The comedy is just starting: serial adulturer McCain playing with his band while looking at Palin's ass

Yes, a little old, but full of info and definitely not dated

Embedding the Analysts: Modern-Day Propaganda? Commentary by Bill Berkowitz
PRA Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org
Over the course of the Iraq War, the Pentagon has used hand-picked retired military officers as “message force multipliers” to shape public opinion, a New York Times investigation revealed last month.1 According to the report, which was the product of a two-year battle with the Pentagon over the release of some 8,000 pages of documents, briefers gave talking points to the retired military men, who were then frequently showcased as experts on war matters by various media that did not make viewers aware of the experts’ administration connections.2 In fact, the media outlets were generally unaware that the analysts had received administration briefings. From the administration, these analysts received access to top-level officials (as well as tours of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and the accompanying insider knowledge), which some of them then parlayed into business advantages, for example for defense contractors for whom they worked. From media outlets, they sometimes received payments for their contributions. These serious conflicts of interest were not revealed until the Times’ investigation. For this display of media manipulation, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria C. “Torie” Clarke deserves the lion’s share of credit. While Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who as Information Minister of Iraq epitomized the clueless propagandist (he proclaimed that Baghdad was not under attack, as images of U.S. troops on the outskirts of the city played on a television screen behind him), Clarke exemplifies the sophisticated, savvy operative dedicated to spinning the war favorably for the Bush administration. “Clarke was the Pentagon mastermind for the selling of the war and management of the media,” John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, told me. “She invented the Pentagon's 'twin towers of propaganda' that proved so effective: embedding news media with the troops, and embedding military propagandists into the TV media, as exposed recently by the New York Times.”3 Clarke came to her post in the George W. Bush administration in May 2001, after working in the private sector as a public relations specialist and after having served as a staffer in both the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Her biography on the website of the Harry Walker Agency, whose clients include a who’s who list of Democratic and Republican Party bigwigs, trumpets, “From the Pentagon to the private sector, Victoria Clarke has been at the center of some of the most historic events in the United States in recent years.” (E-mail requests for an interview with Clarke were unanswered at the time of publication.) In her pre-Pentagon career, Clarke was president of Bozell Eskew Advertising, an issue-advocacy and corporate communications firm; vice president of the National Cable Telecommunications Association; and the Washington-office director for Hill & Knowlton, the public relations firm heavily involved in Gulf War I. She also served as the press secretary to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and after leaving her Pentagon post wrote Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game. When she joined the George W. Bush administration as part of Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, Clarke came “to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called ‘information dominance,’” the New York Times reported.4 She spearheaded the idea of embedding of reporters with troops during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In a February 2003 memo prepared for the National Security Council, Clarke—with Rumsfeld on board—argued that allowing journalists to report from the front lines would give Americans the opportunity to get the story, both “good or bad—before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell our story. Only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces engaged in ground operations.” 5 But given the opportunity, Clarke demonstrated that she would prefer to altogether circumvent reporters, who after all are generally expected to maintain independence, objectivity, and critical thinking in their work. Instead, she would use the military analysts to spread the Bush message. As the New York Times reported, “Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke's team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. ‘We didn't want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,’ Mr. Meyer said.”6 Anyone who watched television news during the run-up to the invasion, its initial phases, and the first few years of the occupation of Iraq, was probably struck by the many retired military officers who were given huge chunks of airtime. But no one—other than Pentagon officials—knew that these new media favorites on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC had often been thoroughly briefed and armed with talking points by the Pentagon, State Department, White House, or other officials. The retired officers provided explanations of the action taking place on the ground, offered justifications for administration strategies, pointed out the hot spots in-country, and often led the pro-war cheerleading. And whenever there was an anti-war outcry that threatened to gain momentum—for example, in 2006 when former generals came forward en masse to criticize Rumsfeld and his handling of the war—the Pentagon public relations machinery would kick into gear, briefing the analysts, giving them material with which to rebut criticisms, and then keeping tabs on the analysts’ on-air performances. Setbacks in Iraq—like the generals’ revolt, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the growing insurgency—brought pushback from the Pentagon by way of a new set of talking points for the well-schooled retirees. Given the Bush administration’s predilection for trying to manipulate and manage the media—buying favorable coverage for its various programs through payments to well-known sympathetic columnists, trying to skirt the mainstream media by giving interviews and special access to supportive local news outlets, paying for favorable coverage in Iraqi newspapers—one might expect that it would develop major league messaging capabilities. But it is surprising and disappointing to see the military retirees used in this fashion. The analysts were a group of men who were respected, knowledgeable, and had long service records, who could reach a broad audience and influence policy. “In a spin-saturated news culture, [Clarke] argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent. And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit ‘key influentials’—movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities.”7 It’s difficult to know exactly what drove these men to regurgitate misinformation and disinformation to the American public, even while some suspected they were being used. Were the secret Pentagon meetings with Rumsfeld the major draw? Was it the first-class trips on government aircraft and cushy hotel stays that drew them in? Perhaps it was the contracts that these former military officers realized they could get for the defense companies they lobbied for, and the consulting firms they headed? Maybe it was ego, the garnering of fame via television face time, or maybe it was the extra cash. One of the things that made Clarke—who left the administration in 2003 and now works at ABC, one of the networks hoodwinked by Clarke’s team of retired military officers—an effective media spokesperson is that she is a likable mom. She isn’t shrill, and she manages to maintain a rather disarming demeanor, which was on display during her televised press briefings while with the administration, and on such television programs as 60 Minutes, Good Morning America, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. She “revolutionized the Defense Department's relationship with the media, humanizing the Bush administration's military effort and restoring respect for people in uniform,” Manuel Miranda, former counsel to the Republican former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, told me. “A different person in her role at the Defense Department might have led to very different result at a critical time."8 Clarke also may have indirectly brought about a “revolution” in the way the Pentagon does business during the remainder of the Bush presidency. Shortly after its groundbreaking investigative report appeared, the New York Times reported that Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, decided to indefinitely suspend its briefings program "pending an internal review."9 Bill Berkowitz is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org). Sources 1. David Barstow, “The Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” New York Times, April 20, 2008. 2. The Defense Department has made available on its website all of the documents released to the New York Times; the materials are available at http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/. 3. John Stauber, Center for Media and Democracy, personal communication (e-mail) with the author, April 23, 2008. 4. Barstow, “The Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” 5. Victoria Clarke, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, “Public Affairs Guidance (PAG) on Embedding Media during Possible Future Operations/Deployments in the U.S. Central Commands (Centcom) Area of Responsibility (AOR),” February 2003, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf. 6. Barstow, “The Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” 7. Barstow, “The Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” 8. Manual Miranda, former counsel to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), personal communication (e-mail) with the author, April 23, 2008. 9. David Barstow, “Pentagon Suspends Briefing for Analysts,” New York Times, April 26, 2008. Original article posted here.

It takes McCain to turn Obama's pretty poor pick phenomenal by comparison

More mongering of EU trying to recreate New Cold War -- Mission accomplished

UK warns over 'Russia aggression'

Gordon Brown's comments came ahead of a European summit UK prime minister Gordon Brown has said Nato and the EU must reassess their relations with the Kremlin to prevent further "Russian aggression". His comments came amid fears Russia could cut oil and gas flows in the row over Georgia. Mr Brown, writing in the Observer, urged the EU to do a "root and branch" review of relations with the Kremlin. On Saturday President Dmitry Medvedev and Mr Brown spoke by phone as Russia moved to ease tensions with Europe. Rights and responsibilities Mr Brown wrote in Sunday's Observer newspaper one day ahead of a summit of European heads of state to discuss the South Ossetia crisis. The conflict in the region began on 7 August when Georgia tried to regain control of South Ossetia by force, which was followed by a Russian counter-attack deep into Georgia. Mr Brown said: "When Russia has a grievance over an issue such as South Ossetia, it should act multilaterally by consent rather than unilaterally by force." He went on: "My message to Russia is simple. If you want to be welcome at the top table of organisations such as the G8, OECD and WTO, you must accept that with rights come responsibilities. "We want Russia to be a good partner in the G8 and other organisations, but it cannot pick and choose which rules to adhere to. "That is why I will argue tomorrow that Russia should accept Georgia's territorial integrity and international mechanisms for addressing these conflicts, and withdraw troops to their previous positions. "And, in the light of Russian actions, the EU should review - root and branch - our relationship with Russia." He added: "We are also reflecting on the Nato response. We must re-evaluate the alliance's relationship with Russia, and intensify our support to Georgia and others who may face Russian aggression." Mr Brown also said the summit "must add urgency to the work on Europe's energy agenda". "We must more rapidly build relationships with other producers of oil and gas," Mr Brown said. 'Very clear message' The prime minister said he had told Mr Medvedev to expect a "determined response" from European leaders. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said European states should resist a rush to sanctions and instead exert long-term pressure. "It is very important for the EU now to reassess its relationship with Russia and send a very clear message," he told Sky News. "I do not think the measures looked at tomorrow should be cheap or quick. This requires clear and united and patient firmness over a sustained period of time." He added: "It is wrong that it is now easier for Russian citizens to get visas into European countries than it is for Georgians. "Georgia is a transparent democracy, an open society. Russia is clearly going in the wrong direction in that respect." Former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said it could be dangerous to isolate Russia. "I think we've got to make clear our displeasure about the way in which Russia has acted outrageously," he told the BBC. "But if by doing so, in a particular way and with particular language, we drive Russia into isolation, then sulking Russia, in isolation, will be even more difficult to deal with. "And that's why when people talk about expulsion from the G8 and things of that kind, I think they've got to understand what the possible consequences of that would be to the Russian government's attitude." 'Disregard for principles' Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said there is no excuse for the violation of international law. Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he said: "Russia has become the aggressor - it has gone from claiming to defend Russian passport holders in regions of Georgia to seeking the break-up of the state, showing disregard for the principles of modern international relations. "The immediate instinct of the prime minister and I was clear: to speak out against aggression, to call for respect for human rights and international law and to rally world opinion behind these principles." During his conversation with Mr Brown, Mr Medvedev said Russia was in favour of the deployment to Georgia of additional monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In a separate development, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke to his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier. They agreed on the need to "put an end to attempts to use the situation surrounding Georgia... to raise tensions in Europe by speculating on non-existent threats concerning other post-Soviet countries", said the Russian foreign ministry. Georgia has cut diplomatic ties with Russia after Moscow recognised the independence of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Original article posted here.

Many Alaskans not so impressed with McCain's pick

Choice stuns state politicians

By SEAN COCKERHAM and WESLEY LOY

John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate stunned and divided Alaska political leaders on Friday. Supporters said she was a shrewd choice, but others argued Palin has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

"I think it's very easy to underestimate Sarah Palin," said John Binkley, a former state legislator who lost to Palin in the 2006 Republican primary for governor.

Serving as small-town mayor of Wasilla was Palin's main experience before running for governor. Binkley said he underestimated her guts and campaign skill.

"I think there will probably a tendency for the Democrats to do the same thing," Binkley said. "They will assume that her lack of experience on the national stage will put her at a disadvantage, and I'm not certain that will matter."

The reaction wasn't so rosy elsewhere. State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

ADVERTISEMENT

Green, who has feuded with Palin repeatedly over the past two years, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that is far from guaranteed.

Democrats helped give Palin her victories on oil taxes and the natural gas pipeline deal, over the opposition of many of Palin's fellow Republicans in the Legislature.

But Anchorage Democratic state Sen. Hollis French said it's a huge mistake by McCain and "reflects very, very badly on his judgment." French said Palin's experience running the state for less than two years hasn't prepared her for this.

Alaska Democratic Party chairwoman Patti Higgins, attending her party's national convention in Denver, said she was shocked to hear the news this morning.

"In this very competitive election for them to go pick somebody who is ... under a cloud of suspicion, who is under investigation for abuse of power. It just sounds like a pretty slow start to me," Higgins said.

The state Legislature is investigating whether Palin and her staff broke state law by pressuring the public safety department to fire a state trooper who was in a custody battle with her sister.

"We need a vice president who can step in if, God forbid, something happened to John McCain," Higgins said. "I don't think she's someone who is ready for that 3 a.m. phone call."

North Pole Republican Sen. Gene Therriault, who leads the minority caucus in the state Senate, said Palin has executive experience as governor and is ready for the job.

"It's a great opportunity for the state of Alaska," Therriault said. "For us to get our message out in what the state has to offer to the nation."

Therriault said Palin has proven to be a quick study who people respect for what she's done as governor, such as helping fix the ethics problems in Alaska politics.

"IT'S ABOUT THE PERSON"

Andrew Halcro, perhaps Palin's biggest political rival in Alaska, had a mixed reaction.

"When I first heard it, I thought, wow, that's great for Alaska. Then I thought, wait, what just happened? Because of course the lack of experience does jump out at you," Halcro said.

Palin is a skilled campaigner able to make people believe in her, said Halcro, who spent nine months on the campaign trail in 2006 running as an independent opposite Palin and former Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, in the general election

"You really have to have a high level of respect for Gov. Palin in the sense that she has this real ability to connect with people. And suddenly people don't think about health care, they don't think about the economy, they don't think about whatever else, education," said Halcro, a self-described wonk. "It's not about the policy. It's about the person."

Palin always saw that, he said.

"It'll be interesting to see if that recipe works on the national stage," Halcro said.

The Republican Party of Alaska said it's 100 percent behind Palin -- despite the high profile battles she's had with state party chairman Randy Ruedrich.

"She brings her voice of new energy and change," party spokesman McHugh Pierre said.

Ruedrich was not giving interviews Friday. Palin's complaints against Ruedrich before she became governor led to the state fining him on ethics charges.

McCain noted approvingly in introducing Palin on Friday that "she's fought oil companies and party bosses."

Palin and Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens were at odds in the recent past as well.

The governor called on Stevens last year to explain why he was being investigated in the federal probe that has since led to his indictment on failure to disclose gifts

But they have appeared closer lately, and Stevens put out a statement praising Palin.

"Gov. Palin has proven herself as a bright, energetic leader for our state and will bring the same energy to the vice presidency. She will serve our country with distinction -- the first Alaskan and first woman on the Republican ticket. I share in the pride of all Alaskans," Stevens said.

"THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING"

The early morning news of McCain's pick sent jaws dropping throughout Alaska, with friends waking up friends with "Oh my God, have you heard?" phone calls.

State House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

Former House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican political leader who has clashed with Palin in the past, was shocked when she heard the news Friday morning with her husband, Walt.

"I said to Walt, 'This can't be happening, because his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out," Phillips said.

Phillips has been active in the Ted Stevens re-election steering committee and remains in close touch with Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other party leaders, and she said nobody had heard anything about McCain's people doing research on his prospective running mate.

"We're not a very big state. People I talk to would have heard something."

Few wanted to talk about anything else on talk radio Friday. Conservative host Rick Rydell said there are some benefits to the state, but it's a gamble for McCain to pick an unknown with what he considered "questionable vetting."

"It seems almost like a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game," Rydell said in an interview after his show Friday.

Rydell said McCain has destroyed his argument about Barack Obama's lack of experience.

But another local talk radio host, Eddie Burke, enthused on the air that he was "overwhelmingly excited" by the selection. "Alaskans will now have a chance to have somebody talking about resources, our undeveloped resources," Burke said.

Burke said McCain's vice presidential pick has already captured the nation's attention. That is what people are talking about, he said -- not Barack Obama's acceptance speech.

PARNELL, COLBERG AFFECTED

Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg, a Palin appointee, said McCain's announcement left him with "a mixed set of emotions, kind of an odd sense of Alaska nationalism or pride."

"This is like watching a moon landing or something. It's just something you don't expect to see very often. It's wonderful." He continued: "It was an emotional thing to see the governor walk out with her family, and I say, 'Wow, I work for her.' "

Palin likely will be spending much time campaigning outside of Alaska. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell also is preoccupied with campaigning for Alaska's lone U.S. House seat. The outcome of his GOP primary race with Rep. Don Young is up in the air until absentee and questioned ballots are counted in September. As of Friday, Young was up by 151 votes.

Colberg would become governor if Palin and Parnell both are elected and leave their current positions. Parnell said he found at 6:40 a.m. Friday about McCain's pick, reacting with surprise and letting out a "whoop of happiness."

Original article posted here.

When a picture says it all . . .

Click on pick for larger image

Murder in the Heartland --- Discussion of Oklahoma City bombing

If Obama was going to stand for nothing (which he has proven), then he should've nominated Hillary and gotten these on his power hungry bandwagon

While Washington bitches about secessionist elements in Georgia, they seem to be promoting the same in Bolivia

Bolivia: Is Evo in Danger after the August 10 referendum ? The US prepares a civil war by Michel Collon

Global Research, August 10, 2008

Bolivia has certainly changed. In La Paz, I attended a large reception given by the Cuban ambassador. Mojitos, buffet, dances... Where was it held? In the ceremonial hall of... the Bolivian army. Yes, the one that killed Ché. Bolivia has certainly changed, but not everyone wishes it well. We had come to get an idea first hand with some progressive intellectuals from about 15 countries. Frei Betto, Ernesto Cardenal, Ramsey Clark, François Houtart, Luis Britto Garcia, Pascual Serrano... A few days of meetings and exchanges with Bolivian intellectuals, representatives of the Indian communities, artists... It's a sensitive moment. The rightwing is trying to split away the wealthy regions of the country's East. To frustrate this operation, President Evo Morales, in the middle of his mandate, has called for a revocatory referendum, this Aug. 10. It's a sort of vote of confidence. It puts his legitimacy in play, but also that of the prefects of departments, including those who belong to his opposition. The rightwing is trying to sabotage the referendum and people fear incidents... We will see who is behind these incidents, which role the United States plays, and the CIA, and a really strange ambassador, and also Europe... Strong impressions Strong impressions. Physically, first of all. La Paz is at an altitude of 11,800 feet. Its airport at 13,100. We arrived in the night, short of oxygen, at the brink of passing out. Very attentive, the young people who welcome us have us sit down calmly, while they deal with our luggage and let us catch our breath. The first day will be devoted to rest and acclimatization. With Luis, a Venezuelan friend, we take a small tour, taking small steps from one bench to the next, in one of the most beautiful capitals of the world. Imagine an immense basin, bordered by the imposing mountains Huayna Potosí (20,000 ft.) and Nevado Illimani (21,200 ft.), not far from the lake Titicaca, the highest navigable lake of the world. Here, water boils at 176° F instead of 212° F at sea level. And no street is flat. What is striking about La Paz, in winter in any case, is the gentle climate, sunny and fresh. And the gentle people. Everywhere, you are welcomed with kindness, with a kind of quiet serenity. Indians wear heavy clothing with superb multi-coloured shawls. And of curious small "bolo" hats, black, brown or gray. Sometimes, they also carry impressive loads. Two-thirds of the population are Indians. The importance of the Indian communities "An Indian president? The white racist oligarchy still won't accept it," Evo confides to us. I began to understand all the wealth of this Indian heritage while visiting with Bolivian friends in Tiwanaku, the capital of an old Incan empire... We are on the very high plateau of the Altiplano, bordered by mountains. Here, Indians live under difficult conditions, from farming and raising animals. Not a cloud in the sky, an incredibly pure air, you can still feel the nighttime chill. Tiwanaku was an immense city, whose excavations have hardly begun. A hundred local Indians are busy restoring the temple, an enormous pyramid in terraces. It was a very advanced civilization, which constructed its buildings based on a thorough knowledge of astronomy. It had created a metallurgical and textile industry. It cultivated more than 200 different kinds of corn and 400 kinds of potatoes, of which one species could be frozen and remain edible for ten years. The system of irrigation was very sophisticated with a very precise slope so that the stones would heat the water enough to prevent it from freezing. This system was so sophisticated that today the Agriculture Ministry will revive it to develop agriculture on the terraces. Water is rare here, a treasure. An Indian elder carries out a ritual ceremony with our group, a sort of sacrifice of small symbolic objects, to celebrate the unity with the cosmos and to gather the wishes that we form. Emotion. It is no about glorifying the past for its own sake, but to preserve the common memories and values and integrate them into the new society. A Bolivian journalist explains the importance of community here: "It is a strong element of Bolivia. Look here, according to international statistics, a Bolivian peasant has an average income of 50 dollars per year. You may as well say that he is dead! Except if one understands that the communal economy is the basis of our life here. " In short, it's an invaluable heritage that must not be lost. One Bolivian in four must emigrate Strong impressions also regarding social realities in this country. In La Paz, the upper classes live at the lower end of the city, below 10,000 feet, where one breathes more easily. Lower classes, on the other hand, in El Alto: at over 13,000 feet. Small trade, small craft industries, a little animal husbandry in the high plateaus... Life is hard. The second poorest country of Latin America, Bolivia has seen one of four of its children emigrate. Why? For centuries, this land was colonized by Spain. And all the benefit of its mining wealth, extracted at the cost of a murderous labor in semi-slavery, were carried to Europe. For decades, its gas and its oil benefited only a handful of rich people, but most of all some transnational corporations, especially European-based. The North bled the South thoroughly, leaving behind only misery. And conflicts. Evo Morales, president for two-and-a-half years, did not fall from the sky. His presidency is the fruit of long years of worker and peasant resistance. The Indian communities have always been exploited, excluded and scorned by a white racist elite, dependent on the United States and Europe. That's where poverty and underdevelopment arise. But when the Bolivians, to survive, take care of housework in Europe, they are treated like criminals and thrown into prison. Even children! Evo Morales courageously denounced the recent "Directive of Shame" which will make it possible all European countries to imprison the criminals, sorry, the immigrants, for up to 18 months. Precisely, before leaving, I met with immigrant workers in Brussels, in particular the Latinos and Latinas. In struggle for months to obtain papers, i.e., their rights, their dignity. Confronting ministers who completely ignored them, they had to risk their lives: hunger strike, climbing cranes... Since they greatly appreciated Evo's letter to the E.U., they asked me to give a small message of gratitude to the Bolivian president. I did. It brought a smile to his face. In fact, when you see the poverty here, the very low wages, the lack of industry, one understands why so many Bolivians must emigrate. But, when investigating further, one also understands that Europe is a dirty hypocrite who bears a heavy responsibility for this emigration. We will return to this later... What has Evo accomplished? But first of all let us take a look at what Evo accomplished in two-and-a-half years ... He nationalized oil and gas. Would you like to know why the corporate media calls the Colombian President Uribe "good" and Evo Morales "bad"? Very simple. The former cut the taxes of the transnational corporations from 14 percent to... 0.4 percent. To help these transnationals get installed locally under optimum conditions, the Colombian paramilitaries drove four million peasants off their land. The latter, Morales, in order to combat poverty, dared to return to the Bolivian nation the wealth it owned. By nationalizing its hydrocarbon resources, Evo multiplied the public revenues by five and gave himself the means for relieving the most urgent evils: illiteracy has dropped by 80 percent, a part of the children working in the streets have returned to school, schools teaching in the Indian languages Aymara and Quechua have been established (20,000 graduates), free health care is already available for half of the Bolivians, a "Dignity" pension for those over 60, credit with zero-percent interest for products like corn, wheat, soy and rice. Thanks to Venezuelan aid, 6,000 computers were made available, especially at schools. Thanks to Cuban aid, 260,000 people had eye operations. Elsewhere in Latin America, they would be condemned to be blind, because they are poor. Moreover, the public investments to develop the economy increased greatly. Bolivia eliminated its fiscal deficit, repaid half of its foreign debt (now down from $5.0 to 2.2 billion), reconstituted a small financial reserve, multiplied employment in the mines and the metal industries by four, and doubled the production and the incomes of these industries. The industrial GDP passed from $4.1 to $7.1 billion in three years. A thousand tractors were distributed to peasants. New roads were built. In short, Bolivia advances. Not quick enough, some say. For these people, Evo is not moving hard enough against the rightwing and the big landowners. It is a debate that must be carried out among those who live on the spot and can appreciate the situation, with all its possibilities and dangers. And by understanding that it is not enough to say "Do it" to bring a country out of poverty and dependence. By knowing that it is necessary to take account of the relationship of forces with the rightwing, which is agitating and sabotaging. By taking account of the army (Will all its generals be loyal to the government under all conditions?). Another negative factor: "The legal system remains completely corrupted," was confided to me by... the highest ranking magistrate in La Paz. "It is an old caste that protects itself and the interests of the rich. It's a business, truly. However, we have threatened the immediate recall of any judge caught in an obvious crime. But it is a difficult battle." And precisely, when I was there, the courts came rushing to help the rightwing by trying to prevent by a legal battle the holding of the referendum. But there is danger much greater than the legal system... Behind the rightwing, the United States prepares a civil war It is the new tactic of the United States. Finding themselves unable to win a war of occupation, Washington is resorting to indirect war, war by proxies. Currently, strategy of Washington is to try to foment a civil war in Bolivia. For that, the provinces controlled by the rightwing and which contain the greater part of the oil and gas reserves along with the large agricultural properties tied to the transnationals, these provincial regimes are multiplying their provocations to prepare to secede. Having personally studied the secret actions of the great powers to break up Yugoslavia (1), I made a point of drawing the attention of the Bolivians, during some interviews: today, Washington will try to transform their country into a new Yugoslavia. Here are the ingredients needed for this deed: 1. Massive CIA investments. 2. An ambassador specialized in destabilization. 3. Experienced fascists. With these ingredients, you can prepare a coup d'etat or a civil war. Or both. First ingredient. As in Venezuela, the CIA is investing a lot in Bolivia. Through its usual covers: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, Republican International Institute, etc. The right-wing separatist organizations are abundantly subsidized. USAID, for example, financed Juan Carlos Orenda, adviser of the extreme right Civic Committee of Santa Cruz and author of a plan envisaging the secession of this province. But they also support the more discreet organizations charged to sow confusion and to prepare an anti-Evo propaganda. At the University of San Simon of Cochabamba, the Thousand-year Foundation received $155,000 to criticize the nationalization of gas and defend neoliberalism. Thirteen young Bolivian right-wing leaders were invited for training in Washington: $110,000. In the popular districts of El Alto, USAID launched programs "to reduce the tensions in the zones prone to social conflicts." Read: to discredit the left. In all, millions of dollars have been handed out to all kinds of organizations, student groups, journalists, politicians, judges, intellectuals, businesspeople. The Spanish Popular Party, around Jose Maria Aznar, takes part in these operations. Second ingredient. Where does Philip Goldberg, the current ambassador of the United States to Bolivia, come from? From Yugoslavia. Where he accumulated a rich personal experience in how to split a country apart. From 1994 to 1996, he worked in Bosnia for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, one of the strategists of disintegration. Then, he stirred up conflict in Kosovo and fomented the split between Serbia and Montenegro. An expert, you could say. And not inactive. As the Argentinian journalist Roberto Bardini tells it: "On June 28, 2007, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen, Donna Thi of Miami, was held at the airport of La Paz for trying to bring into the country 500 45-caliber bullets that she had declared to customs were 'cheese.' Waiting for her at the terminal was the wife of Colonel James Campbell, the chief of the military mission of the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia. U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg immediately intervened to obtain her release, saying that it was only an 'innocent error.' The ammunition, he declared, was to be used only for sport and show. In March 2006, another U.S. citizen, Triston Jay Amero, alias Lestat Claudius, a 25-year-old Californian, carrying 15 different identity documents, set off 660 pounds of dynamite in two La Paz hotels." (2) Why did the U.S. export Goldberg from the Balkans to Bolivia? To transform, I am sure, this country into a new Yugoslavia. Washington favors the method of promoting separatism to retake control of natural resources or strategic areas when governments act too independent, too resistant to the transnationals. Third ingredient. Experienced fascists. In Bolivia, Goldberg openly supported and collaborated with Croatian-origin businesspeople in the leadership of the secessionist movement. Particularly with Branko Marinkovic, member of Federation of Free Entrepreneurs of Santa Cruz (the secessionist province). A very big landowner, Marinkovic also pulls the strings of the Transporte de Hidrocarbures Transredes (which works for Shell). He manages the 3,750 miles of oil and gas pipelines that feed out to Chile, Brazil and Argentina. And when did these people come from Croatia? It should be recalled that, during World War II, the German leader, Nazi Adolf Hitler established fascist Greater Croatia where his collaborators, the Ustashis, set up death camps (including one especially for children!) that carried out a terrible genocide aimed at Serbs, Jews and Roma ("gypsy") people. (3) After the Nazi defeat, the Croatian Catholic Church and the Vatican organized "ratlines," paths for the Croatian fascist criminals (and for German Nazi Klaus Barbie) to escape. From Croatia in Austria, then onto Rome. And from there towards Argentina, Bolivia or the United States. (4) When it became known that Franjo Tudjman and the leaders of the "new" Croatia born in 1991 had rehabilitated the former Croatian World War II criminals, one would like to know if Mr. Marinkovic disavows all this past or if, quite simply, he employs the same methods where he is now. As for the United States, one knows that it rehabilitated and recycled a large quantity of Nazi criminals and spies of World War II. The networks are always useful. What hides behind separatism There. All the ingredients are ready to blow Bolivia apart... The dollars of the CIA, plus the experts in provoking civil wars, plus the fascists recycled as businesspeople. A civil war that would serve the interests of the multinationals, but that international public opinion must absolutely prevent. The Bolivians have the right to decide their fate themselves. Without the CIA. Because a secession would benefit only the elite. The Brazilian writer Emir Sader has just written very precisely: "Today, one of the methods that includes racism is separatism, the attempt to delimit the lands controlled by the white race, by adapting and privatizing the wealth that belongs to the nation and its people. We already knew these intentions in the form of the rich districts that sought to be defined as municipalities, with the goal that a share of the taxes taken by law from their immense richnesses remains under their control to increase the revenue to their split-off districts, behind which they sought to insulate and to use a privately controlled security apparatus to guard their privileged life styles.(...) The separatist referendum is an oligarchic, racist and economic device used because they want to keep the greatest part of the wealth of Santa Cruz for their own benefit and because the oligarchs want, moreover, to prevent the government of Evo Morales from continuing the process of land reform and extending all over the country." (5) This autonomy, indeed, that means that the rich white people who have always controlled Bolivia refuse to listen to the non-white majority in its West. When one speaks about autonomy, Evo Morales answers: "Let us speak about autonomy, not for the oligarchy, but for the people with whom we struggle. These separatist groups which have just lost their privileges were for a long time in the palace, they controlled the country and allowed the plundering of our country, our natural resources, including its natural resources, and the same with the privatization of our companies, and now they once again want to reestablish this system which exposes their true interest: economic control." But it's not only the United States that intervenes in Bolivia... The hypocrisy of Europe : who thereby caused, "all the misery of the world"? While hunting down undocumented workers, Europe slips into a sigh from the genteel nobility: "We cannot after all give succor to all the suffering of the world." Ah, well? But, actually, this misery, it is you who created it! Your Charles the Fifth, your Louis XIV, your Elisabeth I and your Léopold II happily massacred the "savages" to steal their wealth! This plundering was the basis of European capitalism's rapid economic growth. And today still your mining, agricultural and other corporations have not ceased to plunder the raw materials without paying for them, have not ceased dominating and deforming the local economies and blocking their development! Isn't it you who have the debt--to repay the South? Would this be dredging up the past? In the media, the Europeans in charge like to say that today, they want only the best for Latin America and the Third World... "Completely false," confided to me with indignation Pablo Solon, who represents Bolivia in the trade negociations between Latin America and the E.U: "Bolivia exp-lained it to the E.U. Before the negotiations, we had said that we would not negotiate a Free-Trade-style treaty. And we had communicated our points of divergence regarding services, investments, intellectual property and public property. The commission promised us that these points would be on the table during the negotiations. That in contrast with the "others," they would not try to impose a unique format on us. But, when we met with Peter Mandelson, European commerce official, he told us in a categorical and imperative way: 'This is a Free Trade Agreement. Accept it or you're out of the talks.' I answered personally that we were not going to exclude ourselves and that we were going to defend our points of view until the end. Because Bolivia has many industries which it must defend: steel, plastic, paper, which need mechanisms to protect themselves, as was done for the emergent European industries in the past." Indeed, Europe showed that it is hyper-dominating and arrogant. It claims it will impose on all of Latin America and the Caribbean the end of subsidies that help to develop the local products, the suppression of the import duties (but it refuses to do the same at home!), suppression of every limit for European exports (refusing the reverse), the transfer without limits of the qualified European labor, and the modification of all laws protecting the local economies. And moreover, the E.U. wants to impose the privatization of all state services, goods and enterprises. Although already in 2000, out of the 500 largest companies of Latin America and of the Caribbean, 46 percent already belonged to foreign corporations. And moreover, the E.U. wants to impose patents on living things (Bolivia has a very rich biodiversity coveted by the chemical and pharmaceutical transnationals). But aren't living things, and water also, goods essential for survival, an innate property that should remain with those who always protected them and used them with care? Ultimately, the E.U. wants to impose completely unbalanced treaties which will wipe out the Bolivian companies. All that it seeks is that the European companies can invade the markets freely. Thus they will ruin these countries. Thus they will provoke emigration. An absurd system, no? Who chooses immigration and why? I wrote that Europe drove out the Latino immigrants. That is less than accurate. Europe does not treat them all the same way. On the one hand, European bosses import the best brains of the Third World, and also the very qualified technicians. They are under-paid to increase company profits. It is what Sarkozy and others call "selected immigration". The boss selects those who will be likely to work for him. But this brain-drain deprives the Third World of people whom it taught (at great cost) and who would be necessary to its development. A new form of plundering. On the other hand, Europe also welcomes a part of the non-qualified workers. By leaving them without papers, therefore without rights, it forces them to live in fear, to accept wages and working conditions that constitute social reverses. It's an effective way to divide the working class and pressure the other workers. That's how the "competitiveness" of this virtuous Europe is manufactured. How Europe treats undocumented workers is no aberration, but an essential moving part of an economic system. To sum up: Europe stole from Latin America. Europe continues to steal from Latin America. It stops the continent from nourishing its children. But when those children are forced to emigrate, it imprisons them. Then, it offers lessons of democracy and morality to the whole world. The time has come I could not remain in Bolivia a long time, but these people deeply impressed me. I remember the thousands of demonstrators who went down, this Sunday, towards the center of La Paz, crammed into their minibuses, cars or taxis, Indians and whites, from the fairest to the darkest. With astonishing calm and much less noise than in any demonstration in any other part of the world. With a simple and noble determination. And in their eyes you could read a determination: the time has come to put an end to centuries of humiliations, the time has come for dignity for all, the time has come to make misery disappear. And I thought once again of those undocumented friends in Brussels, who also demonstrated for their future and their dignity. The problem is obviously the same one, in Brussels and La Paz: for whom must the wealth of a country be used? And if this problem is not resolved in La Paz, the millions of undocumented workers will continue to knock on Europe's doors. And tomorrow? How will this evolve? For August 10, an pro-U.S. polling institute, like the majority of my contacts in La Paz, predicted a victory of Evo with 60 percent. On the other hand, some feared the influence of the problem of the inflation and the increase in the cost of living. Still others fear that the rightwing will launch violent provocations. Whatever happens, the referendum itself will resolve nothing, neither in one direction, nor the other. Evo Morales will still face the same problem: the government is on the left, but it does not control the country's economy, nor its media (which is in the hands of the big landowners and the Spanish multinational Prisa), nor its universities, nor the Church, which is on the side of the rich as usual on this continent. One cannot do everything in two-and-a-half years. But, to advance, Evo will have to succeed more than even in mobilizing the popular masses. His only strength. In any event, after the referendum, the question will remain the same: will the wealth of the country be used to enrich the wealthy and the transnational corporations or to develop the country and overcome poverty? To resolve this question in its favor, Washington is ready to do anything. And the international progressive movement? How will it react against disinformation and the preparation of a civil war? The answer depends on all of us. Translation from French: John Catalinotto If you want to send to your friends, French and Spanish versions available at : [1] Test-media Yugoslavia y Kosovo, http://www.michelcollon.info/archives_testm.php [2] Roberto Bardini, el embajador de la secesión, traducción francesa vuelta a ver B.I., nº 133, junio de 2008. [3] Michel Collon, Liars' Poker, IAC, New York, 2002, p. 78 [4] Operación Ratlines, documental de David Young amargo Chanel 4 TVES, 1991. Citado en El Juego de la mentira, p. 83. [5] CEPRID, la CIA allí la oligarquía en contubernio contradijo a Bolivia, ww.nodo50.org/ceprid/spip.php?article169

Michel Collon is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Collon

Original article posted here.

Malaysia struggles for democracy despite apparent sham criminal charges

Anwar wins Malaysian parliament seat

PERMATANG PAUH, Malaysia (AP) -- Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim won a landslide victory in a special election for a parliament seat Tuesday, strengthening his campaign to topple the government and become the next prime minister despite sodomy charges against him.

Anwar Ibrahim, center, and his wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, right, are seen after Ibrahim won the by-election.

The official count showed Anwar defeated the governing coalition's candidate for a seat from a semi-rural district in the northern industrial state of Penang.

"This is the people's victory," Anwar, 61, said in a victory speech to thousands of supporters.

"Permatang Pauh has given a clear signal to the leadership of this country. We demand change. We want freedom. We don't want to live with corruption and oppression," he said.

Anwar's re-entry into parliament would formally complete the political rehabilitation of a man who was fired as deputy prime minister in 1998 and jailed for six years after he was convicted of corruption and sodomizing his family driver.

Anwar is now facing trial on new charges that he sodomized a male aide in June. He calls the latest sodomy charge "most sickening" and a politically motivated attack.

Sodomy is punishable by up to 20 years in jail in Malaysia and no date has been set for the trial.

Anwar's previous sodomy conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2004. He has always maintained that he was framed by his boss, then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, because of a power struggle.

He says the latest charge is also a conspiracy by Mahathir's successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to prevent him from becoming prime minister. Abdullah denies it.

"This vote means Malaysians want the truth," Anwar, 61, said after voting. "It is Anwar versus the entire government. God willing, I am confident of winning."

Thousands of Anwar supporters had gathered outside the counting center awaiting the results, watched by large contingents of riot police.

The Election Commission said final results gave Anwar 31,195 votes while his rival, Arif Shah Omar Shah, got 15,524 of the 47,258 votes cast. A third candidate got 92 votes. Turnout was impressive at 81 percent.

The single seat that Anwar won will not change the balance of power. But he has vowed to persuade enough lawmakers from the governing National Front to defect so he can bring down the government by September 16.

Domestic Trade Minister Shahrir Samad, a member of the ruling party's policy-making council, denied Anwar's victory was a major blow to the government.

"It was his home ground, so that was always an advantage because he has a lot of support there," Shahrir told The Associated Press. "We expected him to win. This just proves there is nothing wrong with our electoral system. But I still doubt he will be able to pull off his September 16 threat."

A telephone poll conducted of 544 voters by the independent Merdeka Center think-tank from Friday to Sunday found 59 percent of the Permatang Pauh voters believed the sodomy allegation was politically motivated.

"It is a lie to smear him. The government is doing everything they can to shame him," said Mustakim Ramlee, a 66-year-old businessman who voted for Anwar. "Anwar's victory will bring good reforms to our country and will unite all the races in Malaysia."

Anwar was expected to win most votes of the minority Chinese and Indians. The Malay voters, who form 69 percent of the constituency's electorate, were split between Anwar and the government candidate.

The election was also a gauge of public anger against Abdullah's administration, which the opposition has painted as corrupt, inefficient and uncaring toward minorities.

The opposition promises to scrap Malaysia's decades-old system of preferences for ethnic Malays. The government says that would jeopardize the country's unity.

In March 8 general elections, Anwar's three-party opposition alliance won an unprecedented 82 of parliament's 222 seats -- 30 short of a majority -- as well as control of five states. But Anwar could not run because of a ban on holding political office stemming from his previous corruptionconviction. The ban expired in April.

Anwar is married with six children. His wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, won the Permatang Pauh district in March, but resigned the seat to allow Anwar to contest it.

Original article posted here.

Obama's Georgia position: No change, same ole shit

Change? Regarding Georgia and South Ossetia the gibberish seems frighteningly familiar in positions taken yesterday regarding Georgia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ap___F.Vfsnk&refer=home

In an earlier statement regarding Kosovo, Obama had been particularly subtle. While he said that "Kosovo’s independence is a unique situation resulting from the irreparable rupture Slobodan Milosevic’s actions caused; it is in no way a precedent for anyone else in the region or around the world." it also seems to me that everyone can argue that their particular situation is unique.

http://2008central.net/2008/02/17/obama-and-clinton-statements-on-kosovo-independence/

And why would recognizing the right of self determination of people who want to be independent be abhorrent to Western values? Isn't this what concerning Tibet is all about?


The fact is that these positions are driven less by principled positions that by real-politic maneuvers in a geo-strategic fight of positions taken "to preserve US interests." The US has been promoting the breakup of both Bolivia and Venezuela, but, as is usual with the Bush Administration, has failed miserably. (Venezuela: oil rich Zania region http://notapundit.wordpress.com/2006/03/06/venezuela-chavez-says-us-encouraging-oil-region-to-secede/ and http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3423 ) Bolivia: gas rich Santa Fe province. http://globalalternatives.org/node/86

As a result of Bush's meddling, Bolivian president Evo Morales was forced to issue a recall vote regarding his presidency after refusing to recognize the secessionist attempts. He won the recall vote easily, but it still seems that trouble is brewing, and it is quite likely that US money and advice spurs these efforts.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/08/27/2003421484

So when Obummer and McCain talk about the illegality of South Ossetia to be independent, and the unwise behavior of Russia to recognize autonomy, please do not believe a word of it. Rather it all comes down to friends, enemies and natural resources. And in this regard Obummer is singing much the same song as the front and center warmongers, Bush and McCain, filled with much the same hypocrisy and duplicity.

Hillary. When Barack sold his soul on FISA, he should have chosen her. There was no principle left to defend.

Russia not so scared, and calling the West's bluff

Russia recognises Georgian rebels

Russian president speaks to BBC President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia formally recognises the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Mr Medvedev told the BBC Russia had tried to preserve Georgian unity for 17 years, but that the situation had changed after this month's violence. He said Moscow now felt obliged to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as other countries had done with Kosovo. The decree, in defiance of a plea from the US, has provoked a wave of protest. Georgia accused Russia of an unconcealed annexation of its territory, and said the decrees had no legal force. This is an unconcealed annexation of these territories, which are a part of Georgia Giga Bokeria Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Foreign reaction in quotes UK urges Russia to 'abide by law' Q&A: Conflict in Georgia The US and France called the Russian move regrettable, while the UK said it categorically rejected it. Nato said the declaration violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions that Russia itself had endorsed. However the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have had de facto independence since the early 1990s, thanked Russia. Fighting between Russia and Georgia began on 7 August after the Georgian military tried to retake South Ossetia by force. Russian forces subsequently launched a counter-attack and the conflict ended with the ejection of Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia and an EU-brokered ceasefire. 'No easy choice' In an announcement on Russian state television, President Medvedev said he had signed a decree to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. He instructed the Russian foreign ministry to open negotiations on formal diplomatic relations with the two regions and called on other states to follow his country's example. Mr Medvedev said he had "taken into account the expression of free will by the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples" and accused Georgia of failing over many years to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the problem. Many South Ossetians feel closer to Russia than Georgia "That was no easy choice to make, but it is the sole chance of saving people's lives," he added. The move followed votes in both houses of parliament on Monday, which called on Moscow to recognise the regions' independence. In an interview with the BBC at his residency in Sochi, on the border with Abkhazia, Mr Medvedev later said Russia had been obliged to act following a "genocide" started by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili against separatists in South Ossetia. The president compared Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the West's recognition of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008. He also denied that Russia had breached the ceasefire agreement with Georgia, saying pursuing the security of the two regions included addressing their status. "The most important thing was to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe to save the lives of people for whom we are responsible, because most of them they are Russian citizens," he said. "So we had to take a decision recognising the two states as independent." Mr Medvedev said relations with the West were deteriorating sharply and that a new Cold War could not be excluded, but that Russia did not want one. "There are no winners in a Cold War," he said. Violation Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria responded to the Russian announcement angrily, saying: "This is an unconcealed annexation of these territories, which are a part of Georgia." Western countries, including the US, Germany, the UK and France immediately condemned the move. SOUTH OSSETIA & ABKHAZIA South Ossetia Population: About 70,000 (before recent conflict) Capital: Tskhinvali President: Eduard Kokoity Abkhazia Population: About 250,000 (2003) Capital: Sukhumi President: Sergei Bagapsh Profile: South Ossetia Profile: Abkhazia US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking from the West Bank city of Ramallah, said the decision was "regrettable". "Since the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council this simply will be dead on arrival in the Security Council," she said. Late on Monday, the US state department had warned that recognition of the two provinces' independence would be "a violation of Georgian territorial integrity" and "inconsistent with international law". In a statement, it said President George W Bush had called on Russia's leadership to "meet its commitments and not recognise these separatist regions". In the two breakaway regions, however, Moscow's move was warmly welcomed. The leader of South Ossetia's separatist government, Eduard Kokoity, said he would ask Moscow to set up a military base on his territory. In the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali there were scenes of jubilation while residents in Abkhazia took to the streets to celebrate the news, firing into the air. "We feel happy," said Aida Gabaz, a 38-year-old lawyer in the Abkhaz capital Sukhumi. "We all have tears in our eyes. We feel pride for our people." 'New understanding' Earlier on Tuesday, Russia cancelled a visit by Nato's secretary general, one of a series of measures to suspend co-operation with the military alliance. In Abkhazia, hundreds danced and embraced near a government building Russia's ambassador to Nato said the trip would be delayed until relations between the two were clarified. Dmitry Rogozin said a "new understanding" needed to be reached between Russia and Nato. The BBC's Humphrey Hawksley, in Moscow, says the recognition is bound to dramatically heighten tensions in Russia's already fragile relationship with the West. He says this and a series of other announcements indicate that Russia is preparing itself for a showdown. Although most of Russia's forces pulled out of the rest of Georgia last Friday, it is maintaining a presence both within the two rebel regions and in buffer zones imposed round their boundaries. Port control Some Russian troops also continue to operate near the Black Sea port of Poti, south of Abkhazia, where Russia says it will carry out regular inspections of cargo. HAVE YOUR SAY Russia is right to recognise South Ossetia and guarantee its security Branco, Bulgaria Send us your comments The US said on Tuesday that its warships would deliver aid to Georgia's port of Poti, which is under Russian control. The move could mean US and Russian forces coming face to face. Earlier, the head of European security organisation, the OSCE, Alexander Stubb, accused Russia of trying to empty South Ossetia of Georgians. Speaking to the BBC's Europe Today programme, he said: "They are clearly trying to empty southern Ossetia from Georgians, which I don't think goes by any of the books that we deal with in international relations". At a checkpoint in South Ossetia, the BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse said a South Ossetian commander said many Georgian civilians had already left of their own accord, because they were scared of the guns. Original article posted here.

Michelle Obama at DNC (I don't want to say it's propaganda, but . . . )

While weazl doesn't care about bedroom activities, it does seem that O'Bummer and Biden are playing hardball with Larry Sinclair

Both Sinclair Obama Sites
Blocked On Eve Of DNC

From Lawrence Sinclair
8-24-8

One day before the start of the Democratic National Convention, www.larrysinclair0926.com and www.larryinclairbarackobama.com have been suspended by Startlogic.
Upon contacting of Startlogic, their reasons for the suspension of these web sites sounds insincere.

Startlogic claims that the sites have been suspended due to an unforeseen amount of traffice and strain on the server and that Startlogic cannot unsuspend the account nor can they allow me to access any of the files from the sites.
I find the statements by Startlogic to be complete BS.
So, folks, until I can figure out how to set up the site on a VPS private server, I guess the Obama/Biden camp have won for the day, anyway.



Thank You,

Larry Sinclair

http://Larrysinclair0926.com
http://Larrysinclair.org
http://Larrysinclairbarackobama.com

Iraqis more familiar with Joe Biden than Americans . . .

VP choice Biden unpopular in Iraq for autonomy plan

Peter Graff and Khalid al-Ansary

BAGHDAD, Aug 23 (Reuters) - Senator Joe Biden may be one of the only U.S. politicians that can get Iraq's feuding Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish politicians to agree. But not in a good way.

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time."

Delaware senator Biden unveiled his plan to divide Iraq into a federation of autonomous Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish zones at a time when sectarian killing in Iraq was out of control and getting worse.

"The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralising it, giving each ethno-religious group -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- room to run its own affairs," he proposed in a May 2006 piece he co-wrote in the New York Times.

"The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defence, foreign affairs and oil revenues," Biden said.

LESS RELEVANT

At the time, many Iraqi politicians hinted at a need for communities to be divided. Since then, however, violence has ebbed and nearly all mainstream politicians speak out against such ideas.

"The original 'Biden plan' seems less relevant in Iraq today than at any point," said Reidar Visser, a Norwegian academic and editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org. "The trend in parliament is clearly in a more national direction, with political parties coming together across sectarian divides.

"In other words, there is a very strong Iraqi mobilisation against precisely the core elements of the Biden plan, and it would be extremely unwise of the Democratic Party to make Biden's ideas the centrepiece of their Iraq strategy," he added.

Today, even Kurds who already have their own autonomous enclave in northern Iraq say they oppose the "Biden plan".

"We don't support establishing federal regions on a sectarian basis. For example our region is not ethnic, it contains Kurds and non-Kurds. The regions should be established on a geographic basis," said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

Ezzet al-Shabender, a member of parliament from the secularist Iraqi List of former prime minister Ayad Allawi, actually credited the broad-based disgust triggered by Biden's proposal for helping Iraqi politicians bury their differences.

"His project was the reason behind the unity of many political blocs that once differed in viewpoints," he said, comparing it to the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 British note that backed the creation of Israel and is regarded across the Arab world as the ultimate colonial injustice.

"Such a person, if he would assume the vice-presidency post, would not serve to improve Iraq-USA relations."

Original article posted here.

What a legitimate government might do

$2.4 Billion in Spending Increases for Venezuelan Public Housing and Universities

August 14, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- The Venezuelan government approved US$1.1 billion in funding for universities, institutes, and university colleges, as part of the Bolivarian government’s increased support of the superior education system and another US$1.3 billion for public housing. Tuesday, Chavez announced that a week ago it that his government decided to deliver 14 additional credits to the technology university colleges, which will be used for the hiring of teachers for the national programs of formation and information laboratories. In an event in IUJO (University Institute Jesus Obrero) in the state of Petare, Chavez reported that the investment in the private sector of high level education had been increased as part of a policy designed to increase the number of enrolled students. He indicated that such investments are in order to guarantee that people with less economic resources have access to higher education in private institutions, through scholarships or subsidies. Then, on Wednesday, Venezuela’s recently appointed housing minister, Francisco “Farruco” Sesto, announced that the government also approved of additional spending for public housing, in the amount of $1.3 billion for now until the end of the year. These funds would be used to construct 39,000 homes, which are to be completed sometime between late 2008 and early 2009. Sesto estimated that Venezuela’s housing deficit, which experts believe is currently at 1.8 million homes, can be overcome in eight years by constructing 200,000 new public housing units per year. Additional funds were also approved to increase to 100,000 the number of members of the mission, “Mothers of the Barrio,” which provides a basic income to poor housewives and single mothers. Original article posted here.

Malaysia tries to get a bit of democracy, against all odds

Malaysia's Anwar set to win poll after grueling fight

By Jalil Hamid

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim is expected to earn a seat in parliament at a by-election this week, but it is far from clear that he can fulfill his dream of throwing out the government and becoming prime minister himself.

Even if Anwar overcomes what his party says is one of the dirtiest and most racist election campaigns in years, analysts say he could struggle to woo enough defectors to unseat the ruling coalition that has ruled Malaysia since 1957.

Anwar has promised to bring widespread reforms, including in judiciary and governance, and take urgent measures to boost the economy and shield the ordinary people from rising prices.

"The election results will affect his momentum, whether he can move forward or not," said Bridget Welsh, an expert on Malaysian politics at Johns Hopkins University.

"It is pivotal he has to be in the parliament because it will change the dynamics. A victory will be a step in the process."

Government leaders played down the prospects, saying that there were no immediate signs that any of their 140 lawmakers would jump ship to Anwar's Pakatan Rakyat alliance.

He needs a sizeable 30 defectors to unseat the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, a level many say a near impossible despite cracks within the 14-party coalition following a March general elections.

Anwar has insisted that his goal of forming a new government by September 16 was still on track, unfazed by a sodomy charge and a by-election onslaught.

"Anwar will win with a good majority," said political analyst Yahya Ismail. "People want Anwar to be in parliament and then become the prime minister."

CONCERTED CAMPAIGN

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's coalition has waged a concerted campaign, including alleged vote-buying and launching personal attacks, to deny Anwar a win.

The uncertainty about the government's future has alarmed some foreign investors, wary about a sudden shift in government. The key share index has lost about 25 percent this year.

Abdullah has moved to allay some of the fears, saying that his strong government would last until the next general elections due by 2013. He himself has said he would quit in mid-2010.

"It does not matter to me whether he wins or loses. As far as I am concerned, I have my government to look after... Whatever the opposition members want to do, that is up to them," he was quoted as saying by the New Sunday Times newspaper.

The charge that Anwar had sex with a 23-year-old male aide has dogged his campaign from the start.

"The interplay of politics and religion has never been more in play than here in Permatang Pauh," columnist Joceline Tan wrote in the Star newspaper on Sunday.

"It (the sodomy charge) has moved to centre stage now that the campaign is moving to its grand finale."

On the eve of the official election campaign, Anwar's sodomy accuser emerged from hiding to swear on the Koran in a bid analysts say to undermine Anwar's credibility.

"This has some negative impact on Anwar," said Rita Sim, deputy head of a think tank linked to a ruling party in Barisan. Some fence-sitters, including staunch Muslims, may have been swayed by the swearing, analysts said.

Pre-empting Anwar's promise to slash fuel prices if he wins power, Abdullah on Friday announced a surprise cut in petrol and diesel prices to help appease popular anger.

Adding to his dismay, the authorities hauled up several top politicians in opposition-held Perak state last week for suspected graft.

Anwar has also been the target of a government smear campaign, accusing him of being anti-Malay and a foreign agent. Ethnic Malays form 70 percent of about 59,000 eligible voters in Permatung Pauh.

Original article posted here.