritual' what is remote and beyond the material world. But spirituality is just the opposite. It is the quintessence of life. It is a way of waking up, of walking, of smiling, of dancing."We are stuck withing a system which gives all the power to the mind, and just the leftovers to the body. Ahead of us lies a trap from which there is no way out. The moment they ask us to choose between two different paths, the implicit message is that we can only follow one... But the idea that if we want one thing we must renounce something else is one of the worst aberrations ever invented... An individual who is truly alive should not settle for anything less than the totality of experience."But taking care of one's body is not enough... the harmony between mind and body is something that has nothing to do with the obsession for fitness. The body is not a product. It is an experience... The real goal is not so much centered on one's physical appearance as it is about one's character."Having a perfect body is not nearly as important as learning how to listen to its voice. During a training session, when the rational mind slows down the flow of thoughts, the body begins to disclose its secrets. Consciousness is free to travel from one muscle to the next, and have access to powers unknown to those who can't go beyond cerebral activity. For a few minutes or hours, the social identity is left behind... The only thing that matters is the stream of energy flowing within us. The strength of an adult mammal, not different from that of a buffalo, a wolf, a jaguar. A wild being aware of the life-force pulsating in every pore of the skin. This is not just a physical experience. It is spiritual. It transforms the body as well as the character."The personality of those who know how to come into contact with this dimension changes even in everyday life, during the ordinary state of consciousness... When you know the intensity of that power, a halo of confidence begins to follow you in every moment. There is an incredible difference between those who experience their power only through the mind and those who also feel it in the body. A person who knows there is a wild wolf living under the skin has less reason to be intimidated by reality... Even when the power of the mind is in doubt, the body can provide tangible proof."Because of the physical nature of the martial arts, we can't lie to ourselves. There is no need for someone to tell us whether we are moving mechanically or are truly present. When you are there, you know it. Every gesture serves as verification of our feelings."Those who have never approached their bodies as temples have no idea of what they are missing... Philosophies, religions, and bad habits have embedded themselves so deeply that most people can't find a way to connect with the body anymore. Sometimes they try in rough and often counterproductive ways, through pain and masochistic discipline: hurting oneself in order to feel alive. But this is only the other side of the physical repression they are trying to escape. There is no harmony in this search, only desperation."What we need is something else - a way of cleansing the character of the junk we have drowned it in, a way to remind us that the body is not a prison, but a sacred temple that cannot be bought by money or accessed by technology. Turn your body into a temple and nature starts talking to you. It brings you back to a wilder, more authentic state. Nature is not just a name to identify what we have not yet covered with concrete and asphalt. It is life lived without fear, without sense of guilt; life not enslaved by the artificial rules of a society which has lost its center... And we can't find our own nature without passing through the body. The healthiest, most ecological and spiritual act that we can perform is to rediscover the energies of the body. A man who knows that body and spirit are part of each other doesn't need anyone to remind him that he is alive, nor does he have any reason to upset the ecological balance. Only the sky above his head and the earth under his feet. His body is the true home. It is the only thing that never abandons him, the only one that truly belongs to him. Such an individual is a threat to every form of established authority. A wolf that can't be tamed. He is not under anyone's orders and doesn't accept dogmas because he already has within himself everything he needs to face life. When streams of energy flow in the veins of your body, dependency on external factors is reduced to a minimum. Confidence follows your every move, and thus it is a pleasure to be surrounded by animals, mountains, and trees, since you don't have the feeling of being in a hostile environment. It is a splendid, thrilling experience. Pure euphoria. I pass the ball to Werner Herzog: 'My steps are resolute. And now the Earth shakes. When I walk, a buffalo walks. When I rest, a mountain rests.' This is echoed by Zen master Dogen, 'If you doubt mountains walking you don't know your own walking.'"- from "On The Warrior's Path," by Daniel BolelliKione"Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering."H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama
posted by deborah @ 7.6.05

The Mugging of the American Dream
Take Back America 2005: By Bill Moyers(Alternet Editor's Note: The following is the prepared text of the speech Bill Moyers gave June 3 at the Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C. The transcript of the speech as delivered can be found at ourfuture.org.)It's good to be with you again. Your passion for democracy is inspiring and your enthusiasm contagious. I can't imagine a more exuberant gathering today except possibly at the K Street branch of the Masters of the Universe where they are celebrating their coup at the Securities and Exchange CommissionI wish that I could have attended all your sessions, listened to all the speakers, and heard all the points of view that have been raised here. But thanks to C-Span I was able to catch enough of your proceedings to realize you covered so many subjects and touched on so many ideas that you've left me little to say. That's okay, because as Bob Borosage reminded us back in January, what matters most isn't what is said in Washington but what you do on the ground across the country to build an independent infrastructure, generate ideas, drive local campaigns, persuade the skeptic, organize your neighbors, and carry on the movement at the grassroots for social and economic justice.Before you go home, however, Bob has asked me to talk about what's at stake in what you are doing. Given all that has already been said, I will take my cue from the late humorist Robert Benchley who arrived for his final exam in international law at Harvard to find that the test consisted of this one instruction: "Discuss the arbitration of the international fisheries problem in respect to hatcheries protocol and dragnet and procedure as it affects (a) the point of view of the United States and (b) the point of view of Great Britain." Benchley was desperate but he was also honest, and he wrote: "I know nothing about the point of view of Great Britain in the arbitration of the international fisheries problem, and nothing about the point of view of the United States. I shall therefore discuss the question from the point of view of the fish."That's what I have done in much of my work in journalism. Thirty-five years ago almost to the day I set out on a three-month trip of over l0, 000 miles to write a book called "Listening to America." I completed the book but I've never finished the trip; never was able to come off the road; never could stop listening. My worldview has been a work in progress, molded largely by the stories I've heard from the people I've met. I want to tell you this morning about some of those people. They tell us what's at stake.I begin with two families in Milwaukee. The breadwinners in both households lost their jobs in that great wave of downsizing in 1991 as corporations began moving jobs out of the city and out of the country. In a series of documentaries over the next decade my colleagues and I chronicled their efforts to cope with the wrenching changes in their lives and find a place for themselves in the new global economy. I grew up with people like them. They're the kind my mother called "the salt of the earth." (Takes one to know one!) They love their children, care about their neighborhoods, go to church every Sunday, and work hard all week. But like millions of Americans, these two families in Milwaukee were playing by the rules and still losing. By the end of the decade they were running harder but slipping behind, and the gap between them and prosperous America had reached Grand Canyon proportions.I want to show you a very brief excerpt from that first documentary. It aired on PBS in January 1992 with the title "Minimum Wages: The New Economy." You'll see the father of one family as he looks for work after losing his machinist's job at the big manufacturer, Briggs and Stratton. You'll meet his wife in their kitchen as they make a desperate call to the bank that is threatening to foreclose on their home after failing to meet their mortgage payments. During our filming the fathers in both families became seriously ill. One was hospitalized for two months, leaving the family $30,000 in debt. You'll hear the second family talk about what it's like when both parents lose their jobs, depriving them of health insurance and putting their children's education up for grabs. Take a look.[VIDEO]Seeing those people again I thought of the interviews that the Campaign for America's Future conducted around the country on the eve of your conference. A woman in Columbus, Ohio, told one interviewer something that I've heard in different ways in my own reporting over the past few years. She said: "Everyday life pulls families apart." It takes a moment for the implications of that to hit home. Think about it: Our country, the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the race -- a place where "everyday life pulls families apart."What turns these personal traumas into a political travesty is that the people we're talking about are deeply patriotic. They love America. But they no longer believe they matter to the people who run the country. When our film opens, they are watching the inauguration of Bill Clinton on television in 1992. By the end of the decade, when our final film in the series aired, they were paying little attention to politics; they simply didn't think their concerns would ever be addressed by our governing elites. They are not cynical - their religious faith leaves them little capacity for cynicism -- but they know the system is rigged against them. As it is.You know the story: For years now a relatively small fraction of American households have been garnering an extreme concentration of wealth and income as large economic and financial institutions obtained unprecedented levels of power over daily life. In 1960 the gap in terms of wealth between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was 30-fold. Four decades later it is more than 75 fold. (See Joshua Holland, AlterNet, posted 4/25/05.)Such concentrations of wealth would be far less of an issue if everyone were benefiting proportionally. But that's not the case. Statistics tell the story. Yes, I know -- statistics can cause the eyes to glaze over, but as one of my mentors once reminded me, "It is the mark of a truly educated man [or woman] to be deeply moved by statistics."Let's see if these statistics move you.While we've witnessed several periods of immense growth in recent decades, the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers - that's a heap of people - fell by 7 percent between l973 and 2000 (ibid).During 2004 and the first couple of months this year, wages failed to keep pace with inflation for the first time since the l990 recession. They were up somewhat in April, but it still means that "working Americans effectively took an across-the-board pay cut at a time when the economy grew by a healthy four percent and corporate profits hit record highs as companies got more productivity out of workers while keeping pay raises down." (ibid).Believe it or not, the United States now ranks the highest among the highly developed countries in each of the seven measures of inequality tracked by the index. While we enjoy the second highest GDP in the world (excluding tiny Luxembourg), we rank dead last among the 20 most developed countries in fighting poverty and we're off the chart in terms of the number of Americans living on half the median income or less (ibid).And the outlook is for more of the same. On the eve of George W. Bush's second inauguration The Economist - not exactly a Marxist rag - produced a sobering analysis of what is happening to the old notion that any American can get to the top. With income inequality not seen since the first Gilded Age (and this is The Economist editors speaking, not me) - with "an education system increasingly stratified with fewer resources than those of their richer contemporaries" and great universities "increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities" - with corporate employees finding it "harder...to start at the bottom and rise up the company hierarchy by dint of hard work and self-improvement" - "with the yawning gap between incomes at the top and bottom" - the editors of The Economist - all friends of business and advocates of capitalism and free markets -- concluded that "The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."Let me run that by you again: "The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."Or worse. The Wall Street Journal is no Marxist sheet, either, although its editorial page can be just as rigid and dogmatic as old Stalinists. The Journal's reporters, however, are among the best in the country. They're devoted to getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth and describing what they find with the varnish off. Two weeks ago a front-page leader in the Journal concluded that "As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth - or that a rich child will fall into middle class - remain stuck....Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity." (Wall Street Journal, page one, May 13, 2005.)That knocks the American Dream flat on its back. But it should put fire in our bellies. Because what's at stake is what it means to be an American.A few weeks ago my colleague Charlie Rose put a question to the new president of CNN, Jonathan Klein. He asked: Could there ever be a successful progressive version of Fox News Channel? Klein didn't think so. He said Fox appeals to "mostly angry white men" while liberals -- "you know, they don't get too worked up about anything."Well, here's something to get worked up about:Under a headline stretching six columns across the page, the New York Times reported last year that tuition in the city's elite private schools, kindergarten as well as high school, would hit $26,000 for the coming school year. On the same page, under a two-column headline, the Times reported on a school in nearby Mount Vernon, just across the city line, with a student body that is 97% black. It is the poorest school in the town: Nine out of ten children qualify for free lunches; one out of ten lives in a homeless shelter. During black history month this past February a sixth-grader who wanted to write a report on the poet Langston Hughes could not find a single book about Hughes in the library - not one. There is only one book in the library on Frederick Douglass. None on Rosa Parks, Josephine Baker, Leontyne Price, or other path breakers like them in the modern era. Except for a couple of Newbery Award books bought by the librarian with her own money, the books are largely from the l950s and l960s, when all the students were white. A child's primer on work begins with a youngster learning how to be a telegraph delivery boy. There's a l967 book about telephones with the instruction: "When you phone you usually dial the number. But on some new phones you can push buttons." The newest encyclopedia dates from l99l, with two volumes missing. And there is no card catalogue in this library. Something worth getting mad about.How about this:Caroline Payne's face and gums are distorted because her Medicaid-financed dentures don't fit. Her appearance has caused her to be continuously turned down for jobs. Caroline Payne is one of the people in David Shipler's recent book, The Working Poor: Invisible in America. . She was born poor; although she once owned her own home and earned a two-year college degree, Caroline Payne has bounced from one poverty-wage job to another all her life, equipped with the will to move up, but lacking the resources to deal with such unexpected and overlapping problems as a mentally handicapped daughter, a broken marriage, and a sudden layoff that forced her to sell her few assets, pull up roots, and move on. "In the house of the poor..." Shipler writes, "the walls are thin and fragile, and troubles seep into one another." If you believe the Declaration of Independence means what it says - that all of us are endowed by the Creator with a love of life, a longing for liberty, and a passion for happiness - and everyone includes Caroline Payne - this is something to get worked up about.Or this - courtesy of the columnist, Mark Shields. It seems workers in the American territory of the Northern Mariana Islands were being forced to labor under sweatshop conditions producing garments for Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Gap and Liz Claiborne. The garments were then shipped tariff-free and quota-free to the American market where they were entitled to display the coveted "Made in the USA" label. When Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska heard that these people were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks without plumbing while working l2 hours a day, often seven days a week, with none of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, he became enraged. He got the Senate to pass a bill - unanimously - that would extend the protection of our laws to the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. But then the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff moved into action with an SOS to his good friend, Tom DeLay. The records show they met at least two dozen times. DeLay traveled to the Marianas with his family and staff - on a "scholarship" provided by Abramoff's clients -- where they played golf and went snorkeling not far the sweatshops (some scholarship!) Was Tom DeLay offended by what he saw? To the contrary. He told the Washington Post that the sweatshops were "a perfect petri dish of capitalism. ABC-TV News recorded him praising Abramoff's clients by saying: "You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system." And Tom Delay - the rightwing radicals' revisionist incarnation of Saint Francis of Assisi -- killed the Senate bill. (Mark Shields, CNN.com. 5/28/05.)If that doesn't get your dander up, maybe this will: The minimum wage hasn't been raised since l997. After the Republicans recently defeated an effort to increase it, Rick Wilson wrote for CommonDreams.org about a single mother of two children working somewhere in his home state of West Virginia at $5.l5 an hour, 40 hours a week, or $5,378 below the federal poverty level of $l6,090 for a family that size. Put another way, "her earnings only reach two-thirds of the poverty level." Meanwhile, the base salary of the Members of Congress who voted down the wage increase is $l62, l00. That single mom would have to work about 3l, 476 hours to earn what those members of Congress get in a year. And remember -- the minimum wage she earns is actually worth less than it was 40 years ago (Rick Wilson, CommonDreams.org. 5/25/05.)It wasn't supposed to be this way. America was not meant to be a country where the winner takes all. Through a system of checks and balances we were going to maintain a decent equilibrium in how democracy works so that it didn't just work for the powerful and privileged (If you don't believe me, I'll send you my copy of The Federalist Papers). The economist Jeffrey Madrick put it well: Because equitable access to public resources is the lifeblood of any democracy, Americans made primary schooling free to all. Because everyone deserves a second chance, debtors - especially the relative poor - were protected by state laws against their rich creditors. Charters to establish corporations were open to most if not all (white) comers, rather than held for elites. Government encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land and even supported squatters' rights. The old hope for equal access to opportunity became a reality for millions. Including yours truly.Ruby and Henry Moyers were knocked down and almost out when the system imploded into the Great Depression. They worked hard all their lives but never had much money - my father's last paycheck before he retired was $96 and change, after taxes. We couldn't afford books at home but the public library gave me a card when I was eight years old. I went to good public schools. My brother made it to college on the GI bill. And in my freshman year I hitchhiked to college on public highways stopping to rest in public parks. Like millions of us, I was an heir to what used to be called the commonwealth - the notion of America as a shared project. It's part of our DNA, remember: "We, the People...in order to create a more perfect union"You're never more mindful of this than at the Lincoln Memorial. Like you, I've been there many times over the years. Back in l954, when I was a summer employee in the Senate, I took the same hike every Sunday. Starting at the Capitol I headed for the Washington Monument, briskly climbed its 898 steps, came down almost as briskly (I was only 20, remember), veered over to the Jefferson Memorial and then doubled back to the mall and down past the reflecting pool to where Lincoln gazes perpetually over this city - a city that because of him is the capital of the United States of America and not just the Northern States of America.Standing there last night, I sensed that temple of democracy where Lincoln broods to be as deeply steeped in melancholy as it was during the McCarthy reign of terror, the grief of Vietnam, or the crimes of Watergate. You stand there silently contemplating the words that gave voice to Lincoln's fierce determination to save the Union - his resolve that "government of, by, and for the people shall not perish from the earth" - and then you turn and look out, as he does, on a city where those words are daily mocked. This is no longer Lincoln's city. And those people from all walks of life making their way up the steps to pay their respects to this martyr for the Union - it's not their city, either. This is an occupied city, a company town, a wholly owned subsidiary of the powerful and privileged whose have hired an influence racket to run it. The records are so poorly kept it's impossible to know how many lobbyists there really are in this town, but the Center for Public Integrity found that their ranks include 240 former members of Congress and heads of federal agencies and over 2000 senior officials who passed through the revolving door of government at warp speed. Lobbyists now spend $3 billion a year buying influence and access for their clients and, according to the New York Times, over the last six years spent more than twice the amount spent by candidates for federal office. Once again this is a divided city. Not between North and South as in Lincoln's time, but between those who pay to play - those who can buy the government they want -- and those who can't even afford even a seat in the bleachers.So it is that huge financial institutions like MBNA - the credit card giant that is the biggest contributor to the President's two campaigns for the White House - prevail in getting Congress and George W. Bush to curtail personal bankruptcies, making it harder for those families in Milwaukee to get a fresh start and a second chance.So it is that Wal-mart, with the third largest corporate political action committee in the country, and pharmaceutical giants with more lobbyists in town than there are Members of Congress, join with gun manufacturers and asbestos makers and the White House to restrict the right of aggrieved citizens to take corporations to court for malfeasance.So it is that as Exxon Mobil accumulates more than $l billion a month from escalating oil prices -- more than $l billion a month even after allocating for dividends, share repurchases, and capital spending - the oil and gas industry wrings huge tax breaks from a public already squeezed hard by high prices at the gas pumps.And so it is that on the Sunday before President Bush's second inaugural, Nick Confessore, writing in the New York Times Magazine, , describes how the president's first round of tax cuts has brought the United States tax code closer to a system under which income from savings and investments would not be taxed at all and revenues for public services would be raised exclusively from taxes on working men and women. One of the most fervent right-wing class warriors in Washington is quoted as predicting: "No capital gains tax, no dividends tax. No estate tax, no tax on interest." It will be one of President Bush's enduring legacies to have replaced estate taxes on the wealthy with a sweat tax on their grave diggers.Let me read you something:When political interests shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they often get what they want. But it's ordinary citizens and firms that pay the price and most of them never see it coming. This is what happens if you don't contribute to their campaigns or spend generously on lobbying. You pick up a disproportionate share of America's tax bill. You pay higher prices for a broad range of products from peanuts to prescriptions. You pay taxes that others in a similar situation have been excused from paying. You're compelled to abide by laws while others are granted immunity from them. You must pay debts that you incur while others do not. You're barred from writing off your tax returns some of the money spent on necessities while others deduct the cost of their entertainment. You must run your business by one set of rules, while the government creates another set for your competitors. In contrast the fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status. Make a bad business deal; the government bails them out. If they want to hire workers at below market wages, the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay their debts, the government gives them an extension. If they want immunity from certain laws, the government gives it. If they want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government gives its approval. If they want to kill legislation that is intended for the public, it gets killed.Once again I'm not quoting Marx or Lenin or even The Nation, the American Prospect, the Washington Monthly, In These Times, The Progressive, or Mother Jones.I'm quoting from.....Time. From the heart of the Time-Warner empire comes the judgment that America now has "government for the few at the expense of the many."You read this, and then you read the report by the American Political Science Association which finds that "increasing inequalities threaten the American ideal of equal citizenship and that progress toward real democracy may have stalled in this country and even reversed." You also read - in that same report - that a quarter of all whites in this country have no financial assets. Then you read on and learn that the median white household has 62% more income and twelve times as much wealth as the median black household and that 6l% of African-Americans in this country and half of all Latinos have no financial assets at all.Then you open Jared Diamond's new book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail to find the Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar's description of an America where rich elites cocoon themselves "in gated communities, guarded by private security guards, and filled with people who drink bottled water, depend on private pensions, and send their children to private schools." Gradually, they lose the motivation "to support the police force, the municipal water supply, Social Security, and public schools." Any society where the elite insulate themselves from the consequences of their action, Diamond warns, contains a built-in blueprint for failure.You read all this and realize you have been seeing it with your own eyes as a reporter in the field. You're seeing the mugging of the American Dream right before your eyes.Go with me for a moment to a small town in Pennsylvania. Two years ago, for my weekly PBS series Now with Bill Moyers, one of our teams spent time there listening to regular people talk about what's happening in their lives. I want to share with you an excerpt so that you can eavesdrop on the hidden conversation of America that the ruling powers in Washington wants to stay hidden, as I'll explain in a moment. First look at this:[VIDEO]Let me tell you something about these people ("the point of view of the fish," remember?)They don't ask to get rich.They want a job that pays a living wage.They want social security to be there in their old age, for their own sake and so their kids won't be burdened with their care.They want a simple, comprehensive health care system.They want their livelihoods and the fate of their communities to be taken into account as the elites in government and corporations measure profits, economic growth and the GDP.And they would like to see the political system cleaned up, so the playing field is more level and their voices not wholly drowned out by the deep-pocket predators from the Business Roundtable.These are not radical views. These are not even "liberal" views. They are just plain American values. Any reporter who spends any time in the field can see that. You just have to get out of the Washington and New York studios, throw away the talking points sent you by the Republican National Committee, stop yakking and start listening, leave the winners to their champagne and buy the losers a beer, and you'll discover that the actual experience of regular people is the missing link in a nation wired for everything but the truth.And let me tell you: These plain American values - the truth from an America that is barely holding on - scare the hell out of the powers that be.Case in point: When that broadcast aired in November of '03, Kenneth Tomlinson was watching. As most of you know by now, Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an ally of Karl Rove, and the rightwing monopoly's point man to keep tabs on public broadcasting. You've heard no doubt that he and I have been, shall we say, somewhat at odds of late. I didn't know exactly what started the trouble until just a few days ago, when the Washington Post carried a story reporting that when Mr. Tomlinson watched that documentary from Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, it was too much for him. Reaching into the well-worn book of mindless rightwing clichés, he called it "liberal advocacy journalism" and decided right then and there "to bring some 'balance' to the public TV and radio airwaves."So what did he do? Well, apparently the saintly Tom DeLay was too busy snorkeling with lobbyists to take on his own show informing the folks in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, that they are the "Petri dish of capitalism." But Mr. Tomlinson found kindred spirits at the rightwing editorial board of the Wall Street Journal where the "animal spirits of business" are routinely celebrated with nary a negative note about the casualties of their voracious appetites. Now you can get on public television every week, in The Wall Street Editorial Report, an alternative view of reality to life as it is lived in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania and communities like it all across this country.Here's the point: The last thing ideologues want is reporting about the facts on the ground. Facts on the ground subvert the party line. That's why if you live where rightwing talk radio and media monopolies dominate the public discourse, you are told a hundred different ways every day why unregulated markets work better than democracy. It's a lie, but it works, because you are never told the other side of the story. But here, on PBS one Friday evening, was the other side of the story. Here were ordinary people who are in pain for reasons not of their own making. And it was more than a rightwing apparatchik could take. Because too much of the truth might set those people free. Might take them to the voting booths - or even to the streets - to declare: We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"This is a good place to pause and call on that old journalistic warhorse, Hal Crowther, who was at Time and Newsweek and the Buffalo News before going his own way with an independent column. Just this week he writes that "The first thing every reporter was taught, back when reporters were taught things, is that the best way to find the truth is to follow the money....If the media still hunted with live ammunition, Enron, Halliburton and the energy industry's pornographic profits since 9/11 would be enough to force this oil-soaked, sheik-beholden government to resign. In disgrace--remember disgrace?" And he goes on: "Worse still than handouts to the wealthy is the reprehensible new legislation that blocks working Americans from climbing the hill where the money flows - laws like boulders rolled downhill to crush the scrambling underclass, the millions of Americans unable to pay their bills. Think about what it means to limit personal bankruptcies, inhibit class action suits against toxic employers, protect chemical polluters (usually oil companies) from liability lawsuits and cap settlements in personal injury cases. It means trying to eliminate what little protection ordinary citizens retain against corporate leviathans that cheat, exploit, injure and poison them, trap them in hopeless jobs, renege on their healthcare and default on their pensions. It means striping leverage from the people who have no leverage to spare."Hal Crowther is one of those journalists who goes hunting with live ammunition. But if Kenneth Tomlinson and Karl Rove have their way, public broadcasting journalists will be firing blanks.What's important in this story is not only that journalism still matters - that reporting from the ground up can strike a nerve in the heart of the imperium. What's important is that you see what as citizens you are up against. These guys play for keep. They mean to control the story. And if they can they will silence or discredit anyone who dissents from the official view of reality.A profound transformation is occurring in America and those responsible for it don't want you to connect the dots. We are experiencing what has been described as a "fanatical drive to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From public land to water and other natural resources, from media with their broadcast and digital spectrums to scientific discoveries and medical breakthroughs, a broad range of America's public resources is being shifted to the control of elites and the benefit of the privileged. It all seems so clear now that we wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs at the time. Back in the early l970s President Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, predicted that "this country is going to go so far to the right that you won't recognize it." A wealthy right-winger of the time, William Simon, President Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote a polemic declaring that "funds generated by business...must rush by the multimillions" to conservative causes. Said Business Week, bluntly: "Some people will obviously have to do with less...It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more."We've seen the strategy play out for years now: to cut workforces and wages, scour the globe in search of cheap labor, trash the social contract and the safety net meant to protect people from hardships beyond their control, make it hard for ordinary citizens to gain redress for the malfeasance and malpractice of corporations, and diminish the ability of government to check and balance "the animal spirits" of economic warfare where the winner takes all. Streams of money flowed into think tanks to shape the agenda, media to promote it, and a political machine to achieve it. What has happened to working Americans is not the result of Adam Smith's benign and invisible hand but the direct consequence of corporate money, ideological propaganda, a partisan political religion, and a string of political decisions favoring the interests of wealthy elites who bought the political system right out from under us.It's an old story in America. We shouldn't be surprised by it any more. Hold up a mirror to this moment and you will see reflected back to you the first Gilded Age in the last part of the l9th century. Then, as now, the great captains of industry and finance could say, with Frederick Townsend Martin, "We are rich. We own America. We got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it."They were deadly serious. Go for the evidence to such magisterial studies of American history as Growth of the American Republic ( Morison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg), and you'll read how they did it: They gained control of newspapers and magazines. They subsidized candidates. They bought legislation and even judicial decisions. To justify their greed and power they drew on history, law, economics, and religion to concoct a philosophy that would come to be known as Social Darwinism - "backed up by the quasi religious principle that the acquisition of wealth was a mark of divine favor." One of their favorite apologists, Professor William Graham Sumner of Yale, said: "If we do not like the survival of the fittest, we have only one possible alternative, and that is the survival of the unfittest. The former is the law of civilization; the latter is the law of anti-civilization.I'm not making this up. It's right there in the record. The historians tell us that a boundless continent lay open and ready for their exploitation and "all the bounties of nature were allowed to fall into the hands of strong men and powerful corporations." Clever lawyers came up with new devices for the legal aggrandizement of private fortunes (shades of today's Federalist Society!) No labor laws or workingmen's compensation nets interfered with their profits (shades of DeLay's "Petri dish of capitalism! ") No public opinion penetrated the walls of their conceit (shades of "The Great Republican Noise Machine.")They're back, my friends. They're back in full force and their goal is to take America back - to their private Garden of Eden in that first Gilded Age when "the strong take what they wanted and the weak suffer what they must." Look no further than today's news: William Donaldson, who made a decent stab at enforcing post-Enron reform on Wall Street, is out as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; according to USA Today, the President's big donors - the captains of finance - cashed in their IOUs and came away from the White House with his head on a platter. In his place: A rightwing congressman who takes a dim view of shareholder suits and favors eliminating the estate tax, the dividend tax, the - well, there's no tax on wealth he doesn't want to eliminate. Once again the chicken coop is sold to the fox.Back in the first Gilded Age it was the progressives who took them on, throwing themselves at the juggernaut to try and keep it from rolling over the last vestiges of democracy. They lost the first rounds and only because they kept fighting for many long years did in time America begin to balance the power of concentrated wealth with the claims and needs of ordinary people. Nowadays it's you who stand between that regenerated juggernaut and those families in Milwaukee, those folks in Tamaqua, and the millions like them around the country. You must be like the Irishman coming upon a street brawl who yells in a loud voice: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone get in it?" Not waiting, he wades in.Wade in! Go home and tell the truth to your neighbors and fight the corruption of the system. But it's not enough just to say how bad the others are. You owe your opponents the compliment of a good argument. Come up with fresh ideas to make capitalism work for all. Ask entrepreneurs to join you - they know how to make things happen. Show us a new vision of globalization with a conscience. Stand up for working people and people in the middle and people who can't stand on their own. Be not cowed, intimidated, or frightened - you may be on the losing side of the moment, as the early progressives were, but you're on the winning side of history. And have some fun when you fight - Americans are more likely to join the party that enjoys a party . Come to think of it, go out and argue that working people should have more time off from the endless hours of tedious work that devours the soul and the long commutes that devastate families and communities.Above all, know what you belief and why. So I have some homework for you. Here's your summer reading: Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, by Harvey Kaye, soon at your bookstores (along, I might add, with a revised and updated paperback version of Moyers on America.) Thomas Paine was the foremost journalist of the American Revolution who called forth the better angels of our nature, imbued us with our democratic impulse, and articulated our American Identity with its exceptional purpose and promise. It was Paine who argued that America would afford "an asylum for mankind," provide a model to the world, and support the global advance of republican democracy. In these pages is tonic for flagging spirits facing great odds - because it was Thomas Paine who insisted that "it is too soon to write the history of the Revolution." And writing the history of the Revolution is now up to you. That's what truly is at stake.Good luck!===============================Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice: John Adams=What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment ... inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose: Thomas Jefferson
posted by deborah @ 7.6.05
Monday, June 06, 2005

Call for a Special Prosecutor to Investigate U.S. Torture
CCRWhat a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment ... inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose. ~ Thomas Jefferson
posted by deborah @ 6.6.05

Beyond "Deep Throat": The FBI and American Democracy -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
Beyond "Deep Throat": The FBI and American Democracy -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA): "Professor of history at Marquette University, Theoharis has written a number of books about the FBI, most recently The FBI and American Democracy: A Brief Critical History. He said today: 'Contrary to what some are implying, it was hardly unprecedented for the FBI to leak derogatory information about people -- they typically did it to people they called 'radicals' or 'subversives,' like Martin Luther King Jr. But it's not even unprecedented for the FBI to leak information about an incumbent president during an election year. It did that to Truman in 1948 and also leaked information about the Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson in 1952.'Dating from the 1940s the FBI massively monitored the political and personal activities of U.S. citizens (both radical and liberal) and in doing so resorted to what it called 'clearly illegal' investigative techniques (break-ins, wiretaps, bugs, mail opening). We do not know the full extent of misuse of federal authority today, but since 9/11 there have been episodes showing clear surveillance of political activity.'The Nixon administration in its wiretapping of reporters and members of the White House and National Security Council staff from 1969-71, its authorization of the Huston Plan, creation of the 'Plumbers' in 1971, and solicitation of derogatory information on the White House press corps in 1970 reflected a concern for secrecy to advance its own potentially controversial policy decisions. The current administration has shown an extraordinary concern for secrecy, particularly with regard to its Iraq policy. Recently, we've seen the release of the Downing Street Memo which shows us that the administration's disinformation about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was a matter of intent and not just a matter of evidence we could weigh."Downing Street Memo textBackgroundMore Informationand more...KIT GAGEGage said today: "I am director of the First Amendment Foundation and NCARL [the National Coalition Against Repressive Legislation]. NCARL began its life as the National Committee to Abolish HUAC (the House UnAmerican Activities Committee). Because NCARL defended people's right to belong to whatever organization they chose, free from arrest or government harassment, it was targeted for disruption and neutralization as part of the FBI's COINTELPRO program. We know this because we sued the FBI and eventually got 132,000 pages of files documenting the efforts -- millions of tax dollars it spent going after a group that engaged in no violent activity. It was routine for the FBI to illegally wiretap and break into houses and offices of activists without a judge's OK."That was what Mr. [Mark] Felt ["Deep Throat"] was charged with and found guilty of -- supervising that behavior. His behavior was abhorrent and illegal, and it directly violated the separation of powers the founders so valued. While we recognize that in leaking information to the press Mr. Felt helped bring down the Nixon administration by exposing its illegal activities, leaks to the press were commonplace in the FBI. Fortunately, the abuses of the FBI also came out at about the same period as the Nixon administration ended. Because of the resulting outrage, for a period of years, secret searches and taps without evidence of criminal behavior apparently mostly stopped."Following 9/11 that has all changed. It's a sad turn of events that now again, as we celebrate the fact that all the illegal behavior that was Watergate became public, we note that the government can now legally engage in secret searches and wiretaps without any evidence that the targets have engaged in criminal activity. All that is needed is that they have some connection to a foreign entity -- for a foreign intelligence search. Mr. Felt was convicted for supervising that behavior. Now the Congress seeks to expand it."More InformationMore Information
posted by deborah @ 6.6.05

Why did W Bush classify Reagan's presidential papers even before 9/11?
A fight brews over ex-presidents' papers csmonitor.com
posted by deborah @ 6.6.05

First detail on new anti-Hillary book is a lie ...
Media Matters for America
posted by deborah @ 6.6.05

The War to Deceive America Into War -- And the War to Cover Up the Deception
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
... the individual as the only carrier of life and existence is of paramount importance. He cannot be substituted by a group or by a mass. Yet we are rapidly approaching a state in which nobody will accept individual responsibility any more. We prefer to leave it as an odious business to groups and organizations, blissfully unconscious of the fact that the group or mass psyche is that of an animal and wholly inhuman. What we need is the development of the inner spiritual man, the unique individual whose treasure is hidden on the one hand in the symbols of our mythological tradition, and on the other hand in man's unconscious psyche.CGJUNG