Joe Nocera of the NYT exposes the scam conducted by Fanny and Freddie whose officers were warned off sub prime loans in good time but chose to continue buying them since they assumed correctly that they would be bailed out if they failed, and since CEO's multi million dollar salaries were unaffected if not enlarged. Repeatedly in public testimony they cynically used the excuse of their alleged mission to maintain low cost housing loans as a cover for their reckless malfeasance.
Are they really too big to fail or is it simply a case (surprise surprise) of the Bush administration protecting Wall St and hedge funds and other investors?
Ronald
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/business/23nocera.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=joe%20nocera&st=cse&oref=slogin
New York Times
August 23, 2008
Talking Business
A Mission Goes Off Course
By JOE NOCERA
Whenever the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, find themselves in a tough spot — and boy, are they in a tough spot now! — they always seem to find a way to blame their problems on “the mission.” “We exist to expand affordable housing,” says Fannie Mae on its Web site, and although it also lists its other mission — providing liquidity for the American housing market — it is the former that has long been the companies’ trump card.
That mission of creating affordable housing is the reason that Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, could testify, year after year, that Fannie and Freddie had become so large, and took so much risk, that they could one day damage the nation’s financial system — only to be utterly ignored by the same members of Congress who otherwise hung on his every word.
The mission is why Representative Barney Frank, the powerful, and usually clear-eyed, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, will defend Fannie and Freddie even now, when their misdeeds are so clear. The mission is why the two companies were able to run roughshod over their regulator for years, and why the Bush administration was unable to rein them in, even after an accounting scandal.
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/business/23nocera.html?_r=2&sq=joe%20nocera&st=cse&oref=slogin&scp=5&pagewanted=print
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 04, 2008
George Washington's Blog: Anomalies in Anthrax Suicide Story
My take on the anthrax attacks is that they were perpetrated by the same terrorists who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks which were planned to be coordinated with the Patriot Act (not to mention the invasion of Iraq). The two Senators who received the deadly anthrax letters, Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, and Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had key roles in finally allowing the Patriot Act to pass in the form Cheney wanted.
If there were anything resembling accountability in this country, it would have been a scandal that there was no investigation for almost 7 years after the relevant strain of anthrax was linked to Ft Detrick, MD. .
Interesting that I found some relevant information regarding the Bruce Edwards Ivins suicide/anthrax attacks on 911blogger.com. The coverup is so clear that even NPR quoted at least two people who claimed that there was no way that Ivins was guilty of the attacks. Also, doesn't the news that Ivins was suicidal and homicidal seem a bit strange in a scientist in such a responsible position? How did the US get the information? What evidence is there that such stories are true?
Ronald
Government Tries to Bury Anthrax Story
by George Washington's Blog
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attacks-were-not-e...
The government is trying to bury the 2001 anthrax attack scandal (the anthrax came from a U.S. military base) by claiming that one of the key suspects - Bruce E. Ivins - was a "lone nut" who committed suicide. Case closed.
There are just a couple of loose ends:
Ivins "was actually part of a team that helped the government investigate the anthrax attacks after Sept. 11"
"The attacks were not entirely unexpected", according to a journalist, who was urged soon after 9/11 to take cipro by a high-level government official (confirmation that government employees started taking Cipro before the Anthrax attacks here). As Michael Fury put it, "So even if Ivins was involved, how would "a high government official" know that a rogue bioweapons scientist was going to "go postal" with anthrax if that "high government official" was not himself involved?" (and see this comment by Atrios)
Why did the anthrax letters attempt to link 9/11 and the anthrax attack and pretend to be from radical Muslims and be anti-America and anti-Israel, if they really came from a disgruntled American?
Why did the U.S. government - including, apparently, the people responsible for sending the anthrax letters - falsely claim that the materials in the anthrax prove that it was manufactured in Iraq? Would a disgruntled "lone nut" be motivated to concoct a false justification for invading Iraq?
Read more:
http://911blogger.com/node/16892
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attacks-were-not-e...
If there were anything resembling accountability in this country, it would have been a scandal that there was no investigation for almost 7 years after the relevant strain of anthrax was linked to Ft Detrick, MD. .
Interesting that I found some relevant information regarding the Bruce Edwards Ivins suicide/anthrax attacks on 911blogger.com. The coverup is so clear that even NPR quoted at least two people who claimed that there was no way that Ivins was guilty of the attacks. Also, doesn't the news that Ivins was suicidal and homicidal seem a bit strange in a scientist in such a responsible position? How did the US get the information? What evidence is there that such stories are true?
Ronald
Government Tries to Bury Anthrax Story
by George Washington's Blog
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attacks-were-not-e...
The government is trying to bury the 2001 anthrax attack scandal (the anthrax came from a U.S. military base) by claiming that one of the key suspects - Bruce E. Ivins - was a "lone nut" who committed suicide. Case closed.
There are just a couple of loose ends:
Ivins "was actually part of a team that helped the government investigate the anthrax attacks after Sept. 11"
"The attacks were not entirely unexpected", according to a journalist, who was urged soon after 9/11 to take cipro by a high-level government official (confirmation that government employees started taking Cipro before the Anthrax attacks here). As Michael Fury put it, "So even if Ivins was involved, how would "a high government official" know that a rogue bioweapons scientist was going to "go postal" with anthrax if that "high government official" was not himself involved?" (and see this comment by Atrios)
Why did the anthrax letters attempt to link 9/11 and the anthrax attack and pretend to be from radical Muslims and be anti-America and anti-Israel, if they really came from a disgruntled American?
Why did the U.S. government - including, apparently, the people responsible for sending the anthrax letters - falsely claim that the materials in the anthrax prove that it was manufactured in Iraq? Would a disgruntled "lone nut" be motivated to concoct a false justification for invading Iraq?
Read more:
http://911blogger.com/node/16892
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attacks-were-not-e...
Monday, July 21, 2008
Left I on New Yorker Obama Cartoons: Willful Demagoguery
Ever read something you wish you'd thought of yourself? Once blogger Left I explained it, it was so clear. Satire is when there's a difference between the reality and the "satire." When the New Yorker reproduces exactly what the most ruthless and vicious elements of our society believe and attempt to propagate, it's like trying to get away with a calumny by saying (as Left I points out), "Some people say, Senator, that you beat your wife..."
Before I read Left I's two blogs which are worth quoting entire, I was confused. As a long time New Yorker subscriber I guess I didn't want to believe what my eyes were telling me (despite Jeffrey Goldberg and so much else). I was also reminded of the incident of the Dutch cartoons where right wing forces tried (and succeeded) in raising tensions between the communities.
Apropos, the New York Times in its regular Sunday (7.20.08) political cartoons section, featured one from the Los Angeles Daily News replicating the New Yorker cartoon. Patrick O'Conner's version has Bush in the Oval Office toting Michelle's Ak-47 and fist bumping Cheney dressed in Taliban garb (complete with sandals) while the Constitution burns in the fireplace underneath a painting of Richard Nixon flashing V for Vendetta.
My question naturally about the Daily News cartoon is: Is it satire?
Ronald
***
Racism as "satire"
by Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com/
7.14.08
You've probably all seen or heard about the latest New Yorker cover (at left) which the magazine defends as "satire." No, anti-black racism (Michelle Obama as an armed black militant) and anti-Arab racism (Barack Obama depicted as a Muslim burning the American flag and honoring Osama bin Laden) is not "satire," and it's not just "tasteless and offensive" as the Obama camp labels it. McCain won't even go that far, apparently doesn't think it's offensive himself, he just would "understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive".
The whole cartoon is kind of like the scurrilous "some people say" mode of reporting which has overrun the national media. They never make accusations themselves, you understand. "Some people say, Senator, that you beat your wife. How do you respond?"
Some people say :-) (no, really, I heard someone on TV say it) that the cartoon is just "politically incorrect," and people who don't like it are just insensitive. But criticism of "political correctness" almost always disguises the real message behind it. If someone is fat, making a joke about them being fat could be described as "politically incorrect" (not to mention tasteless, offensive, insensitive, and downright bad manners). But if someone isn't fat, making a joke about them being fat not only isn't funny, but it reveals the joke-teller's prejudice against fat people.
I can't speak for the actual prejudices of the artist or the editors of this magazine. But for reinforcing existing prejudices, they've managed to do a heck of a job. The same "defender" of the cartoon I heard on TV made the argument that people who read the New Yorker won't believe the cartoon represents anything real, and anyone who does wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. Maybe, maybe not, but wherever they stand, their subconscious prejudices have been enhanced. Maybe they won't ever make a public statement about Muslims, but deep down inside they might well be a little more inclined to think of all Muslims as bin Laden-loving, America-hating terrorists, and support legislation or vote for candidates who reinforce those ideas. Not to mention the effect the cover and its attendant publicity will have on the millions of non-New Yorker readers who see it and have their prejudices reinforced.
How about a cover making fun of Obama for talking out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq, or a host of other issues? How about a cover showing Obama saying "let's withdraw troops from Iraq" and then saying "let's send more troops to Afghanistan" labeled "man of peace?"? But this cover? To me, it's blatant racism, and I'll have none of it.
Update: I should have commented on the New Yorker's defense: the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Really? How does it show them for "obvious distortions"? Maybe Michelle Obama really was an armed Black Panther when she was young. How would this cover show such an idea as an "obvious distortion"? Maybe Barack Obama really is a closet Muslim. Plenty of people believe it (of course, plenty of people still believe that there were WMD in Iraq and even that they were found after the invasion). How would this cover demonstrate that that idea was an "obvious distortion"? It does nothing of the sort.
Second update: CNN (I think) did a feature where they interviewed people in front of a newsstand, asking if this cover made them feel positive or negative about Obama. It was of course an edited piece, but everyone they showed thought it was negative. And the figures they gave on, e.g., how many people believe Obama is a Muslim, emphasized all the more that encouraging that belief with this cover is a gross disservice to the truth. There are lots of reasons not to vote for Obama (from my point of view). The "fact" that he's a Muslim, which he isn't, certainly isn't one of them, and it shouldn't be for anyone on the right (i.e., in the wrong) either. The New Yorker's reinforcing of that belief is truly despicable.
--posted @ 7/14/2008
Once again on satire
I've been thinking some more about the New Yorker cover and the question of satire. Long-time readers may recall that we've had disagreements here over Stephen Colbert, whose "satire" I have claimed is often not (although I feel that less so recently than I did a year or two ago).
Expanding on things I've written before, here's my working definition, which applies to Colbert and the New Yorker: if the only thing that distinguishes alleged "satire" from an original is the source, it isn't satire, it's "imitation." It may or may not be funny, but it isn't satire.
If you could take a transcript of a Colbert interview, hand it to Bill O'Reilly, and have him read it without batting an eye, then it wasn't satire - it was imitation.
Likewise, imagine if the Obama cover had appeared not in the New Yorker but in "Ku Klux Klan Monthly." Would it be satire then? Hardly. People would immediately brand it as scurrilous racist trash. How about a more "respectable" (and actually existing) magazine like National Review? Same deal. I doubt people would just be talking about how it was "tasteless." Nor would they be claiming with a straight face it was "satire."
Satire has to be distinguishable in some way, if only with a wink (but preferably with a lot more), from the original or the imagined original or it isn't satire. Take the New Yorker cover. Most people will be familiar with the famous "a New Yorker's view of the world" which shows an utterly distorted view of the country from the point of view of a New York-centric person. It's obviously exaggerated, and funny (well, it was the first time). The Obama cover could have been done as "a right wingers view of Obama" as both a parody of the "New Yorker's view of the world" and a satire on ludicrous right-wing views of Obama, with a cover making it clear that the object of the satire wasn't Obama, but the ridiculous rumor-mongers. It didn't do that, though.
Real satire is both over the top and, and the same time...not. Stephen Colbert's talk at the White House Correspondent's dinner in 2006 was one of the best examples ever, a nuclear bomb of satire, so powerful that, to mix metaphors a bit, it went over like a lead balloon with the crowd and the corporate media because it hit too close to home. The New Yorker cover, as is, could never be that, because something that corresponds too closely to something actually believed by far too many people couldn't possibly be over the top.
--posted @ 7/15/2008
Before I read Left I's two blogs which are worth quoting entire, I was confused. As a long time New Yorker subscriber I guess I didn't want to believe what my eyes were telling me (despite Jeffrey Goldberg and so much else). I was also reminded of the incident of the Dutch cartoons where right wing forces tried (and succeeded) in raising tensions between the communities.
Apropos, the New York Times in its regular Sunday (7.20.08) political cartoons section, featured one from the Los Angeles Daily News replicating the New Yorker cartoon. Patrick O'Conner's version has Bush in the Oval Office toting Michelle's Ak-47 and fist bumping Cheney dressed in Taliban garb (complete with sandals) while the Constitution burns in the fireplace underneath a painting of Richard Nixon flashing V for Vendetta.
My question naturally about the Daily News cartoon is: Is it satire?
Ronald
***
Racism as "satire"
by Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com/
7.14.08
You've probably all seen or heard about the latest New Yorker cover (at left) which the magazine defends as "satire." No, anti-black racism (Michelle Obama as an armed black militant) and anti-Arab racism (Barack Obama depicted as a Muslim burning the American flag and honoring Osama bin Laden) is not "satire," and it's not just "tasteless and offensive" as the Obama camp labels it. McCain won't even go that far, apparently doesn't think it's offensive himself, he just would "understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive".
The whole cartoon is kind of like the scurrilous "some people say" mode of reporting which has overrun the national media. They never make accusations themselves, you understand. "Some people say, Senator, that you beat your wife. How do you respond?"
Some people say :-) (no, really, I heard someone on TV say it) that the cartoon is just "politically incorrect," and people who don't like it are just insensitive. But criticism of "political correctness" almost always disguises the real message behind it. If someone is fat, making a joke about them being fat could be described as "politically incorrect" (not to mention tasteless, offensive, insensitive, and downright bad manners). But if someone isn't fat, making a joke about them being fat not only isn't funny, but it reveals the joke-teller's prejudice against fat people.
I can't speak for the actual prejudices of the artist or the editors of this magazine. But for reinforcing existing prejudices, they've managed to do a heck of a job. The same "defender" of the cartoon I heard on TV made the argument that people who read the New Yorker won't believe the cartoon represents anything real, and anyone who does wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. Maybe, maybe not, but wherever they stand, their subconscious prejudices have been enhanced. Maybe they won't ever make a public statement about Muslims, but deep down inside they might well be a little more inclined to think of all Muslims as bin Laden-loving, America-hating terrorists, and support legislation or vote for candidates who reinforce those ideas. Not to mention the effect the cover and its attendant publicity will have on the millions of non-New Yorker readers who see it and have their prejudices reinforced.
How about a cover making fun of Obama for talking out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq, or a host of other issues? How about a cover showing Obama saying "let's withdraw troops from Iraq" and then saying "let's send more troops to Afghanistan" labeled "man of peace?"? But this cover? To me, it's blatant racism, and I'll have none of it.
Update: I should have commented on the New Yorker's defense: the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Really? How does it show them for "obvious distortions"? Maybe Michelle Obama really was an armed Black Panther when she was young. How would this cover show such an idea as an "obvious distortion"? Maybe Barack Obama really is a closet Muslim. Plenty of people believe it (of course, plenty of people still believe that there were WMD in Iraq and even that they were found after the invasion). How would this cover demonstrate that that idea was an "obvious distortion"? It does nothing of the sort.
Second update: CNN (I think) did a feature where they interviewed people in front of a newsstand, asking if this cover made them feel positive or negative about Obama. It was of course an edited piece, but everyone they showed thought it was negative. And the figures they gave on, e.g., how many people believe Obama is a Muslim, emphasized all the more that encouraging that belief with this cover is a gross disservice to the truth. There are lots of reasons not to vote for Obama (from my point of view). The "fact" that he's a Muslim, which he isn't, certainly isn't one of them, and it shouldn't be for anyone on the right (i.e., in the wrong) either. The New Yorker's reinforcing of that belief is truly despicable.
--posted @ 7/14/2008
Once again on satire
I've been thinking some more about the New Yorker cover and the question of satire. Long-time readers may recall that we've had disagreements here over Stephen Colbert, whose "satire" I have claimed is often not (although I feel that less so recently than I did a year or two ago).
Expanding on things I've written before, here's my working definition, which applies to Colbert and the New Yorker: if the only thing that distinguishes alleged "satire" from an original is the source, it isn't satire, it's "imitation." It may or may not be funny, but it isn't satire.
If you could take a transcript of a Colbert interview, hand it to Bill O'Reilly, and have him read it without batting an eye, then it wasn't satire - it was imitation.
Likewise, imagine if the Obama cover had appeared not in the New Yorker but in "Ku Klux Klan Monthly." Would it be satire then? Hardly. People would immediately brand it as scurrilous racist trash. How about a more "respectable" (and actually existing) magazine like National Review? Same deal. I doubt people would just be talking about how it was "tasteless." Nor would they be claiming with a straight face it was "satire."
Satire has to be distinguishable in some way, if only with a wink (but preferably with a lot more), from the original or the imagined original or it isn't satire. Take the New Yorker cover. Most people will be familiar with the famous "a New Yorker's view of the world" which shows an utterly distorted view of the country from the point of view of a New York-centric person. It's obviously exaggerated, and funny (well, it was the first time). The Obama cover could have been done as "a right wingers view of Obama" as both a parody of the "New Yorker's view of the world" and a satire on ludicrous right-wing views of Obama, with a cover making it clear that the object of the satire wasn't Obama, but the ridiculous rumor-mongers. It didn't do that, though.
Real satire is both over the top and, and the same time...not. Stephen Colbert's talk at the White House Correspondent's dinner in 2006 was one of the best examples ever, a nuclear bomb of satire, so powerful that, to mix metaphors a bit, it went over like a lead balloon with the crowd and the corporate media because it hit too close to home. The New Yorker cover, as is, could never be that, because something that corresponds too closely to something actually believed by far too many people couldn't possibly be over the top.
--posted @ 7/15/2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
APM's Marketplace: Enron Loophole Drives High Oil Prices
If former regulator Michael Greenberger is correct in this mid-June Marketplace interview, then the Cheney Bush administration could if it wished, reduce oil prices to reflect real world supply and demand simply by closing the Enron loophole that allows/encourages speculators to manipulate oil prices for their gain. Greenberger says we could have "normal" oil prices in a month if the administration was on board.
Once again, if Greenberger is correct, that would add fuel to my theory of Cheney-Bush as extremist nihilists, whose agenda is permanent war, chaos, tension and the destruction of civilization. In this scenario, impossibly high oil prices, destroying the US and the world economy would make sense.
Below is the complete text of Marketplace interview and a selected comment with more information posted on the Marketplace website.
Ronald
***
American Public Media (APM)
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/16/cftc/
Monday, June 16, 2008
Deflating the oil bubble
Congress is calling regulators to task for runaway oil prices. Host Kai Ryssdal talks with former commodity regulator Michael Greenberger about ways to keep tabs on speculation.
More on The Economy
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: Alright, so let's see.... Yesterday, we had Saudi Arabia saying it's going to boost production by 2 percent. Next week, the Saudis are hosting a meeting aimed at bringing some sanity to crude prices. And yet at one point today, oil was trading within 11 cents of $140 a barrel.
That's probably why tomorrow morning will find the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Capitol Hill.
The CFTC's in charge of regulating oil markets in this country and Congress has been after the agency to do something -- to do anything -- about oil and gas prices, what lawmakers perceive to be speculation, in particular.
Michael Greenberger used to run the Trading division of the CFTC.
Mr. Greenberger, good to have you here.
Michael Greenberger: Nice to be here.
Ryssdal: Why is it so hard to figure out what's going on in commodities markets -- oil specifically?
Greenberger: Well, the reason it's hard to figure out is about 30 percent of our crude oil energy futures are traded in what is called a dark market -- that is a market that was deregulated in December of 2000 at the behest of Enron. Prior to that legislation being passed, all energy futures traded in the United States or affecting the United States in a significant fashion were regulated by United States regulators under a very careful regime that had been perfected over about 78 years and many observers believe that because those markets are not being policed, malpractices are being committed and traders are able to boost the price virtually at their will.
Ryssdal: You're not really telling me that seven years on, we're still paying the price for Enron, are you?
Greenberger: Well, this has been called the "Enron Loophole" and there are many legislators working very hard to close that loophole. There is tremendous concern about this on Capitol Hill and on a bipartisan basis, people are drafting legislation to try and get a handle on this and not eliminate speculation, but bring the speculation under the kind of time-tested controls that were used until Enron had its way and amended the law to escape traditional tested regulation on speculative activities.
Ryssdal: So what's Congress going to do? Congress is going to get together, they're going to pass a law and it's going to say, "CFTC, fix this?"
Greenberger: Well, there are several proposals suggesting or proposing that light shine on these dark markets and some of the legislation goes further than others, but the bottom line is the speculators will, in the end, be policed. We will know who they are, what they're doing, what their controls are, what effect they're having on the market. Maybe we'll find out that there's nothing there.
Ryssdal: So just to be clear, you do think that we're in a bubble, then?
Greenberger: I believe it and I'm certainly not alone in my belief. If you talk to anybody who trades in these markets on a regular basis, they will tell you that the markets are completely dysfunctional and out of control because of speculative activity.
Ryssdal: How long is it going to take then if we are, as you say, in a bubble, for it to work its way through and us to get back to something more realistic for the price of a barrel of oil, whether its 50 bucks or 80 bucks?
Greenberger: From my own experience as a commodity regulator, I believe that if the Bush Administration were serious about its regulation, we could begin seeing prices drop within a month. If we don't get the kind of regulation that has been done for decades and the market proceeds along the pace its proceeding, we will have to go through a very, very serious recession. The question is do you want to deflate the bubble by that kind of suffering or do you want to deflate the bubble by applying tight U.S. regulatory controls?
Ryssdal: Michael Greenberger used to run the Division of Trading and Markets for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. He teaches law at the University of Maryland now. Mr. Greenberger, thanks a lot for your time.
Greenberger: You're welcome.
***
Comment by Richard Pendergrass
From Danbury, CT, 06/20/2008
The "Enron Loophole" allows oil traders to set their own prices in advance of delivery of product. Mr. Greenberger made the point in Senate testimony that the largest owner of of heating oil in Mew England is Morgan Stanley. That should be one large clue that speculation is a very large factor. Yes, demand is increasing; yes, supply is diminishing. But not at the rates that would justify these price gains without rampant speculation. Countdown with Keith Olberman had a piece on 06/18/08 on this very subject. (It is still available on msnbc.com) I suspect it was spurred by the Observer piece mentioned in these comments. Everyone should be writing or calling their Senators and Congressmen to complain about this "loophole".
Once again, if Greenberger is correct, that would add fuel to my theory of Cheney-Bush as extremist nihilists, whose agenda is permanent war, chaos, tension and the destruction of civilization. In this scenario, impossibly high oil prices, destroying the US and the world economy would make sense.
Below is the complete text of Marketplace interview and a selected comment with more information posted on the Marketplace website.
Ronald
***
American Public Media (APM)
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/16/cftc/
Monday, June 16, 2008
Deflating the oil bubble
Congress is calling regulators to task for runaway oil prices. Host Kai Ryssdal talks with former commodity regulator Michael Greenberger about ways to keep tabs on speculation.
More on The Economy
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: Alright, so let's see.... Yesterday, we had Saudi Arabia saying it's going to boost production by 2 percent. Next week, the Saudis are hosting a meeting aimed at bringing some sanity to crude prices. And yet at one point today, oil was trading within 11 cents of $140 a barrel.
That's probably why tomorrow morning will find the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Capitol Hill.
The CFTC's in charge of regulating oil markets in this country and Congress has been after the agency to do something -- to do anything -- about oil and gas prices, what lawmakers perceive to be speculation, in particular.
Michael Greenberger used to run the Trading division of the CFTC.
Mr. Greenberger, good to have you here.
Michael Greenberger: Nice to be here.
Ryssdal: Why is it so hard to figure out what's going on in commodities markets -- oil specifically?
Greenberger: Well, the reason it's hard to figure out is about 30 percent of our crude oil energy futures are traded in what is called a dark market -- that is a market that was deregulated in December of 2000 at the behest of Enron. Prior to that legislation being passed, all energy futures traded in the United States or affecting the United States in a significant fashion were regulated by United States regulators under a very careful regime that had been perfected over about 78 years and many observers believe that because those markets are not being policed, malpractices are being committed and traders are able to boost the price virtually at their will.
Ryssdal: You're not really telling me that seven years on, we're still paying the price for Enron, are you?
Greenberger: Well, this has been called the "Enron Loophole" and there are many legislators working very hard to close that loophole. There is tremendous concern about this on Capitol Hill and on a bipartisan basis, people are drafting legislation to try and get a handle on this and not eliminate speculation, but bring the speculation under the kind of time-tested controls that were used until Enron had its way and amended the law to escape traditional tested regulation on speculative activities.
Ryssdal: So what's Congress going to do? Congress is going to get together, they're going to pass a law and it's going to say, "CFTC, fix this?"
Greenberger: Well, there are several proposals suggesting or proposing that light shine on these dark markets and some of the legislation goes further than others, but the bottom line is the speculators will, in the end, be policed. We will know who they are, what they're doing, what their controls are, what effect they're having on the market. Maybe we'll find out that there's nothing there.
Ryssdal: So just to be clear, you do think that we're in a bubble, then?
Greenberger: I believe it and I'm certainly not alone in my belief. If you talk to anybody who trades in these markets on a regular basis, they will tell you that the markets are completely dysfunctional and out of control because of speculative activity.
Ryssdal: How long is it going to take then if we are, as you say, in a bubble, for it to work its way through and us to get back to something more realistic for the price of a barrel of oil, whether its 50 bucks or 80 bucks?
Greenberger: From my own experience as a commodity regulator, I believe that if the Bush Administration were serious about its regulation, we could begin seeing prices drop within a month. If we don't get the kind of regulation that has been done for decades and the market proceeds along the pace its proceeding, we will have to go through a very, very serious recession. The question is do you want to deflate the bubble by that kind of suffering or do you want to deflate the bubble by applying tight U.S. regulatory controls?
Ryssdal: Michael Greenberger used to run the Division of Trading and Markets for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. He teaches law at the University of Maryland now. Mr. Greenberger, thanks a lot for your time.
Greenberger: You're welcome.
***
Comment by Richard Pendergrass
From Danbury, CT, 06/20/2008
The "Enron Loophole" allows oil traders to set their own prices in advance of delivery of product. Mr. Greenberger made the point in Senate testimony that the largest owner of of heating oil in Mew England is Morgan Stanley. That should be one large clue that speculation is a very large factor. Yes, demand is increasing; yes, supply is diminishing. But not at the rates that would justify these price gains without rampant speculation. Countdown with Keith Olberman had a piece on 06/18/08 on this very subject. (It is still available on msnbc.com) I suspect it was spurred by the Observer piece mentioned in these comments. Everyone should be writing or calling their Senators and Congressmen to complain about this "loophole".
Sunday, July 13, 2008
911 Feature Film: The Reflecting Pool: Trailer, Synopsis; NYC Schedule July 2008
The NYT trashed it, so maybe it's struck a nerve. --RB
An open letter by the writer/director to Nathan Lee, the NY Times movie critic of “The Reflecting Pool.” (includes a link to the Times review and to several comments about
http://911blogger.com/node/16607
Here's the trailer. Looks interesting.
http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpooltrailer.htm
SYNOPSIS
(by ReflectingPool.com)
An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist and a father of a 9/11 victim implicates the US government in the attacks.
ALEX PROKOP (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 video tape revealing new information about the attack. The footage was sent by PAUL COOPER (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher, whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, DC, where they uncover suppressed information implicating the US Government in the attacks. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the "official story" begins to crumble. Prokop hears accounts of underground explosions in the Twin Towers moments before their collapse and discovers that the firm providing WTC security was run by the President's brother.
We follow Alex and Cooper as they investigate the inexplicable collapse of the 47-story WTC Building Seven, disprove the implausible airliner "attack" on the Pentagon, and uncover the illegal destruction of physical evidence from Ground Zero.
The pressure builds as the FBI intimidates Alex's editor, McGUIRE, (Lisa Black) to reveal key sources – while the magazine's corporate investors threaten to kill the entire story. Plagued by the ghosts of his Communist childhood and trying to uphold the independence of American journalism, Alex's search for the truth leads to a dangerous and shocking realization!
THE REFLECTING POOL is an intense, sobering investigation into the most controversial tragedy of our time. Drawn from established sources and based on verifiable facts, THE REFLECTING POOL is a thought-provoking study of a search for truth and the profound consequences of not looking for it any further than the nightly news.
***
JULY 11-16 & 18 (7pm & 9pm)
NEW YORK CITY
Pioneer Theater
155 East 3rd St
New York, NY
(212) 591-0434
No shows on Thursday July 17. Filmmakers will attend for Q & A! For more information:
www.twoboots.com/pioneer
An open letter by the writer/director to Nathan Lee, the NY Times movie critic of “The Reflecting Pool.” (includes a link to the Times review and to several comments about
http://911blogger.com/node/16607
Here's the trailer. Looks interesting.
http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpooltrailer.htm
SYNOPSIS
(by ReflectingPool.com)
An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist and a father of a 9/11 victim implicates the US government in the attacks.
ALEX PROKOP (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 video tape revealing new information about the attack. The footage was sent by PAUL COOPER (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher, whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, DC, where they uncover suppressed information implicating the US Government in the attacks. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the "official story" begins to crumble. Prokop hears accounts of underground explosions in the Twin Towers moments before their collapse and discovers that the firm providing WTC security was run by the President's brother.
We follow Alex and Cooper as they investigate the inexplicable collapse of the 47-story WTC Building Seven, disprove the implausible airliner "attack" on the Pentagon, and uncover the illegal destruction of physical evidence from Ground Zero.
The pressure builds as the FBI intimidates Alex's editor, McGUIRE, (Lisa Black) to reveal key sources – while the magazine's corporate investors threaten to kill the entire story. Plagued by the ghosts of his Communist childhood and trying to uphold the independence of American journalism, Alex's search for the truth leads to a dangerous and shocking realization!
THE REFLECTING POOL is an intense, sobering investigation into the most controversial tragedy of our time. Drawn from established sources and based on verifiable facts, THE REFLECTING POOL is a thought-provoking study of a search for truth and the profound consequences of not looking for it any further than the nightly news.
***
JULY 11-16 & 18 (7pm & 9pm)
NEW YORK CITY
Pioneer Theater
155 East 3rd St
New York, NY
(212) 591-0434
No shows on Thursday July 17. Filmmakers will attend for Q & A! For more information:
www.twoboots.com/pioneer
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Left I and Paul Watson on Terror and Massacre in Afghanistan
Can't help quoting Left I on the News's very good, always on target blog. (Although I'm not quite as disillusioned with Obama as he is, but I'm getting there. This weekend I cut out the NYT reprint of a cartoon showing Obama running for Bush's first term as opposed to McCain for B's 3rd term.)
Left I's blog is on the latest US massacre in Afghanistan which was mentioned on Democracy Now's headlines.
The quibble I have with Left I is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that the US is purposefully behind virtually all the major violence, either themselves or through their support of the Taliban through the Pakistani ISI.
Unlike Left I, Paul Joseph Watson, from Prison Planet, in the 2nd blog I'm highlighting today, cites the terrible bombing in Kabul this week and indicates that the signs point to the hand of the US via the ISI via the Taliban in another false flag attack. It was David Ray Griffin, the guru of the 911 Truth movement, in the still very important The New Pearl Harbor, who clued me into the US/ISI/Taliban connection.
Now why would the Cheney Bush administration want more chaos, anarchy, war in Afghanistan where their own soldiers are dying (and killing Afghanis)? Here's Paul Watson's theory.
Paul Watson wrote:
Could the Kabul bombing be a joint ISI-CIA false flag for the purposes of creating a pretext for the continued presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, control of the booming opium drugs trade and the construction of permanent military bases?
Ronald
***
Afghanistan: Another day, another 23 dead
by Left I on the News.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/
Left I wrote:
This one another wedding party (this report says 27 dead). There are rather conflicting reports of the incident, to put it mildly.
From the U.S. military:
"We have had no reports of any non-combatants killed or injured in this incident," said 1st Lt. Nathan Perry. "This may just be normal, typical militant propaganda."
The U.S. military issued a statement, saying "intelligence revealed a large group of militants operating in Deh Bala district. Coalition forces identified the militants in a mountainous region and used precision air strikes to kill them."
And from the local governor:
Haji Amishah Gul, governor of Deh Bala, told the Times just two of the dead were men. The rest, he said, were women and children.
"The bride is among the dead," he said.
Gosh, who to believe? Other than relying on decades of lies from the U.S. military to guide you as to their credibility, it's unlikely you'll be able to decide by reading the U.S. corporate press, since after tomorrow, your chances of reading about the story, beyond yet another story about Afghan President Karzai "ordering an investigation" into the incident, are slim to none. Partly that's because the chance that the Democrats will seek to turn it into a political issue are also slim to none, since their own criticism of U.S. policy in Afghanistan is that we should have been doing it sooner.
Paul Joseph Watson
Afghanistan Accuses “Foreign Intelligence Agency” Of Deadly Embassy Bombing
Prison Planet | July 7, 2008
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2241
Paul Watson wrote:
Afghanistan’s interior ministry has accused a “foreign intelligence agency” of being behind today’s deadly suicide bombing that ripped apart the country’s Indian embassy in Kabul, killing 41 people. Could the event represent another “false flag” run by American intelligence as a means of maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan and control of the country’s lucrative opium trade?
A further 141 were injured when the bomber rammed a car packed with explosives into two diplomatic vehicles entering the embassy and the blast also devastated nearby shops and buildings.
“The interior ministry believes this attack was carried out in coordination and consultation with an active intelligence service in the region,” the ministry said in a statement.
“Afghanistan has previously accused Pakistani agents of being behind a number of attacks on its soil,” according to a London Guardian report, referring to the notorious Pakistani ISI intelligence agency.
As Jane’s Information Group notes, “The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.”
“Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan’s northern tribal belt and neighbouring Afghanistan was also a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded not only in turning Soviet troops into addicts, but also in boosting heroin sales in Europe and the US through an elaborate web of well-documented deceptions, transport networks, couriers and payoffs. This, in turn, offset the cost of the decade-long anti-Soviet ‘unholy war’ in Afghanistan.”
Could the Kabul bombing be a joint ISI-CIA false flag for the purposes of creating a pretext for the continued presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, control of the booming opium drugs trade and the construction of permanent military bases?
As we reported last month, Middle East sources indicated that U.S. forces gave the green light for the Taliban to attack a government prison in Kandahar on June 13th, and stood idly by while Taliban fighters violently freed more than 1000 inmates.
According to some observers, the recent apparent resurgence of the Taliban has been encouraged by NATO and the U.S. as a bulwark against political pressure and calls for troops to leave the country.
Without an enemy to fight, there would be no justification for a continued U.S. and NATO presence in Afghanistan. There would be no more weapons sales contracts and no more rebuilding contracts for Halliburton. Opium cultivation would fall back into the hands of warlords and the Taliban, who banned production before the U.S. invasion in 2001, after which heroin flooded the streets of the U.S. and UK in record numbers as cultivation soared 50 per cent year on year. Afghanistan now exports upwards of 92 per cent of the world’s supply of opium, which is used to make heroin.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky writes, “U.S. military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade.”
“Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban’s drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.”
“Based on wholesale and retail prices in Western markets, the earnings generated by the Afghan drug trade are colossal. In July 2006, street prices in Britain for heroin were of the order of Pound Sterling 54, or $102 a gram,” Chossudovsky notes.
The necessity for continued violence in Afghanistan exists just like it does in Iraq, for the pretext of justifying an endless military occupation and the opportunity to build military bases that will be used as launch pads for future wars, as is now being discussed for Iraq.
As we have highlighted in the past, links between Taliban leadership and the U.S. military-industrial complex are documented.
As Seymour Hersh reported in January 2002, at the height of the war in Afghanistan, hundreds of Taliban fighters “accidentally” ended up on U.S. organized special safety corridor airlifts right before the fall of Kunduz.
The Taliban itself was a creation of the CIA having been set up and bankrolled by the U.S. in tandem with Pakistan’s ISI.
“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power,” reported the Times of India.
Left I's blog is on the latest US massacre in Afghanistan which was mentioned on Democracy Now's headlines.
The quibble I have with Left I is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that the US is purposefully behind virtually all the major violence, either themselves or through their support of the Taliban through the Pakistani ISI.
Unlike Left I, Paul Joseph Watson, from Prison Planet, in the 2nd blog I'm highlighting today, cites the terrible bombing in Kabul this week and indicates that the signs point to the hand of the US via the ISI via the Taliban in another false flag attack. It was David Ray Griffin, the guru of the 911 Truth movement, in the still very important The New Pearl Harbor, who clued me into the US/ISI/Taliban connection.
Now why would the Cheney Bush administration want more chaos, anarchy, war in Afghanistan where their own soldiers are dying (and killing Afghanis)? Here's Paul Watson's theory.
Paul Watson wrote:
Could the Kabul bombing be a joint ISI-CIA false flag for the purposes of creating a pretext for the continued presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, control of the booming opium drugs trade and the construction of permanent military bases?
Ronald
***
Afghanistan: Another day, another 23 dead
by Left I on the News.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/
Left I wrote:
This one another wedding party (this report says 27 dead). There are rather conflicting reports of the incident, to put it mildly.
From the U.S. military:
"We have had no reports of any non-combatants killed or injured in this incident," said 1st Lt. Nathan Perry. "This may just be normal, typical militant propaganda."
The U.S. military issued a statement, saying "intelligence revealed a large group of militants operating in Deh Bala district. Coalition forces identified the militants in a mountainous region and used precision air strikes to kill them."
And from the local governor:
Haji Amishah Gul, governor of Deh Bala, told the Times just two of the dead were men. The rest, he said, were women and children.
"The bride is among the dead," he said.
Gosh, who to believe? Other than relying on decades of lies from the U.S. military to guide you as to their credibility, it's unlikely you'll be able to decide by reading the U.S. corporate press, since after tomorrow, your chances of reading about the story, beyond yet another story about Afghan President Karzai "ordering an investigation" into the incident, are slim to none. Partly that's because the chance that the Democrats will seek to turn it into a political issue are also slim to none, since their own criticism of U.S. policy in Afghanistan is that we should have been doing it sooner.
Paul Joseph Watson
Afghanistan Accuses “Foreign Intelligence Agency” Of Deadly Embassy Bombing
Prison Planet | July 7, 2008
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2241
Paul Watson wrote:
Afghanistan’s interior ministry has accused a “foreign intelligence agency” of being behind today’s deadly suicide bombing that ripped apart the country’s Indian embassy in Kabul, killing 41 people. Could the event represent another “false flag” run by American intelligence as a means of maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan and control of the country’s lucrative opium trade?
A further 141 were injured when the bomber rammed a car packed with explosives into two diplomatic vehicles entering the embassy and the blast also devastated nearby shops and buildings.
“The interior ministry believes this attack was carried out in coordination and consultation with an active intelligence service in the region,” the ministry said in a statement.
“Afghanistan has previously accused Pakistani agents of being behind a number of attacks on its soil,” according to a London Guardian report, referring to the notorious Pakistani ISI intelligence agency.
As Jane’s Information Group notes, “The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.”
“Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan’s northern tribal belt and neighbouring Afghanistan was also a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded not only in turning Soviet troops into addicts, but also in boosting heroin sales in Europe and the US through an elaborate web of well-documented deceptions, transport networks, couriers and payoffs. This, in turn, offset the cost of the decade-long anti-Soviet ‘unholy war’ in Afghanistan.”
Could the Kabul bombing be a joint ISI-CIA false flag for the purposes of creating a pretext for the continued presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, control of the booming opium drugs trade and the construction of permanent military bases?
As we reported last month, Middle East sources indicated that U.S. forces gave the green light for the Taliban to attack a government prison in Kandahar on June 13th, and stood idly by while Taliban fighters violently freed more than 1000 inmates.
According to some observers, the recent apparent resurgence of the Taliban has been encouraged by NATO and the U.S. as a bulwark against political pressure and calls for troops to leave the country.
Without an enemy to fight, there would be no justification for a continued U.S. and NATO presence in Afghanistan. There would be no more weapons sales contracts and no more rebuilding contracts for Halliburton. Opium cultivation would fall back into the hands of warlords and the Taliban, who banned production before the U.S. invasion in 2001, after which heroin flooded the streets of the U.S. and UK in record numbers as cultivation soared 50 per cent year on year. Afghanistan now exports upwards of 92 per cent of the world’s supply of opium, which is used to make heroin.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky writes, “U.S. military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade.”
“Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban’s drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.”
“Based on wholesale and retail prices in Western markets, the earnings generated by the Afghan drug trade are colossal. In July 2006, street prices in Britain for heroin were of the order of Pound Sterling 54, or $102 a gram,” Chossudovsky notes.
The necessity for continued violence in Afghanistan exists just like it does in Iraq, for the pretext of justifying an endless military occupation and the opportunity to build military bases that will be used as launch pads for future wars, as is now being discussed for Iraq.
As we have highlighted in the past, links between Taliban leadership and the U.S. military-industrial complex are documented.
As Seymour Hersh reported in January 2002, at the height of the war in Afghanistan, hundreds of Taliban fighters “accidentally” ended up on U.S. organized special safety corridor airlifts right before the fall of Kunduz.
The Taliban itself was a creation of the CIA having been set up and bankrolled by the U.S. in tandem with Pakistan’s ISI.
“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power,” reported the Times of India.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thanks to Glenn Greenwald, once again on warrantless wiretapping, on telecom immunity and Constitutional protections against unreasonable (unreviewed by an independent judge) search and seizure. And specifically in his June 26th blog for disillusioning many of us about our hero, Keith Olbermann, who has, up till now. done such terrific work nailing Bush and Cheney for their ruthless and reckless lawlessness.
And now if Olbermann's defense of Obama's position on the FISA bill is an accurate indication, our hero has fallen, putting him into the category of a nondescript hack, like too many others.
But once again, we find that Greenwald's blind spot is the Lobby, and the dual loyalty that has risen to such a level that we'd rather pay $4,5, 6 and perhaps much more for a gallon of gas rather than adopt policies that AIPAC considers bad for Israel.
Does Greenwald ask why Obama (and Olbermann) choose to support a policy that we believe they know is bad? Isn't it clear that the reason the Democrats choose to support the FISA law is because if they don't support the war on terror, which means the war against the Muslim world, they will lose the support of AIPAC? Even if bowing to AIPAC means destroying the economy and ripping the Constitution to shreds?
One estimate that I've heard is that half the current price of oil is due to the war in Iraq and the threats to expand the war to Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It used to be that bowing to AIPAC's wishes simply meant that Palestinians and other Arabs near Israel would suffer. Now the policies that they advocate amount to national and international suicide which apparently is less evil than opposing AIPAC. But I guess there's a certain amount of justice involved. We're only doing to ourselves what we've done to the Palestinians for 60 years and more.
Ronald
***
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
by Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 26, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immunity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:
This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.
Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that immunity and revising FISA are necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:
OLBERMANN: Asked by "Rolling Stone" publisher, Jann Wenner, about how Democrats have cowered in the wake of past Republican attacks, Senator Obama responding, quote, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." That's evident today in at least three issues . . .
Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: "Yeah, I don't do cowering." This is not just the man, but the campaign?
ALTER: Yes. This is part of the message that is consistent across the last couple weeks and it comes down to one word -- strength. The United States is not going to elect a president that perceives to be as weak. You look weak if you're flip-flopping. You look weak if you're not taking actions that seem to be securing the United States against terrorists. And you look weak if you don't fight back against your political adversaries.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
And now if Olbermann's defense of Obama's position on the FISA bill is an accurate indication, our hero has fallen, putting him into the category of a nondescript hack, like too many others.
But once again, we find that Greenwald's blind spot is the Lobby, and the dual loyalty that has risen to such a level that we'd rather pay $4,5, 6 and perhaps much more for a gallon of gas rather than adopt policies that AIPAC considers bad for Israel.
Does Greenwald ask why Obama (and Olbermann) choose to support a policy that we believe they know is bad? Isn't it clear that the reason the Democrats choose to support the FISA law is because if they don't support the war on terror, which means the war against the Muslim world, they will lose the support of AIPAC? Even if bowing to AIPAC means destroying the economy and ripping the Constitution to shreds?
One estimate that I've heard is that half the current price of oil is due to the war in Iraq and the threats to expand the war to Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It used to be that bowing to AIPAC's wishes simply meant that Palestinians and other Arabs near Israel would suffer. Now the policies that they advocate amount to national and international suicide which apparently is less evil than opposing AIPAC. But I guess there's a certain amount of justice involved. We're only doing to ourselves what we've done to the Palestinians for 60 years and more.
Ronald
***
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
by Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 26, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immunity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:
This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.
Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that immunity and revising FISA are necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:
OLBERMANN: Asked by "Rolling Stone" publisher, Jann Wenner, about how Democrats have cowered in the wake of past Republican attacks, Senator Obama responding, quote, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." That's evident today in at least three issues . . .
Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: "Yeah, I don't do cowering." This is not just the man, but the campaign?
ALTER: Yes. This is part of the message that is consistent across the last couple weeks and it comes down to one word -- strength. The United States is not going to elect a president that perceives to be as weak. You look weak if you're flip-flopping. You look weak if you're not taking actions that seem to be securing the United States against terrorists. And you look weak if you don't fight back against your political adversaries.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Glenn Greenwald: NYT Plays Up Bogus Fears on FISA and Telecom Amnesty
One interesting tidbit is that Glenn Greenwald isn't even publicly aware that the war on terror is totally bogus since the US, Israel and other states like the UK plan and execute virtually all the significant terror, especially the high profile events like 9/11. Has anyone else besides Greenwald exposed the NYT for their complicity? --Ronald
Glenn Greewald
NYT circulates fear-mongering claims on FISA debate
Tuesday June 10, 2008
The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau has a long, prominent article today on the pending debate over FISA and telecom amnesty -- headlined: "Return to Old Spy Rules Is Seen as Deadline Nears" -- that features (and endorses) virtually every blatant falsehood that has distorted these spying issues from the beginning, and which is built on every shoddy journalistic practice that has made clear debate over these issues almost impossible. The article strongly suggests that a so-called "compromise" is imminent, a "compromise" which will deliver to the President virtually everything he seeks in the way of new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty.
One paragraph after the next in Lichtblau's article features shrill warnings, mostly from unnamed "officials," about all the scary things that will happen if Congressional Democrats do not quickly pass a new FISA bill that is similar to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill and that is agreeable to the President. If a "compromise" isn't reached, reports the article, then we'll all have to live under the so-called "old" FISA law -- meaning the law used by the U.S. to defend itself from 1978 until August, 2007 and then again from February, 2008 until the present. Moreover, the one-year surveillance orders obtained last August under the now-expired Protect America Act are set to expire in August, 2008. We learn from Lichtblau's article that this would be so very dangerous because:
* expiration of the one-year PAA orders in August would create "a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence";
* if no deal is reached, then "'We'll start losing intelligence capabilities,' Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri said";
* "government and Congressional officials said in interviews that they saw [reversion to FISA] as a dangerous step backward" because "government lawyers, analysts and linguists would once again have to prepare individual warrants, potentially thousands of them, for surveillance of terrorism targets overseas."
* Scarier still: "Telecommunications companies would also have to spend considerable time shutting down existing wiretaps, and then start them up again if ordered under new warrants, officials said."
* Without any explanation as to why, Lichtblau grants anonymity to an administration official to oh-so-bravely-and-valuably spout the administration line: "A senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration was concerned that reverting to the older standards and requiring individual warrants for each wiretap would create a severe gap in overseas intelligence by raising the bar for foreign surveillance collection."
* "Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has described the idea of reverting to the older standards of foreign surveillance as 'unthinkable.'"
* As always, pitifully frightened Congressional Democrats feed these claims: "'Until August, were O.K.,' said one senior Democratic Congressional aide involved in the negotiations. "After August, we're not O.K."
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Glenn Greewald
NYT circulates fear-mongering claims on FISA debate
Tuesday June 10, 2008
The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau has a long, prominent article today on the pending debate over FISA and telecom amnesty -- headlined: "Return to Old Spy Rules Is Seen as Deadline Nears" -- that features (and endorses) virtually every blatant falsehood that has distorted these spying issues from the beginning, and which is built on every shoddy journalistic practice that has made clear debate over these issues almost impossible. The article strongly suggests that a so-called "compromise" is imminent, a "compromise" which will deliver to the President virtually everything he seeks in the way of new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty.
One paragraph after the next in Lichtblau's article features shrill warnings, mostly from unnamed "officials," about all the scary things that will happen if Congressional Democrats do not quickly pass a new FISA bill that is similar to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill and that is agreeable to the President. If a "compromise" isn't reached, reports the article, then we'll all have to live under the so-called "old" FISA law -- meaning the law used by the U.S. to defend itself from 1978 until August, 2007 and then again from February, 2008 until the present. Moreover, the one-year surveillance orders obtained last August under the now-expired Protect America Act are set to expire in August, 2008. We learn from Lichtblau's article that this would be so very dangerous because:
* expiration of the one-year PAA orders in August would create "a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence";
* if no deal is reached, then "'We'll start losing intelligence capabilities,' Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri said";
* "government and Congressional officials said in interviews that they saw [reversion to FISA] as a dangerous step backward" because "government lawyers, analysts and linguists would once again have to prepare individual warrants, potentially thousands of them, for surveillance of terrorism targets overseas."
* Scarier still: "Telecommunications companies would also have to spend considerable time shutting down existing wiretaps, and then start them up again if ordered under new warrants, officials said."
* Without any explanation as to why, Lichtblau grants anonymity to an administration official to oh-so-bravely-and-valuably spout the administration line: "A senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration was concerned that reverting to the older standards and requiring individual warrants for each wiretap would create a severe gap in overseas intelligence by raising the bar for foreign surveillance collection."
* "Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has described the idea of reverting to the older standards of foreign surveillance as 'unthinkable.'"
* As always, pitifully frightened Congressional Democrats feed these claims: "'Until August, were O.K.,' said one senior Democratic Congressional aide involved in the negotiations. "After August, we're not O.K."
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Dual Loyalty on the Upper West Side + Justin Raimondo on Obama on bended knee to the Lobby
NYC Upper West Side Jews having trouble with Obama?
Anecdotally from my Upper West Side health club. One Jewish supporter of Obama told me that several of his acquaintances were having trouble with Obama. He guessed it was racism. I suggested it might be Israel.
Another -- this one I guessed was a Zionist -- told me about an upcoming forum about Obama at a local synagogue next week. He said there was concern that an Obama presidency might be hurting them in their pocketbooks. When I challenged him, he allowed how there might be other issues of concern.
Here's Justin Raimondo on Obama's response to a Zionist interrogation. What pleasantly surprised me was how much freedom of action he managed to cut out for himself. But it's because of his intelligence and independence that they'll vote against their pocketbooks and for McCain.
It's called dual loyalty, and yes, Bill, it's alive and well on the Upper West Side, not to mention other parts of the city.
Ronald
Justin Raimondo:
Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12834
Anecdotally from my Upper West Side health club. One Jewish supporter of Obama told me that several of his acquaintances were having trouble with Obama. He guessed it was racism. I suggested it might be Israel.
Another -- this one I guessed was a Zionist -- told me about an upcoming forum about Obama at a local synagogue next week. He said there was concern that an Obama presidency might be hurting them in their pocketbooks. When I challenged him, he allowed how there might be other issues of concern.
Here's Justin Raimondo on Obama's response to a Zionist interrogation. What pleasantly surprised me was how much freedom of action he managed to cut out for himself. But it's because of his intelligence and independence that they'll vote against their pocketbooks and for McCain.
It's called dual loyalty, and yes, Bill, it's alive and well on the Upper West Side, not to mention other parts of the city.
Ronald
Justin Raimondo:
Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12834
Washington Post: Quel Surprise: Bush is also bad for Israel
Laura Rozen's useful warandpiece.com blog found this WP article pointing to the obvious: that George W. Bush's policies after all aren't very good for Israel either. The article was written with the common misconception in mind that Bush's policies were intended to be good for Israel. The underlying idea is that his bad policies were mistakes, somehow, miscalculations.
It's interesting how reality has to be twisted like a pretzel, especially when reality is staring us in the face --well ok, my face.
His policies were intended to be as bad for Israel as they are for everywhere else, especially the US, and especially the Middle East (isn't that where Israel is situated?). Bush and Cheney are diehard (pun intended) proponents of Year Zero --destroy everything and then (theoretically) start over. Only they believe in crushing everything and everybody to the point where it's impossible to survive, much less start over.
Interesting that it's taken two terms of Bush for some of these smart guys quoted in the article to wake up to the effects at least of what Bush is doing.
Ronald
WP:
May 13, 2008
Appearing at an Israeli Embassy reception last Thursday to mark the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Vice President Cheney voiced a sentiment that is common among many American Jews, evangelicals and others. "Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the 43rd president of the United States," he said.
Yet as President Bush prepares to return to Jerusalem this week to celebrate the milestone, that assessment is the subject of fierce debate both here and Israel. Few doubt the sincerity of Bush's passion, which has translated into unprecedented backing for Israeli self-defense and the most clearly stated presidential commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked.
But from left to right, Bush also faces criticism for pursuing Middle East policies that, many diplomats and analysts believe, have left Israel more threatened than when he assumed office in January 2001.
"The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served as Bush's first-term ambassador to Israel.
As one former US government officer commented on news that Lebanese Druze leader Jumblatt had basically surrendered to Hizbollah, "Same guys that gave you Gaza gave you this. Do you think any of them are smart enough to see what they've done?" Adds another former US official who served in Lebanon: "This administration is bankrupt in every way -- absolutely hopeless."
Posted by Laura at 11:03 AM
It's interesting how reality has to be twisted like a pretzel, especially when reality is staring us in the face --well ok, my face.
His policies were intended to be as bad for Israel as they are for everywhere else, especially the US, and especially the Middle East (isn't that where Israel is situated?). Bush and Cheney are diehard (pun intended) proponents of Year Zero --destroy everything and then (theoretically) start over. Only they believe in crushing everything and everybody to the point where it's impossible to survive, much less start over.
Interesting that it's taken two terms of Bush for some of these smart guys quoted in the article to wake up to the effects at least of what Bush is doing.
Ronald
WP:
May 13, 2008
Appearing at an Israeli Embassy reception last Thursday to mark the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Vice President Cheney voiced a sentiment that is common among many American Jews, evangelicals and others. "Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the 43rd president of the United States," he said.
Yet as President Bush prepares to return to Jerusalem this week to celebrate the milestone, that assessment is the subject of fierce debate both here and Israel. Few doubt the sincerity of Bush's passion, which has translated into unprecedented backing for Israeli self-defense and the most clearly stated presidential commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked.
But from left to right, Bush also faces criticism for pursuing Middle East policies that, many diplomats and analysts believe, have left Israel more threatened than when he assumed office in January 2001.
"The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served as Bush's first-term ambassador to Israel.
As one former US government officer commented on news that Lebanese Druze leader Jumblatt had basically surrendered to Hizbollah, "Same guys that gave you Gaza gave you this. Do you think any of them are smart enough to see what they've done?" Adds another former US official who served in Lebanon: "This administration is bankrupt in every way -- absolutely hopeless."
Posted by Laura at 11:03 AM
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Democracy Now: AS’AD ABUKHALIL: US instigates civil war in Lebanon as elsewhere
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now is the only place I've so far found which indicates that the civil war in Lebanon is spurred by the US (although Prof Abukhalil references a good article in the Los Angeles Times.) The US is funding the right wing in Lebanon to prevent stability and democracy there. It's for the purpose of creating a civil war. To the extent that it's happening, the US is succeeding. Which is why those Lebanese players who were for a peaceful resolution have been rubbed out, no doubt with Israeli intelligence help if not direct assistance.
Khalil says it clearly: Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places.
Once again, why would the US be instigating civil war in all these places? One advantage of understanding the criminal sociopathic US leadership for what it is (besides that it explains the data), is that one can predict their actions: do the maximum harm everywhere.
Ronald
May 12, 2008
81 Dead in Lebanon as Hezbollah Clashes with US-Backed Pro-Government Forces
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/12/81_dead_in_lebanon_as_hezbollah
AMY GOODMAN: In Lebanon, armed clashes since last Wednesday between Hezbollah-led opposition groups and US-backed pro-government forces have left at least eighty-one people dead, many more wounded. Opposition forces overpowered pro-government militias and took over large parts of the capital city of Beirut late last week before handing over control to the Lebanese army.
The fighting shifted to the north and east of the country over the weekend, and fresh clashes were reported in Beirut this morning. Meanwhile, the Arab League has agreed to send a high-level political delegation to Lebanon to dialogue with leaders from all sides.
The violence, which has been described as the worst since the civil war, erupted last week during a general strike called by the General Federation of Labor Unions to protest the high cost of living.
On Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah held a news conference in Beirut to mark what he called the beginning of a “new era” in Lebanese politics. He condemned a decision by the Lebanese cabinet to outlaw Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and dismiss the head of airport security for his alleged ties to the party. Nasrallah said their private communication network was a vital tool in combat and critical to their success during the July 2006 war with Israel. He described the government crackdown as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] If we want to get off of this crisis, to get out of this standoff, of this confrontation, they need to revoke the decisions of the illegitimate government, and they need to go to the dialogue. That’s all. If they want to be stubborn, they will go elsewhere. The game is very dangerous. If they are truly keen about preserving the country, they have only these two solutions.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Hezbollah and declared US support for the Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But after four days of fighting, Siniora capitulated and announced Saturday the decision regarding Hezbollah’s demands now lay in the hands of the Lebanese army. The army commander, General Michel Suleiman, is slated to be the new president of the country.
For analysis of the situation in Lebanon, I’m now joined on the phone from California by As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, and the creator of the Angry Arab News Service blog at angryarab.blogspot.com. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what’s happening in Lebanon right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, yes. I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.
Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.
And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese, and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves.
But it seems the Bush administration, while it’s sailing into the sunset, wanted to achieve a victory that has long eluded it in Iraq and elsewhere. They were getting too excited about Lebanese affairs in the Washington Post, who were celebrating the so-called Cedar Revolution. Well, they tried to push them further, and look what happened. This is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk overall about the United States—what you feel the US role should be right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. But we have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who come from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have. I mean, if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, sectarianism in Lebanon is the last refuge of scoundrels of the United States and Israel. They have been for serious propagandizing to splitting Sunnis from Shiites in order that they create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.
Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor AbuKhalil, we have thirty seconds. What’s next? What do you make of Hassan Nasrallah’s comment that this is a new era in Lebanese politics?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Basically, he is saying that they will no more allow this heavy-handed role by the Saudis in Lebanon, and they want to change the balance of forces on the ground. Now, that in itself does not bode well for the future in Lebanon. I fear that Hezbollah may get too intoxicated with their so-called victories on the streets of Lebanon, and they may assert a sectarian agenda that is going to provoke the other side. I worry about a [inaudible] syndrome among the Sunnis of Lebanon.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor As’ad AbuKhalil teaches political science at California State University at Stanislaus, visiting professor at UC Berkeley.
Khalil says it clearly: Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places.
Once again, why would the US be instigating civil war in all these places? One advantage of understanding the criminal sociopathic US leadership for what it is (besides that it explains the data), is that one can predict their actions: do the maximum harm everywhere.
Ronald
May 12, 2008
81 Dead in Lebanon as Hezbollah Clashes with US-Backed Pro-Government Forces
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/12/81_dead_in_lebanon_as_hezbollah
AMY GOODMAN: In Lebanon, armed clashes since last Wednesday between Hezbollah-led opposition groups and US-backed pro-government forces have left at least eighty-one people dead, many more wounded. Opposition forces overpowered pro-government militias and took over large parts of the capital city of Beirut late last week before handing over control to the Lebanese army.
The fighting shifted to the north and east of the country over the weekend, and fresh clashes were reported in Beirut this morning. Meanwhile, the Arab League has agreed to send a high-level political delegation to Lebanon to dialogue with leaders from all sides.
The violence, which has been described as the worst since the civil war, erupted last week during a general strike called by the General Federation of Labor Unions to protest the high cost of living.
On Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah held a news conference in Beirut to mark what he called the beginning of a “new era” in Lebanese politics. He condemned a decision by the Lebanese cabinet to outlaw Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and dismiss the head of airport security for his alleged ties to the party. Nasrallah said their private communication network was a vital tool in combat and critical to their success during the July 2006 war with Israel. He described the government crackdown as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] If we want to get off of this crisis, to get out of this standoff, of this confrontation, they need to revoke the decisions of the illegitimate government, and they need to go to the dialogue. That’s all. If they want to be stubborn, they will go elsewhere. The game is very dangerous. If they are truly keen about preserving the country, they have only these two solutions.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Hezbollah and declared US support for the Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But after four days of fighting, Siniora capitulated and announced Saturday the decision regarding Hezbollah’s demands now lay in the hands of the Lebanese army. The army commander, General Michel Suleiman, is slated to be the new president of the country.
For analysis of the situation in Lebanon, I’m now joined on the phone from California by As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, and the creator of the Angry Arab News Service blog at angryarab.blogspot.com. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what’s happening in Lebanon right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, yes. I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.
Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.
And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese, and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves.
But it seems the Bush administration, while it’s sailing into the sunset, wanted to achieve a victory that has long eluded it in Iraq and elsewhere. They were getting too excited about Lebanese affairs in the Washington Post, who were celebrating the so-called Cedar Revolution. Well, they tried to push them further, and look what happened. This is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk overall about the United States—what you feel the US role should be right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. But we have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who come from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have. I mean, if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, sectarianism in Lebanon is the last refuge of scoundrels of the United States and Israel. They have been for serious propagandizing to splitting Sunnis from Shiites in order that they create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.
Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor AbuKhalil, we have thirty seconds. What’s next? What do you make of Hassan Nasrallah’s comment that this is a new era in Lebanese politics?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Basically, he is saying that they will no more allow this heavy-handed role by the Saudis in Lebanon, and they want to change the balance of forces on the ground. Now, that in itself does not bode well for the future in Lebanon. I fear that Hezbollah may get too intoxicated with their so-called victories on the streets of Lebanon, and they may assert a sectarian agenda that is going to provoke the other side. I worry about a [inaudible] syndrome among the Sunnis of Lebanon.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor As’ad AbuKhalil teaches political science at California State University at Stanislaus, visiting professor at UC Berkeley.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Game Plan Iran -- The Next World War?
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Check out the link above for a not unlikely game plan of US-Israeli war plans against Iran. The article has excellent graphics and photos and a minimum of text. It’s especially informative about the devastating hardware on both sides. I confess that I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of a false flag attack by Israel taking out a US Carrier (is that 6,000 people?) a la the Israeli 1967 attack on the USS Liberty spy ship. For the sociopathic Bush & Cheney, rubbing out a quick 6,000 US servicepeople would only be an appetizer.
The realization that such a war – perhaps (or inescapably) escalating into a world war (the Russians aren’t going to be too happy with a US attack on Iran) – is not for Oil, not for Israel and not for Empire may help to give us a clearer focus on the danger we face.
For example, the current public position of the government of Iran is that it wouldn't be in US interests to initiate such an attack. But the public position of Iran doesn’t take into account that Bush and Cheney would go ahead with such an attack precisely because it would be devastating to everyone, especially Iran and including the US. $300-500 (or more)/barrel oil for starters would be among the smallest effects.
It’s not unlikely that Bush & Cheney are counting on the general turmoil and chaos and the inevitable aftermath of such an attack as a means to stay in office, just as co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani hoped to do after the 9/11 attacks.
It should go without saying that such an attack would be terrible for Israel as well as it will be for every other country. It may be that our only hope is that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert – - who undoubtedly understands the danger to his country –- has learned his lesson from the disastrous Lebanon war of 2006, largely provoked by Washington, and will manage to withstand the pressure to attack Iran from Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. But Olmert is a thin reed. Once again – as in Lebanon 2006 -- ironically we may be missing the stronger hand of Ariel Sharon.
Ronald
(Note: See below for Scott Ritter's views of the danger. He thinks that there's an 80% chance of such an attack. But didn't I see somewhere else that he had no doubt it would happen?)
Here’s a summary excerpt of the Plan from this site: http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
After Watching Destruction of Iraq, The Iranians Will Be Forced To Respond
Because Iran is already at total war footing, the attacks will escalate out of control in a matter of days.
• Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities
• Iran goes to Alert One
• Israel hits a US Carrier and blames Iran
• US hits Iran's navy in northern Persian Gulf
• Iran attacks with all its missiles
Iran has already calculated their response, and they realize their only option is a massive attack. Iran is sitting on a stockpile of Exocet, Sunburn 22 and SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles. The Fifth Fleet sits at Qatar, and it is within range of the Sunburn-22 and Yakhonts. Iran is said to have commercial freighters equipped with Exocets that will be in port at the time. Once Israel hits the US carrier (similar to the USS Liberty) then Iran will have no choice but to defend itself.
The 5th Fleet sits in a lake surrounded by Iran's rugged mountains, and will be decimated by the missiles. The US fleet will arrive in the Indian Ocean, but will be helpless because the straits of Hormuz will be showered by a Phalanx of hundreds of Exocets.
Read more:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Ken wrote:
Please read carefully.
I am passing this on. I do not know when they will go, or even if they will go, but it is clear they want to go.
If you do a Google search on the “USS Liberty” and the “Gulf of Tonkin”, you will see that criminal factions of our government are not above staging a “False Flag Event” (Google the term) to get us embroiled in a bigger,broader and endless war.
I do know that by “naming the game” in advance, we can take some of the shock value away from the bad guys. It is quite possible that by vigilant action to name the game last fall we might have averted a nasty event already, but we will never really know for sure.
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Scott Ritter: It's 80% Sure
Bob wrote:
A correspondent just led me to this article by the well-informed Scott Ritter. Let's see: I'm no gambler, but 80 percent, or 4 out of 5, chance of war on Iran...seems a very solid bet, bolstered by the new information Ritter imparts (e.g., bombs/bombers enhancement by end of this month...) and driven by the increasingly insane idiot residing in our White House...Bob
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
April 4, 2008
By ED BARNA Herald Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY — Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.
But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.
The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.
People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but "there isn't any vindication in being right about this one." A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.
Read more:
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Check out the link above for a not unlikely game plan of US-Israeli war plans against Iran. The article has excellent graphics and photos and a minimum of text. It’s especially informative about the devastating hardware on both sides. I confess that I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of a false flag attack by Israel taking out a US Carrier (is that 6,000 people?) a la the Israeli 1967 attack on the USS Liberty spy ship. For the sociopathic Bush & Cheney, rubbing out a quick 6,000 US servicepeople would only be an appetizer.
The realization that such a war – perhaps (or inescapably) escalating into a world war (the Russians aren’t going to be too happy with a US attack on Iran) – is not for Oil, not for Israel and not for Empire may help to give us a clearer focus on the danger we face.
For example, the current public position of the government of Iran is that it wouldn't be in US interests to initiate such an attack. But the public position of Iran doesn’t take into account that Bush and Cheney would go ahead with such an attack precisely because it would be devastating to everyone, especially Iran and including the US. $300-500 (or more)/barrel oil for starters would be among the smallest effects.
It’s not unlikely that Bush & Cheney are counting on the general turmoil and chaos and the inevitable aftermath of such an attack as a means to stay in office, just as co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani hoped to do after the 9/11 attacks.
It should go without saying that such an attack would be terrible for Israel as well as it will be for every other country. It may be that our only hope is that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert – - who undoubtedly understands the danger to his country –- has learned his lesson from the disastrous Lebanon war of 2006, largely provoked by Washington, and will manage to withstand the pressure to attack Iran from Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. But Olmert is a thin reed. Once again – as in Lebanon 2006 -- ironically we may be missing the stronger hand of Ariel Sharon.
Ronald
(Note: See below for Scott Ritter's views of the danger. He thinks that there's an 80% chance of such an attack. But didn't I see somewhere else that he had no doubt it would happen?)
Here’s a summary excerpt of the Plan from this site: http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
After Watching Destruction of Iraq, The Iranians Will Be Forced To Respond
Because Iran is already at total war footing, the attacks will escalate out of control in a matter of days.
• Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities
• Iran goes to Alert One
• Israel hits a US Carrier and blames Iran
• US hits Iran's navy in northern Persian Gulf
• Iran attacks with all its missiles
Iran has already calculated their response, and they realize their only option is a massive attack. Iran is sitting on a stockpile of Exocet, Sunburn 22 and SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles. The Fifth Fleet sits at Qatar, and it is within range of the Sunburn-22 and Yakhonts. Iran is said to have commercial freighters equipped with Exocets that will be in port at the time. Once Israel hits the US carrier (similar to the USS Liberty) then Iran will have no choice but to defend itself.
The 5th Fleet sits in a lake surrounded by Iran's rugged mountains, and will be decimated by the missiles. The US fleet will arrive in the Indian Ocean, but will be helpless because the straits of Hormuz will be showered by a Phalanx of hundreds of Exocets.
Read more:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Ken wrote:
Please read carefully.
I am passing this on. I do not know when they will go, or even if they will go, but it is clear they want to go.
If you do a Google search on the “USS Liberty” and the “Gulf of Tonkin”, you will see that criminal factions of our government are not above staging a “False Flag Event” (Google the term) to get us embroiled in a bigger,broader and endless war.
I do know that by “naming the game” in advance, we can take some of the shock value away from the bad guys. It is quite possible that by vigilant action to name the game last fall we might have averted a nasty event already, but we will never really know for sure.
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Scott Ritter: It's 80% Sure
Bob wrote:
A correspondent just led me to this article by the well-informed Scott Ritter. Let's see: I'm no gambler, but 80 percent, or 4 out of 5, chance of war on Iran...seems a very solid bet, bolstered by the new information Ritter imparts (e.g., bombs/bombers enhancement by end of this month...) and driven by the increasingly insane idiot residing in our White House...Bob
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
April 4, 2008
By ED BARNA Herald Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY — Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.
But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.
The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.
People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but "there isn't any vindication in being right about this one." A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.
Read more:
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Glenn Greenwald: Bush's Phantom Syrian WMDs
Once again, Glenn Greenwald nails it on the latest disinformation/fear campaign against Syria. This time the transparency of the lies is laughably (I wish) obvious. As Greemwald points out there's little push-back in the media, and, he might have added, the candidates for president. Can you imagine Obama or Clinton challenging Bush on this issue? At best they'll be quiet as mice. Yet another indication of the depths to which monsters like Bush & Cheney can bring us as they count on Zionist support as they beat the drums to enlarge the war against Syria and Iran (and Lebanon if they can squeeze it in.)
But is anyone asking why Bush and Cheney are still desperately trying to make more war happen?
It's not, as Xymphora is fond of saying, a war for the Jews. No, they are cleverly using the Zionists to further their endless war agenda.
Now, why would they want to make more war? For oil? Do people still believe this? What do you have to do to show that it's not to the benefit of anyone -- ok, a handful of the base will, for a short time rake in more of the windfall. But that can't be sufficient reason to further destroy the US and world economy, not to mention the incredible suffering on top of what's already going on worldwide with food and energy costs.
All we have left -- in conventional terms -- is Empire.
People like to use this as an explanation for the Bush-Cheney unprovoked aggression (and all the other destruction they manage) but this explanation doesn't address the anomaly that everything Bush is doing is WEAKENING the American Empire as fast as possible. The military has all kinds of readiness issues. Empire is for building up, and Bush and Cheney are only for destruction.
When are people going to understand that when we say that we're at the mercy of criminal psychopaths, it's not an exaggeration. It's the literal truth.
I snorted with laughter this morning when I heard the proposal that Bush and Cheney should release some oil from the national oil reserve. As if anyone thinks that they would do ANYTHING that would help people. Reminds me that I recall being mystified during the last couple of years of the Clinton administration. At a certain moment there was a spike in the oil price and Clinton quickly acted to release oil which had the desired effect. But all the while the predictable right wing voices howled in protest. It took me awhile to figure out that they were opposed on principle to any government action that would help people. It might give people a reason to vote for the Democrats.
One way to explain Bush's low poll numbers is to observe that people understand on some level that he's not interested in helping them.
Ronald
***
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Friday April 25, 2008
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
***
See similarly JOHN W. FARLEY on Counterpunch:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
The Media Falls for Fake News Once Again: Syrian Nukes: the Phantom Menace
Last September 6, Israel bombed a Syrian building at Dair el Zor. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, little was said in public, by either Israel or Syria, but later the Israelis started claiming that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor. On the radio today (April 25), I heard NPR's Tom Jelton repeat, as if it were undisputed fact, the US. government claim to have "proof" of a Syrian-North Korean nuclear connection. Now I see that AP writers Pamela Hess and Deb Reichmann have a story headlined "White House says Syria 'must come clean' about nuclear work," while ABC news has a video entitled "Syria's Nuclear Reactor".
Are the wonderful mainstream media, who gave us Saddam's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction, lying to us again? The answer is yes.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
But is anyone asking why Bush and Cheney are still desperately trying to make more war happen?
It's not, as Xymphora is fond of saying, a war for the Jews. No, they are cleverly using the Zionists to further their endless war agenda.
Now, why would they want to make more war? For oil? Do people still believe this? What do you have to do to show that it's not to the benefit of anyone -- ok, a handful of the base will, for a short time rake in more of the windfall. But that can't be sufficient reason to further destroy the US and world economy, not to mention the incredible suffering on top of what's already going on worldwide with food and energy costs.
All we have left -- in conventional terms -- is Empire.
People like to use this as an explanation for the Bush-Cheney unprovoked aggression (and all the other destruction they manage) but this explanation doesn't address the anomaly that everything Bush is doing is WEAKENING the American Empire as fast as possible. The military has all kinds of readiness issues. Empire is for building up, and Bush and Cheney are only for destruction.
When are people going to understand that when we say that we're at the mercy of criminal psychopaths, it's not an exaggeration. It's the literal truth.
I snorted with laughter this morning when I heard the proposal that Bush and Cheney should release some oil from the national oil reserve. As if anyone thinks that they would do ANYTHING that would help people. Reminds me that I recall being mystified during the last couple of years of the Clinton administration. At a certain moment there was a spike in the oil price and Clinton quickly acted to release oil which had the desired effect. But all the while the predictable right wing voices howled in protest. It took me awhile to figure out that they were opposed on principle to any government action that would help people. It might give people a reason to vote for the Democrats.
One way to explain Bush's low poll numbers is to observe that people understand on some level that he's not interested in helping them.
Ronald
***
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Friday April 25, 2008
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
***
See similarly JOHN W. FARLEY on Counterpunch:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
The Media Falls for Fake News Once Again: Syrian Nukes: the Phantom Menace
Last September 6, Israel bombed a Syrian building at Dair el Zor. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, little was said in public, by either Israel or Syria, but later the Israelis started claiming that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor. On the radio today (April 25), I heard NPR's Tom Jelton repeat, as if it were undisputed fact, the US. government claim to have "proof" of a Syrian-North Korean nuclear connection. Now I see that AP writers Pamela Hess and Deb Reichmann have a story headlined "White House says Syria 'must come clean' about nuclear work," while ABC news has a video entitled "Syria's Nuclear Reactor".
Are the wonderful mainstream media, who gave us Saddam's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction, lying to us again? The answer is yes.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
Friday, April 25, 2008
Xymphora: Pennsylvania Touch Screens Love Hillary
Popular Canadian blogger Xymphora's note below on the PA primary reminds me that I've been meaning for weeks to write up my blog notes to the NYT article shortly after the Feb 5 NY State primary which informed us that in about 80 of 6,000+ precincts in NYC, Obama received Zero votes, including in a heavily black district in Harlem and in Brooklyn's Bed-Sty.
Xymphora's concerns below about PA are similar to the situation in the NH primary and who knows how many other states where the totals required adjustment in order to skew towards Hillary. (In some NH districts Ron Paul also received zero votes in the "unofficial" count.)
It's disheartening, shall we say, that we can't trust ANY of the numbers from these primaries not even in NYC which still allows voting on our trusty lever machines which with routine maintenance could last another 50 years. So it's not simply the fault of computerized voting machines . It seems that political operatives are in place at central locations who are allowed to adjust the numbers which they get from local precincts. That seems to be the way that Bush won Florida in 2000, and Florida and Ohio in 2004, as well as his "3 million" vote win over Kerry in 2004. As Mark Crispin Miller has pointed out, it's beyond credibility that Bush's national vote total INCREASED by 11 million votes from 2000 to 2004.
Thus we Americans are well into our Banana Republic stage. Will we ever emerge?
Ronald
***
Xymphora wrote:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Pennsylvania exit polls
Some people will believe anything other than the obvious:
"It’s clear that a sizable chunk of those questioned after they voted lied to the pollsters. The exit polls showed a 5 point margin for Hillary. In the end the margin was approximately twice that."
So lemme get this straight: people who voted for Hillary were so embarrassed by that fact that they lied to exit pollsters and claimed they voted for Obama? Does that make any sense? Or does it make more sense that Pennsylvania, a state which makes heavy use of unverifiable computer touch-screen voting, was the victim of vote fraud? The difference between five percent and ten percent is the difference between Hillary having to drop out and Hillary staying in to help McCain win in November, a goal shared by both the Republicans (who own the computer voting machine companies) and Hillary (so she can run again in 2012).
Xymphora's concerns below about PA are similar to the situation in the NH primary and who knows how many other states where the totals required adjustment in order to skew towards Hillary. (In some NH districts Ron Paul also received zero votes in the "unofficial" count.)
It's disheartening, shall we say, that we can't trust ANY of the numbers from these primaries not even in NYC which still allows voting on our trusty lever machines which with routine maintenance could last another 50 years. So it's not simply the fault of computerized voting machines . It seems that political operatives are in place at central locations who are allowed to adjust the numbers which they get from local precincts. That seems to be the way that Bush won Florida in 2000, and Florida and Ohio in 2004, as well as his "3 million" vote win over Kerry in 2004. As Mark Crispin Miller has pointed out, it's beyond credibility that Bush's national vote total INCREASED by 11 million votes from 2000 to 2004.
Thus we Americans are well into our Banana Republic stage. Will we ever emerge?
Ronald
***
Xymphora wrote:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Pennsylvania exit polls
Some people will believe anything other than the obvious:
"It’s clear that a sizable chunk of those questioned after they voted lied to the pollsters. The exit polls showed a 5 point margin for Hillary. In the end the margin was approximately twice that."
So lemme get this straight: people who voted for Hillary were so embarrassed by that fact that they lied to exit pollsters and claimed they voted for Obama? Does that make any sense? Or does it make more sense that Pennsylvania, a state which makes heavy use of unverifiable computer touch-screen voting, was the victim of vote fraud? The difference between five percent and ten percent is the difference between Hillary having to drop out and Hillary staying in to help McCain win in November, a goal shared by both the Republicans (who own the computer voting machine companies) and Hillary (so she can run again in 2012).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Patrick J. Buchanan: Petraeus Points to War with Iran
Robert Stiver wrote:
Here's the latest commentary by an informed, deeply concerned citizen:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 ("Petraeus Points to War With Iran," by Patrick Buchanan, April 11th, 2008)
(I disagree with one element of Buchanan's analysis: "The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand...." Petraeus is, IMHO, an ambitious, willing military-side stooge for the Cheney-led zionazineocons [note particularly the odious Lieberman in the article] and the dry-drunkenly adolescent, bellicose, irrational Bush. A lethal combination, and Gates and Mullen -- with Fallon gone and no longer providing adult supervision -- today added additional voice to the warmongering set....)
The Evil USrael Empire is on the march to war...Bob
***
Ronald wrote:
It's hard to improve on Bob's comment and Buchanan's short article.. One question that comes to mind: why do Bush and Cheney want to go to war against Iran and use their nuclear arsenal?
Bob suggests that it is for Israel's benefit. But such an adventure is just as dangerous for Israel as it is for the rest of the world, not least the US. (Just imagine what $200-300/ barrel oil will do to the world's economy.)
This reminds me: haven't we read recently that Putin warned Bush not to attack Iran? But if Putin did so, that might only spur Bush and Cheney to go ahead. Once again, we ask for what purpose?
One result (if not the only result) will be chaos, destruction, and more war. Does that cohere with wars for oil, for Empire or for Israel? Does that put Cheney and Bush squarely in the tradition of US presidents or does it suggest that they are exceptional, as in pathologically criminal, intent only on the elimination of the possibility of civil life everywhere just as they have succeeded in accomplishing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Palestine, elsewhere? Is Empire strengthened by these disasters? Are we achieving more or less control over ($110/barrel) oil?
Ronald
***
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 11, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander-in-chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaeda enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
[Another quibble: Do Bush and Cheney want a short war? Will a short or long war help them stay in power longer? Although I'm wondering if Cheney's health may play a role. He seems to be sounding weaker than ever. --RB]
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Here's the latest commentary by an informed, deeply concerned citizen:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 ("Petraeus Points to War With Iran," by Patrick Buchanan, April 11th, 2008)
(I disagree with one element of Buchanan's analysis: "The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand...." Petraeus is, IMHO, an ambitious, willing military-side stooge for the Cheney-led zionazineocons [note particularly the odious Lieberman in the article] and the dry-drunkenly adolescent, bellicose, irrational Bush. A lethal combination, and Gates and Mullen -- with Fallon gone and no longer providing adult supervision -- today added additional voice to the warmongering set....)
The Evil USrael Empire is on the march to war...Bob
***
Ronald wrote:
It's hard to improve on Bob's comment and Buchanan's short article.. One question that comes to mind: why do Bush and Cheney want to go to war against Iran and use their nuclear arsenal?
Bob suggests that it is for Israel's benefit. But such an adventure is just as dangerous for Israel as it is for the rest of the world, not least the US. (Just imagine what $200-300/ barrel oil will do to the world's economy.)
This reminds me: haven't we read recently that Putin warned Bush not to attack Iran? But if Putin did so, that might only spur Bush and Cheney to go ahead. Once again, we ask for what purpose?
One result (if not the only result) will be chaos, destruction, and more war. Does that cohere with wars for oil, for Empire or for Israel? Does that put Cheney and Bush squarely in the tradition of US presidents or does it suggest that they are exceptional, as in pathologically criminal, intent only on the elimination of the possibility of civil life everywhere just as they have succeeded in accomplishing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Palestine, elsewhere? Is Empire strengthened by these disasters? Are we achieving more or less control over ($110/barrel) oil?
Ronald
***
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 11, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander-in-chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaeda enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
[Another quibble: Do Bush and Cheney want a short war? Will a short or long war help them stay in power longer? Although I'm wondering if Cheney's health may play a role. He seems to be sounding weaker than ever. --RB]
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Free Trade -- Starving the Poor and impoverishing the Middle Class
Free Trade – Starving the Poor and Middle Class
Now that it’s clear that prices for food all over the world are going through the roof it should be even clearer that so-called free trade, which is dominated by the intention of the stronger powers to eliminate local agriculture, is making a major contribution to starving the poorest peoples, and making the classes just above – including the middle classes -- more and more hungry.
Now that it’s clear that prices for food all over the world are going through the roof it should be even clearer that so-called free trade, which is dominated by the intention of the stronger powers to eliminate local agriculture, is making a major contribution to starving the poorest peoples, and making the classes just above – including the middle classes -- more and more hungry.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Amira Hass (November 2007): Powerless in Gaza: Drinking Dirty Water; And Sewage Untreated
Perhaps there are others like myself for whom Amira Hass is hard to read because the celebrated (and in certain circles, excoriated) Israeli journalist describes everyday reality with unfailing precision and economy. The reality she describes is hard to take because there is little hope for change. There is little hope for change in part (in large part?) because for Zionists the Palestinian people are dehumanized. In this context dehumanizing Palestinians means that whatever is done to them, even the slow genocide that is ongoing, is basically OK, or at worst something to be tolerated. Supporters of Zionism rationalize and tolerate these State crimes against millions of people because to be critical of them would represent a challenge to the cause of a Jewish state in the former Palestine. A Jewish state somehow rises above its crimes against non Jews. A Jewish state means that there can be no crimes against non Jews.
Ronald
***
Ha'aretz | 07 Nov 2007
http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/11/12/amira-hass-a-moment-before-the-lights-go-out/
A Moment Before the Lights Go Out
by Amira Hass
Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent kidnapped in Gaza, related in an interview that at a relatively early stage, he started suffering from all kinds of aches because of the water he drank. This was the same water that the kidnappers drank, but Johnston’s unaccustomed body sent warning signals: This is not water that is fit for drinking. And this is the water that reaches most of the taps in the Gaza Strip. Salty, in a few places brackish to contaminated, with an oily consistency. That is clearly felt when bathing.
The reason is an ancient one: overpumping because Gaza must make do with the waters from its aquifer alone. It is as if we were to say to the residents of Be’er Sheva: make do with the water that flows nearby. The water sources in the rest of the country are not for you.
Over the last few years, there have been some improvised private and public solutions. Private water purification plants in homes and commercial companies that sell purified water.
The municipalities, for their part, set up large brackish water desalination facilities and several central taps. Thousands of people go there daily to fill up jerry-cans with water that will not taste like it came from a puddle and will not cause diarrhea, infections, kidney problems and who knows what else.
The electricity and fuel supply to Gaza has already been reduced to below the level of basic human needs. An additional reduction will affect the above solutions to the water problem, and beyond. “To darken Gaza,” as some of the security experts among us have recently proposed, does not end merely with darkened homes at night. You don’t have to be an expert in public health to realize that it would create an endless chain reaction of public health problems and environmental blights.
Today, around a year and a half after Israel bombed the transformer station in Gaza, only 193 megawatts out of the 240 or so it needs is supplied to the Strip.
The water network is the biggest energy consumer in the Gaza Strip: it requires approximately 25 megawatts of the 240 megawatts the Gaza Strip needs.
The 135 wells across the Gaza Strip that supply water, poor quality as it may be, cannot function if the electricity and diesel fuel supply is cut further. The same is true of sewage treatment plants.
Already now, each day, no water is supplied to around 15 percent of the Strip’s residents. Each area receives water only every other day. The water is pumped electrically and stored in home reservoirs on every rooftop. Power outages are frequent.
When a power outage in a given area occurs on a day when the municipalities channel water to it, the houses are denied water for three, and sometimes even four, days.
The water network also needs around 150,000 litres of diesel fuel per month. The sewage system needs around 100,000 litres.
The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, the supplier of sewage and water services in the Gaza Strip obtained only 60,000 liters of diesel fuel in October, because the quantity of fuels sold from Israel to the Gaza Strip was reduced. And this is before “the darkening” proposed by Ehud Barak and Matan Vilnai.
The water company must choose to favor the sewage system over the water system. As the deputy CEO of the company, Maher Najjar, explains: The collapse of the sewage system entails a bigger humanitarian threat.
Just imagine a huge flood of sewage. Hence, for example, the seven wells in the northern Gaza Strip that are diesel operated were allocated only 2,000 litres of diesel in early November, instead of the 10,500 liters needed to operate them.
Even before the lights go out, Israel is prohibiting the entry of raw materials into the Gaza Strip.
No one is talking any more about dozens of development projects that have consequently been frozen, such as the one to desalinate well water that serves the residents of the El Bureij refugee camp. Let them continue drinking the water that endangers their health.
Raw material is not the only thing Israel is barring entry of: Vital spare parts are also being barred entry. In the Gaza City sewage treatment facility there are several minor malfunctions.
However, Israel is barring the entry of the spare parts needed to repair them. Sewage undergoes only minimal treatment before it flows into the sea. And the sea, of course, doesn’t stop at the Erez or Rafiah checkpoints.
***
Ronald
***
Ha'aretz | 07 Nov 2007
http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/11/12/amira-hass-a-moment-before-the-lights-go-out/
A Moment Before the Lights Go Out
by Amira Hass
Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent kidnapped in Gaza, related in an interview that at a relatively early stage, he started suffering from all kinds of aches because of the water he drank. This was the same water that the kidnappers drank, but Johnston’s unaccustomed body sent warning signals: This is not water that is fit for drinking. And this is the water that reaches most of the taps in the Gaza Strip. Salty, in a few places brackish to contaminated, with an oily consistency. That is clearly felt when bathing.
The reason is an ancient one: overpumping because Gaza must make do with the waters from its aquifer alone. It is as if we were to say to the residents of Be’er Sheva: make do with the water that flows nearby. The water sources in the rest of the country are not for you.
Over the last few years, there have been some improvised private and public solutions. Private water purification plants in homes and commercial companies that sell purified water.
The municipalities, for their part, set up large brackish water desalination facilities and several central taps. Thousands of people go there daily to fill up jerry-cans with water that will not taste like it came from a puddle and will not cause diarrhea, infections, kidney problems and who knows what else.
The electricity and fuel supply to Gaza has already been reduced to below the level of basic human needs. An additional reduction will affect the above solutions to the water problem, and beyond. “To darken Gaza,” as some of the security experts among us have recently proposed, does not end merely with darkened homes at night. You don’t have to be an expert in public health to realize that it would create an endless chain reaction of public health problems and environmental blights.
Today, around a year and a half after Israel bombed the transformer station in Gaza, only 193 megawatts out of the 240 or so it needs is supplied to the Strip.
The water network is the biggest energy consumer in the Gaza Strip: it requires approximately 25 megawatts of the 240 megawatts the Gaza Strip needs.
The 135 wells across the Gaza Strip that supply water, poor quality as it may be, cannot function if the electricity and diesel fuel supply is cut further. The same is true of sewage treatment plants.
Already now, each day, no water is supplied to around 15 percent of the Strip’s residents. Each area receives water only every other day. The water is pumped electrically and stored in home reservoirs on every rooftop. Power outages are frequent.
When a power outage in a given area occurs on a day when the municipalities channel water to it, the houses are denied water for three, and sometimes even four, days.
The water network also needs around 150,000 litres of diesel fuel per month. The sewage system needs around 100,000 litres.
The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, the supplier of sewage and water services in the Gaza Strip obtained only 60,000 liters of diesel fuel in October, because the quantity of fuels sold from Israel to the Gaza Strip was reduced. And this is before “the darkening” proposed by Ehud Barak and Matan Vilnai.
The water company must choose to favor the sewage system over the water system. As the deputy CEO of the company, Maher Najjar, explains: The collapse of the sewage system entails a bigger humanitarian threat.
Just imagine a huge flood of sewage. Hence, for example, the seven wells in the northern Gaza Strip that are diesel operated were allocated only 2,000 litres of diesel in early November, instead of the 10,500 liters needed to operate them.
Even before the lights go out, Israel is prohibiting the entry of raw materials into the Gaza Strip.
No one is talking any more about dozens of development projects that have consequently been frozen, such as the one to desalinate well water that serves the residents of the El Bureij refugee camp. Let them continue drinking the water that endangers their health.
Raw material is not the only thing Israel is barring entry of: Vital spare parts are also being barred entry. In the Gaza City sewage treatment facility there are several minor malfunctions.
However, Israel is barring the entry of the spare parts needed to repair them. Sewage undergoes only minimal treatment before it flows into the sea. And the sea, of course, doesn’t stop at the Erez or Rafiah checkpoints.
***
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, Bobby Fischer in Iceland: Alone and Self Reliant to the End
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam,
“A Lone King Has Wandered Off,”
New In Chess, 2008, No. 2.
A long memorial article on Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was just published in New In Chess detailing the author’s trip to Iceland after Bobby died. The author interviewed as many people in Iceland as he could find who knew Fischer and he gained invaluable information from several people including Saemi Palsson, a special person who had the ability to calm all kinds of situations and issues. Saemi served as Bobby’s bodyguard for the 1972 match and for a short time afterwards when Bobby returned to the States, and once again befriended Bobby in 2005 when he came to spend his last years in Iceland.
According to the article, Bobby could’ve lived for another decade or two had he chosen to accept medical treatment in Iceland for his failed kidney. As it was he died prematurely – and apparently in great pain. He would only allow the doctors to arrange for blood tests, but would allow no further medical treatment, least of all a replacement kidney which could have been arranged; or more routine medical assistance which could have saved him. The author believes that Bobby’s ideology kept him from accepting any outside help including medical help.
The article details some of the extraordinary lengths made by particular Icelanders to arrange for the world championship match in 1972 and to get Bobby out of jail in Japan in 2005. One reader (me) guesses that the reason that the Japanese authorities imprisoned him was on the orders of the Bush administration who wanted to punish him and make him suffer.
The Icelandic Parliament passed a special act awarding Bobby an Icelandic passport which enabled him to travel and live there for his last years. Reading once again between the lines, one can guess that the U.S. and Japan backed off when Iceland went public with its initiative to provide a home for Bobby.
One of Bobby’s traits was his lifelong suspicion and detestation of anyone making a buck off his name and his fame. Even when discussions took place about a documentary about Bobby focusing on his last years in Iceland, Bobby for a time turned against his friend, Saemi Palsson, because the latter was to get fifteen per cent while Bobby got forty.
This reminded me of an incident that I had heard about decades earlier which supposedly took place around the time Bobby became U.S. Chess Champion at the age of 14. The way I recall the story is that a promotional event was arranged for Bobby in the Catskills where he was to be paid for an appearance there. After the event, the unscrupulous promoter left the young and friendless Bobby with nothing, not even the fare to return home. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was incidents like this which helped to form Bobby’s paranoia.
In an accompanying article by Jan Timman, formerly one of the world’s top 10 grandmasters, which details some of Bobby’s deep analysis of positions from grandmaster games, the author recalls a conversation that Bobby had as a young man with one of his friends about an upcoming international tournament. “So what’s the big deal if you lose a game or two – that won’t be the end of the world,” the friend said to Bobby. Bobby’s response was to look at his friend strangely, as if his comment was outlandish. Such a response perhaps sheds some light on Bobby’s attitude regarding competitive chess after he won the world championship.
“A Lone King Has Wandered Off,”
New In Chess, 2008, No. 2.
A long memorial article on Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was just published in New In Chess detailing the author’s trip to Iceland after Bobby died. The author interviewed as many people in Iceland as he could find who knew Fischer and he gained invaluable information from several people including Saemi Palsson, a special person who had the ability to calm all kinds of situations and issues. Saemi served as Bobby’s bodyguard for the 1972 match and for a short time afterwards when Bobby returned to the States, and once again befriended Bobby in 2005 when he came to spend his last years in Iceland.
According to the article, Bobby could’ve lived for another decade or two had he chosen to accept medical treatment in Iceland for his failed kidney. As it was he died prematurely – and apparently in great pain. He would only allow the doctors to arrange for blood tests, but would allow no further medical treatment, least of all a replacement kidney which could have been arranged; or more routine medical assistance which could have saved him. The author believes that Bobby’s ideology kept him from accepting any outside help including medical help.
The article details some of the extraordinary lengths made by particular Icelanders to arrange for the world championship match in 1972 and to get Bobby out of jail in Japan in 2005. One reader (me) guesses that the reason that the Japanese authorities imprisoned him was on the orders of the Bush administration who wanted to punish him and make him suffer.
The Icelandic Parliament passed a special act awarding Bobby an Icelandic passport which enabled him to travel and live there for his last years. Reading once again between the lines, one can guess that the U.S. and Japan backed off when Iceland went public with its initiative to provide a home for Bobby.
One of Bobby’s traits was his lifelong suspicion and detestation of anyone making a buck off his name and his fame. Even when discussions took place about a documentary about Bobby focusing on his last years in Iceland, Bobby for a time turned against his friend, Saemi Palsson, because the latter was to get fifteen per cent while Bobby got forty.
This reminded me of an incident that I had heard about decades earlier which supposedly took place around the time Bobby became U.S. Chess Champion at the age of 14. The way I recall the story is that a promotional event was arranged for Bobby in the Catskills where he was to be paid for an appearance there. After the event, the unscrupulous promoter left the young and friendless Bobby with nothing, not even the fare to return home. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was incidents like this which helped to form Bobby’s paranoia.
In an accompanying article by Jan Timman, formerly one of the world’s top 10 grandmasters, which details some of Bobby’s deep analysis of positions from grandmaster games, the author recalls a conversation that Bobby had as a young man with one of his friends about an upcoming international tournament. “So what’s the big deal if you lose a game or two – that won’t be the end of the world,” the friend said to Bobby. Bobby’s response was to look at his friend strangely, as if his comment was outlandish. Such a response perhaps sheds some light on Bobby’s attitude regarding competitive chess after he won the world championship.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Jeffrey St. Clair: Hillary's Berserker Ambition
Some (much?) of St Clair's piece is fevered well past where I would go (i.e., the stuff on Ford, Reagan, Carter, Obama) however, it's most useful for its collection of some of the sordid history of the Clintons. St Clair is the only one I've seen (doubtless there are others) who has hinted if not made the case that the Clintons purposefully worked to ensure a Republican congress in 1994, 1996 (2000?)so as to be able to resist pressure to enact a progressive agenda.
St Clair also leaves out Clinton's responsibility for WTC 93 and Oklahoma City both of which involved the FBI and perhaps (doubtless!) other government agencies.
St Clair mentions the bombing of Serbia. Has someone done more on Clinton & GW Bush (and GHW Bush?) and the KLA? If it were only GW Bush I could understand the connection to criminal enterprises. But why would three administrations ally themselves with the KLA, especially as GHW Bush had strong connections with the Serbs, their enemies? Nor do I understand why GHW Bush and Clinton allowed the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Many will recall that when Clinton needed to be reelected in 1996, he finally put a stop to the wars there very quickly.
St Clair also misses the point I've made elsewhere that Hillary's "mishandling" of the health care initiative was a deliberate and sophisticated operation intended to ensure that no universal single payer option would be allowed.
Ronald
March 24, 2008
Hillary's Berserker Campaign ... for 2012
Blonde Ambition
WWW.Counterpunch.org
http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Hillary Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination for president. The numbers tell the story. Even with robust victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will trail Obama in popular votes and pledged delegates as they enter the convention hall in Denver.
Any other candidate would have been shamed into dropping out long ago. But these are the Clintons and they have no shame.
So why does Hillary persist? Because she hasn't abandoned her aspiration for the White House. Not in 2008, but for 2012. Here's the perverse logic at work.
If Obama defeats McCain in November, it will take an act of treachery beyond anything even the Clintons have ever conjured from their grimoire of political demonology for Hillary to challenge him in 2012. She will be 69 in 2016, almost ready to move into one of the Beverly Nursing Homes, owned by a company she once represented as a corporate lawyer, aggressively protecting the bottom line against such extravagances as healthy meals, clean sheets and proper medical care for the elderly.
Hillary Clinton is the prisoner of an unimpeachable mathematics. So she makes the most of a remorseless situation by doing what the Clintons do best: commit political fratricide. Quite literally, in this case, by knocking off a brother.
In order to realize her vaulting ambition, Hillary must mortally wound Obama as candidate in the fall race against John McCain so that she can run against McCain in 2012.
McCain is at best a one term president. The signs of this are as clear as the scar jagging down his face. McCain, whose resemblance to Lon Chaney becomes eerier by the day, is already an old man, older than Reagan when he was first elected. He is plagued by a cancer he refuses to speak about, a war he refuses to end and an economy that is collapsing beyond the point of recovery. Add to this prospectus, the fact that McCain is prone to the most self-destructive impulses of any American politician since Aaron Burr. His political fate will be sealed before he even swears his oath.
Thus Hillary's berserker strategy against Obama. (For more on "berserkerism" see the SF novels of Fred Saberhagen.)
Down in Mark Penn's dark computer lab, the data culled from pulse polls and focus groups probing the hidden prejudices in the psyche of white America are being packed like shrapnel into political landmines set for Obama: he's unpatriotic, he's un-Christian, he's a Palestinian symp and, yes, he's black. That's three strikes and one head shot.
Exploitation of racial panic is second nature to the power couple Ishmael Reed calls Ma and Pa Clinton. Bill Clinton launched his 1992 campaign by personally overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a brain-damaged young black man. He wagged his finger at the rapper Sister Souljah, denouncing her music and political opinions as a danger to young minds. The Clintons pilloried their one-time friend Lani Guinier, for her legal writings on the status of blacks and women and booted Dr. Jocelyn Elders from her position as Surgeon General for her refreshingly candid statements about the utility of condoms and masturbation for sexually active youths.
And that's how they treated people they knew. At a structural level, the Clintons' economic and social agenda, incubated at the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, struck directly at poorest precincts of America, targeting blacks and Hispanics with a fervor not seen since Pat Buchanan and Kevin Phillips crafted the infamous Southern Strategy for Richard Nixon. Hence, the dismantling of welfare, harsh federal crime bills, the refusal to intervene against racial profiling or redress the grievous injustices caused by the racially-motivated sentences handed out for crack cocaine.
The fallout from Ms. Clinton's racially-tinged blitz against Obama will spread far and wide across her party like the toxic particles from a nuclear blast. They've done it all before. The Clintons' reckless first two years in the White House, from the heavy-handed Travel Office fiasco to the fires of Waco and HRC's sophomoric bungling of the health care reform, spurred the GOP takeover of congress in 1994, which they used to their political profit. Then in 1996, Clinton refused to allocate DNC money to tight senate and congressional races, a miserly tactic that allowed the faltering Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress. It was a cynical decision that many high-ranking Democrats believe constituted a deliberate sabotage of the party's prospects, designed to secure a monopoly-like control of the party apparatus for the Clintons, turning the DNC into their own private PAC.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, will be published this spring. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Eric Alterman: Why (Many?) Jews fear Obama
In the last paragraph of his very good Nation column on why some Jews fear an Obama presidency, Eric Alterman nails it: he cites Obama's brave honesty in front of a Jewish audience in Cleveland. Such a glimpse into the man suggests why we should vote for him and why so many will oppose him.
***
In the last paragraph of his column entitled: (Some) Jews Against Obama, Eric Alterman writes:
What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...
Read the entire column:
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/2008/03/eric-alterman-why-mainline-jews-fear.html
***
In the last paragraph of his column entitled: (Some) Jews Against Obama, Eric Alterman writes:
What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...
Read the entire column:
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/2008/03/eric-alterman-why-mainline-jews-fear.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
