tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-228982602024-03-07T07:07:23.494+02:00Weazl's RevengeNot gonna stop 'til democracy returns . . .Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4997125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-19258942273340028522009-06-12T14:00:00.001+03:002009-06-12T14:02:39.279+03:00Bucky promotes Bush assassin specialist, who then assembles team to take assassination to higher levels. Change? Yeah, the bad just got worse.<span style="font-weight:bold;">New US commander in Afghanistan assembles team of assassins </span><br /><br />By Bill Van Auken <br /><br />Confirmed Wednesday as President Barack Obama’s new commander for the widening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Stanley McChrystal has been given extraordinary powers to assemble his own staff. <br /><br />According to press reports published Thursday, in forming a permanent war council-dubbed the Afghanistan-Pakistan Coordination Cell-McChrystal is drawing heavily from a super-secret assassination squad that he commanded under the Bush administration. <br /><br />That unit, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), was formed in December 1980 in the wake of the military’s abortive operation to free US hostages in Iran. Comprised of the Army’s Delta Force and Navy SEALs, the command directs Special Mission Units that carry out classified operations, often in collaboration with CIA squads. <br /><br />Commanded by McChrystal between 2003 and 2008, JSOC has been linked to assassinations in over a dozen countries as well as abduction and torture. Under the Bush administration, it was reportedly used to carry out covert operations inside Iran, which included the abduction and assassination of officials suspected of aiding Iraqi militia groups. <br /><br />Earlier this year, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who is writing a book on the subject, termed the command “an executive assassination wing.” He said that it was tasked with “going into countries...finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.” Hersh added that, under the Bush administration, the unit reported to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. <br /><br />According to the New York Times, McChrystal “has been given carte blanche to handpick a dream team of subordinates, including many Special Operations veterans.” The newspaper attributed the “extraordinary leeway” granted to the general to the Obama administration’s concern over the war, which over the past year has registered the highest levels of violence since the US invasion of the country in October 2001 and has seen the Taliban and other insurgent elements gain control over much of the country. <br /><br />Citing Pentagon figures, McClatchy News reported, “The first five months of this year have seen a 59 percent increase in insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, a 62 percent increase in coalition deaths and a 64 percent increase in the use of improvised explosives compared to the same period last year.” <br /><br />Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the sudden ouster of Gen. David McKiernan and his replacement by McChrystal, a move that reflected increasing desperation in Washington. The shakeup followed the findings of a Pentagon task force headed by McChrystal in May that reported in relation to Afghanistan that the “security situation in key areas is poor, stalemated or deteriorating.” <br /><br />Tapped to serve as McChrystal’s deputy and assigned to oversee day-to-day operations in Afghanistan is Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who was chosen last year by Defense Secretary Gates as his personal military assistant. Rodriguez is reportedly a longtime friend and protégé of McChrystal. <br /><br />McChrystal has selected Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn as his intelligence advisor for Afghanistan, the Times reported. Flynn, who is currently director of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, had previously served as McChrystal’s intelligence chief in the shadowy operations of JSOC. <br /><br />Chosen as commander of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Coordination Cell is the longtime special operations officer Gen. Scott Miller, who as a captain commanded Delta Force troops in the US military’s “Blackhawk Down” debacle in Mogadishu, Somalia. <br /><br />According to the Wall Street Journal, the so-called coordination cell is “modeled on a system Gen. McChrystal put in place in Iraq, when he commanded the Navy Seals and other Special Operations personnel.” <br /><br />The units that he commanded in Iraq are reported to have carried out an assassination program in that country aimed at eliminating suspected leaders of Iraqi insurgent groups hostile to the US occupation. Personnel under his command also ran a detention and interrogation center near the Baghdad airport known as Camp Nama, where prisoners were subjected to systematic abuse amounting to torture. The motto of the unit running the camp was “No Blood, No Foul,” meaning that any form of abuse that did not draw blood was acceptable and would not result in investigations or prosecution. Soldiers assigned to the facility have reported that McChrystal was a regular visitor. <br /><br />Given this background, it is noteworthy that the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee subjected McChrystal to no serious or sustained questioning during his confirmation hearing last week. The committee’s chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, disposed of the torture issue at the outset by helping McChrystal to lay the blame on then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and on orders from Washington. <br /><br />The right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal gloated over the Democrats’ failure to make an issue out of torture, writing on June 4 that it assumed this was the case “because General McChrystal happens to have been nominated by President Obama, not President Bush.” <br /><br />In the end, the only obstacle placed in the way of McChrystal’s nomination was general procedural foot-dragging by the Republicans. <br /><br />To break the logjam, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor Wednesday and made a dramatic announcement that he had received a telephone call from Adm. Mike Mullen. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman had told him, Reid said, that McChrystal had to fly to Afghanistan that very night and was “literally waiting by an airplane,” because there was no commander on the ground in Afghanistan. <br /><br />“Let’s get the man approved tonight so he can go,” Reid said. Senate Republicans responded by moving to confirm McChrystal and two other military nominees. <br /><br />Media coverage of McChrystal’s confirmation and the changes in war strategy surrounding the creation of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Coordination Cell has centered on innocuous suggestions that the planned rotation of this core group of 400 between the war in Afghanistan and Afghanistan-related planning in Washington would allow these personnel to “accumulate expertise.” <br /><br />McChrystal’s military career and those of the chief officers he is selecting as his aides, however, suggest that what is being prepared is a dramatic escalation of the killing in Afghanistan, through the utilization of the type of methods employed during Operation Phoenix in Vietnam or the death squad killings during the US intervention in El Salvador. <br /><br />Speaking to reporters during a flight to a NATO meeting in Brussels, Defense Secretary Gates reiterated the repeated warnings from senior military officials that, as the US continues to build up its forces in Afghanistan to a target of nearly 70,000 troops by the end of the year, the bloodshed will grow accordingly. <br /><br />“We've been very upfront about the fact that as we send in more troops, and go into areas that have not had an Afghan government or ISAF International Security Assistance Force presence yet, that there will be more combat and the result of that will be more casualties,” Gates said. <br /><br />In its escalation of the US war in Afghanistan, and its increasing extension across the border into Pakistan, the Obama administration has chosen as its senior commander an officer who is among those most deeply implicated in the criminal operations carried out under Bush and Cheney. This appointment, and its confirmation by the Democratic-controlled Senate, is a clear warning that the ruling establishment in Washington is pursuing a consensus policy that will involve even greater war crimes against the Afghan people, as Washington continues its attempt to assert hegemony in Central Asia by military means. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/mcch-j12.shtml">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-49456553619255707822009-06-12T13:51:00.002+03:002009-06-12T13:56:08.584+03:00Obama to use all means in his power to stop torture photos from being released and gives $100 Billion to IMF<span style="font-weight:bold;">Abuse Photos Part of Agreement on Military Spending</span><br /> <br />By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN<br /> <br />WASHINGTON — Congressional negotiators reached tentative agreement on Thursday on a $105.9 billion spending measure that would provide money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September but would drop a ban on the release of photographs showing abuse of foreign prisoners held by United States forces.<br /><br />The deal was concluded after Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went to the Capitol to assure Senate Democrats that President Obama would use all administrative and legal means to prevent the photos’ release. At the same time, a federal court issued a ruling effectively ensuring that the photos would not be released for months, if ever.<br /><br />Mr. Obama followed up with a letter, promising to work with Congress if legislation was necessary to keep the photos from being publicized but urging lawmakers not to let the dispute interfere with freeing up the money for the armed forces.<br /><br />“Given the singular importance of providing funding for our troops, it is essential that Congress pass the supplemental appropriations bill,” Mr. Obama wrote in the letter, which was read publicly at the negotiating session by Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and the Appropriations Committee chairman.<br /><br />The photo restriction, approved by the Senate, was viewed by some Democratic House members as an end run around federal freedom of information laws. It was dropped to appease Democrats already uneasy about approving nearly $80 billion for combat and more money for aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.<br /><br />Democrats said they could not secure enough votes to pass the bill if the photo ban were included. But Republicans threatened to try to block the measure if the ban were cut out, saying the photos could incite terrorists and endanger Americans overseas.<br /><br />“What good are we to our soldiers if we can’t protect them in a time like this?” asked Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “Every photo is a bullet for our enemy.”<br /><br />He and his allies, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said Mr. Obama should take executive action to block the release of the photos by ordering them classified.<br /><br />The administration’s cause was bolstered when a federal appeals court in New York announced last Thursday that it had granted a request by the Obama administration and recalled its April 27 order to release the photographs, permitting the administration to take the case to the Supreme Court.<br /><br />In effect, the decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit means it will be months before there is any chance that the Defense Department could be ordered to release the photographs.<br /><br />Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is seeking the release of the photographs as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, said she was disappointed by the court’s ruling. “It will only serve to delay further the release of these photographs, which are critical for informing the ongoing public debate about the treatment of prisoners,” she said.<br /><br />Ms. Singh said the photos portrayed abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq in places other than Abu Ghraib prison, the Iraq jail made infamous in 2004 by photographs of abuse there, and would therefore show that abuse was “not aberrational but systemic.”<br /><br />The photo issue is just one of several that are likely to generate opposition to the bill, which would also set aside $7.7 billion to prepare for a flu pandemic, provide $1 billion to encourage consumers to trade in older cars for more fuel-efficient models and allow detainees at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, center to be brought to the United States for trial.<br /><br />The measure also clears the way for a $100 billion line of credit for the International Monetary Fund, which was the initial source of trouble for the spending bill. Republicans strongly supported the spending legislation when it was considered this year, but have threatened to withhold their support over the foreign aid, saying some of the money could go to unfriendly governments.<br /><br />With Republicans abandoning the measure, Democrats need as many votes as they can win over and the ban on releasing the photos emerged as a major obstacle. In the meeting of House and Senate negotiators late Thursday afternoon, efforts to reinstate the ban were beaten back.<br /><br />Some lawmakers also questioned including $1 billion to encourage owners of older cars to trade them in for more fuel-efficient models. That program, known as Cash for Clunkers, is nominally aimed at helping the environment and reducing carbon emissions, but many lawmakers who pushed for it were primarily interested in lifting vehicle sales to prop up the struggling auto industry.<br /><br />The provision had not originally been included by either the House or Senate. And critics, mainly Republicans but also some Democrats, charged that it was a brazen giveaway of tax dollars to bankrupt auto companies that had already received billions in federal bailout assistance. But an effort to eliminate the money was defeated.<br /><br />The bill also includes $8 million to pay for a new commission to examine the causes of the financial and economic crisis.<br /><br />Scott Shane contributed reporting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12cong.html">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-63633121083866028502009-06-12T13:48:00.002+03:002009-06-12T13:50:48.641+03:00A little good news: ending apartheid in Bahgdad.<span style="font-weight:bold;">Baghdad tears down security barriers</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Government starts to remove network of concrete walls set up at height of Iraq's sectarian conflict</span><br /><br />Security may still be unpredictable, but officials in the Iraqi capital are planning to tear down Baghdad's network of concrete barriers and razor wire in the coming months as a measure of reconciliation creeps through its neighbourhoods.<br /><br />The towering grey concrete barriers, known as T-walls, sprang up as sectarian conflict intensified in 2006 and 2007. Streets were closed and checkpoints established. Entire communities were isolated or divided, and familiar landmarks all but disappeared. Residents cowered or fled.<br /><br />Now, improved security means that teams of cranes and trucks are stealing out under cover of darkness from municipal depots across the capital and removing the barriers, street by street.<br /><br />A ministry of defence spokesman told the Guardian most of the concrete barriers would be gone by the end of 2009. "They are now the biggest obstacle to breathing new life into our city," said Ali Dawoud, the head of reconstruction and development at Baghdad's city council. He said that since January, 10-15% of the streets that were closed had been reopened and the barrier removal programme was growing month by month, security permitting.<br /><br />Security concerns still abound. Bombs and mortars are still a regular occurrence in Baghdad; violence has flared in Iraq before a June 30 deadline for US troops to withdraw from urban areas; and yesterday the volatility of the situation was underscored by a car bomb in the Shia heartland of Nasiriya that killed more than 30 people.<br /><br />But the Baghdad wall removal plan is part of a wider effort to beautify a city scarred by years of conflict. Sabah Sami, a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality, said: "Our role is to rehabilitate the streets and repair the damage made by the concrete walls to streets and pavements and because of their weight to the city's drainage and sewerage system." Each T-wall weighs about five tons. "Once they have gone from an area, we will clean and pave and then paint and plant," Sami said.<br /><br />The only barriers to stay would be those protecting ministries and other official buildings.<br /><br />Nobody knows how many of the barriers were deployed in the capital. Some residents likened them to tombstones, others to a thousand Berlin Walls.<br /><br />But as a result of the beautification campaign, city authorities find themselves in possession of thousands of unwanted reinforced concrete slabs, standard measurement 12ft by 5ft.<br /><br />On a recent trip to a southern suburb, the Guardian glimpsed a T-wall graveyard, which appeared to stretch for miles.<br /><br />Suggestions have ranged from deploying them along Iraq's notoriously porous borders to massing them into a large heap as a monument to the madness of war.<br /><br />"There's really not much you can do with them, other than build more walls," offered an engineer serving with the US military in Iraq.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/10/baghdad-security-walls">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-50257468299168371342009-06-12T11:44:00.004+03:002009-06-12T11:49:13.675+03:00Both Left and Right using killer to distort unpleasant truths...Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, Keith: 9/11 WAS an inside job.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gscSr2JsmDw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gscSr2JsmDw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Just because a racist killer does something reprehensible (and stupid) doesn't make everything that he says wrong.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-13524905119963994802009-06-12T08:22:00.002+03:002009-06-12T08:41:41.374+03:00Sen Whitehouse: The Storyline We Have Been Told About Torture Is False In Every Dimension!<div id="vvq4a31e2698057e" class="vvqbox vvqyoutube" style="width: 425px; height: 335px; visibility: visible;"><object data="http://www.youtube.com/v/w72x1jDqjdU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="335"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"></object></div> <p>Part 2</p> <div id="vvq4a31e26980f8c" class="vvqbox vvqyoutube" style="width: 425px; height: 335px; visibility: visible;"><object data="http://www.youtube.com/v/j5R-8YMWqpo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="335"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"></object></div> <p>Part 3</p> <div id="vvq4a31e26983f72" class="vvqbox vvqyoutube" style="width: 425px; height: 335px; visibility: visible;"><object data="http://www.youtube.com/v/pM5OI81vcZQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="335"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"></object></div> <p> <a href="http://earth2obama.org/?p=740#more-740" class="more-link"><br /></a></p>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-18555296207934229992009-06-06T09:35:00.001+03:002009-06-06T09:36:41.828+03:00Weazl's kind of country music<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0eoE9mi9iw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0eoE9mi9iw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-36091427197930137312009-06-06T09:14:00.003+03:002009-06-06T09:24:46.025+03:00Bucky on 9/11: Liar, liar, your pants on fire!<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cuASoVK8f9c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cuASoVK8f9c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-84164908903842473162009-06-06T09:00:00.002+03:002009-06-06T09:02:18.065+03:00What happens when you give up sovreignty: These provisions will be deemed illegal before the WTO if challenged<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; "><div class="hd" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 11px; position: static; zoom: 1; "><h1 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 14px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 28px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 33px; font-family: georgia, times, serif; ">"Buy American" provision in House climate bill</h1><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#2F4251;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></b></span></span></div></div><div class="bd" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 11px; clear: both; position: relative; zoom: 1; "><div class="yn-story-content" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new "Buy American" provision in a massive <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_0">climate change</span> bill working its way through Congress is a worrisome sign of increased U.S. protection, a business official said on Friday.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">The provision offers financial aid to automakers building plug-in <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_1">electric cars</span>. But it stipulates those cars must be "developed and produced in the United States."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">"All of us are trying to do everything we can to help the automakers here. But provisions like this smell of Buy America," said Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_2">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</span>.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">The language could violate U.S. obligations under the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_3">World Trade Organization</span>, he said, risking possible retaliation from U.S. trading partners.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">The Canadian government is already worried about the impact of a "Buy American" provision in the U.S.<span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_4" style="border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; ">economic stimulus package</span> passed by Congress in February. It says <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_5">public works projects</span> should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; "><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_6">Ottawa</span> says that as a result, Canadian companies are being discriminated against by U.S. state and municipal governments on some water and <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_7">sewage treatment projects</span> funded by the bill.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">Two other bills that have passed the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_8">House of Representatives</span> this year, to improve <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_9">water quality</span> and build "greener" schools, also included "Buy American" mandates.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">The provision offering aid to automakers building electric cars in the United States was attached to a bill requiring reductions of industrial emissions of <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_10">greenhouse gases</span>, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; "><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_11" style="border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; ">Speaker Nancy Pelosi</span> wants the bill to pass the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_12">full House</span> in June or July. Its fate is uncertain in the Senate.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">Adam Benson, spokesman for one of the lawmakers who inserted the provision, <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_13" style="border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; ">Representative John Dingell</span>of <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_14">Michigan</span>, said it was written to comply with trade laws and wasn't specific to the "Big Three" U.S. automakers, <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_15">General Motors Corp</span>,, Ford Motor and <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1244239115_16">Chrysler LLC</span>.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; ">But, Wenk pointed out the wording called for the cars to be developed and built in the United States, which he said was likely to preclude a foreign company if its research and development took place abroad.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; "><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090605/pl_nm/us_trade_buyamerican_cars">Original article posted here</a>.</p></div></div></span>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com191tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-1254407029718995252009-06-06T08:40:00.001+03:002009-06-06T08:43:37.603+03:00Helpful news roundup<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pcjONIGTUS4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pcjONIGTUS4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-63364395199293255432009-06-06T08:25:00.002+03:002009-06-06T08:28:14.795+03:00More on Bucky's rhetorical flourishes<span style="font-weight:bold;">Obama Fuzzed Up Reality in Speech</span><br /><br />By David Swanson<br /><br />Editor’s Note: There were some head-scratching moments in Barack Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, like when the President claimed that American blacks overcame slavery and segregation without the need for violence (there was, however, that event called the Civil War in which black regiments played an important part).<br /><br />There was also the condemnation of small Hamas rockets threatening children in southern Israel, when he and various predecessors have fired remote-controlled missiles which have had far more deadly consequences for Afghan and other children. In this guest essay, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org looks at other anomalies:<br /><br />President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo probably did a world of good. It was packed with noble sentiments and some truth-telling. But imagine how much more good would be done if all the best parts of it corresponded to reality.<br /><br />If we treated people around the world with "respect," would we continue occupying their nations against their adamant desires?<br /><br />If we truly "seek no military bases" in Afghanistan, why are we building them on such massive scale?<br /><br />And why are we locking up hundreds of people there whom Obama hopes to keep outside the rule of law and never bring to trial (or at least he's fighting for that power in court and recently declared that he possessed it), people who will not all die any time soon?<br /><br />If we respect the Iraqi people, why must our president tell them they are better off now? Why not ask them whether they think they are better off?<br /><br />If we have a "dual responsibility" to help Iraq and to leave Iraq, is it relevant that the people of Iraq reject that idea, and that we would reject it if imposed on our own nation by another?<br /><br />If we "pursue no bases" in Iraq and will remove "combat brigades by next August" and will "remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July" and "remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012," why are we renaming troops "non-combat troops", why are we redrawing city boundaries to avoid withdrawing, why are we in fact creating exceptions in order to remain in cities?<br /><br />And why do the Commander in Chief's immediate subordinates keep telling reporters that the United States will never leave Iraq?<br /><br />If we were "respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law," would we occupy other nations, would we use preventive detention, would we decline to prosecute torturers, assassins, and war criminals, would we object to Iran's possible future nuclear power while refusing to acknowledge that of Israel?<br /><br />If we do not "accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," why do we fund them, and why do we accept every existing one?<br /><br />If we respected the people of Gaza, wouldn't our president accept an invitation to visit there and acknowledge the responsibility of having paid for the weapons that caused the destruction?<br /><br />Imagine if we truly supported "governments that reflect the will of the people." Does the king of Saudi Arabia reflect the will of his people better than Hamas reflects the will of their people?<br /><br />And what about here at home? If the will of the American people were at all relevant, we'd end the wars, end the super-militarism, close bases, fund schools and green energy, throw corporations out of government, create single-payer healthcare, pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and so forth.<br />I'm not blaming Obama for the Senate, but the idea that our own government reflects the basic will of its people is absurd.<br /><br />The speech, of course, was better than I've made it sound. It's good for Obama to have said we don't want bases and that we'll leave.<br /><br />That's better than had he not said those things. It's tremendous for him to have acknowledged our overthrow of Iran's democratically elected president. It's important that he acknowledged the good and the admirable in Muslim culture.<br /><br />But I do wish his interfaith closing had not kicked sand in the teeth of those of us who are not religious, and I wish the best of what he said were being acted on rather than spoken about.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can pre-order it for a discount price at http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook<br /></span><br /><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090711.html">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-14488331534674093932009-06-06T08:21:00.001+03:002009-06-06T08:23:55.700+03:00Maybe some good news regarding Democrats standing up against secrecy (but is still ongoing and we must wait and see)Glenn Greenwald<div class="greenwald_entry" style="margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 20px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 20px; "><h2 style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.4em; margin-left: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: normal; ">Are House Democrats about to block Obama's new secrecy law?</h2><div class="body_text" style="font: normal normal normal 1.2em/1.4 Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; "><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><strong>(updated below - Update II)</strong></p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Earlier this week, <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photos/index.html" style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153); text-decoration: none; ">I noted</a> that the Senate had passed -- with Obama's support -- <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2346/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:700" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">a pernicious amendment</a> to the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2346/show" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">spending supplemental bill</a>, jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, that empowers Obama and the Pentagon, at their sole discretion, to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." The amendment has no purpose other than to expressly allow the President to conceal evidence of war crimes (torture) and to <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-plans-appeal-on-abuse-photos/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">block the Supreme Court from ruling</a> (as <a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/acluvdod_photodecision.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">two federal courts</a> have already held) that the Freedom of Information Act compels disclosure of those photographs. For more on why this new secrecy law is so dangerous, see <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photos/index.html" style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153); text-decoration: none; ">my post here</a>; even <em>The Washington Post</em>Editorial Page <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102036.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">excoriated the amendment</a> and Obama's support for it.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">When I wrote about this several days ago, the Senate had passed the Graham-Lieberman secrecy law as an amendment to the spending supplemental bill (which includes funding for Iraq and Afghanistan) without even bothering to take a formal roll call vote (on a voice vote). Although the House version of the supplemental bill did not contain this amendment, it was widely expected that it would simply be inserted in the House-Senate conference and then easily passed along with the final bill. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">But passage of Graham-Lieberman now appears much less certain because of what appears to be the refusal of some key liberal House Democrats -- including Barney Frank -- to support it. The votes of liberal House Democrats actually matter (for once) because most House Republicans are refusing to support the overall supplemental bill due to their objections to a provision for $5 billion in funding to increase the IMF's lending capacity. To pass the supplemental spending bill, House leaders need the votes of numerous House Democrats who are currently refusing to vote for anything that contains the photo suppression amendment. If Congressional Democrats succeed in blocking enactment of this amendment, that would be a critical assertion for the first time of Congressional checks on Obama's desired powers and would, independently, prevent a truly odious new secrecy power from being enacted. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">First there is <a href="http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42886&dcn=todaysnews" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">this report, yesterday, from <em>Congress Daily</em></a>:</p><blockquote style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; font-size: 1em; "><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Democratic leaders postponed a House-Senate conference meeting they hoped would produce a compromise fiscal 2009 war supplemental spending bill Thursday after it appeared they might not have enough votes to pass the measure in the House. . . .</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Democratic leaders are counting on convincing 18 of 51 self-described liberal or progressive Democrats who previously opposed the supplemental to now support it, enough Caucus members to ensure its passage. . . .</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">But <strong>liberal Democrats are threatening to withhold their support for the supplemental if it includes a provision in the Senate-passed bill</strong>that would allow Defense Secretary Robert Gates to withhold any "photograph relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States" if he certifies that the release of the photos could endanger citizens or the armed forces.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The provision, <strong>which is supported by President Obama</strong>, was offered as an amendment by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. -- who initially opposed the package and is now trying to help Democratic leaders raise support for it -- said he recently told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner <strong>that liberal Democrats would not likely support the package if it includes the Lieberman amendment.</strong></p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">"I made it clear to the administration that I believe that we can get liberals like myself who are against the war [to] vote for it because the IMF is so important, but not if the [Freedom of Information Act] exception is in it," Frank said.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., previously supported the supplemental but said she would not vote for the bill if it includes the amendment.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">"There is no reason in the world for us to vote to suspend" FOIA, Slaughter said.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">While House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., <strong>conceded "we got big problems" with trying to pass the supplemental</strong>, he asserted that it would clear Congress by July 1. The military has said it needs the funding by July to avoid a disruption in other accounts, which would have to be raided to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p></blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Bolstering that report, <a href="http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/04/interview-with-barney-frank-why-hes-switching-his-vote-on-the-supplemental/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">Jane Hamsher yesterday spoke</a> with Barney Frank, who told her that continued inclusion of the Graham-Lieberman photo suppression amendment would prevent House leaders from getting the votes they need to pass the supplemental bill (either that, Frank said, or they would be forced to remove the IMF funding provision -- which Obama promised G-20 allies -- in order to re-attract GOP votes and then pass the bill with the Graham-Lieberman amendment included but without the IMF funding).</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">It would seem that Nancy Pelosi has a special obligation to ensure that the House bill does not include the Graham-Lieberman amendment. Despite her vocal support for a "Truth Commission" to investigate Bush crimes, she has been continuously accused of enabling the Bush administration's torture regime by helping to keep it a secret and doing nothing to impede it. If she ends up voting for the supplemental spending bill (as she will) which includes a provision allowing the indefinite suppression of photographic evidence of torture, that would certainly bolster those accusations. Having been briefed early on to some still-disputed extent on the Bush torture regime, does Pelosi now want to vote to vest the Pentagon with the unreviewable power to suppress evidence of torture even where FOIA compels its disclosure?</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If, as Obama claims, there are legitimate reasons to suppress these photos under FOIA's exemptions (including its very broad national security exemptions), then the Supreme Court can reverse the two lower court rulings ordering disclosure -- as Obama is asking it to do. But there is no good reason to vest the Obama administration with the unilateral power to simply waive FOIA requirements simply because it loses in court and decides it doesn't want to comply with court rulings and with current transparency laws. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">FOIA was <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/guide.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">enacted by Congress in 1966</a> -- more than 40 years ago -- and, in 1974, Congress <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foialeghistory/120%20Cong.%20Rec.%20H10864-10875%20(Nov.%2020,%201974).pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">overrode a presidential veto</a> (.pdf) of amendments that expanded its disclosure requirements in the wake of Nixonian secrecy abuses. Congress should defend and insist on presidential compliance with the important transparency law it passed and repeatedly strengthened -- not allow the White House and Republicans to jointly render it illusory by retroactively narrowing its provisions, all because the Obama White House wants to suppress evidence of Bush's war crimes in the face of clear FOIA requirements compelling disclosure.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I hope to post some information in just a little bit about which members of Congress should be called today by those who want to see House Democrats stand their ground. Preventing passage of the Graham-Lieberman amendment would be an important step both for transparency and the re-assertion of Congressional checks on still-expanding presidential powers and secrecy abuses.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><u><strong>UPDATE</strong></u>: As Jane Hamsher noted after speaking with Barney Frank yesterday (read <a href="http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/04/interview-with-barney-frank-why-hes-switching-his-vote-on-the-supplemental/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">Jane's analysis here</a>), the White House and House Leadership are now working jointly to convince 18 House Democrats who currently oppose the bill [H.R 2346] to vote for it. That's how many are needed to ensure its passage. You can call those key members -- <a href="http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">here</a> -- and encourage them to continue to oppose this bill, particularly as long as it contains the FOIA-eroding, torture-protecting Graham-Lieberman photo suppression amendment. Those interested can and should call as many members as possible, and it's particularly important if any of them are your actual representatives. It would also be helpful, once you call, to <a href="http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">use the program provided</a> to convey what you were told as each member's response to your call.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><u><strong>UPDATE II</strong></u>: Nick Baumman of <em>Mother Jones</em> cheers the efforts of House Democrats to block this amendment <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/house-liberals-trying-block-obama-backed-foia-exemption-torture-photos" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 52, 138) !important; text-decoration: none; ">and writes</a>:</p><blockquote style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; font-size: 1em; "><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even if you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill.</p></blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Exactly. We already have a law in place -- FOIA -- that is incredibly permissive in what it allows the government to keep secret. Obama is perfectly within his rights to appeal the two court decisions ruling that these photographs must be disclosed under FOIA. But passing a new law because you don't want to abide by the old one and because courts have rejected the President's claimed powers was one of the most defining and abusive strategies of the Bush administration. The fact that this proposed amendment vests unilateral, unchallengeable power in the Pentagon to decide, with no review and standards, what will remain secret makes it all the worse. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The issue is not whether disclosure of these photographs will produce value (although given that we are in the midst of an ongoing debate over both torture and accountability for it, it seems obvious that there is great value in having more evidence released showing how brutal and lawless our Government's treatment of detainees was). But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not you believe in transparency in government (a major plank of Obama's campaign), and whether you want the President to have the unilateral, unreviewable power to simply decree that the 4o-year-old FOIA law need not be complied with when it comes to all photographic evidence of detainee abuse.</p></div><p class="author" style="margin-top: 0.9em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-weight: bold !important; font-style: italic; text-align: right; ">-- Glenn Greenwald</p></div><br /><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-43560888714913597902009-06-06T08:15:00.001+03:002009-06-06T08:17:41.535+03:00Tide turning against Israel: EU may exert pressure on settlement<span style="font-weight:bold;">EU seeks to increase pressure on Israel for settlement freeze</span><br /><br />The European Union is considering using its trade clout to bolster U.S. pressure for an Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, diplomats said on Friday. <br /><br />The EU is Israel's biggest trading partner and one option it may have is to crack down on fruit, vegetables, olive oil and other farm produce grown by settlers in the Palestinian territories. <br /><br />Some European governments have long suspected such products are entering the EU at low import tariffs reserved for output labeled as coming from Israel proper. <br /> Advertisement<br />Aside from the possibility of a concerted push to deny tariff concessions to settlement produce coming into the European Union, diplomats said EU nations also were looking at using economic and scientific research exchanges with Israel as an area where they could apply leverage on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. <br /><br />In addition to being Israel's largest market for exports, the EU is its second largest source of imports after the United States.<br /><br />But diplomats said Europe would follow Washington's lead. Concerted EU action will be difficult because of divisions within the bloc, so piecemeal steps are more likely, they added. <br /><br />EU members have in recent months said that ties between the EU and Israel depend on the Israeli government's commitment to a two-state solution in the peace process with Palestinians. <br /><br />Following the three-week-long Operation Cast Lead, diplomatic bodies in a number of European countries called for a freeze on upgrading relations with Israel, citing the pressure of domestic public opinion. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090711.html">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-80849928341427607142009-06-05T13:47:00.001+03:002009-06-05T13:49:05.306+03:00Great summary of what is wrong with the United States by the man who should be king. Well, not king, but President<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jmovFc-yLBM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jmovFc-yLBM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-44473147295880630132009-06-05T13:40:00.000+03:002009-06-05T13:41:40.740+03:00Weazl's Return<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFOafBBoL6I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFOafBBoL6I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-58164357278157879872008-12-16T18:02:00.000+02:002008-12-16T18:03:47.514+02:00Russell Means on Colonialism by the Imperial Power<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PwQafICKWY4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PwQafICKWY4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-87845082777134765052008-11-27T17:34:00.000+02:002008-11-27T17:35:43.185+02:00Do I have to tell you that this reeks of black op bullshit? Hope not<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IZUK7AHvg4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IZUK7AHvg4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-67843300184645790662008-11-25T17:49:00.001+02:002008-11-25T17:50:14.698+02:00More on what we thought about our new President-elect<span style="font-weight:bold;">Obama's Foreign Policy: The Case for Pessimism</span><br /> <br />Justin Raimundo<br /><br />His appointments augur ill <br /><br />We know the sellout is a reality when we listen to Jamie Kirchick praise Barack Obama's national security appointments: "Barack Obama isn't even president yet, and he's already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party's left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency," he snarks. <br /><br />Kirchick, in his role as Marty Peretz's alter ego, is pleased as punch with the incoming Obama-ites, who appear to have abandoned their "netroots" early on and ceded the foreign policy realm to the pro-war Clinton wing of the party. He is mostly concerned with gloating over the fact that Joe Lieberman wasn't expelled from the Democratic caucus, but the larger issue is the party's foreign policy stance in general, which looks to be shaping up as distinctly right-of-center. ("Right," in this sense, means neocon, rather than authentically conservative, but then you knew that.) <br /><br />As the last surviving representative of the Scoop Jackson Democrats, who have long been on the politically endangered species list, Lieberman has a special place in the hearts of neocons everywhere, but especially in the editorial offices of The New Republic, which, in spite of unconvincing efforts to suck up to the "new politics" wing, exists to hold high the banner of that hoary tradition. <br /><br />Obama's personal intervention on Lieberman's behalf hints at where the Democrats are going as a governing party, and his appointments are rapidly confirming this trend: not only Hillary Clinton at State and Robert Gates at Defense, but also retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser. The former commander of U.S. forces in Europe and military head of NATO was described last year as a political "hot commodity" by the Wall Street Journal. In a piece that detailed the courting of the general by both political parties, Hillary is cited as saying she'd put him in her Cabinet, perhaps as defense secretary, although her campaign qualified this by saying that "it's way premature" to speculate about such matters, as indeed it was. Jones is best buddies with John McCain, and, although he assiduously avoided a formal endorsement, he made an appearance with his old friend during the campaign. When Jones served on a commission evaluating our military operations in Iraq, he concluded that we ought to stay the course: "Understand the fact that regardless how you got there, there is a strategic price of enormous consequence for failure in Iraq." His point of agreement with President-elect Obama is that he believes we've been grievously amiss in not escalating the fighting on the Afghan front sooner. <br /><br />The argument for Gen. Jones as national security chieftain echoes the case for Hillary at State: "If Obama engages Iran," avers The New Republic, "it'll be harder to dismiss his overtures as soft-headed or naïve with Jones coordinating foreign policy." The same malarkey is being uttered with a straight face by defenders of the Clinton appointment, such as Obamacon-in-chief Andrew Sullivan, who claim it will somehow give Obama the credibility to pull off a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This assumes, however, that his "team of rivals," as the pundits have deemed it, won't mutiny. It assumes presidential omnipotence, when the reality is that without the cooperation of the vast and powerful national security bureaucracy, the White House will find it difficult to carry out its program. It also assumes Clinton and her menagerie won't actively sabotage the policies she attacked during the primaries as "naïve" and "dangerous." <br /><br />On the key question of withdrawal from Iraq, Jones is a mixed bag. The Jones commission set up to evaluate Iraq's move toward creating its own military and police forces praised the Iraqi army but dissed the police as sectarian bullies and recommended they be disbanded. Of course, the police are run by the ruling Shi'ite parties, each of which has its own militia, and these will never be disbanded. The Jones plan is to reorient the U.S. mission in Iraq to protect the borders and leave internal security to the Iraqi military. At the congressional hearings held to present the commission's findings, Jones was questioned by Sen. Carl Levin: <br /><br />"You say that significant reductions, consolidations and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent – is that your finding?" <br /><br />"That's correct," was Jones' reply. However, when it came John McCain's turn to question his old bud, Jones told the Arizona senator what he no doubt wanted to hear. Asked if it would be in our interest to set a definite timetable for U.S. withdrawal, Jones said: <br /><br />"Senator, I'll speak for myself on this, but I think deadlines can work against us, and I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest." <br /><br />Is it really possible that a candidate for president elevated to front-runner status by antiwar voters in the primaries – and elected over a rival who made support for the war the leitmotif of his losing campaign – is enabling the hijacking of American foreign policy by a new cabal of warmongers? <br /><br />The idea that by surrounding himself with advisers who have a long history of opposing any change in our bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy Obama can somehow immunize himself from criticism is logical only in a Bizarro World kind of way. In that alternate universe, where up is down and black is white, it makes perfect "sense" for a president to appoint people to key posts who oppose his policies. In our own world, however, such an approach would be crazy – yet it seems to be happening right before our eyes. <br /><br />Another disturbing aspect of the Jones appointment is that it underscores the rebirth of NATO as an engine of American aggression. No doubt the Bushian-neocon campaign to enlarge the archaic alliance and extend the Euro-American military umbrella into the Caucasus will be taken up by the Obama administration with fresh enthusiasm. The "unilateralist" approach attacked by Bush's Democratic critics as a strategic mistake is now about to be corrected, with a renewed NATO as its symbol. While the ostensible enemy is, at present, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, NATO is, first and foremost, a challenge to Russia. Founded as the Western shield against the Soviet empire, now it is a sword pointed straight at Putin's throat, as the Alliance moves inexorably eastward. If a new confrontation with the Russians is in the making, then it makes sense to put a former NATO military chieftain in as national security adviser. <br /><br />The new president's appointments resound like slaps in the faces of his liberal supporters: Rahm Emanuel (a fierce opponent of the antiwar wing of the party), Hillary, Robert Gates (they're trying to persuade him to stay on), and now Gen. Jones. It looks like antiwar voters voted for one thing, but are getting quite another – although it won't be the first time that's happened. From "he kept us out of war" in Woodrow Wilson's day to George W. Bush's pledge of "a more humble foreign policy," presidents seem to have a penchant for inverting their campaign promises in the foreign policy realm, and Obama's appointments could presage a lot of surprises – and bitter disappointments – for his supporters. <br /><br />Just how docile is the rank-and-file of the Obama "movement" – will they take this lying down? We're about to find out. So far, the outrage of the "netroots" and the Rachel Maddow crowd seems limited to the triumph of Lieberman over the attempt to purge the evil spirit of Scoop Jackson from party precincts once and for all. And even this has nothing to do with Lieberman's rabidly pro-war views, per se, only with the Connecticut senator's endorsement of McCain. <br /><br />As it slowly dawns on the netroots that they've been had, however, don't expect "netroots" entrepreneur Arianna Huffington to start asking uncomfortable questions. After all, she has a lot to lose. As the Times of London reports: <br /><br /><br />"Arianna Huffington looks set to cement her position as the Queen of Capitol Hill in the next few days. <br /><br />"The Times has learnt that the Huffington Post, her influential political Web site, will confirm within the next week that it has completed a $15 million (£10 million) fundraising from investors. <br /><br />"The money will finance the expansion of HuffPo, as it is known, into the provision of local news across the United States and into more investigative journalism. And it will ensure that Ms. Huffington's influence continues to spread across the U.S. political scene. <br /><br />"She is a close friend of Barack Obama, the president-elect – who, with Hillary Clinton, has posted on her site – and, at a dinner in London on Wednesday night, joked: 'I only text three people – my two teenage children and Barack Obama.'"<br /><br /><br />Arianna criticize the Dear Leader's appointments? That might get her blocked from the presidential cell, not to mention alienate those generous investors whose interest in her money-losing, aesthetically disastrous, and painstakingly trite Web site might lessen considerably. Which just goes to show that no matter how high the price, a whore is still a whore – and what better occupation for the Queen of Capitol Hill? <br /><br />The circus aspect of all this may be amusing, if you take your humor black, but the joke is on the rest of us when the Obama-ites take office, because that's when our real problems will begin. <br /><br />Obama's appointments on the foreign policy front prefigure a policy of paralyzing caution and indecision. Just look at the cast of characters who will be major players on the national security field: not only Hillary and Gen. Jones, but also Joe Biden, who fancies himself a foreign policy maven and will no doubt want to play a major role in the decision-making process. This has all the makings of a three-way bureaucratic turf war, and the result is bound to be paralysis, rather than change of any desirable sort. Obama's first concern, as he takes office, will be facing America's economic crisis, and his full attention will be required for an extended period – plenty of time for the built-in rivalry in the foreign policy apparatus to take root and fester. <br /><br />The outlook for the foreign policy of the new administration is not good. I foresee a protracted period of confusion and internal struggle, punctuated by periodic foreign crises in which Team Obama will be all too eager to prove their "toughness." Diverted by trouble on the home front, President Obama is likely to let the tremendous opportunities opened up by his international popularity and stature go to waste. Putting Hillary Clinton to work on forging a Middle East peace agreement is another example of Bizarro World logic in action: Obama might as well assign the task to Norman Podhoretz. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13807">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-46016056183390455672008-11-25T17:10:00.000+02:002008-11-25T17:11:12.355+02:00Interesting news regarding US cronies in Georgia<span style="font-weight:bold;">Moscow: 'Georgia used foreign soldiers'</span><br /> <br />Russia's top investigator claims to have evidence that citizens from Nato member states including the US and Turkey fought for Georgia in the five-day war in August.<br /><br />Asked to list the nationalities of the foreign fighters it believes were involved, Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Prosecutor-General's investigative committee said: "America, the Czech Republic, Chechnya, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Turkey."<br /><br />"There were also two snipers - one from Ukraine and I believe a Latvian woman" - Alexander Bastrykin"It was a fairly small number of people. They mainly fulfilled support roles", Mr Bastrykin told reporters in Russia's second city of St Petersburg.<br /><br />Suggesting that some had conducted training for the Georgian armed forces, he said: "There were also two snipers - one from Ukraine and I believe a Latvian woman."<br /><br />He added that he considered the presence of foreign fighters a criminal offence and would raise the issue at a meeting with representatives of Interpol.<br /><br />A senior security official in Tbilisi dismissed the statement and said by law only Georgian nationals could serve in the country's armed forces.<br /><br />Kakha Lomaia, the Secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said: "The statement that almost half of the world was fighting in our army in August is just a fantasy of those in the Russian leadership who would like to justify killings of the peaceful population."<br /><br />Russia launched a massive counter-offensive on land and sea in August after Georgian forces tried to retake South Ossetia, a Moscow-backed separatist region that rejects Tbilisi's rule.<br /><br /><a href="http://itn.co.uk/news/b933c35ed560482eec2b3e21db52af3d.html">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-89229634627884383082008-11-25T17:05:00.001+02:002008-11-25T17:07:18.160+02:00Not a global warming scientist, but am open to the possibility that we are being scammed and scared a bit.<span style="font-weight: bold;">S</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">tubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply </span><br /><br />By Christopher Booker<br /><br />Second only to the melting of the Arctic ice and those "drowning" polar bears, there is no scare with which the global warmists, led by Al Gore, more like to chill our blood than the fast-vanishing glaciers of the Himalayas, which help to provide water for a sixth of mankind. Recently one newspaper published large pictures to illustrate the alarming retreat in the past 40 years of the Rongbuk glacier below Everest. Indian meteorologists, it was reported, were warning that, thanks to global warming, all the Himalayan glaciers could have disappeared by 2035.<br /><br />Read more from Christopher Booker<br />Yet two days earlier a report by the UN Environment Program had claimed that the cause of the melting glaciers was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" hanging over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.<br /><br />Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening and expanding".<br /><br />Meanwhile, all last week, ITV News was running a series of wearisomely familiar scare stories on the disappearing Arctic ice and those "doomed" polar bears - without telling its viewers that satellite images now show ice cover above its 30-year average, or that polar bear numbers are at record level. But then "polar bears not drowning after all - as snow falls over large parts of Britain" doesn't really make a story.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-78388194974591308782008-11-25T16:59:00.001+02:002008-11-25T17:00:58.261+02:00Maybe be wishful thinking or propaganda, but I thought it was good news so posted. Caveat emptor: I wouldn't rely on its prognostication.<span style="font-weight: bold;">End of Saakashvili rule is near - Georgian opposition leader</span><br /><br /> TBILISI. Nov 25 (Interfax) - Georgian opposition leader Giorgy<br />Khaindrava believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is losing<br />popularity, but is doing everything to retain power.<br /><br /> "Saakashvili realizes that his days [as president] are numbered,<br />and he is doing everything to hold on to power to ensure his security,"<br />Khaindrava told Interfax on Tuesday.<br /><br /> "After the August catastrophe," Saakashvili is "a political corpse"<br />and "is unlikely to stay in power before the end of his second (and<br />last) presidential term," said Khaindrava.<br /><br /> "What is dangerous in Georgia now is not so much Saakashvili, but<br />the criminal group that has usurped power and that can create a lot more<br />problems," he said.<br /><br /> "We have more than once warned Western politicians that the coming<br />to power of Saakashvili and people close to him is dangerous not only<br />for Georgia, but nobody listened to the Georgian opposition. Now the<br />West is probably reconsidering its attitude to Saakashvili because he<br />was the catalyst of the aggravation of relations between the West and<br />Russia," said Khaindrava.<br /><br /> Khaindrava did not rule out that the situation in Georgia may<br />seriously aggravate in the next few months as a result of the August<br />events and the world crisis and that "Saakashvili and the Georgian<br />opposition will no longer be able to control it and people will take to<br />the streets."<br /><br /> When asked how pragmatic it would be for the Georgian opposition to<br />come to power in this situation, Khaindrava said: "There will be no<br />other way out, because otherwise Georgia will face a humanitarian<br />catastrophe."<br /><br /> "After the August events, Georgia virtually lost its statehood and<br />its fate is now being decided in the capitals of other countries, but it<br />cannot go on like this," he said.<br /><br /> Khaindrava accused the Russian authorities of "aggression and<br />occupation of Georgia." "Russia's imperialist policy is interested in<br />chaos in Georgia, and a second occupation stage is possible to maintain<br />it," he said, adding that the issue of Georgia's territorial integrity<br />and the return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia "will not be taken off the<br />agenda under any circumstances" if the Georgian opposition comes to<br />power in Georgia.<br /><br /> Commenting on the November 23 attack on the cars carrying the<br />presidents of Georgia and Poland, Khaindrava called this incident "a<br />prank by Saakashvili and [Polish President Lech] Kaczynski, who have<br />long lost the trust of their people in their countries."<br /><a href="http://www.interfax.com/3/449132/news.aspx"><br />Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-66630898125613370402008-11-25T16:57:00.000+02:002008-11-25T16:58:56.528+02:00As Obummer continues his fucked up policies of throwing money to the people who least need it, the middle class is getting crushed<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />76 percent of American middle-class households not financially secure </span><br /><br />As the economy continues to reel, a new report finds that 4 million American households lost economic security between 2000 and 2006, and that a majority of America's middle class households are either borderline or at high risk of falling out of the middle class altogether. The new report, "From Middle to Shaky Ground: The Economic Decline of America's Middle Class, 2000-2006" was published by the policy center Demos and the Institute for Assets and Social Policy (IASP) at Brandeis University.<br /> <br /><br />"From Middle to Shaky Ground" is based on the Middle Class Security Index, co-developed by Demos and IASP/Brandeis, which uses government data and measures the financial security of the middle class by rating household stability across five core economic factors: assets, educational achievement, housing costs, budget and healthcare. Based on how a family ranked in each of these factors, they were defined as financially "secure," "borderline" or "at risk". In addition to the report, Demos and IASP/Brandeis have published an "Economic Security Scorecard" that the average family can use to measure where they fall on the Middle Class Security Index. <br /><br />"The increases we're witnessing in housing costs and the number of families who lack health insurance, coupled with the extreme volatility of the average household's savings, show that a large percentage of America's middle class are not well equipped to weather this current economic storm," said Jennifer Wheary, one the report's co-authors and a Senior Fellow at Demos. <br /><br />"From Middle to Shaky Ground" shows some worrying trends in America's households, including: <br /><br />-- The median financial assets held by middle-class families declined by 22 percent. This means that for every dollar in median assets that middle-class families held in 2000, they held just 78 cents in 2006. These figures do not include home equity and therefore do not reflect additional losses families may have experienced due a decline in their home values. <br /><br />-- Monthly housing expenses for the middle class rose by 9 percent. As a result, the percentage of middle-class families who match the Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of "housing burdened" rose from 31 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2006. <br /><br />-- The number of middle-class families in which at least one member lacks health insurance grew from 18 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2006. <br /><br />"Declines such as these in any one area are alarming," said Tom Shapiro, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis. "Bad news across a range of areas supporting financial stability means the middle class is confronting its greatest challenge since the Great Depression." <br /><br /><a href="http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=146747347">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-77825155245123694702008-11-20T18:32:00.000+02:002008-11-20T18:33:16.311+02:00Lee Atwater: Shithead, whose politics are nearly as dead as he is.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: -webkit-monospace; font-size: 13px; white-space: pre-wrap; "><embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=6760120905785086347&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed> </span>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-44699908214048711382008-11-16T15:04:00.001+02:002008-11-16T15:07:10.101+02:00O'bummer and the recycled warmongers<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; line-height: 10px; "><h2 style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 2.6em; font-weight: normal; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 1.2em; margin-top: 0.42em; ">Obama transition points to more war and repression</h2><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; "></p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">President-elect Barack Obama owes his victory, both in the Democratic primaries and the general election, in large part to the overwhelming hostility of the American people to the years of military aggression, torture, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying and all of the other crimes that will constitute the indelible legacy of the Bush administration.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Thanks to his carefully calibrated criticisms of these policies, as well as his indictment of his principal Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, for her October 2002 vote authorizing the US invasion of Iraq, Obama’s “change you can believe in” was perceived by many, both in the US and abroad, as a promise that his election would signal an end to militarism and attacks on democratic rights.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">As the transition to the new administration unfolds, however, belief in Obama’s promise of change can be sustained only to the extent that one fails to examine the political record of those who are involved in this process.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">For the most part, the Obama-Biden transition team is staffed by veterans of the Clinton administration, associated with the US wars in the Balkans and the policy of regime change in Iraq that set the stage for the war that followed under the Bush presidency.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Symbolic of this relationship is Obama’s decision to send Clinton’s former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, to this weekend’s Group of 20 meeting in Washington as his personal emissary. Confronted in a 1996 interview on the CBS News program “60 Minutes” with the fact that US sanctions against Iraq had led to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, Albright replied, “It’s a hard choice, but the price, we, think, is worth it.” She subsequently became a key architect of the US-backed dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the subsequent war against Serbia, which was marked by the widespread bombing of civilian targets. Such is Obama’s face to the world.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">In terms of the military policy of an incoming Obama presidency, the most telling indication of the narrow character of the change that can be anticipated are the persistent reports that Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, may be kept at his post after the change in administrations.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Citing two of the president-elect’s advisers, the <em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Wall Street Journal</em> reported Tuesday that “President-elect Barack Obama is leaning toward asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his position for at least a year.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The retention of Gates, as the <em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Journal</em> points out, would send the clearest signal of essential continuity with the militarist foreign policy of the Bush administration. “Like the president-elect, Mr. Gates supports deploying more troops to Afghanistan,” the paper noted. “But the defense secretary strongly opposes a firm timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and his appointment could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The substantial support within the Democratic leadership for keeping Gates on was expressed last weekend by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat of Nevada) in an interview with CNN. “Why wouldn’t we want to keep him?” said Reid. “He’s never been a registered Republican.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The other figure most often cited as a potential pick as defense secretary is former Clinton-era Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. Last June, Danzig delivered his own endorsement for retaining Gates, telling the <em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Times</em> of London, “My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Whether Gates stays or goes, Obama’s selection of key personnel on his Pentagon transition team signals that the incoming administration “will handle Iraq and Afghanistan differently from the Bush administration—but will stop well short of a complete restructuring of American military strategy in the two war zones,” the <em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Journal</em>’s<em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "> </em>Yochi Dreazen reported in a subsequent column.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The co-leader of this team, Michele Flournoy, who was in the Defense Department under Clinton, is the current president of the Center for New American Strategy, a bipartisan think tank on military policy. She has publicly opposed the idea of setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. In March 2007, she co-wrote a position paper on Iraq for the center, declaring, “The US has enduring interests in that besieged country and the surrounding region, and these interests will require a significant military presence there for the foreseeable future.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Another prominent member of the transition team is Sarah Sewall, a Harvard University “human rights” specialist who served as an adviser to Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq and participated in the drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency field manual.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Also serving as senior adviser to the Pentagon transition effort is Sam Nunn, who was chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services from 1987 to 1995. A right-wing Democrat and cold warrior, Nunn left the Senate after leading a campaign against President Bill Clinton over the proposal to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The character of this transition team is in keeping with the real intentions of the incoming Obama administration: the continued occupation of Iraq by tens of thousands of US troops and a sharp escalation of the ongoing colonial war in Afghanistan.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The same picture emerges with the transition team at the Central Intelligence Agency. According to published reports, the leading figure in that effort is John Brennan, who headed up what is now known as the National Counter-Terrorism Center and previously served as CIA deputy executive director and former CIA Director George Tenet’s chief of staff. He left the agency in 2005.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">It must be assumed that Brennan, a senior operator in the so-called global war on terrorism, was intimately familiar with and involved in decisions to carry out torture, assassinations, extraordinary rendition and domestic spying that were implemented during his tenure at the CIA.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Also figuring prominently in Obama’s intelligence transition team is Jamie Miscik, who headed the CIA’s analytical operations under Tenet. She played a leading role in manufacturing the phony intelligence about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and ties to Al Qaeda that was used to sell the war, and in suppressing reports from agency analysts that rejected both claims as unfounded. After leaving the agency at the end of 2004, she found a lucrative—though relatively short-lived—position as the head of global sovereign risk analysis at the now-bankrupt Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">While on the campaign trail, Obama on occasion denounced the Bush administration’s intelligence abuses—warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, indefinite detention without trial—but when it came to a vote in the Senate last summer, he supported vastly expanded domestic spying powers for the National Security Agency and retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in carrying out the illegal wiretapping.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">As with Gates, it is not ruled out that those in charge of US intelligence under Bush will stay on under Obama. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden have both indicated they are prepared to remain at their posts in the incoming Democratic administration. McConnell, who gave Obama a presidential-style intelligence briefing last week, described the president-elect’s team as “very smart, very strategic.”</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">While Obama’s overall transition chief, John Podesta, stressed last weekend that the incoming president would swiftly repeal a number of executive orders issued by the Bush administration, the specific ones he cited—stem cell research, domestic oil drilling, etc. —did not include the multiple directives authorizing US military and intelligence forces to carry out acts of aggression around the world.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">Given that Obama has vowed to escalate cross-border raids against Pakistan and prosecute the so-called war on terror—the pretext used to justify Washington’s use of military force to dominate the oil-rich regions of the globe—he will in all likelihood adopt these orders as his own.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">It has been less than two weeks since Obama was swept to victory in the presidential election by a wave of popular hostility to the Bush administration. Yet the actions of the president-elect and his advisers are already making it clear that the longing of millions of Americans for an end to the growth of US militarism and international criminality are not to be realized after the inauguration in January.</p></span><br /><a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n14.shtml">Original article posted here</a>.Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-25580534882869632492008-11-16T10:39:00.002+02:002008-11-16T10:44:53.139+02:00New version of September Clues<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(85, 26, 139); text-decoration: underline;"><embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac6Jeo_CCQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="350" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed> </span><br /><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(85, 26, 139); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac6PEo_CCQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="350" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed> </span><br /></span></div>Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22898260.post-75925879508585517612008-11-14T17:17:00.002+02:002008-11-14T17:20:27.114+02:00Looks like there would be a down side for Obama not negotiating . . . (Hint: Get rid of the Polish and Czech missiles)<span style="font-weight:bold;">Belarus President Seeks to Deploy Russia Missiles</span><br /><br />By ALAN CULLISON<br /> <br />MINSK, Belarus -- President Alexander Lukashenko is in talks with Moscow about placing in Belarus advanced Iskander missiles that could hit targets deep inside Europe.<br /><br />President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, left, who met Oct. 26 near Moscow with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, says that Belarus would like to deploy missiles even if it doesn't reach an agreement with Moscow.<br />The talks raise the ante in the debate over a U.S. plan to deploy missile defense in Europe. They also complicate Western hopes for warmer ties with Belarus, which some in the U.S. and Europe hope could help to counterbalance an increasingly hostile Kremlin.<br /><br />In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lukashenko said that he would like to see closer relations with the West but that he sympathizes with Russia on two flashpoints that have rocked relations -- the conflict in Georgia and U.S. plans to place antimissile systems in Europe to counter a potential threat from Iran.<br /><br />Mr. Lukashenko said he "absolutely supports" Russia's plans to place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad that would target the U.S. missile system. Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave in Europe that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania, and missiles there could reach the proposed U.S. missile sites in Poland.<br /><br />Mr. Lukashenko said Russia also had proposed putting Iskander missiles in Belarus, which is situated between Russia and Poland. And if a deal on the issue isn't reached, Belarus itself would like to deploy the missiles, he said.<br /><br />"Even if Russia does not offer these promising missiles, we will purchase them ourselves," said Mr. Lukashenko, who said the technology for the Iskander optics and fire-control systems comes from Belarus. "Right now we do not have the funds, but it is part of our plans -- I am giving away a secret here -- to have such weapons."<br /><br />Analysts said it is far from clear that Russia would really need to place missiles inside Belarus. The Kremlin has offered to give up its Kaliningrad plans if Washington drops its missile-defense system. Mr. Lukashenko's missile ambitions also could be a bargaining chip in his maneuvering between Russia and the West.<br /><br />Though closely allied with and heavily dependent on Moscow, Mr. Lukashenko, a former collective-farm boss who has kept a tight grip on Belarus since he was elected president 14 years ago, has resisted the Kremlin's embrace.<br /><br />But financial necessity may be tugging harder at Minsk than before. On Wednesday, Russia announced that it agreed to grant Belarus a $2 billion stabilization loan to shore up the government's finances, which have been strained by the credit crisis.<br /><br />Under loan terms, Belarus agreed to pay for future oil and gas debts in rubles, a major priority of the Kremlin, which has sought to expand the use of the Russian currency beyond its borders.<br /><br />Advisers to Mr. Lukashenko said he has lately put out feelers to improve relations with the U.S. and Europe, which slapped his government with sanctions in 2006 after he was accused of rigging his re-election. Sanctions were eased this year, after Mr. Lukashenko ordered the release of some political prisoners.<br /><br />Like other leaders of former Soviet states, he has resisted Moscow pressure to side with the Kremlin in its conflict with Georgia by recognizing the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So far the only countries to confer recognition are Russia and Nicaragua.<br /><br />But he signaled he may tip toward Moscow on the issue and echoed Russia's argument that the West paved the way for the independence of Georgia's breakaway regions by recognizing Kosovo.<br /><br /><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122662176384426603.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">Original article posted here</a>.<br /><br />Lukashenko, in His Own Words<br /><br />Below, excerpts from Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko's interview with The Wall Street Journal Tuesday. The interview was conducted in Russian, and translated by the Journal.<br /><br />On the release of political opponent Alexander Kozulin earlier this year:<br /><br />"The West perceived this as some kind of step toward democracy. You are welcome, thank you very much. You know, strictly between us, sometimes I think if they could find five or six more political prisoners here and told us to free them, and that then perhaps we would make a few more steps forward, we would do it readily. We could free even more. But they haven't found any more."<br /><br />On the possibility of recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia:<br /><br />"If you [the West] recognized Kosovo, why not recognize Abkhazia? I don't see any problems here. There is a precedent[hellip] Europe and America understand our position and our situation. And I will be honest, they are no longer pushing it as rigidly with us as before. So I don't think there would be negative repercussions for our relations or the like. I think this question is finished. It is no longer as acute as it was two months ago."<br /><br />On the financial crisis:<br /><br />"And I warned the Americans and others. No one listened to me. As it turned out, I was right. Now in America they are talking about an alternative to this ultraliberal market system, where everything is allowed, where you can eat more than what you make, and spend more than what you earn."<br /><br />On Barack Obama:<br /><br />"I look at Obama, a young man, a good-looking person. That is my first impression, I feel sorry for him. He looks 100% like Lukashenko, when I came to power after the downfall of the Soviet Union. The store shelves were empty, a severe financial crisis."Da Weazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921447248269299119noreply@blogger.com0