From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:18:32 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:18:32 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION re: Anti-WalMart protest in NYC on
	May 8
Message-ID: <20070508121832.2a964223@viola.tamara-b.org>

[Sorry this is late. It came in last night and I just noticed it at
noon today, May 8. This "clarification" doesn't even list the
details. The protest (picket) was to run from 8:30 a.m. today until 1:30
pm.  It's all pretty much moot now, so this is just for information. See
the original May 5 announcement here:

Join UFCW in protesting Wal-Mart Health Care Conference 5/8 NYC
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070430/062075.html

NY Transfer]

sent by Andy Pollack - May 7, 2007

CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION re: Anti-WalMart protest in NYC on May 8

So it turns out it's NOT a Wal-Mart sponsored conference. It's a joint
labor-management conference supported by Wal-Mart -- as well as SEIU,
UNITE-HERE, CWA, AT&T, etc. THIS is an IMPROVEMENT?

All out to the picket line!
Andy

                        ***

Metro NY Health Care for All Campaign <metrohealth at igc.org> wrote:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

We want to correct and clarify some of the details regarding a 
conference being held at the New York Hilton tomorrow May 8th.  The 
United Food and Commercial Workers Union and some other groups are 
planning a legal picket outside of it, to protest Wal-Mart's health 
care policies for its workers, as Wal-Mart is one of the 
organizations involved in the conference.

Contrary to what we had been led to believe and had informed you 
about previously, tomorrow's conference is not being sponsored by 
Wal-Mart as a way to promote their vision of employer-based health 
care.  Rather, Wal-Mart is a participant in a conference being 
sponsored by Center for American Progress, a DC-based public policy 
organization headed up by former Clinton administration chief of 
staff John Podesta.  The conference is designed to move forward its 
new "Better Health Care Together" campaign, announced in DC the past 
February as a way to bring business and labor together for 
discussions about health care reform.  Some of the unions involved in 
tomorrow's conference include SEIU, CWA, UNITE HERE and others, along 
with various large corporations such as AT&T, Qwest Communications, 
and Wal-Mart among others.

Some of those unions involved in tomorrow's conference have contacted 
us about tomorrow's protest.  While they certainly understand and 
support UFCW's concerns about Wal-Mart, they are also concerned about 
the effect a protest outside the conference may have on the 
deliberations inside, and believe it will not be helpful to their 
goals for the conference.

We want to share this information with you so that you have all the 
details as you decide whether or not to attend tomorrow's 
protest.  The decision is yours.

We hope you can understand that because we aim to support all our 
labor allies in their efforts to secure affordable health care for 
all, we are not able to offer a recommendation.  While Wal-Mart's 
model for health care (flimsy benefits, high out-of-pocket costs, 
long waiting periods) is certainly NOT the way to go on health care 
reform and should be publicly condemned, labor-employer dialogue on 
health care may also be necessary to move forward politically on 
health care reform.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration of these matters 
-- our apologies for any misunderstandings and confusion,

Mark Hannay
Director

Metro New York Health Care for All Campaign
75 Varick St., Suite. 1404
DC 1707 AFSCME
New York, NY 10013
tel: (212) 925-1829
fax: (212) 925-0806



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:22:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:22:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] NEW TIME - Protest Posada's Release - May 11 NYC 5 pm
Message-ID: <20070508122224.6ed01dac@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Carlos Rovira - May 7, 2007


PROTEST IN NYC THE RELEASE OF TERRORIST LUIS POSADA  

Friday, May 11, 2007 - TIME OF PROTEST CHANGED TO ***5pm***

26 Federal Plaza
4/5/6 subway trains to Brooklyn Bridge, 1/2/3/A/C/E/J/M to Chambers,
N/R to City Hall

**Nationally-coordinated May 11 protests taking place in El Paso and
elsewhere!**

Luis Posada Carriles is a long-time admitted and convicted terrorist,
trained by the CIA in explosives and sabotage to carry out attacks on
Cuba. He is responsible for the murder of 73 people in the 1976 bombing
of a Cuban airliner, and for Havana hotel bombings in the 1990's that
killed an Italian tourist. In the 1970s, as an official in the DISIP,
Venezuela's "intelligence" police, he tortured and murdered Venezuelan
activists. 

In Panama, Nov. 2000, he led a group of terrorists to try to
assassinate Fidel Castro with 33 pounds of C-4 explosives, which if
successful, would have also killed hundreds of students where Castro
was due to speak. 

In March 2005, Posada illegally entered the United States, and has been
treated with kid gloves since then by the Bush administration. On April
19, Posada was freed on bail and flew immediately to Miami, despite
being recognized as an unrepetant terrorist and danger to the
community. 

The Bush administration refuses to honor Venezuela's extradition
request, where Posada planned the plane bombing. And since U.S.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refuses to classify him as a
terrorist, Posada is awaiting trial only on immigration fraud. Judge
Kathleen Cardone ordered Posada's release on bond until his El Paso
trial on May 11. 

On Friday, May 11, when Posada is returned to El Paso for trial, people
across the U.S. and around the world will hold protests demanding
justice. The main protest will be in El Paso, and we'll have a protest
here in New York City. 

EXTRADITE POSADA, FREE THE CUBAN FIVE!

While anti-Cuba terrorists like Posada are free, the U.S. government has
persecuted, convicted and sentenced the Cuban Five, five men who were
peaceably monitoring the actions of Miami terrorists like Posada, to
stop their attacks. We will demand the Cuban Five's freedom on May 11
as well. 

- Bush: Extradite Luis Posada Carriles now!
- Prosecute him for terrorism!
- Free the Cuban Five!

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

- Send an electronic letter to your Congressperson.
http://www.pephost.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=159

- Volunteer to help spread the word about the protest. Click to
download the flyer: 
http://www.pephost.org/site/DocServer/May11_2007ElPasoB_nyc.pdf?docID=5561

Call 212-694-8720 or email nyc at answercoalition.org for more information.

Initiated by A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. Co-sponsors: National Committee to
Free the Cuban Five, Latino Movement USA, Youth & Student ANSWER,
National Lawyers Guild, National Network on Cuba, Southwest Organizing
Project, Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines,
GABRIELA Network, Party for Socialism and Liberation, International
Action Center, Workers World Party, F.I.S.T., Bolivarian Youth - Miami,
CLASP (Caribbean & Latin America Support Project, New Paltz, NY),
Ramsey Clark, Cynthia Mckinney, Congress of the International
Democratic Women's Federation (IDWF), Action Center For Justice,
Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban Five, Venezuela Solidarity
Network (To endorse & for more information, visit: Www.freethefive.org)



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:24:58 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:24:58 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Azmi Bishara on Democracy Now
Message-ID: <20070508122458.1500619a@viola.tamara-b.org>


sent by Andy Pollack - May 7, 2007

Azmi Bishara on Democracy Now


In addition to previously forwarded video of evening in solidarity with
Azmi Bishara, below is a transcript and link to video of Bishara on
Democracy Now.

May 4, 2007: Azmi Bishara on Democracy Now (Video & Transcript)
Transcript is directly below. For video, click on the link below and
then click on "Watch 256K Stream"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/1419201
 
Friday, May 4th, 2007

Former Arab-Israeli Knesset MP Azmi Bishara Speaks from Abu Dhabi 
about Treason Charges

Israeli police have accused former Arab Knesset lawmaker of treason and
espionage. The charges reportedly center around Bishara's alleged
contacts with members of Hezbollah during Israel's attack on Lebanon
last year. There are reports Bishara's conservations were wiretapped.
Bishara resigned his position in the parliament and left Israel last
month. Israeli police say they'll arrest him if he returns. We speak to
Bishara from Abu Dhabi. [includes rush transcript] As an outspoken
supporter of Palestinian rights and Israel's most well-known Arab
member of parliament, Azmi Bishara is no stranger to clashes with the
Israeli government. Five years ago, Bishara was put on trial for
supporting terrorism for comments he made in public speeches about the
Lebanese group Hezbollah. One year later Israel's election commission
barred him for running in parliamentary elections but later had the
decision overturned.

Today, Azmi Bishara is facing his most serious challenge to date.
Israeli police have accused him of treason and espionage. The charges
reportedly center around Bishara's alleged contacts with members of
Hezbollah during Israel's attack on Lebanon last year. There are
reports Bishara's conservations were wiretapped. Bishara resigned his
position in the parliament and left Israel last month. Israeli police
say they'll arrest him if he returns. Bishara's resignation takes away
his parliamentary immunity from prosecution.

Today, Azmi Bishara joins us from Abu Dhabi. And here in the firehouse
studio we're joined by Yael Lerer. She is an Israeli Publisher who
worked as an aide to Azmi Bishara in 2000.

    * Azmi Bishara, former member of the Israeli Knesset. Resigned his
post last month after Israeli officials accused him of treason and
espionage. Speaking from Abu Dhabi.

    * Yael Lerer, Israeli Publisher with Andalus Publishing. She worked
as an aide to Azmi Bishara in 2000. She took part in an event last
night here in New York called An Evening of Solidarity with Dr. Azmi
Bisahra.

JUAN GONZALEZ: As an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and
Israel's most well-known Arab member of parliament, Azmi Bishara is no
stranger to clashes with the Israeli government. Five years ago,
Bishara was put on trial for supporting terrorism for comments he made
in public speeches about the Lebanese group Hezbollah. One year later,
Israel's election commission barred him for running for parliament, but
later had the decision overturned.

Today, Azmi Bishara is facing his most serious challenge to date.
Israeli police have accused him of treason and espionage. The charges
reportedly center around Bishara's alleged contacts with members of
Hezbollah during Israel's attacks on Lebanon last year. There are
reports Bishara's conservations were wiretapped. Bishara resigned his
position in the parliament and left Israel last month. Israeli police
say they'll arrest him if he returns. Bishara's resignation takes away
his parliamentary immunity from prosecution.

He explained his decision to flee at a news conference last week in
Cairo.

      AZMI BISHARA: I decided not to wait and not to hide behind the
immunity and to do it myself according to my rules and not to wait
until they do it. So in order not to create an impression that I am
hiding behind my membership in the Knesset or my immunity, etc., I
resigned myself. And I also want to give an opportunity to my party to
work in the parliament with three members, not only with two.

AMY GOODMAN: That was former Arab member of the Israeli parliament,
Azmi Bishara, speaking last week in Cairo. Today, he joins us from Abu
Dhabi.

Can you talk, Azmi Bishara, about why you have left Israel, why you
resigned from the Knesset?

AZMI BISHARA: Well, both decisions have nothing to do actually with the
charges. I resigned from the Knesset because I wanted to -- like a year
ago, I felt already exhausted from parliamentary work -- eleven years.
This was a very, very intensive year, and I wanted to give more time
for my philosophy and literature writing on my books and also for
political work, but not in the parliament. It?s a very exhausting
place to be. And I think my work was very intensive and very creative.
And the tools are there; everybody can use them. I think parties should
change their MKs or MPs every two or three times. I did that. But I
delayed, actually, the resignation, because of the charges, for a month
or two after I knew that they started an investigation.

And I left the country to attend two or three conferences abroad,
including an Al Jazeera commenting the Arab Summit. And then I heard
the kind of campaign which is run against me in the Israeli press and
the kind of plans, like hearing the Israeli intelligence commander --
previous intelligence commander saying on the TV that we have decided
to finish the phenomena of Azmi Bishara and all these things, and the
kind of, you know, totalitarian campaign without any dissent in the
Israeli press, orchestrated like the first weeks of wars, when Israelis
engage in wars, in the beginning of wars. So I thought I should slow
down a little bit and think.

They changed the rules again totally. Now they are not accusing me of
supporting the state of the citizens against the Zionist character of
the state, or they're not accusing me of saying things. They?re
accusing me of doing things. It is totally different. It?s actually
-- they?re accusing me of security crimes that, according to the
Israeli law, it?s very hard to clear yourself from, because it?s
their arena. They can bring the evidence they want from unknown
intelligence sources. They can actually impose new things that you did
not do and interpret your relationships. For example, they can declare
any friend you have or any journalist you talk to in Lebanon or in
Jordan or in Egypt as a foreign agent. And this is so, according to
Israeli law. Security courts are very different from civil courts,
although they are civil courts formally. But the rules of the game are
totally different in there, because of the kind of evidence that
convinces a court. So I thought it?s very mean, actually, the fact
that instead of facing my political and ideological work, that they
referred to security tools with which it?s very, very hard to
compete. It?s very hard to challenge.

AMY GOODMAN: Azmi Bishara, we're going to break for a moment, and then
we?re going to come back to you. We?ll also be joined by your aide
when you were a Knesset member, Yael Lerer, an Israeli publisher.
She?s here in New York. Azmi Bishara is joining us from Abu Dhabi.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Right now, we are talking to Azmi Bishara, former member
of the Israeli Knesset, resigned his post last month after Israeli
officials accused him of treason and espionage. He is speaking to us
now from Abu Dhabi. They say they?ll arrest him if he comes back into
Israel. I?m Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. This is Democracy Now! Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes. Azmi Bishara, you, in a recent Op-Ed piece in the
Los Angeles Times, compared your situation to the Dreyfus Affair of a
French Jew who was accused of treason. Could you explain why you made
that comparison?

AZMI BISHARA: Well, it?s actually [inaudible], because it?s closer
to the, let me say, Israeli mythology to understand, or even Jewish
mythology, because at times of defeat, France looked to a scapegoat to
blame, and the easiest thing to blame was somebody from the minority,
and it was the easiest thing to make a diversion of national
frustration against the government because of a defeat in a war against
Germany. They picked up an officer -- of course, I?m not an officer,
and I?m not trying to be Israeli, like Dreyfus was trying to be loyal
French. I am a Palestinian, that I consider myself a native that is --
whose identity is Arab Palestinian.

But the similarity is in the timing and the fact that the media unites
in such an orchestrated campaign against a scapegoat. There is a very
clear national frustration in Israel. Their political program of
disengagement in the West Bank and Gaza failed. Their military against
Hezbollah actually failed. And the whole morale, the whole mood of the
country is very low and bitter. And so, let me say, the public opinion
industry was to divert the attention towards somebody to blame. That's
why I used it.

But actually the Israeli security started working against my case a few
years ago -- against me a few years ago, because they could not cope
with the fact that there is an Arab Palestinian who is trying to take
away the democratic liberal discourse from their hand and use it
against them. They?re not used to this fact, that there is an Arab
national, Palestinian national, who is using a democratic discourse of
citizenship and liberalism, etc. They started working a few years ago
before the timing of the war. I referred actually to the media and
politicians' timing, which has to do with their need to divert
attention into my direction.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your decision to leave the country, could you tell us
whether you?re intending to return to Israel and face these charges,
or will you plan to stay in exile outside the country?

AZMI BISHARA: Well, we?re consulting things really. Usually people
who are accused of these things in the third world and leaders of
national movements in the third world do not capitulate this way. They
do not give themselves to be charged. The problem is the process that
they want to conduct in Israel. They want to conduct a process in which
people in the United States or Europe, liberals and democrats, can see
that, you know, there are no Arab democrats who are for citizenship and
democracy; actually, all of them are collaborators who give
information, actually inform us of terrorist movements, especially
Islamist, etc.; don't believe an Arab if he comes and says he?s a
democrat or he?s a secular or he?s for equality, etc. And they have
their evidence, which is their interpretation of all kinds of personal
relationships and friendships that they will have me justifying them
there like a small suspect, not like a leader or intellectual, etc.

This kind of arena that they will create, we think -- me and my lawyers
and everybody there thinks that it won?t be, it can't play to our
benefit, because it?s their arena and their discourse, and I will
have to play from within their discourse. Now, in the past I?ve
played from within the democratic liberal discourse, but to play from
within the security discourse, it?s very, very hard for a Palestinian
inside Israel.

The other message they want to send is to actually intimidate the Arabs
in Israel by these charges and by the result of the court, that this
way leads to this result. So actually what we wanted to avoid is this
kind of the rules of the game. Usually we are not dragged to the rules
of the game that they set, and we try ours. So what we are doing now is
staying outside and thinking what to do until the media campaign calms
down, winds down, and then we can think what we will do and how and
what are the terms of my return.

Of course, exile is not an option for me at all. I usually -- I lived
inside Israel in the hardest conditions. I did not leave the country. I
already stood in two courts and with success. But this time I know very
well. I think the Israelis themselves know, and they say it actually,
that this time when they go to this corner, to this arena of security
charges, it?s very hard for them to lose it. They prepare the files
this way with intelligence secret reports that you cannot challenge.
You cannot challenge their sources of information. I?m very sorry
that they went this far, because they lost the political and
ideological campaign. They themselves have said some months ago that my
political ideas are so hegemolian now in the Arab political street and
they spread so much that they can't fight them except by using the
Shabak, which is the Israeli secret police.

AMY GOODMAN: Azmi Bishara, we?re joined by Yael Lerer, your former
aide. There was an evening in solidarity with you last night at New
York University. Yael Lerer is an Israeli publisher. Your response to
the Israeli charges, you, an Israeli Jewish citizen?

YAEL LERER: I mean, I think Azmi Bishara was very accurate when he was
pointing on the fact that when it?s security charges, all the game is
completely different. And we know, we are familiar with these cases.
When somebody, when the General Security Service decides to put someone
on trial, nothing will help this person, because it?s very easy to
fabricate cases. Most, I think, of the security cases in Israel are
fabricated, and people just sit in the court, and always when there is
a security accusation, you are arrested. I mean, if Azmi Bishara was
not a member of the Knesset, he was arrested before the investigation
had started. And this is very important. And I think to be now away for
a while, it?s a very right decision. Like Azmi pointed out, I think,
myself, that his work in the Knesset was very important. He was showing
us what is citizenship about. I think it was very important lesson for
all the citizens of Israel, Jewish and Arab alike. But when the
government is so strong against him, I think the right thing now is to
be away. I just want to point a small thing --

AMY GOODMAN: We?re going to have to leave it there. Yael Lerer, I
want to thank you very much for joining us, Israeli publisher, former
aide to Azmi Bishara. Last night, an evening of solidarity with Dr.
Azmi Bishara took place at New York University. Azmi Bishara, thank you
for joining us. We?ll certainly continue to follow this case. Azmi
Bishara, the former member of the Israeli Knesset, joining us from Abu
Dhabi. Israel says if he returns, they will arrest him.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:26:51 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:26:51 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Frank Rich: Condi's Smoking Gun
Message-ID: <20070508122651.14f7f87c@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Ed Pearl

The New York Times - May 6, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/opinion/06rich.html

Is Condi Hiding the Smoking Gun?

By FRANK RICH

IF, as J.F.K. had it, victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an
orphan, the defeat in Iraq is the most pitiful orphan imaginable. Its
parents have not only tossed it to the wolves but are also trying to
pin its mutant DNA on any patsy they can find.

George Tenet is just the latest to join this blame game, which began
more than three years ago when his fellow Presidential Medal of Freedom
recipient Tommy Franks told Bob Woodward that Douglas Feith, the
Pentagon's intelligence bozo, was the "stupidest guy on the face of the
earth" (that's the expurgated version). Last fall, Kenneth Adelman, the
neocon cheerleader who foresaw a "cakewalk" in Iraq, told Vanity Fair
that Mr. Tenet, General Franks and Paul Bremer were "three of the most
incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots." Richard Perle
chimed in that the "huge mistakes" were "not made by neoconservatives"
and instead took a shot at President Bush. Ahmad Chalabi, the neocons'
former darling, told Dexter Filkins of The Times "the real culprit in
all this is Wolfowitz." And of course nearly everyone blames Rumsfeld.

This would be a Three Stooges routine were there only three stooges. The
good news is that Mr. Tenet's book rollout may be the last gasp of this
farcical round robin of recrimination. Republicans and Democrats have at
last found some common ground by condemning his effort to position
himself as the war's innocent scapegoat. Some former C.I.A. colleagues
are rougher still. Michael Scheuer, who ran the agency's bin Laden
unit, has accused Mr. Tenet of lacking "the moral courage to resign and
speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what
he knew would be an abyss." Even after Mr. Tenet did leave office, he
maintained a Robert McNamara silence until he cashed in.

Satisfying though it is to watch a circular firing squad of the war's
enablers, unfinished business awaits. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the
past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very
little has changed between the fourth anniversary of "Mission
Accomplished" this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered
an Iraqi "turning point" precipitated by "the emergence of a unity
government." Since then, what's emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a
major leap in the death toll. That's why Americans voted in November to
get out.

The only White House figure to take any responsibility for the fiasco
is the former Bush-Cheney pollster Matthew Dowd, who in March expressed
remorse for furthering a war he now deems a mistake. For his belated
act of conscience, he was promptly patronized as an incipient basket
case by an administration flack, who attributed Mr. Dowd's defection to
"personal turmoil." If that is what this vicious gang would do to a
pollster, imagine what would befall Colin Powell if he spoke out.
Nonetheless, Mr. Powell should summon the guts to do so. Until there is
accountability for the major architects and perpetrators of the Iraq
war, the quagmire will deepen. A tragedy of this scale demands a full
accounting, not to mention a catharsis.

That accounting might well begin with Mr. Powell's successor,
Condoleezza Rice. Of all the top-tier policy players who were beside
the president and vice president at the war's creation, she is the
highest still in power and still on the taxpayers' payroll. She is also
the only one who can still get a free pass from the press. The current
groupthink Beltway narrative has it that the secretary of state's
recidivist foreign-policy realism and latent shuttle diplomacy have
happily banished the Cheney-Rumsfeld cowboy arrogance that rode America
into a ditch.

Thus Ms. Rice was dispatched to three Sunday shows last weekend to bat
away Mr. Tenet's book before "60 Minutes" broadcast its interview with
him that night. But in each appearance her statements raised more
questions than they answered. She was persistently at odds with the
record, not just the record as spun by Mr. Tenet but also the public
record. She must be held to a higher standard - a k a the truth -
before she too jumps ship.

It's now been nearly five years since Ms. Rice did her part to sell the
Iraq war on a Sept. 8, 2002, Sunday show with her rendition of "we
don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Yet there she was
last Sunday on ABC, claiming that she never meant to imply then that
Saddam was an imminent threat. "The question of imminence isn't whether
or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow" is how she put it. In
other words, she is still covering up the war's origins. On CBS's "Face
the Nation," she claimed that intelligence errors before the war were
"worldwide" even though the International Atomic Energy Agency's
Mohamed ElBaradei publicly stated there was "no evidence" of an Iraqi
nuclear program and even though Germany's intelligence service sent
strenuous prewar warnings that the C.I.A.'s principal informant on
Saddam's supposed biological weapons was a fraud.

Of the Sunday interviewers, it was George Stephanopoulos who went for
the jugular by returning to that nonexistent uranium from Africa. He
forced Ms. Rice to watch a clip of her appearance on his show in June
2003, when she claimed she did not know of any serious questions about
the uranium evidence before the war. Then he came as close as any
Sunday host ever has to calling a guest a liar. "But that statement
wasn't true," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. Ms. Rice pleaded memory loss,
but the facts remain. She received a memo raising serious questions
about the uranium in October 2002, three months before the president
included the infamous 16 words on the subject in his State of the Union
address. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a
phone call of warning from Mr. Tenet.

Apologists for Ms. Rice, particularly those in the press who are
embarrassed by their own early cheerleading for the war, like to say
that this is ancient history, just as they said of the C.I.A. leak
case. We're all supposed to move on and just worry about what happens
next. Try telling that to families whose children went to Iraq to stop
Saddam's nukes. Besides, there's a continuum between past deceptions
and present ones, as the secretary of state seamlessly demonstrated
last Sunday.

On ABC, she pushed the administration's line portraying Iraq's current
violence as a Qaeda plot hatched by the Samarra bombing of February
2006. But that Qaeda isn't the Qaeda of 9/11; it's a largely Iraqi
group fighting on one side of a civil war. And by February 2006,
sectarian violence had already been gathering steam for 15 months - in
part because Ms. Rice and company ignored the genuine imminence of that
civil war just as they had ignored the alarms about bin Laden's Qaeda
in August 2001.

Ms. Rice's latest canard wasn't an improvisation; it was a scripted
set-up for the president's outrageous statement three days later. "The
decision we face in Iraq," Mr. Bush said Wednesday, "is not whether we
ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight
against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on
9/11." Such statements about the present in Iraq are no less deceptive
- and no less damaging to our national interest - than the lies about
uranium and Qaeda- 9/11 connections told in 2002-3. This country needs
facts, not fiction, to make its decisions about the endgame of the war,
just as it needed (but didn't get) facts when we went to war in the
first place. To settle for less is to make the same tragic error twice.

That Ms. Rice feels scant responsibility for any of this was evident in
her repeated assertions on Sunday that all the questions about prewar
intelligence had been answered by the Robb-Silberman and Senate
committee inquiries, neither of which even addressed how the
administration used the intelligence it received. Now she risks being
held in contempt of Congress by ducking a subpoena authorized by the
House's Oversight Committee, whose chairman, Henry Waxman, has been
trying to get direct answers from her about the uranium hoax since 2003.

Ms. Rice is stonewalling his investigation by rambling on about
separation of powers and claiming she answered all relevant questions
in writing, to Senator Carl Levin, during her confirmation to the
cabinet in January 2005. If former or incumbent national security
advisers like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski
could testify before Congress without defiling the Constitution, so can
she. As for her answers to Senator Levin's questions, five of eight
were pure Alberto Gonzales: she either didn't
recall or didn't know.

No wonder the most galling part of Ms. Rice's Sunday spin was her aside
to Wolf Blitzer that she would get around to reflecting on these issues
"when I have a chance to write my book." Another book! As long as
American troops are dying in Iraq, the secretary of state has an
obligation to answer questions about how they got there and why they
stay. If accountability is ever to begin, it would be best if those
questions are answered not on "60 Minutes" but under oath.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:31:21 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:31:21 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] With New Clout, Antiwar Groups Push Democrats
Message-ID: <20070508123121.66271c06@viola.tamara-b.org>

The New York Times - May 6, 2007 (posted 5/5/07)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/washington/06left.html

Antiwar Groups Use New Clout to Influence Democrats on Iraq

By MICHAEL LUO

WASHINGTON, May 4 ? Every morning, representatives from a cluster of
antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership
staff members in the House and the Senate.

Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room here, they convene for a call
with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies.
They sketch out talking points for ?rapid response? news conferences.
They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial
Congressional districts and states across the country.

Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have
lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president?s
strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind
the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition
of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into
place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.

But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which
banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans
Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership. The fissures
could be magnified in coming weeks as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi
of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada,
struggle to cobble together a strategy after President Bush?s veto of
the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a timetable
for withdrawal.

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom
Matzzie, the group?s Washington director who also serves as the
campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to
the Democratic leadership.

?In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons
signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,? the
letter read. ?On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats
appear to capitulate to Bush ? passing a bill without measures to end
the war ? the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership
has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.?

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill ?without a
timeline and with all five months of funding,? they would essentially
be endorsing a ?war without end.? MoveOn, it said, ?will move to a
position of opposition.?

The antiwar coalition combines the online mobilization capabilities of
MoveOn with the old-school political muscle of organized labor. They
have been working in tandem with Democratic leadership in both the
House and the Senate on a systematic strategy to unify Democrats,
divide Republicans and isolate the president.

The alliance, including MoveOn, chose to stick with Ms. Pelosi as she
ushered through a war financing bill that included a timeline for
withdrawal, but many peace advocates called the measure too timid. Some
critics accused the alliance of becoming too cozy with the Democratic
leadership and selling out the cause.

?There?s a dividing line between those groups who feel the most
important thing is to be clear on bringing the troops home as soon as
possible, and the groups that feel that unity within the Democratic
Party is most important and the most important thing is for the
Democrats to win the White House,? said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of
Code Pink, an antiwar group that is not part of the alliance. ?So the
groups who feel the most important thing is to win the White House
would naturally be more inclined to listening to Speaker Nancy Pelosi
when she says the only way we can get a vote through is if we water it
down.?

Many of the major players in Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
earned their stripes not from sit-ins, marches and other acts of civil
disobedience but as Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill and in
political campaigns. The sophisticated political operation they have
built is a testament to how far the antiwar movement has come since the
Vietnam era.

But Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman from Maine and the
national director of Win Without War, a member of the coalition, said
there existed a ?healthy tension? between working closely with
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, many of whom were former
colleagues and friends, and continuing to prod them to end the war.

?Our constituency is the people across this country who want to shut
this war down,? Mr. Andrews said. ?It?s not the Democratic Party.?

Mr. Matzzie underscored the coalition?s approach to a roomful of
members on Thursday at the outset of a planning retreat at the
headquarters of the Service Employees International Union here.

?The principle under which we?ve been operating is more like a
political campaign,? Mr. Matzzie said. ?The central strategy is
creating that toxic environment for people who want to continue this
debacle.?

The discussion at the retreat mirrored that of planning meetings for
traditional political campaigns, with presentations on polling,
strategy and field operations.

?It?s no different than if you went over to the offices of Clinton for
President, Obama for President, Giuliani for President,? said Brad
Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, which has roots in
organized labor and came out of the legislative battle over social
security in 2005.

The coalition, which has raised $7.1 million since January, has
concentrated its activities on 57 House districts and senators in nine
states, places where they believe Republican lawmakers face tough races
in 2008 or have shown signs of wavering in their support for the
president.

The service employees? union has mobilized its phone bank in New York
City and asked local leaders to call members of Congress. Leaders of
the union, long closely allied with liberal lawmakers, helped assuage
many progressives who were uneasy about voting for the war-financing
bill, fearing criticism from the left.

The National Security Network, a collection of liberal-leaning military
and foreign policy experts headed by Rand Beers, former national
security adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry,
has deployed former generals and officials to persuade individual
lawmakers.

The coalition?s influence comes from its connections on Capitol Hill
and political shrewdness, as well as its grass-roots reach. ?The whole
movement has updated themselves to be where campaign-style politics are
generally,? said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist. ?They?re
just incredibly savvy, tactically and politically. They know how to use
the news cycle.?

Most important for lawmakers, said Mr. Andrews, the former congressman
from Maine, the coalition members are committed to using their
resources to changing the political climate in their districts, which
gives them credibility on Capitol Hill.

?We want members of Congress to do the right thing and do very well as
a result,? he said. ?We?re not just there asking them to do the right
thing without fully recognizing the task we have on hand.?

Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Mr. Reid?s office, said the coalition
amplifies what Democrats are trying to do in Washington to end the war.

?It helps us reverberate a unified message outside the Beltway,? he
said. ?These groups give voice to a message we?re trying to get
outside.?

One of the coalition?s strengths is its diversity, bringing to together
groups like MoveOn.org and organized labor on one end and former Iraq
veterans in the group Votevets.org on the other, members said. But that
diversity can also create some tense moments, as each of the groups
have different constituencies and some of the groups are more invested
in the Democratic Party than others.

But the organizations came together based on a sense of pragmatism,
said Mr. Woodhouse, of Americans United for Change, ?that we?re better
fighting together than fighting apart.?

After the president?s veto this week, the coalition organized 358
rallies and more than 20 news conferences across the country.
Organizers had met with leadership staff members the week before to
coordinate.

On Friday, in a daily conference call, Tara McGuinness, the coalition?s
deputy campaign manager, told members that leadership aides had
expressed gratitude for the work, saying it had helped bolster members
of their caucus.

Ms. McGuiness also told them that she had received assurances from
leadership staff members that all options were still being considered
for the new version of the war spending bill.

?The latest word from them is they are talking more and more about a
short-leash option,? she said, referring to a plan in the House that
would finance the war for only about three more months and require the
administration to report back on progress being made by the Iraqi
government. Congress would then vote again on the rest of the money
requested by Mr. Bush.

Members of the Senate appear to be cool to the idea, but it has
currency among some liberal advocates and members of the coalition.

Mr. Matzzie, of MoveOn, was clear about the stakes in the coming weeks,
saying his group was only getting started. He emphasized that the next
emergency spending bill must be one ?to end the war.?

?This is act one of a three-act play,? he said. ?Act two will be the
summer. During the summer, our job is to create a firestorm of
opposition.?

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:36:34 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:36:34 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Desmond Tutu: This Fatal Complacency
Message-ID: <20070508123634.11a1024f@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Guardian - May 5, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2072984,00.html

This fatal complacency

Climate change is already destroying millions of lives
in the poor world. But it will not stop there

By Desmond Tutu

What if dealing with climate change meant more than a
flick of a switch? Would our friends in the
industrialised world think differently if the effects
of climate change were worse than extended summer
months and the arrival of exotic species? Cushioned and
cosseted, they have had the luxury of closing their
minds to the real impact of what is happening in the
fragile and precious atmosphere that surrounds the
planet we live on. Where climate change has occurred in
the industrialised world, the effects have so far been
relatively benign. With the exception of events such as
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the inhabitants of North
America and Europe have felt just a gentle caress from
the winds of change.

I wonder how much more anxious they might be if they 
depended on the cycle of mother nature to feed their families. 
How much greater would their concerns be if they lived in 
slums and townships, in mud houses, or shelters made of 
plastic bags? In large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, this is a 
reality. The poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed 
to the harsh edge of climate change every day of their lives.

The melting of the snows on the peak of Kilimanjaro is
a warning of the changes taking place in Africa. Across
this beautiful but vulnerable continent, people are
already feeling the change in the weather. But rain or
drought, the result is the same: more hunger and more
misery for millions of people living on the margins of
global society. Even in places such as Darfur, climate
change has played a role. In the semi-arid zones of the
world, there is fierce competition for access to
grazing lands and watering holes. Where water is scarce
and populations are growing, conflict will never be far
behind.

In so many of the countries where the poorest live,
governments are ill-equipped to cope. Katrina was a
challenge for the US, so why should we be surprised
that the annual cyclone season off the east coast of
Africa continues to stretch the governments of
Mozambique and Madagascar to their limits? Where
governments are weak, the reliance on humanitarian
agencies is greater.

People who work for bodies such as the UN World Food
Programme are finding their work is a humanitarian
"growth industry". Indeed, the numbers of people who
know what it's like to go hungry stands at more than
850 million, and they are still growing by almost 4
million a year. The increasing frequency of natural
disasters makes the fight against hunger even more
challenging. The World Bank estimates that the number
of natural disasters has quadrupled from 100 a year in
1975 to 400 in 2005.

In the past 10 years, 2.6 billion people have suffered
from natural disasters. That is more than a third of
the global population - most of them in the developing
world. The human impact is obvious, but what is not so
apparent is the extent to which climatic events can
undo the developmental gains put in place over decades.
Droughts and floods destroy lives, but they also
destroy schools, economies and opportunity.

Every child will remember the story of the three little
pigs and the big bad wolf. In the world we live in, the
bad wolf of climate change has already ransacked the
straw house and the house made of sticks, and the
inhabitants of both are knocking on the door of the
brick house where the people of the developed world
live. Our friends there should think about this the
next time they reach for the thermostat switch. They
should realize that while the problems of the
Mozambican farmer might seem far away, it may not be
long before their troubles wash up on their shores.

[Desmond Tutu is a former archbishop of Cape Town and
a Nobel peace laureate comment at guardian.co.uk]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 12:54:28 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:54:28 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Fidel Castro: The Tragedy Threatening Our Species - May 7,
	2007
Message-ID: <20070508125428.17773de7@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Cuba's Mission to the United Nations - May 8, 2007 10:06


Reflections by the Commander in Chief

THE TRAGEDY THREATENING OUR SPECIES

by Fidel Castro Ruz

I cannot speak as an economist or a scientist. I simply speak
as a politician who wishes to unravel the economists' and scientists'
arguments one way or another. I also try to sense the motivations of
each one of those who make statements on these matters. Just twenty-two
years ago, here in Havana, we had a great number of meetings with
political, union, peasant and student leaders invited to our country as
representatives of these sectors.  They all agreed that the most
important problem at that time was the enormous foreign debt
accumulated by the nations of Latin America in 1985. That debt amounted
to 350 billion dollars.  The dollar then had a higher purchasing power
than it does today.

A copy of the outcome of those meetings was sent to all the world
governments, of course with some exceptions, because it might have
seemed insulting. At that time, the petrodollars had flooded the market
and the large transnational banks were virtually demanding that the
countries accept high loans. Needless to say, the people responsible
for the economy had taken on those commitments without consulting
anybody. That period coincided with the presence of the most repressive
and bloody governments this continent has ever suffered, installed by
imperialism. Large sums were spent on weapons, luxuries and consumer
goods. The subsequent debt grew to 800 billion dollars while today's
catastrophic dangers were being hatched, the dangers that weigh upon a
population that doubled in just two decades and along with it, the
number of those condemned to a life of extreme poverty. Today, in the
Latin American region, the difference between the most favored
population and the one with the lowest income is the greatest in the
world.

Many years before the subjects of today's debates were center stage,
the struggles of the Third World focused on equally agonizing problems
like the unequal exchange. Year after year it was discovered that the
price of the industrialized nations' exports, usually manufactured with
our raw materials, would unilaterally grow while our basic exports
remained unchanged.  The price of coffee and cacao, just to mention two
examples, was approximately 2,000 dollars a ton.  A cup of coffee or a
chocolate milkshake could be bought in cities like New York for a few
cents; today, these cost several dollars, perhaps 30 or 40 times what
they cost back then. Today, the purchase of a tractor, a truck or
medical equipment require several times the volume of products that was
needed to import them back then; jute, henequen and other Third World
produced fibers that were substituted by synthetic ones succumbed to
the same fate. In the meantime, tanned hides, rubber and natural fibers
used in many textiles were being replaced by synthetic materials
derived from the sophisticated petrochemical industry while sugar
prices hit rock bottom, crushed by the large subsidies granted by the
industrialized countries to their agricultural sector.

The former colonies or neocolonies that had been promised a glowing
future after World War II had not yet awakened from the Bretton Woods
dream.  From top to bottom, the system had been designed for
exploitation and plundering.

When consciousness was beginning to be roused, the other extremely
adverse factors had not yet surfaced, such as the undreamed-of
squandering of energy that industrialized countries had fallen prey to.
They were paying less than two dollars a barrel of oil. The source of
fuel, with the exception of the United States where it was very
abundant, was basically in Third World countries, chiefly in the Middle
East but also in Mexico, Venezuela, and later in Africa. But not all of
the countries that by virtue of yet another white lie classified as
"developing countries" were oil producers, since 82 of them are among
the poorest and as a rule they must import oil. A terrible situation
awaits them if food stuffs are to be transformed into biofuels or
agrifuels, as the peasant and native movements in our region prefer to
call them.

Thirty years ago, the idea of global warming hanging over our
species' life like a sword of Damocles was not even known by the immense
majority of the inhabitants of our planet; even today there is great
ignorance and confusion about these issues. If we listen to the
spokesmen of the transnationals and their media, we are living in the
best of all possible worlds: an economy ruled by the market, plus
transnational capital, plus sophisticated technology equals a constant
growth of productivity, higher GDP, higher living standards and every
dream of the human species come true; the state should not interfere
with anything, it should not even exist, other than as an instrument of
the large financial capital.

But reality is hard-headed. Germany, one of the most highly
industrialized countries in the world, loses sleep over its 10 percent
unemployment. The toughest and least attractive jobs are taken by
immigrants who, desperate in their growing poverty, break into
industrialized Europe through any possible chink. Apparently, nobody is
taking note of the number of inhabitants on our planet, growing
precisely in the undeveloped countries.

More than 700 representatives of social organizations have just been
meeting in Havana to discuss various issues raised in this
reflection. Many of them set out their points of view and left
indelible impressions on us. There is plenty of material to reflect
upon as well as new events happening every day.

Even now, as a consequence of liberating a terrorist monster, two
young men, who were fulfilling their legal duty in the Active Military
Service, anxious to taste consumerism in the United States, hijacked a
bus, crashed through one of the doors of the domestic flights terminal
at the airport, drove up to a civilian aircraft and got on board with
their hostages, demanding to be taken to the United States. A few days
earlier, they had killed a soldier, who was standing guard, to steal
two automatic weapons, and in the plane they fired four shots that
killed a brave officer who, unarmed and held hostage in the bus, had
attempted to prevent the plane's hijacking.  The impunity and the
material gains that have rewarded any violent action against Cuba
during the last half-century encourage such events.  It had been many
months since we had such an incident. All it needed was setting a
notorious terrorist free and once again death come calling at our door.
The perpetrators have not gone on trial yet because, in the course of
events, both were wounded; one of them was shot by the other as he
fired inside the plane, while they were struggling with the heroic army
officer. Now, many people abroad are waiting for the reaction of our
Courts and of the Council of State, while our people here are deeply
outraged with these events. We really need a large dose of calmness and
sangfroid to confront these problems.

The apocalyptic head of the empire declared more than five years ago
that the United States armed forces had to be on the ready to make
pre-emptive attacks on 60 or more countries in the world; nothing less
than one third of the international community. Apparently, he is not
satisfied with the death, the torture and the uprooting of millions of
people to seize their natural resources and the product of their labors.

Meanwhile, the impressive international meeting that just concluded
in Havana reaffirmed my personal conviction: every evil idea must be
submitted to devastating criticism, avoiding any concession.

May 7, 2007 5:42 p.m


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 13:22:46 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:22:46 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Canada: US Army Contractors' Paranoia Resulted in "Spy"
	Warnings
Message-ID: <20070508132246.158d34cb@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via Toronto Globe & Mail - May 7, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070507.wspycoins0507/BNStory/National/home


Mystery revealed: Poppy quarter led to U.S. spy warnings

By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- An odd-looking Canadian coin with a bright red flower was 
the culprit behind the U.S. Defence Department's false espionage
warning earlier this year, The Associated Press has learned.

The odd-looking -- but harmless -- "poppy coin" was so unfamiliar to 
suspicious U.S. Army contractors travelling in Canada that they filed 
confidential espionage accounts about them. The worried contractors 
described the coins as "anomalous" and "filled with something man-made 
that looked like nano-technology," according to once-classified U.S. 
government reports and e-mails obtained by the AP.

The silver-coloured 25-cent piece features the red image of a poppy -- 
Canada's flower of remembrance -- inlaid over a maple leaf. The
unorthodox quarter is identical to the coins pictured and described as
suspicious in the contractors' accounts.

The supposed nano-technology actually was a conventional protective 
coating the Royal Canadian Mint applied to prevent the poppy's red
colour from rubbing off.  The mint produced nearly 30 million such
quarters in 2004 commemorating Canada's 117,000 war dead. The Royal
Canadian Mints special 2004 Remembrance Day poppy coins.

"It did not appear to be electronic (analog) in nature or have a power 
source," wrote one U.S. contractor, who discovered the coin in the cup 
holder of a rental car. "Under high power microscope, it appeared to be 
complex consisting of several layers of clear, but different material, 
with a wire like mesh suspended on top."

The confidential accounts led to a sensational warning from the Defence 
Security Service, an agency of the Defence Department, that mysterious 
coins with radio frequency transmitters were found planted on U.S. 
contractors with classified security clearances on at least three
separate occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the
contractors travelled through Canada.

One contractor believed someone had placed two of the quarters in an
outer coat pocket after the contractor had emptied the pocket hours
earlier. "Coat pockets were empty that morning and I was keeping all of
my coins in a plastic bag in my inner coat pocket," the contractor
wrote.

But the Defence Department subsequently acknowledged that it could
never substantiate the espionage alarm that it had put out and launched
the internal review that turned up the true nature of the mysterious
coin.

Meanwhile, in Canada, senior intelligence officials expressed annoyance 
with the American spy-coin warnings as they tried to learn more about
the oddball claims.

"That story about Canadians planting coins in the pockets of defence 
contractors will not go away," Luc Portelance, now deputy director for
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, wrote in a January e-mail
to a subordinate. "Could someone tell me more? Where do we stand and
what's the story on this?"

Others in Canada's spy service also were searching for answers. "We
would be very interested in any more detail you may have on the
validity of the comment related to the use of Canadian coins in this
manner,"  another intelligence official wrote in an e-mail. "If it is
accurate, are they talking industrial or state espionage? If the
latter, who?" The identity of the e-mail's recipient was censored.

Intelligence and technology experts were flabbergasted over the warning 
when it was first publicized earlier this year. The warning suggested
that such transmitters could be used surreptitiously to track the
movements of people carrying the coins.

"I thought the whole thing was preposterous, to think you could tag an 
individual with a coin and think they wouldn't give it away or spend
it," said H. Keith Melton, a leading intelligence historian.

But Mr.  Melton said the Army contractors properly reported their 
suspicions.  "You want contractors or any government personnel to
report anything suspicious,"  he said. "You can't have the potential
target evaluating whether this was an organized attack or a fluke."

The Defence Security Service disavowed its warning about spy coins
after an international furor, but until now it has never disclosed the
details behind the embarrassing episode.  The U.S.  said it never
substantiated the contractors' claims and performed an internal review
to determine how the false information was included in a 29-page
published report about espionage concerns.

The Defence Security Service never examined the suspicious coins, 
spokeswoman Cindy McGovern said. "We know where we made the mistake,"
she said.  "The information wasn't properly vetted. While these coins
aroused suspicion, there ultimately was nothing there."

A numismatist consulted by the AP, Dennis Pike of Canadian Coin &
Currency near Toronto, quickly matched a grainy image and physical
descriptions of the suspect coins in the contractors' confidential
accounts to the 25-cent poppy piece.

"It's not uncommon at all," Mr. Pike said. He added that the coin's 
protective coating glows peculiarly under ultraviolet light. "That may 
have been a little bit suspicious," he said.

Some of the U.S.  documents the AP obtained were classified 
"Secret/Noforn,"  meaning they were never supposed to be viewed by 
foreigners, even America's closest allies. The government censored
parts of the files, citing national security reasons, before turning
over copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

Nothing in the documents -- except the reference to nanotechnology -- 
explained how the contractors' accounts evolved into a full-blown
warning about spy coins with radio frequency transmitters. Many
passages were censored, including the names of contractors and details
about where they worked and their projects.

But there were indications the accounts should have been taken lightly. 
Next to one blacked-out sentence was this warning: "This has not been 
confirmed as of yet."

The Canadian intelligence documents, which also were censored, were
turned over to the AP for $5 under that country's Access to Information
Act. Canada cited rules for protecting against subversive or hostile
activities to explain why it censored the papers.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 13:25:15 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:25:15 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] French Election: Is Europe Moving Right?
Message-ID: <20070508132515.1c6c69b5@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Washington Post - May 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701223.html


Progressives' French Lesson

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Is Europe moving right? Is the democratic left in trouble?

The decisive victory of Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist S?gol?ne Royal in
France's presidential election on Sunday was the most recent example of
the battering that moderate-left parties are taking from the forces of
globalization and discontent over immigration.

A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime
Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party in local elections. Last September,
Sweden's Social Democrats were voted out of power, a blow to the
progressive spirit in light of the country's standing as a model
egalitarian society.

Earlier in 2006, in the land of single-payer health care, Canada's
Conservatives under Stephen Harper came back from near-death 14 years
ago to form a minority government. In 2005, Germany's Social Democrats
lost their majority, though they cling to a share of power under
Christian Democratic Chancellor Angela Merkel.

There are some countertrends toward the left, notably in Australia,
according to recent polls. A populist left (quite different from the
moderate European variety) has gained ground in Latin America. And
Democrats might take heart that France and the United States have moved
on opposite electoral cycles ever since Socialist Fran?ois Mitterrand
won power in 1981, just a year after Ronald Reagan's election.

Nonetheless, the social democratic and liberal left faces a big problem
because globalization makes the movement's core pledge -- to produce
economic growth that lifts up the poor and the middle class as well as
the rich -- far more problematic.

For much of the period after World War II, national governments found it
relatively easy to redistribute wealth and income through taxes and
decent wage agreements negotiated by strong labor unions. Globalization
and heightened competition are taking a toll on unionized industrial
jobs, while national governments have less freedom of action when
capital is so mobile. As a result, thriving emerging economies are
enjoying higher growth rates than their traditionally wealthy
competitors.

In France, Sarkozy promised that by deregulating the labor market, he
could create more growth and more jobs. Royal pledged to preserve and
expand some of France's generous social protections -- although she
also bowed to the imperatives of global capitalism by sounding some
modernizing themes. Sarkozy's clarity trumped Royal's well-meaning
muddle.

Fear that immigrant and particularly Muslim communities were not
integrating well into France also helped Sarkozy. His tough-guy image
allowed this center-right candidate to court the far-right constituency
of Jean-Marie Le Pen. According to the polling agency Ipsos, voters who
backed Le Pen in the election's first round went to Sarkozy on Sunday
by more than 5 to 1.

Here again, Royal played defense by offering her own version of
patriotic politics -- French citizens should learn the words of the
Marseillaise, she said, and keep a French flag in their cupboards. But
she also felt an honorable obligation to criticize some of Sarkozy's
harsher positions on immigration. Worries over immigrants trumped fear
of Sarkozy's hard line.

And where Royal won by almost 3 to 2 among public-sector workers (she
also carried students and the unemployed), she lost private-sector
workers (as well as the retired). The left can't win without a better
showing among workers in the private economy.

In fact, Royal's biggest problem was reflected in another Ipsos finding:
While 42 percent of her voters said their ballots were aimed primarily
at keeping Sarkozy out of the presidency, only 18 percent of Sarkozy's
voters said they cast negative ballots against Royal. The left is in
trouble when its campaigns are based more on anxiety about the right
than on the hopes that progressives inspire.

It would be a mistake to draw too many American lessons from the
troubles of European social democrats. For one thing, the social
insurance system is much weaker in the United States than in Europe,
where even conservatives support substantial government provision for
health care and child care. If European voters seem willing to gamble
on a bit less security because they have a lot of it, American voters
now seem inclined to ask for more because they have so little.

But the center-left clearly needs a shot of dynamism. It must convey a
clearer sense that it knows how to preserve social justice in a
globalized economy and how to respond to a growing impatience with
government. It must figure out how to preserve civil liberties, protect
immigrants and foster an inclusive sense of national solidarity at the
same time.

With their European friends in some trouble, American progressives may
have both the opportunity and the obligation to find the new formulas.




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 13:31:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:31:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Communist Revolutionary League View on the Election of
	Sarkozy
Message-ID: <20070508133124.74c84f15@viola.tamara-b.org>

International Viewpoint - May 8, 2007
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1261

Statement by Olivier Besancenot on election of Sarkozy

by Olivier Besancenot

Nicolas Sarkozy has been just elected president of the republic with
approximately 53% of the votes. With him, it is the programme of the
MEDEF (the French employers' organisation) which is now in government.
New tax gifts to companies and the rich, new privatisations of public
services, the hunting out of 'sans papier' children, challenging
fundamental social and democratic rights like the right to strike or
unlimited job contracts are on the agenda of the new president of the
Republic.

This evening, the UMP state once again has central political power. The
populist demagogy used in this campaign will lead to anti-social,
repressive and antidemocratic measures, which will undoubtedly provoke
very broad resistance and struggles.

The LCR [Communist Revolutionary League] will now concentrate all its
strength on building these mobilisations. It proposes a united front of
all the social and democratic forces is immediately built to organise a
response faced to the extreme neoliberal and repressive programme of
Sarkozy. The LCR will take all the initiatives possible in this
direction in the next days.

It has also been shown that a social-liberal left, which tried up to the
very end to make an alliance with the UDF of Bayrou, is not a very
effective protection against a hard and authoritarian right.

The openings towards the right only confused the message. Parts of the
popular classes have lost their sense of direction and were looking for
change. Sigolhne Royal did not know how to blow on this wind of hope for
change. This is why she lost.

More than ever the building of a powerful anti-capitalist force,
implanted in the workplaces, the public services and the popular
districts, is necessary to make it possible to win against the right
and the MEDEF in the struggles and in the ballot boxes.

This was the message of Olivier Besancenot9s and how the LCR intends To
continue: to bring together the anticapitalist forces on a basis of
independence from the Socialist Party leadership.

It is on this base that we are standing in the parliamentary elections,
presenting a programme of urgent social and democratic demands.

Montreuil, May 6th 2007.

[Olivier Besancenot was candidate for the Ligue Communiste
Revolutionnaire (LCR - French section of the Fourth International) at
the French presidential elections in 2002 and 2007.]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 14:28:49 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 14:28:49 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Peace Moms Call for "Swarm" on DC - May 14
Message-ID: <20070508142849.532df431@viola.tamara-b.org>

University of Massachusetts, Boston 
http://www.disres.umb.edu/announcements.php?item=439


PeaceMajority Report

Peace Moms Call For 'Swarm' On DC May 14


"Mother of a March" & May 15-July 31 "Summer of Action" 

By Kevin Zeese

In
reaction to President Bush's veto the Democrats are reportedly caving
in to give him a Iraq War funding without any obligation to end the
war. They are making Bush "the decider" once again.  It seems that
rather than having a lame duck president we have a lame Congress. The
only thing that will end the war is constant, organized and focused
pressure from Americans who oppose the war.   Two peace moms have
called on anti-war activists to come to Washington, DC after Mother's
Day.  Cindy Sheehan is organizing a "Mother of a March" on May 14,
2007.  She is inviting "all mothers and all people who have mothers" to
join her.  This will be the kick-off to a "Summer of Action," being
spearheaded by Marine Mom Tina Richards.  This summer peace activists
will swarm Congress from May 14 to July 31 to urge an end to the war.
You can see an interview of Tina Richards about the "Summer of Action"
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV-elj7Lo70.   The last few months
have shown that we can move Congress toward the view that the war must
end. When the Democrats came to power they said "we will not use the
power of the purse to end the war." Now, they have moved from that
position to passing a bill that opposes Bush enough for him to veto
it.  They did not include ending the war on their first 100 hours
agenda - now it is an issue they cannot avoid.

More work is needed peace advocated need to consistently stiffen the
spine of Congress so they have the courage to do what the people want -
end the war.  As the 2008 election approaches the power of the anti-war
voter becomes greater, especially if it is organized and focused.
Cindy Sheehan says "The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling for a
march on Congress on Monday, May 14th to demand an end to the war and
an end to the Bush Regime." The marchers will meet at the Ellipse at
noon in front of the White House. For more information see
http://www.thecampcaseypeaceinstitute.org.   Tina Richards has been
working in Washington, DC for the past several months and she has seen
the power that one committed person can have on the nation's capitol.
You can see more about Tina on her website,
www.GrassRootsAmericaForUs.org and you can register to join us in the
"Summer of Action" in Washington, DC.    We want peace advocates to
come and join us not only in traditional lobbying but in "extraordinary
lobbying."  The "Summer of Action" will build on the successful efforts
of activists in DC and around the country who have been engaging in
"extraordinary lobbying" by occupying offices, protesting in the Halls
of Congress and sending a consistent message to end the war. It will
build on the Occupation Project, Voices for Creative Non-Violence, and
the Declaration of Peace. Already, key anti-war groups are supporting
this effort including United For Peace and Justice and Voters For Peace.

Bring people from your local peace group and plan an office occupation
or a demonstration inside one of the congressional office buildings as
part of the "Summer of Action." Or, come alone and join our ongoing
efforts to pressure Congress. To get some ideas of the types of events
you can organize visit www.WHYNotNews.org. They have been documenting
many of the DC events and will be doing so throughout the "Summer of
Action."

Republicans saw the power of the peace vote in 2006 when they lost
majority power and some of their leading incumbents -- senators like
George Allen and Rick Santorum who thought they had an easy re-election
and were considering running for president -- were defeated. And
Democrats saw anti-war candidates win primary and general elections
that were unexpected.  Democrats know they were elected to end the
war.  If they fail to fulfill that mandate they will find themselves
facing angry voters. In 2008 incumbents will be held accountable for
the war if they vote to fund the war.     The summer of 2007 will be a
historical one that will be noted as the turning point in efforts to
end the war. The very visible and dramatic activities of organized
citizens swarming on Washington in the "Summer of Action" will be seen
as one of the key steps taken by the peace movement to end the war.
Come to the Capitol and be a part of history. 

[Kevin Zeese is Director of DemocracyRising.US and a co-founder of
VotersForPeace.US.]

PeaceMajority Report
387 Northgate Rd
Lindenhurst, IL 60046-8541



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:16:38 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:16:38 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Posada and Bosch: Terrorism for Sale
Message-ID: <20070508161638.33c7d593@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN) - May 7, 2007
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch: Terrorism for Sale

By ?ngel Rodr?guez ?lvarez
AIN Special Service

Among the first "services" offered by terrorists Orlando Bosch and Luis 
Posada Carriles to the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, was the 
promotion of armed groups from 1959 to 1965 in Cuba's rural regions, 
particularly in the south-central Escambray Mountains.

This variation of irregular war had the dual aim of creating terror 
among the families and campesinos and to stop the growing support for 
the Revolution and at the same time recruiting people as an internal 
military force for a future invasion.

Bosch was able to remain for several weeks in El Escambray until he 
decided it was more useful and comfortable, as well as less dangerous, 
to travel to the USA and from there continue his dirty war against the 
island.

Although from the first year of the Revolutionary, armed groups 
appeared in different hilly regions in the country, it was from 1960 
that banditry became one of the main instruments of subversion used 
against Cuba by the US government.

This is corroborated through declassified documentation and published 
in Washington, proving that the CIA stimulated, organized, directed, 
supplied and supported terrorism against the island.

Over a period of almost 6 years, a total of 299 armed gangs operated 
throughout the country with 3,995 men.

These groups, which carried out operations in all of the island's 
provinces, assassinated voluntary teachers and whole families; set fire 
to towns; destroyed and looted dozens of schools; stores; cooperatives; 
sugar cane plantations among others.  Their violent acts cost the 
island over a billion pesos without counting the huge sums of money 
spent on the military operations against them.

In the struggle by the Cuban people against these outlaws, among the 
combatants killed in operations and civilians assassinated, 549 people 
died and over 3,000 were injured.

The White House prioritized this type of banditry particularly after 
Washington's defeat in the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961.

This new imperialist effort was part of Operation Mongoose, named the  
"Cuba Project", ordered by the then President John F. Kennedy and was a 
complete re-organization of the covert war against the island.

In a document dated March 14th 1962, the premises of the operation were 
established. Among them were:  "With the objective of provoking the 
fall of the government in question (Cuba), the United States will use 
all its native resources, internal and external...Once the native 
resources are developed, they will be used to prepare and justify 
intervention, and afterwards to facilitate and support it."

Operation Mongoose was officially discontinued in January, 1963, three 
months after the so called Missile Crisis.  In its 14 months, 5,780 
terrorist acts were carried out against the island, of them 716 were 
sabotage against economic targets.

However, in the following years, infiltration of terrorist groups, air 
incursions, attacks against vessels and attempts against 
businesspeople, factories, warehouses, agricultural plantations and 
other spheres of society continued at the same rate.

The direct participation of the United States supporting the mercenary 
groups is not only proved in dozens of declassified documents, but also 
in statements made by CIA officials Austin Frank Young, Peter John 
Lambton and Richard Allen Pecoraro, captured at different times in 
Cuban territory when carrying out supervision missions of the groups 
that operated in the mountains.

Now, with pair of Bosch and Posada free in Miami and the growing 
international condemnation in favor of justice, it is a good time to 
remember the banditry element as a variant of the terrorist activities 
practiced against Cuba. And it should be added to the bulky criminal 
account of both terrorists who are currently both under the protection 
of George W. Bush.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:18:17 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:18:17 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Attempted Hijacking Another Crime Provoked by US Cuban
 Adjustment Act
Message-ID: <20070508161817.1b17fb69@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN) - May 7, 2007
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Attempted Hijacking Another Crime Provoked by US Cuban Adjustment Act

By Angel Rodriguez Alvarez
AIN Special Service

The recently failed attempt by two criminals to hijack a civilian plane 
to get to the United States, killing two Cuban soldiers and endangering 
the lives of others, deserves reflection. Different causes could have 
caused such serious and abominable conduct by these two characters but 
the essence of the issue is ever present in the determinant force, 
which is the existence of the so called Cuban Adjustment Act, the 
unquestionable stimulus to carry out vandalism and criminal acts. The 
law was approved 41 years ago and offers residence and work in the US 
to all those Cubans that set foot on US soil. The White House's 
deliberate purpose has always been to promote illegal immigration to 
the US and manipulate the exodus through propaganda as part of the 
systematic effort to discredit the Cuban Revolution and its socialist 
program. The manipulation of the issue cannot be more obvious. Everyone 
knows that while the US offers privileges, denied to immigrants from 
the rest of the world, through this Law, it makes the granting of visas 
in compliance with the accords signed in 1995 between both countries 
very difficult. This "special" policy has played cruelly with those 
that should allegedly benefit, making it similar to "Russian roulette" 
in which the interested party risks everything in order to achieve its 
sole objective.

Suffice to observe this "dry foot, wet foot" policy to understand the 
level of cynicism and lack of humanism contained in the law.

The reasoning is clear: shut down the legal channels, leave as the only 
option the risk of a raft or hijacking a vessel or plane, as has 
already happened a number of times and leave the challenge the choice 
of those that attempt to reach dry land, otherwise they are returned to 
the island. The cynicism has reached the point that once returned to 
Cuba, the US Interests Section in Havana, which itself first denied the 
entry visa, takes on the role of the good guy and will then monitor if 
the individual or group are well treated by the Cuban authorities. How 
many people have died in this macabre game of cat and mouse? No one 
will ever know.

The Cuban Adjustment Act promotes acts of terror like that which 
occurred recently in Havana.  We must not forget that various 
characters, which have in the past murdered Cubans to hijack vessels or 
planes, walk the streets in Miami and were welcomed with open arms. We 
must also take into account that such conduct is newly stimulated by 
the recent release and protection of self confessed assassin Luis 
Posada Carriles.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:19:57 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:19:57 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] States Compete for Deadly Disease Lab
Message-ID: <20070508161957.2ddfcfd8@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by anon at mouse.com (activ-l) May 7, 2007

http://www.dhs.gov/xres/labs/editorial_0762.shtm

AP via CFNews13.com - May 7, 2007
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Science/2007/5/7/states_compete_for_deadly_disease_lab.html

States Compete for Deadly Disease Lab

WASHINGTON(AP)--A dozen states are competing intensely to play host to
a government research lab full of killer germs like anthrax, avian flu
and foot-and-mouth disease _ a prospect some of their residents want to
avoid like the plague.

The states are bidding for a proposed 520,000-square-foot National
Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility that will cost at least $450 million to
build. It would replace an aging, smaller lab at Plum Island, N.Y.,
where security lapses after the 2001 terrorist attacks drew scrutiny
from Congress and government investigators.

The Homeland Security Department facility promises at least 300
lab-related jobs, and more in construction. Congress provided money
for the $47 million design and architecture, but no money has been
appropriated yet for construction or operations.

States' written bids have not been made public. However, they were
required to make available at least 30 acres of land.

The competition intensified last month as federal officials began
visits to 17 potential sites. The government has said it would take
into account offers of roads, cheap water supplies and discounted
utilities, and states are dangling their premier scientific expertise
and community treasures as bait.

"Protecting human life and our livestock and food supply is important
to society and we want to be a part of that," said Harold Timboe, a
university researcher in San Antonio who is leading the city's effort.
San Antonio is offering three sites that officials will visit Monday
and Tuesday.

Besides Texas, which has a total of four sites in contention, states
bidding for the site are California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Georgia, Kansas and Mississippi are offering two sites each, while
Kentucky and Tennessee are working together for one site in Kentucky.

In June, officials will narrow down their options to three to five
sites. The winner should be announced in October 2008, with the lab
operating by 2014.

Pockets of opposition have emerged in some states.

The Dunn, Wis., Town Board, the Dane, Wis., County Board of
Supervisors and the Tracy, Calif., City Council voted to oppose the
sites proposed for their communities.

The Wisconsin bid has drawn the ire of patent lawyer George Corrigan,
who is concerned about pathogens finding their way into the community
near a Lake Kegonsa home he owns. The rural area just outside Madison
includes many landowners who have bought development rights to
preserve the land, and much of the opposition stems from the
development the lab would bring.

"They made sweeping statements of 'Trust us,' generalizations that
nothing bad will happen. That may be good enough for some people, but
not for me," Corrigan said.

At a public meeting, neighbors of the potential Leavenworth, Kan.,
site voiced concerns about lab safety, the lab's effect on property,
congestion and the project's potential to make the area a terrorism
risk.

Opponents in Mississippi have posted "No Bio-Lab" signs. According to
local news reports, opponents in Kentucky greeted federal officials
visiting that site with signs that said "Hal! No! We won't go!" a
reference to Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., who serves on the House
Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.

The Plum Island lab conducts research on foot-and-mouth disease and
other germs to protect agriculture and livestock from foreign diseases.

John Vitko, director of the Homeland Security Department's chem-bio
division in its Science and Technology directorate, said that would
remain the priority at the new lab, particularly foot-and-mouth
disease, classical swine fever and African swine fever.

Homeland Security officials are still deciding which additional
pathogens will be researched at the lab. Scientists and officials from
various states have named, among others, anthrax, smallpox and Marbug
and Lhasa, rare hemorrhagic fevers that attack the vascular system.

The lab will have the highest-level security rating, BSL-4, meaning it
would be equipped to handle the most lethal, incurable disease agents.
The lab will be the only one in the country to integrate study of
lethal agents that could be used as bioweapons on humans and in
agriculture, research on diseases that could be passed between animal
and human, and foreign animal diseases.

The department wouldn't give an estimated budget for the new lab,
where research for the Homeland Security, Health and Human Services
and Agriculture departments will be conducted. The current Plum Island
lab received $26 million in federal money for operations and
maintenance this year and about $14.4 million for Homeland Security
and Agriculture research.

San Antonio's privately run BSL-4 lab is operated by Southwest
Foundation for Biomedical Research. One of its scientists, Jean
Patterson, was involved in the decontamination of the Senate offices
that received envelopes of anthrax in 2001.

A consortium in North Carolina contends that its site, a plot of
state-owned land north of Raleigh, is better because its biotechnology
industry has been around a lot longer and is larger than San Antonio's.

Along with three top universities in its Research Triangle, North
Carolina is home to several major pharmaceutical companies, said
Barrett Slenning, associate professor at the North Carolina State
College of Veterinary Medicine.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:21:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:21:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Asia's Real Currency Worries May be over US Dollar
Message-ID: <20070508162159.40c6856f@viola.tamara-b.org>

Reuters - May 6, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUST21280820070506

Asia's Real Currency Worries May Be Dollar

By Hideyuki Sano 

KYOTO, Japan -- Although Asian finance ministers have just agreed
on a new contingency measure to defend their currencies, their real
concerns appear to be a plunge in the U.S. dollar rather than a
rise in their own units.

"Should the financial markets lose confidence in the U.S. dollar,
huge capital outflows from the U.S. could lead to a rapid depreciation
of the U.S. dollar, and thus dramatic appreciation of other
currencies," Thai Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn told the
annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Kyoto, western
Japan.

Some Asian finance ministers voiced concerns over global imbalances
-- a euphemism for the huge U.S. trade deficit and the large surpluses
in Asia and oil-rich countries -- in their speeches to the ADB's
annual meeting.

South Korean Finance Minister Kwon Okyu said global imbalances were
their central concern.

"Any abrupt and disorderly unwinding of these imbalances may send
a tremendous shock through the global financial markets," Kwon said.

If the dollar falls further on speculation that the U.S. trade
deficit can be rectified only by a cheaper dollar that would give
a headache to some Asian countries already nervous about the strength
of their currencies.

Concerns that strength in the currency could sap exports and choke
off growth pushed Thailand to take unusual capital control measures
in December. Nevertheless, the Thai baht has continued to rally,
hitting a 9 1/2-year high in March.

South Korea's Kwon also told Reuters in an interview on Sunday that
the won's strength is a source of concern.

The ministers' comments came a day after Asian finance heads agreed
on a new policy framework meant to cope with possible falls in Asian
currencies rather than rises against others.

Ministers from ASEAN member nations and China, Japan, and South
Korea -- the so-called ASEAN+3 -- agreed to pool part of their
massive foreign reserves for common use to help avoid a repeat of
the financial crisis that devastated the region a decade ago.

That may be a landmark in regional monetary cooperation, but many
analysts think Asian countries will not need to make use of such a
measure in the near future, given the huge amount of reserves these
nations have amassed already.

The region's reserves have more than quadrupled to almost $3 trillion
since 1997, when the region was hit by a wave of currency meltdowns.

While Asian finance ministers unanimously supported the new measure
to "multinationalize" their currency defences, there may not be
agreement on how to tackle global imbalances.

South Korea's Kwon also said there was another imbalance -- in the
share of the burden of the fall in the U.S. dollar. That may be a
possible swipe at Japan and China, whose currencies have not
appreciated much against the U.S. currency in recent years.

The Chinese yuan rose about 7 percent against the dollar since it
ended its peg against the dollar in July 2005.

In the same period, the Japanese yen weakened about 7 percent while
the Korean won rose 13 percent.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:23:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:23:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] US to Reduce Prison Terms of Anti-Cuba Terrorists
Message-ID: <20070508162359.29625ba2@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Prison Terms of Anti-Cuba Terrorists to be Reduced

Havana, May 7 (ACN) US federal prosecutors agreed to reduce the prison 
sentences of two Cuban exiles with ties to international terrorist 
Posada Carriles, after their lawyers recently surrendered a stockpile 
of illegal machine guns, explosives and a grenade launcher to federal 
agents.

Santiago Alvarez and his colleague Osvaldo Mitat, known for having 
been involved in several criminal activities against Cuba, pleaded 
guilty last fall to the possession of illegal weapons in a 2005 
criminal case, which was not related to the recent firearms surrender, 
reported the Miami Herald newspaper online.

Their plea deal led to complicated negotiations with prosecutors, 
resulting in the turnover of the new cache of weapons last January as 
an effective way to bring down the prison terms of the two exiles 
sentenced to four years for Alvarez and three for Mitat, reports the 
Herald.

The U.S. attorney's office said, in a motion filed last week, that 
Alvarez and Mitat "had substantially assisted the government."

Prosecutors did not recommend the length of the sentence reductions to 
U.S. District Judge James Cohn, saying they would explain the "nature 
and substance of the assistance" at an upcoming hearing. Cohn could 
shave off several months or more than one year.

The firearms surrendered consisted of dozens of machine guns, rifles,
C-4 explosives, dynamite, detonators, a grenade launcher and 
ammunition, federal law enforcement officials said.

The cache was considerably larger than the nine illegal firearms seized 
by federal agents in the fall of 2005 when Alvarez and Mitat were first 
indicted on weapons charges in Broward County.

Agents for the FBI and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency 
collected the latest stash of weapons at the Miami law office of Silvia 
Pi?era-Vazquez and Sofia Powell-Cosio.

Alvarez is known as the benefactor of Cuban exile militant Luis Posada 
Carriles, a longtime anti-Castro figure who is facing unrelated 
criminal charges for immigration fraud. He is under house arrest in 
Miami.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:28:23 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:28:23 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] White House Observes "Natinal Day of Prayer"
Message-ID: <20070508162823.7d388675@viola.tamara-b.org>

Winston-Salem Journal - May 5, 2007
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351077855

White House holds observance of the National Day of Prayer

WASHINGTON - President Bush was the host of an interfaith observance of
the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, citing several reasons why he
believes that Americans are drawn to prayer. "We're a prayerful
nation," the president said in remarks in the East Room of the White
House. "I believe that makes us a strong nation."

Bush said that people pray to give thanks, to gain strength to follow
God's will and to yield to God's authority, but he said that the last
reason can be the most challenging.

"We pray to acknowledge God's sovereignty in our lives and our complete
dependence on him," Bush said, speaking to a crowd of 200 that included
Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus.

"This is probably the toughest prayer of all, particularly for those of
us in politics. In the humility of prayer we recognize the limits of
human strength and human wisdom."

The National Day of Prayer has been observed since 1952, when it was
established by Congress. It is marked each year on the first Thursday
in May.

Shirley Dobson, the head of the National Day of Prayer Task Force,
thanked Bush for holding a White House prayer observation for the past
six years.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for honoring God through your consistent
support of the National Day of Prayer," said Dobson, the wife of James
Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family.

The White House ceremony also included prayers and readings by a rabbi,
a Southern Baptist minister, a bishop of the Church of God in Christ
and a cadet chaplain from Virginia Tech.

Some advocates for church-state separation criticized the observances.

"A church-sponsored day of prayer would not be a problem," said Dan
Barker, a co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. "But it
is inappropriate for the president and governors to be dictating that
citizens pray."


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:30:33 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:30:33 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US
Message-ID: <20070508163033.76f3bb1d@viola.tamara-b.org>

Sunday Telegraph (UK) - May 6, 2007 (posted 7/5/07)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/06/wgod06.xml


Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

By Tim Shipman in Washington

By day, Joe Zamecki works as a landscaper and valet in Austin, capital
of George W Bush's home state of Texas, which is regarded by many
natives as God's own country.

In his spare time, however, he is quietly working to undermine the
dominance of America's God-fearing majority. He is one among a growing
band of "out" atheists, and wants a US that is "one nation under no
god".

On Thursday, while Christian Americans were celebrating National Prayer
Day, Mr Zamecki, the state director of American Atheists, was leading a
demonstration against the public display of the words "In God We Trust"
in the state legislature.

Atheist groups from Los Angeles to Little Rock observed a National Day
of Reason instead.

Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance
International - "Call 1-866-HERETIC" - are setting up summer camps and
an internet recruiting campaign.

Mr Zamecki told The Sunday Telegraph: "We are seeing support for
atheist groups grow. Those with no religious affiliation are the
fastest-growing group in America, more even than Muslims."

Official figures show the ranks of the non-religious have doubled to 13
per cent, or 30 million people, since 1990.

Now a hard core of five million atheists is seeking the political clout
that has made Christian conservatives and the Jewish lobby powerhouses
in Washington politics.

They got a boost with the admission in March by the Californian
Democrat congressman, Pete Stark, that he "does not believe in a
supreme being", 127 years after Charles Bradlaugh became Britain's
first openly atheist MP.

America's first atheist congressman was flushed out by the Secular
Coalition for America, the first godless group with a full-time
Washington lobbyist.

The US constitution outlaws religious discrimination, but polls show
only 45 per cent of Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist
candidate for president, even if he or she was the best-qualified.

Yet a succession of books extolling atheism has proved very popular,
led by Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion.

The Oxford University evolutionary biologist's work has been on the
best-seller list for several months.

Sam Harris has sold 250,000 copies of The End of Faith: Religion,
Terror, and the Future of Reason and has a new book out, Letter to a
Christian Nation.

The shelves of American bookshops groan under titles like Atheism on
the March, The Atheist Manifesto, and The Quotable Atheist.

Mr Dawkins said last week: "On my book tour of America I was agreeably
surprised by the positive reception it got. There is a huge
undercurrent of non-believing feeling in America which has felt
repressed, suppressed, almost persecuted.

"Many people said, 'Thank you for saying what I have always wanted to
say but didn't feel I could'."

Mr Dawkins is an advocate of increasing atheist militancy. "The
secular, non-religious vote, if properly mobilised, is nine times as
numerous as the Jewish vote," he said.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which boasts 10,000 members, has
launched a case in the Supreme Court, calling for a ban on President
Bush's federal support of faith-based groups as a breach of the
constitutional division of church and state.

The group's president, Dan Barker, once an evangelist preacher, said:
"There can be a tipping point in any society where people say enough is
enough. If enough atheists and agnostics speak out, it can cause quite
a sensation."

Joe Zamecki thinks the rise of atheism is in part a response to the
overtly religious Mr Bush, whose father once declared: "I don't know
that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be
considered patriots."

Mr Zamecki said: "The war in Iraq, which was partly justified as a
religious war, has turned a lot of people off religion. The internet
has helped our movement. There is a whole generation of young Americans
that is exposed to free and open debate."

Blogger Hemant Mehta, 24, who writes under the pen name
"friendlyatheist", regularly debates with Christian fundamentalists
online. He wrote: "We are not the bogeymen we have been made out to be
for so long."

The atheists still have a mountain to climb. In a Republican
presidential debate last week, candidates mentioned their faith 16
times, and three said that they did not believe in evolution.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:31:53 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:31:53 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] FAS Secrecy News - 05/07/2007
Message-ID: <20070508163153.7b81a9ed@viola.tamara-b.org>


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2007, Issue No. 48
May 7, 2007

Secrecy News Blog:  http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

**	ARMY DOCUMENTS POSTED "ILLEGALLY," ARMY SAYS
**	THE EVOLUTION OF ARMY OPSEC
**	ARMY UPDATES REGULATION ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
**	SELECTED CRS REPORTS

ARMY DOCUMENTS POSTED "ILLEGALLY," ARMY SAYS

A U.S. Army official told the Federation of American Scientists
that Army documents on the FAS web site had been published by
FAS "illegally" and must be removed.

"There are only 5 Official Army Publications Sites," wrote
Cheryl Clark of the U.S. Army Publications Directorate in a May
4 email message.  "You are not one of them."

"You can link to our publications, but you cannot host them,"
she wrote.

Furthermore, she indicated, a recent Army Regulation on
"Operations Security" (first published by Wired News and
mirrored on the FAS site) was "not intended for Public
release."

"Please remove this publication immediately or further action
will be taken," Ms. Clark warned.

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2007/05/sa050707.html#req

"I have considered your request that we remove Army publications
from the Federation of American Scientists web site," I
responded today.  "I have decided not to comply."

By law the Army cannot copyright its publications, the response
explained.  Nor is FAS, a non-governmental organization,
subject to internal Army regulations on information policy.

"Accordingly, our publications are not illegal nor in violation
of any applicable regulation."

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2007/05/sa050707.html

To eliminate potential confusion, we added a disclaimer to our
Army doctrine web page indicating that the FAS collection of
Army records is not an official Army source, and directing
readers to several such official sites.

THE EVOLUTION OF ARMY OPSEC

The recent evolution of Army operations security (OPSEC) policy
can be traced from the 1995 regulation on the subject--

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1-1995.pdf

to the 2005 revision--

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1-2005.pdf

to the latest iteration of April 2007--

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf

In response to reporting by Noah Shachtman of Wired News and the
Danger Room blog, the Army issued a Fact Sheet on May 2
asserting that Army OPSEC policy on military blogging was
unchanged:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/blog050207.pdf

ARMY UPDATES REGULATION ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

The U.S. Army issued an updated regulation governing its conduct
of intelligence activities, including domestic surveillance
policy and practice.

The new regulation makes several technical changes and rescinds
the "For Official Use Only" status of the prior edition.

See "U.S. Army Intelligence Activities," Army Regulation 381-10,
May 3, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar381-10.pdf

For comparison, the prior edition, dated 22 November 2005, may
be found here:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar381-10-2005.pdf

SELECTED CRS REPORTS

Some noteworthy new (or newly updated) publications of the
Congressional Research Service that have not otherwise been
made available to the public online include the following.

"FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign
Affairs, and Other Purposes," updated May 2, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33900.pdf

"Congressional Authority To Limit U.S. Military Operations in
Iraq," updated April 24, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33837.pdf

"Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and
Institutional Implications," updated April 13, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

"Clinical Trials Reporting and Publication," updated April 27,
2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32832.pdf

"Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and
the Life Extension Program," updated April 4, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33748.pdf

_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
     secrecy_news-request at lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to
     secrecy_news-remove at lists.fas.org

OR email your request to saftergood at fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Secrecy News is available in blog format at:
     http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here:
     http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood at fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:35:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:35:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] HerStory: Protest at Heart of Mother's Day Observance
Message-ID: <20070508163524.04d1bf80@viola.tamara-b.org>

Womens eNews - May 7, 2007
http://www.womensenews.org


Protest is at Heart of Mother's Day Observance 

By Louise Bernikow
WeNews historian 

Before it was co-opted by sellers of greeting cards and flowers,
Mother's Day was an occasion for women to march for peace and to stage
public anti-war protests.

Julia Ward Howe organized a Mother's Day peace march in Boston after
the Civil War and it became a national tradition in the late 19th
century. Feminists in decades since have followed in Howe's footsteps.
In May 1982, Mother's Day in northern California saw a gathering that
would have startled the somewhat staid Howe.

The site was the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, run by the
University of California. Livermore was one of two places in the United
States that was designing and developing nuclear weapons. Although
there was a long history of anti-nuclear protest across the country, an
alarming near-meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania
in 1980 had swelled the anti-nuke movement, which included many
feminists. In California, especially, an evolving feminist spirituality
movement had brought ecology-minded activists and practitioners of the
ancient craft of Wicca into a tide of people determined to save the
earth, starting with the elimination nuclear power.

The women who gathered at the gates of Livermore on Mother's Day
included Jackie Cobasso, who had been involved in Vietnam War protests
as a student, and Starhawk, a Wiccan who had been leading rituals in
political contexts and getting arrested for civil disobedience for some
years. Many demonstrators came that day in costumes depicting death or
adorned in clownish attire, but there were also gray-haired women in
conventional skirts. In previous actions, demonstrators had stood at
the main gate in costumes and carrying signs, waiting to be arrested,
but this time a cordon of police were waiting.

Eighty-one women sat down in the middle of the road, refusing to move.
Some employees, prevented from driving in, menaced the women with their
cars. Four demonstrators chained themselves to the gate and poured
blood on the ground. Those arrested gave their names as Karen Silkwood,
the era's famous whistleblower who had revealed contamination in
nuclear plants and died mysteriously.

The arrests provoked larger protests. The women returned in June, along
with the largest number of people in the San Francisco Bay area willing
to go to jail over nuclear arms. Cobasso went on to become director of
the Western States Legal Foundation, active to this day on
environmental issues. Starhawk drew more adherents and wrote many books
about the power of spirituality as protest. Livermore is still there,
protestors still at its gates.

For more information:

Julia Ward Howe, Mother's Day Proclamation:
http://www.prism.net/user/fcarpenter/howe.html

[Louise Bernikow is the author of seven books and numerous magazine
articles. She travels to campuses and community groups with a lecture
and slide show about activism called "The Shoulders We Stand On: Women
as Agents of Change." She can be reached at louise at womensenews.org.]





From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:38:17 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:38:17 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Christian Fundy Zionists: Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy
Message-ID: <20070508163817.247a9054@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Steven L. Robinson (activ-l) - May 8, 2007

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - April, 2007
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2007/0704058.html

"Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy"

The Dangerous Potent Elixir of Christian Zionism

By Pat Morrison

WHAT MAY BE potentially the greatest U.S.-born political threat to
peace is not terrorist sleeper cells or even the deployment of more
U.S. troops to the Middle East. Instead, it's the prolific spread of a
brand of fundamentalist Christian "End Times" pseudotheology linked to
massive support-military and financial-for the state of Israel. The
threat goes by the name Christian Zionism.

According to expert observers and critics, the movement is harnessing
incredible religious, political and financial power, thanks largely to
highly visible and well-funded preachers, their churches and
congregations' financial commitment. And the implications of Christian
Zionism's -belief system-cum-political agenda are frightening.

One of those experts watching the rise of Christian Zionism-and alerting
mainline Christians, as well as Muslims, Jews and the public in general
to its danger-is the Rev. Donald Wagner. An ordained Presbyterian
minister, Wagner is associate professor of religion and Middle Eastern
studies at North Park University in Chicago and executive director of
its Center for Middle Eastern Studies. His most recent book is Anxious
for Armageddon, a critique of Christian Zionism (and available from the
AET Book Club).

In a packed presentation last fall at the Kansas City Sabeel Conference,
Wagner outlined the movement's growth, major proponents and political
agenda.

Christian Zionism as a fringe biblical theory has been around in some
shape or form since the 1600s, Wagner said-long before the
establishment of modern Israel. But most recently it has morphed into a
new entity that links its literal and fundamentalist interpretation of
the Christian Bible with a convergence of political and sociological
trends on the American landscape.

According to Wagner, these include: 1) growth of a "fear factor" in the
United States since 9/11, fueled by 2) the millennium and "End Times"
prophecy, as well as intensely marketed Christian fiction like the Left
Behind series; and 3) the rise of right-wing political conservatism in
the United States.

The Bush administration's talk about "the axis of evil" and its
"Crusader" mindset, coupled with the neocons' constant language of
empire, captured the imagination of many Christians who already were
reading and identifying with End Times biblical interpretation.

Blend all these ingredients together and you have the perfect recipe for
Christian Zionism, Wagner noted, and an audience primed to accept and
push it.

Although popular TV fundamentalist preachers like Pat Robertson and
Jerry Falwell are enthusiastic supporters of Israel, Christian
Zionism's newest and most ardent promoter is Dr. John C. Hagee. Hagee,
who is founder and pastor of the 18,000-member non-denominational
evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, has a worldwide
following through his John Hagee Ministries.

Some commentators have described the charismatic and avuncular Hagee as
a "kinder, gentler" Rush Limbaugh look-alike, of similar political
persuasion. As one critic colorfully summed it up: "If there is one
thing worse than Elmer Gantry, it's Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy."

Today Hagee is perhaps best known as founder of an ultra-right wing
Christian Zionist political lobby in Washington, Christians United for
Israel, or CUFI.

According to Wagner, CUFI is completely aligned to AIPAC, the pro-Israel
U.S. lobby, and "defends a hard-right maximalist Israeli agenda: They
support Israel having control of all of the West Bank and Gaza because
'God gave it to the Jews exclusively.'"

CUFI also fully supports the Israeli settler movement, Wagner said, and
financially underwrites the relocation of European Jews to illegal
settlements because Israel is "their land" promised them by God.

At the February 2006 launch of CUFI, Hagee stated that Christians
United for Israel "will [soon] have organized offices in every state in
the union, mobilizing every Christian and whoever will work with us on
a pro-Israeli agenda."

By mid-July of last year, Wagner said, Hagee had 3,500 CUFI supporters
"deployed to every congressional office in Washington, pressing for more
arms to be sent to Israel [during the Israeli-Hezbollah war] but also
calling for the U.S. to attack Iran [because Hagee sees war with Iran
as a prelude to Armageddon]."

In San Antonio last October, more than 10,000 CUFI supporters gathered
to work on their political platform and strategies. Among the key
conference presenters was former CIA director James Woolsey, a close
supporter of AIPAC and outspoken opponent of the peace movement and of
churches active in it.

Hagee coined the term "Islamofascist" at CUFI's founding conference,
Wagner noted, "and within a week [President] Bush was using it, then
[former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld."

Wagner said his two greatest concerns about Christian Zionism-which
claims to count up to 100,0000 evangelical believers around the
world-is that it is extremely Islamophobic and anti-islamic, and that
it projects a militant image of Christianity throughout the world.

"What [Christian Zionists] are projecting is a Western white, militant
Zionist image of Christianity into the region," Wagner said. "And what
this does is give global Muslims,  and global Christians, the
impression that Christianity is really a militant, Crusader type of
religion. In the end, even Jesus comes back in warrior fashion!"

In fact, he said, Christian leaders in the Holy Land are so worried
about Christian Zionism's harmful effects in the region that Catholic,
Lutheran and Orthodox church leaders invited Wagner and a group of
other experts to speak to them and help them inform their people about
the movement's dangers and its impact on the Muslim world.

Christian Zionism seriously damages Christian-Muslim and
Christian-Jewish relations, especially in the Middle East. But what is
even more worrisome, Wagner warned, is that because the resources of
movement leaders like Falwell, Robertson and Hagee include worldwide
missionaries and media outlets, they "have the reach to inflame the
entire region."

[Pat Morrison writes from Dayton, Ohio. She has covered the Middle East,
especially Israel/Palestine, extensively.]




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:40:33 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:40:33 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Ramadi: 68 Iraqis killed or found dead
Message-ID: <20070508164033.0c790bf0@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via Hindustan Times - May 8, 2007
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=68a490e2-673d-42f7
-be1d-b0ab3356f038&&Headline=68+killed+or+found+dead+in+Iraq

68 killed or found dead in Iraq as 
suicide bombers focus on the Sunni city of Ramadi

By Ravi Nessman
The Associated Press

Suicide bombers killed 13 people in a pair of attacks on Monday around
the Sunni city of Ramadi in what local officials said was part of a
power struggle between al-Qaida and tribes that have broken with the
terror network.

In all, at least 68 people were killed or found dead nationwide on
Monday, police said. They included the bullet-riddled bodies of 30 men
found in Baghdad - the apparent victims of sectarian death squads.

All but two were found in west Baghdad, including 17 in the Amil
neighborhood where Sunni politicians have complained of renewed attacks
by Shiite militiamen, according to a police official who spoke on
condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to release those
details.

Sunni complaints prompted the country's Sunni vice president to
threaten to leave the Shiite-dominated government unless key
unspecified amendments to the constitution are not made by May 15. The
power struggle between al-Qaida and Sunni tribesmen, which surfaced
last year, could prove decisive in the US campaign to win over
significant portions of the Sunni community, which has formed the
bedrock of the insurgency.

The first of the Ramadi area attacks happened about noon in a market on
the northwest outskirts of the city, killing eight people and wounding
13, said police Col Tariq Youssef.

About 15 minutes later, police at a nearby checkpoint spotted a second
car bomb and opened fire, but the driver was able to detonate the
vehicle, Youssef said. Five people, including two policemen, were
killed and 12 were wounded, Youssef said.

The attacks occurred in areas controlled by the Anbar Salvation
Council, an alliance of Sunni tribes formed last year to drive al-Qaida
from the area. Council officials blamed the attacks on al-Qaida.

"They committed this crime because we have identified their hideouts
and we are chasing them," said Sheik Jabbar Naif al-Dulaimi.

In a Web statement Monday, an al-Qaida front organization, the Islamic
State of Iraq, warned Sunnis against joining the government security
forces _ a move supported by the Salvation Council. "We tell every
father, mother, wife or brother who does not want to lose a relative to
advise them not to approach the apostates and we swear to God that we
will use every possible means to strike at the infidels and the
renegades," the group said. The Islamic State also claimed
responsibility Monday for attacks that killed 34 people over the
weekend _ including six US soldiers and a Russian embedded
photojournalist who died in a roadside bombing in Baqouba.

The 34 also included the police chief of Samarra, Col Jalil Nahi
Hassoun, who was killed Sunday in an attack on police headquarters. He
was buried Monday following a tearful procession by police in blue
uniforms who escorted the flag-draped coffin as it was driven in the
bed of a white pickup truck through the Sunni city. At least five
al-Qaida fighters were killed in the fighting in Samarra, a US military
official told, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to release details of the attack.

Also Monday, the military announced a US soldier had been killed by
small-arms fire in western Baghdad the day before, bringing to nine the
number of troops who died Sunday. The security situation in the capital
figured high in talks between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and
President George W Bush, who conferred Monday in a video conference.

Al-Maliki told Bush of the need to maintain cooperation between US and
Iraqi forces as they continue their crackdown, which is intended to end
the chaos and violence in Baghdad, the prime minister's office said in
a statement.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush and al-Maliki spoke about the
Iraqi leader's push for political reconciliation in his country, an area
considered vital to greater stability. The two leaders spoke for about
25 minutes with staff members in attendance, then for another period of
time one-on-one, according to Snow.

"The prime minister is working with the presidency council to advance
the political process in Iraq, including a lot of the legislation that
we've been discussing over the last few months," Snow told reporters.
"But issues of communications and reconciliation were at the fore."

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, reiterated his determination to work with Sunni
leaders, Snow said.

But al-Maliki's government remains burdened by "narrow agendas"
standing in the way of unity and crucial US-backed legislation, such as
a proposed law to share Iraq's oil wealth, said Gen David Petraeus, the
top US commander in Iraq.

In an interview with CNN, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi said he would
lead a Sunni walkout from the Cabinet and parliament if changes are not
made to the constitution by May 15. He also said he turned down an
offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more
fully on US help, CNN said on its Web site. A walkout by the Sunnis,
who control 44 of the 275 parliament seats and five Cabinet posts,
would plunge Iraq into a political crisis.

In other violence, a mortar attack killed five people in Baghdad's mixed
Baiyaa neighborhood, where more than 30 people were slain in a car
bombing the day before.

In northern Iraq, gunmen attacked an Iraqi military checkpoint at the
town of Baaj, killing two soldiers, two police officers and a civilian,
police said.

The international Red Cross announced on Monday it would increase its
operations to provide food, water and medical treatment for the
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homes but remain in
the country.

"This conflict is inflicting immense suffering on all Iraqis," Beatrice
Megevand-Roggo, head of Middle East operations for the International
Committee of the Red Cross, said in Geneva. "Civilians are bearing the
brunt of the relentless violence." Hundreds of thousands of other
Iraqis have fled to Jordan and Syria.

Jordan said on Monday that the more than 750,000 displaced Iraqis
residing in the country has cost the government $1 billion a year and
increased Jordan's population by 14 percent.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 16:44:34 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:44:34 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Super Heroes Rally for Peace and Impeachment - Palo Alto -
	May 9
Message-ID: <20070508164434.5efebff5@viola.tamara-b.org>

Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, 
http://www.communitycurrency.org/impeach.html

Carol Brouillet-650-857-0927, cbrouillet at igc.org

Press Release - May 7, 2007 

Heroes Rally, Sing, and March for Impeachment and Peace

Superman, Wonder Woman, and Spiderman will rally at 1:00 p.m. at
Lytton Plaza in Palo Alto on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 with other heroic
citizens to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.  During the
rally, musician August Bullock will sing "Heroes of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgYVcFzw9s, which inspired the theme
for this month's rally, and the Raging Grannies will also perform.

After the music, "Heroic Citizens for Impeachment" awards will be
presented to Brad Newsham, who organized the two major "Beach Impeach"
events in San Francisco, inspiring Impeachment spellings across the
country; Cynthia Peterson from Code Pink, who organized vigils at Nancy
Pelosi's mansion as well as rallies and marches for impeachment; Carol
Wolman ( http://www.impeachbush-cheney.com), who ran for Congress in
2006 on an Impeachment platform; and Don Spark from World Can't Wait,
who helped organize major impeachment events and street actions.

At 2:00 p.m. the heroes will call for impeachment as they march
through downtown Palo Alto to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's office at
698 Emerson Street. The rally at Lytton Plaza, which will include
entertainment and  refreshments, is open to the public.

The heroes in Palo Alto are not the only ones calling for
impeachment. Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of
impeachment against Vice President Cheney on April 24th. The two
cosponsors are US Reps. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Janice Schakowsky
(D-IL). Congressman John Murtha mentioned impeachment as an option on
CBS's Face the Nation:

       "We need to make this president understand, Mr. President,
       the public has spoken. There's three ways or four ways to
        influence a president.  One is popular opinion, the election,
        third is impeachment and fourth is the purse."

When Bob Schieffer pressed him on whether impeachment was a
serious option on the table, Murtha responded, "I'm just saying that's
one way to influence a president."

On April 28th, "the national day of impeachment" in over 125
locations across the country, citizens spelled out "IMPEACH" to get
their message across to the public, the press and the Congress. Over
1500 people gathered on Ocean Beach in San Francisco to spell out
"IMPEACH NOW!" and then "PEACE NOW!" This demonstration, dramatically
visible from the air, was followed by a parade to Nancy Pelosi's San
Francisco mansion for an impeachment rally. Jacob Park's website for
the impeachment actions at http://www.a28.org  was overwhelmed by
photos, videos, and reports of actions from around the U.S. as well as
other countries, including Italy and Egypt.

A concerted effort is underway to pressure Congress and the press
to recognize and stop the criminal activities, including war, being
carried out by the US government.

Congresswoman Eshoo has repeatedly rejected calls for impeachment,
claiming that removing the President would tear the country apart.
Brouillet and other activists intend to remind her that her oath of
office requires her to defend the Constitution against all enemies,
even when those who threaten the Constitution include the President and
Vice President.

Sponsors of the event include the Northern California 9/11 
Truth Alliance, The Santa Clara County Green Party, the Silicon Valley
Impeachment Coalition.

                                       ###



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue May  8 17:08:57 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 17:08:57 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Haiti Reborn Update - May 8, 2007
Message-ID: <20070508170857.738f2a18@viola.tamara-b.org>

Quixote Center/Haiti Reborn
http://www.quixote.org

Haiti Reborn Update - May 8, 2007


Dear Friends,

This week we are asking you to take action in support of extending
temporary protective status (TPS) to Haitian refugees.   TPS would
allow Haitians currently in the U.S. to stay temporarily, as a response
to the natural disasters and political strife that have recently
plagued the country. TPS would allow hard-working people to remain
temporarily and legally in the U.S. and continue to support themselves,
send money back home to their relatives and contribute to the U.S.
economy. Just last week the Department of Homeland Security extended
TPS to refugees from Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.  TPS means
that immigrants in the United States from these countries will not face
deportation.  

The statement from DHS Secretary Chertoff says, "Although Honduras,
Nicaragua, and El Salvador have made significant progress in their
recovery and rebuilding efforts, each country continues to face social
and economic challenges in their efforts to restore their nations to
normalcy," said USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez.  "This 18 month
extension reflects the United States' commitment to continue assisting
our Central American neighbors on their road to recovery." The
scenarios outlined are of course equally true of Haiti: the collapse of
the economy, years of civil conflict, and recent natural disasters.
What is different is the willingness of this administration to
"continue assisting" its Haitian neighbor.  

Alcee Hasting (D-FL) responded to the announcement this way: 
Granting TPS to Haitian nationals is, now more than ever, a matter of
fairness and consistency in our immigration policies.  Again, I
respectfully request that you grant Haitians the same consideration and
protection that you have supported for other deserving nations and
people.  The continuation of unfair and discriminatory immigration
policies toward Haitians has not allowed Haiti to obtain the sense of
normalcy that its Central American counterparts are being given the
opportunity to achieve. [You can read Hasting's full letter, and the
announcement from Chertoff below.]

To show Congress you care, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard,
202-224-2131 and ask for your member of the U.S. House of
Representatives by name (or if you do not know his/her name, give your
zipcode). Your message does not need to be complex or eloquent. Merely
telling your Representative's receptionist "I am urging Rep. ____ to
co-sponsor H.R.522IH, the Haitian Protection Act of 2007" will help
make a difference. If you want to do more, ask for the staffer who
deals with immigration issues, and discuss your concerns with him or
her. Ask your Representative to contact Audrey Nicoleau in Rep.
Hastings' office, 202-225-1313 to sign up or with any questions.

Current co-sponsors: Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]; Rep Brown, Corrine
[FL-3] - Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7]; Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11]; Rep
Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11]; Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Crowley,
Joseph [NY-7]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario
[FL-25]; Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]; Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20];
Rep Green, Al [TX-9]; Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]; Rep Gutierrez, Luis
V. [IL-4]; Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]; Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice
[TX-30]; Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]; Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]; Rep
McGovern, James P. [MA-3]; Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]; Rep Meek,
Kendrick B. [FL-17]; Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8]; Rep Payne, Donald M.
[NJ-10]; Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]; Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
[FL-18]; Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]; Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9];
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16]; Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2]; Rep
Towns, Edolphus [NY-10]; Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20]; Rep
Waters, Maxine [CA-35]; Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]; Rep Wexler,
Robert [FL-19]

Letter from Congressman Hastings to President Bush

May 3, 2007
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to bring your attention to a recent statement from Emilio
Gonzalez, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
In an article in today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Mr. Gonzalez is
quoted as saying: "Although Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have
made significant progress in their recovery and rebuilding efforts,
each country continues to face social and economic challenges in their
efforts to restore their nations to normalcy."

Mr. President, Nicaraguans and Hondurans have continued to receive
Temporary Protected Status designation renewal for almost ten years
now.  As you know, the original designation for Nicaragua and Honduras
was granted in response to the devastations from Hurricane Mitch in
1998 and for El Salvador, which is approaching their seventh year of
protection, after two deadly earthquakes in 2001.  In the case of all
three countries, the U.S. federal government has acknowledged and
rightfully supported their struggle to return to a sense of normalcy by
granting TPS.  However, at the same time, and under similar dire
situations, Haitian migrants have not received similar treatment.  I
ask, why?  

According to the U.S. Coast Guard count for the month of April 2007, a
total of 704 Haitians were rescued from vessels and repatriated to
Haiti.  This number is a dramatic increase compared to 43 Haitians
rescued in April 2006 and a total of 769 in all of 2006.  Judging by
these numbers, it is quite evident that the situation in Haiti is
reaching new heights of desperation.  Even more, Haiti's current police
force dwarfs in comparison to its population of 8 million, which
includes an increasing number of gangs and kidnappers who continue to
severely debilitate effective and lasting governance on a daily basis.

Due to Haiti's unstable condition, foreign investment is discouraged,
creating vast unemployment throughout the country.  This has forced
countless Haitians to risk their lives in the treacherous seas in a
quest to provide not only for themselves, but for their family and
community members back home.  Repatriation of the very people who can
help Haiti through remittances only makes this sizeable problem even
larger and out of control.

Granting TPS to Haitian nationals is, now more than ever, a matter of
fairness and consistency in our immigration policies.  Again, I
respectfully request that you grant Haitians the same consideration and
protection that you have supported for other deserving nations and
people.  The continuation of unfair and discriminatory immigration
policies toward Haitians has not allowed Haiti to obtain the sense of
normalcy that its Central American counterparts are being given the
opportunity to achieve.  

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request.  I look
forward to your expeditious response regarding this matter.

With warm regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
Alcee L. Hastings
Member of Congress


Secretary Chertoff Extends Temporary Protected Status for eligible
Hondurans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans

Re-Registration Details Forthcoming 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff announced today his decision to extend Temporary Protected
Status (TPS) designations for eligible nationals of Honduras, Nicaragua
and El Salvador by an additional 18 months. It will allow current TPS
beneficiaries from these three countries to extend their status and
continue living and working in the United States for an additional 18
months, and will affect approximately 78,000 Hondurans, 4,000
Nicaraguans, and 230,000 Salvadorans. The extension is part of the
Administration's ongoing assistance to Honduras, Nicaragua and El
Salvador in recovering from natural disasters that have affected
Central America. Current TPS designations for Hondurans and Nicaraguans
expire on July 5, 2007.  The current TPS designation for El Salvadorans
expires on September 9, 2007.  In accordance with a schedule to be
announced in forthcoming Federal Register notices, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin processing TPS re-registration
applications for eligible Hondurans and Nicaraguans first. USCIS will
make an announcement later this summer on the TPS re-registration
process for Salvadorans. All TPS beneficiaries have registered with the
department and have been provided with biometric and secure
identification cards. "Although Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador
have made significant progress in their recovery and rebuilding
efforts, each country continues to face social and economic challenges
in their efforts to restore their nations to normalcy," said USCIS
Director Emilio Gonzalez.  "This 18 month extension reflects the United
States' commitment to continue assisting our Central American neighbors
on their road to recovery." 

Filing periods for these three designations have not yet begun.
Applications received prior to or after the announced registration
period for each designation will be rejected.  Details on where, when
and how to file under each designation will soon be published in the
Federal Register and additional information will be provided online at:
http://www.uscis.gov.  Customers may also call the USCIS National
Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. - USCIS


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:28:04 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:28:04 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Iraqi oil workers to strike Thursday, need support
Message-ID: <20070509152804.3279ced9@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Andy Pollack - May 8, 2007

(P.S. to the below: see http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org
for dates of their U.S. tour)

A Solidarity Alert From US Labor Against the War
Iraqi Oil Workers to Strike Over Privatization Law

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

This morning we received notice from our friends in England that the
Iraqi oil workers intend to strike on Thursday to demonstrate their
opposition to the proposed hydrocarbon law that has been pressed upon
the Iraqi government by the Bush administration and the IMF.  The press
release is reproduced below. 

Listed below is a list of things your organization can do to support
these courageous Iraqi workers and their unions.

Opposition to this law within the Iraqi labor movement is universal.

WHY ARE IRAQI UNIONS OPPOSED TO THE OIL LAW?

The proposed hydrocarbon law, if adopted by the Iraqi parliament as
proposed, would provide a backdoor opportunity for multinational oil
corporations to secure long-term (as long as 30 years) control over
more than 2/3 of Iraq's undeveloped oil reserves.  The Bush
administration and its corporate and political allies are putting
tremendous pressure on the Iraqis to adopt this law.  It has engaged
the services of the IMF to pressure Iraq by making adoption of the law
a condition of debt relief and further financing from the international
community. 

By making its adoption a benchmark of "progress" and "cooperation," the
Congress would become complicit in effectively privatizing Iraqi oil
while simultaneously undermining Iraq's sovereignty and depriving it of
the resources that would otherwise be derived from the sale of its oil
to finance reconstruction of the country we have destroyed.  If the
Iraqi government succumbs to this pressure (which it well might under
these circumstances), Congressional action to require adoption of the
law would provide legitimacy to this raid on Iraq's oil resources.

Last week we sent you the Open Letter we sent to the leadership of the
Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus, Speaker Pelosi and others in which we
critiqued the draft hydrocarbon law that is referenced in the
supplemental appropriation, H.R. 508 and the other bills.  If the
leadership of the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus had read the law
which the Bush administration and oil lobby have been pressing the
Iraqi government to adopt, they would not support a provision in the
supplemental appropriation and H.R. 508 (Sec. 109), that establishes
adoption of the oil law as a benchmark of "progress" or "cooperation,"
as is presently the case.

I am confident that most members of the Out of Iraq Congressional
Caucus embraced this concept in the belief that adoption of an oil law
that assures a fair and equitable distribution of oil revenues to all
parts of Iraq is a condition for national unity and national progress
in Iraq.  I am equally certain that in doing so, they did not realize
that the oil law contemplated would have such deleterious effects on
the Iraqi people - and the exact opposite of the intended result: 

      _It would instead establish the conditions for the continuing
presence of U.S. troops (to protect U.S. "vital" interests -  read
corporate investment in oil field development). 

      _It would allow each province/governate of Iraq to negotiate its
own deals, pitting region against region, and undermining the central
government's authority and control over oil policy (a prescription for
even sharper regional competition and conflict). 

      _It would very likely result in greater unemployment among Iraqis
who would be displaced from the oil industry by foreign workers
(because there is no requirement that foreign contract holders hire
local workers). 

      _It would siphon oil revenues out of the country, giving the
central government fewer resources with which to reconstruct the
nation's shattered infrastructure, social programs and economy (the law
mandates a royalty of just 12.5%; foreign contract holders are not
required to reinvest in Iraq and can repatriate all their profits; they
can even transfer ownership shares without approval of the Iraqi
government). 

      _It contains only one sentence that talks about equitable sharing
of revenues, but even if rigorously enforced, this would only apply to
revenues paid to the government in royalties AFTER the oil cartel takes
its cut.

      _It would further undermine workers' rights and the rights of
unions in Iraq, forcing them to deal with foreign multinational
corporations that are known to be hostile to labor rights (as well as
environmental protection) rather than their own government which can be
held accountable to the Iraqi people.  (Iraq still does not have a
basic labor law that respects the right of workers to organize, bargain
and strike). 

For a more detailed analysis, please look at the open letter.  USLAW
has also assembled an comprehensive archive of articles and analyses on
this issue on our website.

Yours in solidarity for peace with justice in Iraq,

Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator


ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE TO SUPPORT THE IRAQ OIL WORKERS, THEIR UNION, AND
THE IRAQ PEOPLE

1.        CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.
        
Explain why they should reject adoption of an oil investment law as a
benchmark of progress or Iraqi cooperation in the next version of the
Supplemental Appropriation, and any in other legislation they may be
asked to consider.

2.        CONTACT YOUR NATIONAL UNION

Send them a copy of this message and ask that they mobilize their
Political Department staff to lobby Congress in opposition to any oil
law benchmark.  Please ask that they act quickly as a vote on a new
supplemental appropriation could come up as early as Friday.

3.        ASK YOUR UNION TO SEND SOLIDARITY MESSAGES TO THE IRAQI
FEDERATION OF OIL WORKERS

Our sisters and brothers in Iraq are risking their jobs and their lives
in the struggle to secure their rights, to care for their families and
to protect the interests of Iraq as a sovereign nation.  They need to
know that workers around the world support them. 

Send solidarity messages for the Federation of Oil Unions to President
Hassan Juma'a Awad Al Assadi, c/o USLAW at <
iraqsolidarity at uslaboragainstwar.org>.  They will be transmitted to the
Oil Workers Union and posted to the USLAW website.

4.        MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE USLAW IRAQ LABOR SOLIDARITY FUND

USLAW is organizing a speaking tour of the U.S. for Faleh Abood Umara,
General Secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions, and Hashmeya Muhsin
Hussein, President of the Electrical Utility Workers Union for June
4-29.  This tour will provide an opportunity for Iraq labor leaders to
speak directly to the American people and Congress to explain their
opposition to the oil law, to describe the impact the occupation has
had on working people, and to discuss the likely consequences of the
occupation continuing and the occupation ending.  Funds are desperately
needed to defray the $25,000 in expenses of this tour.  All funds
raised in excess of the expenses will be contributed directly to Iraqi
labor organizations to support their important work. 

Please make a generous donation and ask your union/labor council/or
other labor organization to do likewise.  Donate on line or send a
check payable to USLAW Iraq Labor Solidarity Fund to USLAW, 1718 M
Street, NW, #153, Washington, DC 20036.  (If you want a tax deduction,
make it payable to USLAW/IPS and put Solidarity Fund in the memo line,
but be aware that this will reduce the value of your contribution due
to processing fees assessed by our fiscal sponsor, Institute for Policy
Studies. )

                             ** 

For Immediate Release
Tuesday May 8th 2007

Iraqi Oil Workers to Strike Over Privatisation Law

Iraq_s largest oil workers_ trade union will strike this Thursday, in
protest at the controversial oil law currently being considered by the
Iraqi parliament. The move threatens to stop all exports from the
oil-rich country.

The oil law proposes giving multinational companies the primary role in
developing Iraq_s huge untapped oilfields, under contracts lasting up to
30 years. Oil production in Iraq, like in most of the Middle East, has
been in the public sector since the 1970s.

The Union, representing 26,000 oil workers, has held three previous
strikes since 2003, each time stopping exports, for up to two days at a
time. The announcement of the strike has spurred negotiations with the
Ministry of Oil, which are ongoing.

Imad Abdul-Hussain, Federation Deputy Chair of the IFOU said: "The
central government must be in total ownership and complete control of
production and the export of oil". He warned against the controversial
Production Sharing Agreements favoured by foreign companies, saying
other forms of co-operation with foreign companies would be acceptable
but not at the level of control and profiteering indicated in the
current Oil Law.

Federation President Hassan Jumaa Awad al Assadi said: _The oil law does
not represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people. It will let the
foreign oil companies into the oil sector and enact privatisation under
so called production sharing agreements. The federation calls for not
passing the oil law, because it does not serve the interests of the
Iraqi people."

The Union is not alone in its_ condemnation of the current oil law.
Opponents of the law also include all of Iraq_s other trade unions, a
number of political parties, and a group of over 60 senior Iraqi oil
experts.

Hassan Jumaa went on to say: "The federation calls on all unions in the
world to support our demands and to put pressure on governments and the
oil companies not to enter the Iraqi oil fields."

Union members are also demanding an improved salary structure and a
distribution of land for building homes.

Ewa Jasiewicz of Naftana _ the UK Support Committee for the IFOU said:
_The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, like any union, has the right to
engage in collective bargaining over issues important to their members.
In this case, the issue of who controls Iraq_s oil and the economic
future of the country is an issue which is important to all Iraqis. The
Union has repeatedly called for civil society inclusion in the drafting
of the oil law and has been ignored. They are now asserting their right
to have a voice in the decision making process affecting their industry
and Iraq_s economic future _ their courage and commitment to democracy
should be supported_.

Instead of the union_s participation being welcomed, leaders have been
accused of jeopardizing security and threatened with legal action.

Farouq Al-Asadi, the Federation's Secretary said: _The Oil Minister
chooses to forget that the right to strike is guaranteed by the
constitution - we have chosen the legal path_.

Union leaders have already received a number of death threats which they
are taking seriously. "As soon as the federation called for the strike,
many of our members and officials were physically threatened by parties
active in the political process, with the aim of thwarting the strike
and undermining the message of the strike organisers."

Contacts

Hassan Jumaa Awad Al Assadi, President of the Iraqi Federation of Oil
Unions 00964 7801 001 196 or 00964 7804 114 619 www.basraoilunion.org

Sami Ramadani, lecturer and writer and member of Naftana _ UK Support
Committee for the IFOU 0044 7863 138 748 sami.ramadani at londonmet.ac.uk

Ewa Jasiewicz, Naftana UK Support Group for the IFOU and Hands Off Iraqi
Oil Campaign 0044 7749 421 576 freelance at mailworks.org
www.handsoffiraqioil.org

Notes

The IFOU is an independent trade union representing workers across 4
southern provinces in Iraq: Misan, Dhi Qar, Basra and Mauthanna in nine
oil and gas related companies.

The Union has been organizing since April 2003 and has stopped oil
exports and production over wages and workers rights in the past. It has
also held protests against oil smuggling, former regime bosses and what
the union sees as the deliberate neglect and degradation of the industry
in order to justify private investment.

Union members have carried out reconstruction work on drilling rigs,
port equipment, pipelines and refineries since the invasion with
minimal, mostly local resources.

The Union is not linked to any political party in Iraq but has members
which belong to various parties.

The Union enjoys the support of trade unions and civil society
organizations around the world including the International Confederation
of Energy, Mining and General Workers Union (ICEM), the AFL-CIO in the
US, and the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) in the UK including the NUJ and
TGWU. The union is partnered with UK development charity War on Want,
the 3 milllion strong US Labor Against War in the USA, and Italian NGO
Un Ponte Per.

 
U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)
www.uslaboragainstwar.org
Email: <info at uslaboragainstwar.org>

PMB 153
1718 "M" Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Voicemail: 202/521-5265


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:32:33 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:32:33 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] HBO whitens "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"
Message-ID: <20070509153233.0b257a14@viola.tamara-b.org>

[Full article from the NY Times follows Andy's comments. -NYTr]

sent by Andy Pollack

HBO whitens "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"

Some choice quotes with commentary:

When the historian Dee Brown published _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_
in 1971, it became an instant sensation. In an age of rebellion, this
nonfiction book told the epic tale of the displacement and decline of
the American Indian not from the perspective of the winners, but from
that of the Indians.

But the fact that Mr. Brown_s work has been translated into 17
languages and has sold five million copies around the world was not
enough to convince HBO that a film version would draw a sizable
mainstream audience. When the channel broadcasts its two-hour
adaptation of the book, beginning Memorial Day weekend, at its center
will be a new character: a man who was part Sioux, was educated at an
Ivy League college and married a white woman.

_Everyone felt very strongly that we needed a white character or a
part-white, part-Indian character to carry a contemporary white
audience through this project,_ Daniel Giat, the writer who adapted the
book for HBO Films, told a group of television writers earlier this
year. [!!!!!!!]

_This was not an attempt to do the Ken Burns version of the Indian
experience,_ Mr. Wolf said in an interview. _It is a dramatization, and
we needed a protagonist._
[I guess Indians fighting bravely against genocide make for boring
protagonists.]

For decades the book eluded attempts to turn it into a film, partly
because of Mr. Brown_s distrust of Hollywood. [Duh, I wonder why?]

HBO executives said they saw no problem with the inconsistencies. _When
we look at historical accuracy, we look at history as it plays in the
service of a narrative,_ said Sam Martin, a vice president at HBO Films
in charge of production on the project. [Got that? History serves
narrative, not the other way around.]

To its credit, HBO_s version of _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_ does
not glamorize Sitting Bull, but rather portrays him as he was: an
egotistical, often brutal leader whose pride endangered members of his
tribe as they suffered through famine, drought and disease.
[To its credit? How about portraying him as he deserves: a heroic
fighter against colonial maniacs who deserved every defeat they
suffered? This paragraph REALLY demands an outraged response and/or
pickets.]

Some people who have seen advance screenings of the HBO version have
praised it. _This is the first time I_ve seen a film so accurately
portray the impact of federal policy on our people,_ said Jacqueline
Johnson, the executive director of the National Congress of American
Indians, which is cooperating with HBO on educational projects
featuring the film. [Cooperating obviously means getting paid.]

Mr. Proctor said his grandfather wouldn_t necessarily be surprised by
HBO_s tinkering. _I don_t think he ever thought anything historically
accurate would come out of any film version,_ he said. Still, before
this, _nobody had ever before gone and gutted it and turned it into a
love story._


                            ***

Full article:

The New York Times - May 9, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/arts/television/09knee.html
 
Classic Book About America?s Indians Gains a Few Flourishes as a Film

By EDWARD WYATT

LOS ANGELES, May 8 ? When the historian Dee Brown published ?Bury My
Heart at Wounded Knee? in 1971, it became an instant sensation. In an
age of rebellion, this nonfiction book told the epic tale of the
displacement and decline of the American Indian not from the
perspective of the winners, but from that of the Indians.

But the fact that Mr. Brown?s work has been translated into 17
languages and has sold five million copies around the world was not
enough to convince HBO that a film version would draw a sizable
mainstream audience. When the channel broadcasts its two-hour
adaptation of the book, beginning Memorial Day weekend, at its center
will be a new character: a man who was part Sioux, was educated at an
Ivy League college and married a white woman.

?Everyone felt very strongly that we needed a white character or a
part-white, part-Indian character to carry a contemporary white
audience through this project,? Daniel Giat, the writer who adapted the
book for HBO Films, told a group of television writers earlier this
year.

The added character is based on a real person: Charles Eastman, part
Sioux and descended from a long line of Santee chiefs but who was sent
away by his father to boarding school and then held up as a model of
the potential assimilation of 19th-century Native Americans. But the
film fictionalizes significant portions of his life. In the HBO version
he dodges bullets at the Battle of Little Bighorn. In reality he was
far away, in grade school in Nebraska.

Fictionalizing history has long been standard in Hollywood. But rarely
do filmmakers directly hitch their historically inaccurate projects to
revered works of nonfiction. Dick Wolf, an executive producer of the
film who is best known for the ?Law & Order? television franchise,
defended the fabrications.

?This was not an attempt to do the Ken Burns version of the Indian
experience,? Mr. Wolf said in an interview. ?It is a dramatization, and
we needed a protagonist.?

(The chief executive of HBO, Chris Albrecht, announced yesterday that
he was taking a leave of absence after being charged with assaulting a
girlfriend in a Las Vegas parking lot early on Sunday.)

At the time it was published, Mr. Brown?s epic, subtitled ?An Indian
History of the American West,? struck a chord in a country embroiled in
a divisive war in Vietnam and still shuddering from the American
military?s massacre in the village of My Lai. Segregation was dying
hard in the South, and the American Indian Movement was ascending.

The story is a relentless tragedy, tracing the history of American
Indian nations from 1860, shortly after the first new states extended
into the ?permanent Indian frontier,? through 1890 and the massacre at
Wounded Knee, in what is now South Dakota. It became a blockbuster best
seller and helped shape the way the history of the American Indians has
been interpreted ever since.

For decades the book eluded attempts to turn it into a film, partly
because of Mr. Brown?s distrust of Hollywood. At least two attempts by
potential moviemakers to adapt the book failed. When the current
producers optioned the book five years ago, Mr. Brown was in the last
years of his life and, according to his grandson, did not believe
anything would come of the project. (Mr. Brown died in 2002 at 94.)

Tom Thayer, the executive producer who originated the project, said the
HBO team wrestled for months with how to boil down a book that spans 30
years and dozens of tribes into a 130-minute film.

?The book is basically an editorialized textbook,? Mr. Thayer said. ?It
doesn?t have a single narrative; it?s anthropological and episodic.?
Therefore, he added, ?we felt that to tell a story of that size, the
Eastman character would be a great hand-holder for the audience.?

Many literary critics, and millions of readers, however, had little
trouble following Mr. Brown?s story. Writing in The New York Times Book
Review in March 1971, N. Scott Momaday, a Pulitzer Prize-winning
novelist, emphasized that the book was a story, ?a whole narrative of
singular integrity and precise continuity; that is what makes the book
so hard to put aside, even when one has come to the end.?

The film largely restricts itself to the late 1880s, the time of the
Ghost Dance, a messianic movement that swept through the Plains Indian
tribes. Within that period it weaves together three strands: the story
of Sitting Bull, the legendary chief of the Sioux, who fought against
Custer?s forces at Little Bighorn in 1876; that of Henry L. Dawes, the
Massachusetts senator who pushed into law a plan to allocate portions
of Indian land to individual tribe members; and Eastman, who was taken
from his tribe by his father and attended Dartmouth and then Boston
University School of Medicine.

It is in the last two stories that the film begins to bend history.

?Eastman was the most well-known, well-educated Indian at the beginning
of the 20th century,? said Raymond Wilson, a professor of history at
Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kan., who wrote what is considered
to be the definitive biography of Eastman. ?When I heard they were
doing the film,? he said, ?I joked with a couple of people that I hoped
they didn?t have Charles Eastman shaking hands with Sitting Bull at
Pine Ridge.?

Not quite, but almost. The film?s climactic scene has Eastman watching
as Sitting Bull addresses a group of Sioux in Pine Ridge at a meeting
of which Dawes is the chairman. Sitting Bull tells them not to accept
the government land allotments. In fact, the chief lived 200 miles away
at the Standing Rock agency, and the meeting never happened.

As for placing Eastman at the Battle of Little Bighorn, Mr. Giat, the
screenwriter, defends that choice by noting that some members of
Eastman?s tribe were there.

The film also shows Eastman courting Elaine Goodale, a Massachusetts
poet and teacher who oversaw schools for Indians in the Dakota
territory, over a period of years, beginning while he was in college.
In fact, Eastman met her when he arrived at Pine Ridge less than two
months before the Wounded Knee massacre. Nor was Goodale anywhere near
the reservation in 1883 when Sitting Bull arrived, as shown in the
film; she was in Virginia.

HBO executives said they saw no problem with the inconsistencies. ?When
we look at historical accuracy, we look at history as it plays in the
service of a narrative,? said Sam Martin, a vice president at HBO Films
in charge of production on the project. HBO has at times gone the
opposite route; last year it publicized the pains it took to ensure the
factual accuracy of its Emmy-winning miniseries ?Elizabeth I.?

To its credit, HBO?s version of ?Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee? does
not glamorize Sitting Bull, but rather portrays him as he was: an
egotistical, often brutal leader whose pride endangered members of his
tribe as they suffered through famine, drought and disease.

Some people who have seen advance screenings of the HBO version have
praised it. ?This is the first time I?ve seen a film so accurately
portray the impact of federal policy on our people,? said Jacqueline
Johnson, the executive director of the National Congress of American
Indians, which is cooperating with HBO on educational projects
featuring the film. ?You see the beginning of issues and policies whose
effects we are still dealing with today.?

But others are dismayed. Nicolas Proctor, Mr. Brown?s grandson and one
of three people who oversees his estate, as well as an associate
professor of history at Simpson College in Iowa, said that as a
historian he was ?always kind of shocked that history is not moving
enough, is not evocative enough and rich enough to keep people from
having to get in there and start monkeying around with it.? He said
that the estate had no control over the film?s content.

Mr. Proctor said his grandfather wouldn?t necessarily be surprised by
HBO?s tinkering. ?I don?t think he ever thought anything historically
accurate would come out of any film version,? he said. Still, before
this, ?nobody had ever before gone and gutted it and turned it into a
love story.?

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:33:15 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:33:15 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Air raid 'kills Afghan civilians'
Message-ID: <20070509153315.4971bcc3@viola.tamara-b.org>

BBC - May 9, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6637957.stm

Air raid 'kills Afghan civilians'

US-led forces have killed at least 21 civilians in an air strike in
southern Afghanistan, local officials say.

Helmand provincial Governor Asadullah Wafa said civilian homes were
bombed in Sangin district, where foreign and Afghan troops are battling
the Taleban.

The US-led coalition said one of its troops died in fighting in Sangin,
but it had no reports of civilian deaths.

Mounting civilian casualties have caused an outcry in Afghanistan, with
foreign forces accused of carelessness. 

Wednesday's reported deaths came a day after the US military said it
was "deeply ashamed" over the killings of 19 Afghan civilians by US
Marines in early March.

The apology came as the Afghan Senate called on the government in Kabul
to open direct talks with local Taleban militants, and for attacks on
them to stop.

Public discontent in Afghanistan is growing over the rising number of
civilian casualties and the government's failure to improve the lives
of most Afghans.

In January, Nato said its biggest mistake last year had been killing
civilians, and promised to do better.

Enemy casualties

Mr Wafa said said international forces were ambushed by Taleban
insurgents on Tuesday afternoon, and air strikes were called in later
against three villages.

He said women and children had been among those killed when planes
attacked in support of Nato troops trying to drive militants from the
lawless, opium-producing region of Sangin.

Nato said it was "unaware, at this time, of any Nato air strikes
resulting in civilian casualties over the past 24 hours".

A statement from the American-led task force in Afghanistan, which
works outside Nato command in counter-terrorism operations, confirmed
that US special forces were in the area.

It said they had been working alongside the Afghan national army and
had come under mortar, rocket and small arms fire while on patrol 25km
(15 miles) north of Sangin.

"Coalition close air support aircraft destroyed three enemy command and
control compounds including an enemy underground tunnel network located
along the upper Sangin River Valley," a statement said.

A US military spokesman Maj William Mitchell told the Associated Press
news agency that the troops had killed a "significant" number of
militants.

"We don't have any report of civilian casualties. There are enemy
casualties - I think the number is significant," Maj Mitchell said.

Residents of the bombed area said Western troops and Afghan forces were
preventing people from entering.

Correspondents say that casualties in remote battle sites in
Afghanistan are almost impossible to verify.

Taleban fighters are often accused of seeking shelter in peoples'
homes, leading to civilian casualties, and it is often difficult to
determine if people killed in such air strikes were militants or
civilians.

'Dire consequences'

One local resident told the BBC that a number of bodies had been taken
to the British base in Sangin to show they were not Taleban fighters.

But British forces would not confirm this.

Nato said their helicopters were helping to airlift injured civilians
for hospital treatment.

The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Kabul says there have been a number of
incidents in the past few weeks where US special forces outside Nato
remit have been blamed for killing civilians.

In the worst incident, more than 50 civilians were reported killed in
the western province of Herat last week.

President Hamid Karzai recently warned of "dire consequences for all"
if civilian killings continued.

As details of the fighting in Sangin emerged, Nato announced it would
allow more involvement by the Afghan government in the planning of
operations, and that a system would be set up to investigate claims of
civilian casualties.

? BBC MMVII



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:33:57 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:33:57 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Iraq: Cheney Greeted by rocket attack on Green Zone
Message-ID: <20070509153357.6d820524@viola.tamara-b.org>

AFP - May 9, 2007
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070509165819.khxzahjv.html

Bombing mars Cheney Iraq trip

BAGHDAD (AFP) - A deadly bomb attack in a once safe Kurdish city and a
rocket blast in Baghdad's Green Zone served as a violent backdrop
Wednesday to a surprise Iraq visit by US Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney arrived in the war-torn capital to meet senior Iraqi leaders
just as a new poll revealed that 59 percent of American voters want the
White House to to set a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

The vice-president brought Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the message
that Washington's patience with the slow pace of Iraq's political peace
process is running out, even as new attacks further undermined its
progress.

A powerful bomb exploded in front of the regional interior ministry in
Arbil, the capital of northern Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, an
area that has been spared the worst of Iraq's descent into sectarian
bloodshed.

The blast tore a two metre (yard) deep crater in front of the ministry,
and scattered the bodies of dead and injured outside the heavily
guarded building.

Kurdistan's health minister, Zirian Abdelrahman, said 19 were people
killed, although his colleague at the interior ministry later gave a
lower toll.

"It was a truck bomb carrying cleaning products that targeted our
ministry and killed 14 people and wounded 87, including government
employees," regional interior minister Karim Sinajri told journalists.

While insurgent car and truck bombings are an almost daily scourge in
central Iraq, this was a rare incident in the Kurdish region, and a
blow to its campaign to portray itself as an investor-friendly haven of
calm.

In Baghdad, a rocket exploded near the US embassy in the fortified
Green Zone during Cheney's visit, an Iraqi defence official said.

Smoke could be seen rising near the US compound shortly after the
blast, which was heard at around 6:15 pm (1415 GMT). The Iraqi
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, could not say if there
were any casualties.

Cheney's movements during his visit were kept secret for security
reasons, but the vice president later confirmed at at a press
conference that "I spent today here basically in our embassy and
military headquarters."

Reporters covering Cheney's trip to Iraq were ushered from their
workspace here after hearing a muffled boom that rattled the windows.

A spokeswoman for Cheney, Lea Anne McBride, said "his meeting was not
disrupted and he was not moved" as a result of the explosion.

Last Thursday, four Asian contractors working for the US embassy were
killed in a rocket attack.

Insurgent and militia groups opposed to the ongoing US troop presence
in Iraq regularly fire rockets and mortars into the Green Zone, a
walled city district that houses the US embassy and Iraqi government.

Elsewhere in the city a high-ranking official in the housing ministry
was assassinated and a construction worker building a controversial
wall around the Sunni neighbourhood of Adhamiyah was shot dead.

US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell told reporters
that after dropping by two-thirds due to a massive security operation
in the capital, assassinations and executions were on the rise again.

"There has been a slight uptick in the last two weeks in the number of
murders and executions observed in Baghdad," he said.

Both the Iraqi and US commands refuse to reveal the figures upon which
they base such reports. An interior ministry official, speaking on
condition of anonymity told AFP that 25 bodies were found on Tuesday
alone.

In the central Iraqi city of Samarra, Sunni insurgents destroyed two
police stations belonging to the Shiite-led National Police just days
after a deadly assault left 12 policemen dead, including their
commander.

And in Al-Rashad, northern Iraq, gunmen murdered four journalists
working for a US-sponsored weekly that has taken a strong line against
terrorism.

Cheney was in Baghdad to warn top Iraqi leaders that US patience with
their faltering attempts to reunite Iraq's warring factions is running
short.

Shortly after the rocket exploded, and after meeting Maliki and
President Jalal Talabani, Cheney told reporters that he had sensed "a
greater sense of urgency" among Iraqi officials working to resolve the
conflict.

"I did sense, today, a greater awareness on the part of the Iraqi
officials I talked to of the importance of their working together to
resolve these issues in a timely fashion," he said.

The White House's own sense of urgency will have been fueled by the
latest USA Today/Gallup poll, which showed that 59 percent of Americans
support setting a deadline for removing US troops from Iraq.

The opposition-controlled US Congress is working on a second bill that
would seek to tie future troop funding to some kind of measure of
success in Iraq, but President George W. Bush has vowed in advance to
veto it.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:35:47 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:35:47 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Atlantic's First Named Storm of the Year Forms Early
Message-ID: <20070509153547.731fb6a6@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TROPICAL_WEATHER?SITE=OKPON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Atlantic's First Named Storm of the Year Forms Early, 
3 Weeks Before Season's Official Start

By JESSICA GRESKO
Associated Press Writer

MIAMI (AP) -- The first named storm of the year formed Wednesday off
the southeastern U.S. coast, more than three weeks before the official
start of the Atlantic hurricane season, forecasters said.

Subtropical Storm Andrea had top sustained winds around 45 mph
Wednesday morning and didn't appear to be much of a threat, the
National Hurricane Center in Miami said. Still, a tropical storm watch
was issued for parts of Georgia and Florida, meaning tropical storm
conditions are possible within 36 hours.

"We're not looking at this system strengthening significantly," said
Richard Pasch, a senior hurricane specialist at the center. "We're not
viewing this as a major threat."

The storm's winds have been blowing smoke from wildfires across Georgia
and Florida, though it didn't appear to hinder firefighting efforts,
said Jim Harrell, a spokesman for Florida's Division of Forestry.

Those battling the blazes won't get much immediate help from rain,
because forecasters said no significant downpours were expected over
land through at least Thursday morning. The storm's lightning could
also spark more fires, meteorologists warned.

Already, wind-driven waves have been causing coastal erosion in South
Carolina, Georgia and Florida and the ocean has lapped at beachfront
homes and condominiums.

At 11 a.m. EDT, Andrea was centered about 140 miles southeast of
Savannah, Ga., and about 150 miles northeast of Daytona Beach. The
storm was moving west at about 3 mph.

Subtropical systems are hybrid weather formations that are usually
weaker than hurricanes and tropical storms. They are kind of a
half-breed, sharing characteristics of tropical systems, which get
their power from warm ocean water at their centers, and more typical
bad weather that forms when warm and cold fronts collide, Pasch said.

Forecasters said Andrea has the warm center characteristic of tropical
storms but its core is not particularly well defined. In addition, its
winds are farther out from the center than they would be in a tropical
storm.

Typically about one subtropical storm forms each year, but they often
turn into tropical storms. That doesn't appear to be the case with
Andrea, senior hurricane specialist Jack Beven said. It only has a
small area of warmer water to draw energy from and is also facing dry
winds.

He said it wasn't unusual for the storm to form in May, outside the
hurricane season that starts June 1 and end Nov. 30.

"What we call the hurricane season is a totally manmade creation.
Nature doesn't always pay attention to that," Beven said.

Eighteen tropical storms and four hurricanes have been recorded in that
month since 1851, and none of the hurricanes made landfall in the U.S.
The earliest hurricane to strike the U.S. was Alma in northwest Florida
on June 9, 1966.

Private and university forecasters have predicted the 2007 season will
be especially active, producing up to 17 tropical storms and hurricanes
and a "well above average" possibility of at least one striking the
U.S. The federal government plans to release its predictions May 22.

The Atlantic basin has been in a busy period for hurricanes since 1995.
Some federal forecasters believe this is part of a natural cycle. But
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored group,
says global warming caused by humans has led to an increase in stronger
hurricanes.

? 2007 The Associated Press. 

                           ***

National Hurricane Center
"NHC Mail (Atlantic Marine)"
<mail-storm-atlan-marine at seahorse.nhc.noaa.gov>

STS ANDREA Forecast/Advisory 1
Wed, 09 May 2007 14:50:01 +0000


000
WTNT21 KNHC 091444
TCMAT1
SUBTROPICAL STORM ANDREA FORECAST/ADVISORY NUMBER   1
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL   AL012007
1500 UTC WED MAY 09 2007
 
AT 11 AM EDT...1500 UTC...A TROPICAL STORM WATCH HAS BEEN ISSUED
ALONG THE SOUTHEAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES FROM ALTAMAHA SOUND
GEORGIA SOUTHWARD TO FLAGLER BEACH FLORIDA.  A TROPICAL STORM WATCH
MEANS THAT TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE WATCH
AREA...GENERALLY WITHIN THE NEXT 36 HOURS.
 
SUBTROPICAL STORM CENTER LOCATED NEAR 30.8N  79.3W AT 09/1500Z
POSITION ACCURATE WITHIN  30 NM
 
PRESENT MOVEMENT TOWARD THE WEST OR 270 DEGREES AT   3 KT
 
ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE 1003 MB
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS  40 KT WITH GUSTS TO  50 KT.
34 KT.......100NE 100SE  60SW  60NW.
12 FT SEAS..120NE  90SE   0SW 120NW.
WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT.  RADII IN NAUTICAL
MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.
 
REPEAT...CENTER LOCATED NEAR 30.8N  79.3W AT 09/1500Z
AT 09/1200Z CENTER WAS LOCATED NEAR 30.8N  79.1W
 
FORECAST VALID 10/0000Z 30.6N  79.9W
MAX WIND  40 KT...GUSTS  50 KT.
34 KT...100NE 100SE  60SW  60NW.
 
FORECAST VALID 10/1200Z 30.2N  80.6W
MAX WIND  35 KT...GUSTS  45 KT.
34 KT...100NE 100SE  40SW  60NW.
 
FORECAST VALID 11/0000Z 29.8N  81.0W
MAX WIND  35 KT...GUSTS  45 KT.
34 KT...100NE 100SE   0SW  60NW.
 
FORECAST VALID 11/1200Z 29.6N  81.0W
MAX WIND  30 KT...GUSTS  40 KT.
 
FORECAST VALID 12/1200Z 29.5N  81.0W
MAX WIND  25 KT...GUSTS  35 KT.
 
EXTENDED OUTLOOK. NOTE...ERRORS FOR TRACK HAVE AVERAGED NEAR 225 NM
ON DAY 4 AND 300 NM ON DAY 5...AND FOR INTENSITY NEAR 20 KT EACH DAY
 
OUTLOOK VALID 13/1200Z 29.5N  81.0W...DISSIPATING
MAX WIND  25 KT...GUSTS  35 KT.
 
OUTLOOK VALID 14/1200Z...DISSIPATED
 
REQUEST FOR 3 HOURLY SHIP REPORTS WITHIN 300 MILES OF 30.8N  79.3W
 
NEXT ADVISORY AT 09/2100Z
 
$$
FORECASTER KNABB
 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:37:27 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:37:27 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Like Katrina, Deadly Tornado Brings Iraq War Home
Message-ID: <20070509153727.2e253323@viola.tamara-b.org>

IPS via electronic Iraq - May 9, 2007
http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer3059.shtml

Deadly Tornado Brings Iraq War Home

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON (IPS) - Increasingly isolated by his dogged opposition to a
timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, U.S. President
George W. Bush will travel to the site of a deadly tornado in Kansas
Wednesday, in part to rebut charges that relief operations there were
hampered by shortages of equipment that had been shipped to Iraq.

In an echo of the Katrina hurricane disaster that devastated New
Orleans -- and Bush's approval ratings -- in August 2005, Kansas Gov.
Kathleen Sebelius and several senior National Guard officers have
charged that the deployment of key equipment, notably tractor-trailers
that can bring heavy equipment to the site, to Iraq has slowed the
state's response to the tornado that destroyed the prairie town of
Greensburg last Friday night.

"Fifty percent of our trucks are gone, our front loaders are gone. We
are missing Humvees that move people," Sebelius, a Democrat, told an
interviewer from NBC's "Today" show Monday.

"We can't borrow them from other states because their equipment is
gone. It's a huge issue for states across the country to respond to
disasters like this," she said of the 300-km/hour winds that
obliterated 95 percent of Greensburg's houses and other structures.

Her observation underlined the growing concern of state governments
that National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have undermined
their ability to respond to civil disorder or natural disasters, a
concern that is growing more pronounced with the approach of hurricane
season along the Atlantic seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico.

"You name it, we are short of (it)," the National Guard's top officer,
Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, told Congress just last month after the Pentagon
announced that 13,000 more National Guard troops and their equipment
were to be deployed to Iraq as part of the Bush administration's
so-called "surge" strategy. "This is meat-and potatoes basic items: I'm
talking about (bull)dozers, graders, loaders, backhoes, dump trucks."

"Can we do the job? Yes, we can," he said. "But the lack of equipment
(means it takes) longer to do that job, and lost time translates into
lost lives, and those lost lives are American lives."

The Greensburg tornado, the most powerful to hit the United States in
nearly a decade, killed at least 10 people and sent a dozen more to the
hospital with serious injuries. The death toll in the town of 1,500
people would surely have been higher if residents were not given a
20-minute warning that permitted them to take shelter.

Forty National Guard troops arrived in Greensburg Saturday, and another
65 joined them Monday, but some relief officials complained that they
lacked key equipment, including front and wheeled loaders used for
clearing debris, as late as Tuesday.

Before the Iraq war, "they would have had heavy equipment in there to
move the debris," said Jane Bullock, chief of staff to the director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt, under
former President Bill Clinton. "This (disaster) happened on Friday, and
this is Tuesday, and we're still looking at a bad scene."

For its part, the White House rejected charges that the response to the
disaster had been slowed either by National Guard deployments to Iraq
or by delays by the federal government in acting on the state's
requests for emergency assistance.

Indeed, in what some called a replay of Katrina, Bush's spokesman, Tony
Snow, blamed Sebelius herself for failing to follow procedures in
requesting help, asserting that, since the disaster, the state had only
requested FM radios. He later added a mobile command centre, a
search-and-rescue team, and helicopters to the list.

He also noted that Washington had declared Greensburg a federal
disaster area Sunday, making it eligible to receive a range of
assistance, including the authority to hire private contractors to
supply heavy equipment. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican
presidential candidate who visited Greenburg Tuesday, said Guard
officers there had told him they had all the equipment that was needed.

But Sebelius' office said she had asked the Pentagon in December to
urgently re-supply equipment that had been diverted to Iraq, and Col.
Eric Peck of the Kansas Guard told the Kansas City Star that his force
currently had fewer than 15 tractor-trailer trucks, compared to more
than 30 before the Iraq war.

Similarly, he said, the Guard's normal inventory of more than 600
Humvees has been reduced to less than 400, while its complement of 170
medium-sized tactical vehicles has fallen to less than 30.

In December 2005, Sebelius sent a written appeal to then-Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld for key equipment to be replaced, saying, "We
must be able to maintain a high level of readiness because no one can
know when disaster will strike." She received no reply at the time.

The following month, Sebelius renewed her appeal in a face-to-face
meeting with Bush in Kansas. "We're dealing with it," Bush said,
according to her account of the conversation.

"Kansas is not an isolated situation," Brig. Gen. Stephen Koper, the
president of the non-partisan National Guard Association, told CBS News
this week.

On average, state national guards have only about 40 percent of their
pre-war equipment inventory. The Pentagon plans to increase that
percentage to 65 to 70 percent by 2013, a Pentagon spokesman told the
'Star' Tuesday.

In January, Congress' watchdog, the Government Accountability Office,
issued a study that found that the Pentagon itself "does not adequately
track National Guard equipment needs for domestic missions... State
national guards may be hampered in their ability to plan for responding
to large-scale domestic events," it warned, echoing a second report by
a Congressionally-sponsored commission that examined military readiness
last year.

To some, the slow response to the Greenburg disaster offered yet
another reason to question the U.S. intervention in Iraq. "We can spend
two billion dollars a week to take care of another country, but we
can't take care of our own state, own welfare," Sen. Donald Betts, a
senator in the Kansas state legislature, told a press teleconference
sponsored by the National Security Network and several other anti-war
groups Tuesday.

(C) IPS - Inter Press Service (2007). 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:38:33 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:38:33 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Kansas Tornado Renews Debate on Guard in Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509153833.0c405680@viola.tamara-b.org>

The New York Times - May 9, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09guard.html

Kansas Tornado Renews Debate on Guard at War

By SUSAN SAULNY and JIM RUTENBERG

CHICAGO, May 8 ? For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other
governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared
for the next local disaster, be it a tornado a flash flood or a
terrorist?s threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and
equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, last Friday night, a deadly tornado all but cleared the small
town of Greensburg off the Kansas map. With 80 square blocks of the
small farming town destroyed, Ms. Sebelius said her fears had come
true: The emergency response was too slow, she said, and there was only
one reason.

?As you travel around Greensburg, you?ll see that city and county
trucks have been destroyed,? Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday.
?The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don?t have the
equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.?

For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable
emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of
responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the
tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately
respond were in place.

It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military
vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from
Wichita about 100 miles away.

Ms. Sebelius?s comments about the slow response prompted a debate with
the White House on Tuesday, which initially said the fault rested with
her. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the governor
should have followed procedure by finding gaps after the storm hit and
asking the federal government to fill them ? but did not.

?If you don?t request it, you?re not going to get it,? Mr. Snow told
reporters on Tuesday morning.

The debate was reminiscent of the Bush administration?s skirmishes with
Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, also a Democrat, after
Hurricane Katrina. But after an angry flurry of words, both sides
seemed to back down a bit later Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius said she now had enough equipment and personnel to deal
with the problems in Greensburg, and the White House acknowledged that
the governor had requested several items that the federal government
supplied, including a mobile command center, a mobile office building,
an urban search and rescue team, and coordination of extra Black Hawk
helicopters.

Nonetheless, the governor and officials in other states again expressed
concern that the problem could occur again as the stretched National
Guard system struggled to respond to disasters at home while also
fighting overseas.

As State Senator Donald Betts Jr., Democrat of Wichita, put it: ?We
should have had National Guard troops there right after the tornado
hit, securing the place, pulling up debris, to make sure that if there
was still life, people could have been saved. The response time was too
slow, and it?s becoming a trend. We saw this after Katrina, and it?s
like history repeating itself.?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which came under strong
criticism after Hurricane Katrina, seemed to respond more quickly in
Kansas. Several of the agency?s mobile disaster recovery centers are in
Greensburg assisting residents, and the agency said it had moved in
15,000 gallons of water and 21,000 ready-to-eat meals, enough to feed
10,000 people.

State officials said the problem with the National Guard?s response had
more to do with equipment than personnel.

In Kansas, the National Guard is operating with 40 percent to 50
percent of its vehicles and heavy machinery, local Guard officials
said. Ordinarily, the Guard would have about 660 Humvees and more than
30 large trucks to traverse difficult terrain and transport heavy
equipment. When the tornado struck, the Guard had about 350 Humvees and
15 large trucks, said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state?s adjutant
general. The Guard would also usually have 170 medium-scale tactical
vehicles used to transport people and supplies ? but now it has fewer
than 30, he said. On the other hand, General Bunting said, it had more
cargo trucks than it needed.

The issue is not confined to Kansas.

In Ohio, the National Guard is short of night vision goggles and M-4
rifles, said a Guard spokesman, Dr. Mark Wayda. ?If we had a tornado
hit a small town, we would be fine,? Dr. Wayda said. ?If we had a much
larger event, that would become a problem.?

The California National Guard is similarly concerned about a
catastrophic event. ?Our issue is that we are shortchanged when it
comes to equipment,? said Col. Jon Siepmann, a spokesman for the Guard
in California. ?We have gone from a strategic reserve to a globally
deployable force, and yet our equipment resources have been largely the
same levels since before the war.?

In Arkansas, Gov. Mike Beebe a Democrat, echoed the concerns of Ms.
Sebelius. ?We have the same problem,? Mr. Beebe said. ?We have had a
significant decrease in equipment traditionally afforded our National
Guard, and it?s occasioned by the fact that it?s been sent to the
Middle East and Iraq.?

He added: ?Our first and foremost consideration is to guarantee that
our soldiers have the resources, including equipment, to do the job and
protect themselves. Having said that, my preference would be for the
federal government to provide that equipment and not strip the state?s
resources, which could adversely impact the state?s mission in times of
crisis, which is what happened in Kansas.?

Last year, all 50 governors signed a letter to President Bush asking
for the immediate re-equipping of Guard units sent overseas. But
officials in several states, including Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas,
said Tuesday that they were not facing equipment shortages.

National Guard units overseas are often assigned engineering missions,
and the skills and equipment ? bulldozers and trucks, for example ? are
also what might be required to deal with a natural disaster at home.

White House officials said that the Kansas National Guard had at its
disposal in the Midwest and the Plains states, everything it needed. By
Mr. Snow?s count, that included 83,000 National Guard soldiers; 99
bulldozers; 61 loaders; 246 dump trucks and 59 graders.

?There?s a lot of stuff available,? Mr. Snow said. ?So, again, I think
this is one where the equipment was available and everybody was moving
as rapidly as possible.?

In Congressional testimony, senior National Guard officials have said
that since Sept. 11 units under their command had equipment shortages
as forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Responding to concerns that the National Guard would not have
sufficient personnel or equipment to respond to natural disasters,
Guard leaders and state officials developed plans to ensure that if a
state is in short supply of people or gear when a hurricane or tornado
strikes, it can borrow from other states.

But borrowing does not solve every problem, state officials said, and
coordination can take time. The destruction from Hurricane Katrina
ultimately required the help of 50,000 troops ? and they came from all
50 states.

Training is another issue. At a Washington news conference in February,
Ms. Sebelius said, ?The Guard cannot train on equipment they do not
have.? She added later: ?And in a state like Kansas, where tornados,
floods, blizzards and wildfires can seemingly happen all at once, we
need our Guardsmen to be as prepared as possible.?

Two recent reports have raised questions about Guard preparedness. An
independent military assessment council, the Commission on the National
Guard and Reserves, released a report in March that stated: ?In
particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is
unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the United States to
respond to current and additional major contingencies, foreign and
domestic.?

Another report, released in January by the Government Accountability
Office, concluded that the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
have ?significantly decreased? the amount of equipment available for
National Guard units not deployed overseas, while the same units face
an increasing number of threats at home.

Late Tuesday, in a statement, Ms. Sebelius repeated her message:

?I have said for nearly two years, and will continue to say, that we
have a looming crisis on our hands when it comes to National Guard
equipment in Iraq and our needs here at home.?

Susan Saulny reported from Chicago, and Jim Rutenberg from Washington.
Reporting was contributed by Maureen Balleza, Steve Barnes, Malcolm
Gay, Christopher Maag, Adam Nossiter, Libby Sander, Thom Shanker and
Jennifer Steinhauer.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:39:45 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:39:45 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Wolfowitz's Girl Friend Says 'I Quit'
Message-ID: <20070509153945.53eef3c8@viola.tamara-b.org>

MSNBC - May 8, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18554065/site/newsweek/?from=rss

Wolfowitz's Friend Says 'I Quit'

Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz?s girlfriend is resigning
as his girlfriend.

By Andy Borowitz

May 8, 2007 - In yet another setback for the embattled World Bank
president, Paul Wolfowitz?s girlfriend, Shaha Riza, announced today
that she was resigning as Wolfowitz?s girlfriend, ?effective
immediately.?

While Riza?s role in the conflict-of-interest scandal involving
Wolfowitz and the World Bank had placed her in the eye of the media
storm, few had expected her to relinquish her girlfriend post without a
fight. But according to a source close to Riza, the increasing pressure
on the high-profile couple in recent days had convinced her that she
?could no longer function effectively as Paul Wolfowitz?s girlfriend.?

A joint communiqu? released by the couple indicated that the decision
to leave her girlfriend post was entirely Riza?s, but sources close to
Wolfowitz suggest that the idea had originated not with her, but with
the World Bank president himself. According to one source, ?Paul had
dinner with Shaha last night and told her they should start seeing
other banks.?

News of Riza?s departure sparked speculation that Wolfowitz might have
difficulty acquiring a new girlfriend, but according to Vice President
Dick Cheney, who has served as Wolfowitz?s unofficial ?wingman? for
years, nothing could be further from the truth. ?The fact that the
World Bank found Paul guilty of wrongdoing gives him an air of danger,?
Cheney said. ?The ladies dig that.?

Elsewhere, after a welcoming speech in which he suggested that Queen
Elizabeth II was over 230 years old, President Bush attempted to mend
his verbal slip, saying, ?The old girl doesn?t look a day over 130.? 

? 2007 Newsweek, Inc.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:40:31 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:40:31 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bush still thinks Wolfowitz doing a "heck of a job"
Message-ID: <20070509154031.6cc6fa84@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via MSNBC - May 9, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18553053/

White House says it still backs Wolfowitz

World Bank president faces increasing pressure to step down

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz deserves a
?fair process and a fair hearing of the facts? surrounding his
involvement in arranging a promotion and pay package for his
girlfriend, the White House said Wednesday.

The comments from presidential counselor Dan Bartlett came as the
international lending institution?s 24-member board edged closer to a
decision on Wolfowitz?s fate.

The controversy over Wolfowitz?s handling of the 2005 promotion and
compensation package for bank employee Shaha Riza has prompted calls
for his resignation.

Wolfowitz attorney, Robert Bennett, has been pressing the bank to have
more time for his client to defend himself. Specifically he wants more
time to respond to a report by a special bank panel that accuses
Wolfowitz of circumventing bank rules when he arranged for the
compensation package.

Bartlett said the administration is not passing judgment yet on the
facts in Wolfowitz?s case. ?We are in the middle of a process right
now,? he said. ?What is important is a fair process and a fair hearing
of the facts.?

Wolfowitz on Sunday night received more than 600 pages of materials
from the special panel, which he needs to thoroughly review before
coming up with his response. Bennett has argued that Wolfowitz should
have at least 5 business days to respond, consistent with bank rules.

Bennett also has complained about leaks about the special panel?s
findings in the Wolfowitz case earlier in the week. He called that
?very harmful, not just to Mr. Wolfowitz personally but to the
institution.?

The bank?s board will decide soon what action should be taken, and a
range of disciplinary options has been discussed. It could fire
Wolfowitz, ask him to resign, signal that it lacks confidence in his
leadership or reprimand him.

White House press secretary Tony Snow on Wednesday sought to debunk any
notion that President Bush?s support for Wolfowitz had weakened. ?We
still support him fully,? Snow said.

Snow on Tuesday had referred most questions about Wolfowitz?s future to
the World Bank and to the Treasury Department. But on Wednesday Snow
said that shouldn?t have been read as any wavering of support for
Wolfowitz. ?This is not hanging Paul Wolfowitz out to dry,? he said.

France, meanwhile, wants a speedy resolution.

?We hope that the supervisory board meets quickly to speak out based on
this report and any observations that Mr. Wolfowitz could provide,?
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said Wednesday.

?Our concern is ensuring the good work of the World Bank, its mission
in the service of development and the fight against poverty,? he said.

Riza worked for the bank before Wolfowitz took over in June 2005. She
was moved to the State Department to avoid a conflict of interest but
stayed on the bank?s payroll. Her salary rose from close to $133,000 to
$193,590, after pay raises.

Before he took over the bank, Wolfowitz was the No. 2 official at the
Pentagon. He helped map the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Critics ? including many European countries, many on the bank?s staff,
aid groups and others ? want Wolfowitz to resign. They contend the
controversy has tarnished the bank?s reputation and could hobble its
ability to raise billions of dollars from countries around the world to
bankroll financial help for poor nations.

By tradition, the World Bank has been run by an American. Bush tapped
Wolfowitz, a move that was approved by the bank?s board. The United
States keenly wants to keep that tradition firmly intact. ? 2007 The
Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:43:47 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:43:47 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] The War on Free Expression: Criminalizing Speech
Message-ID: <20070509154347.34baac56@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - May 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman05092007.html

Criminalizing Speech:

The War on Free Expression

By STEPHEN LENDMAN

In a post-9/11 climate, the right of free expression is under attack
and endangered in the age of George Bush when dissent may be called a
threat to national security, terrorism, or treason. But losing that
most precious of all rights means losing our freedom that 18th century
French philosopher Voltaire spoke in defense of saying "I may
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it." Using it to express dissent is what noted historian Howard
Zinn calls "the highest form of patriotism" exercising our
constitutional right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to
protest publicly, and associate as we choose for any reason within the
law.

Even then, there are times more forceful action is needed, and Thomas
Jefferson explained under what circumstances in the Declaration of
Independence he authored. When bad government destroys our freedoms, we
the people have the right and duty to disobey civilly and resist. Henry
David Thoreau called it "Civil Obedience" in 1849, and men like Gandhi
and Martin Luther King practiced it successfully 100 years later.
That's our challenge today at a time our constitutional rights are more
compromised and threatened than at any previous time in our history.
Resistance is the antidote to restoring them, and freedom-loving people
have a duty and obligation to do it.

That's what democracy is all about and what our Founders had in mind
when they crafted what they called "the great (democratic) experiment"
that became our Constitution and Bill of Rights, imperfect as they are
with omissions and ambiguities. In words first written by Thomas
Jefferson, they "declared their independence" in 1776 from the British
king who ruled the colonies with "repeated injuries and usurpations (by
his) absolute Tyranny" using language considered audacious then or now:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal (and) endowed....with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....to
effect their Safety and Happiness." Try doing that today, and it's
called treason, a capital offense. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and
others thought otherwise saying we must act in our own defense when
government won't do it for us.

Their "experiment" was glorious, even flawed, and never before tried in
the West in any form since its few decades of existence in ancient
Athens under its system of "demokratia" or rule by the entire body of
Athenian citizens - or at least the non-slave adult white male portion
of it meaning a selective democracy for an elite minority excluding all
others the way it's always been here. It began in 1776 with our
Declaration of Independence followed by our Constitution ratified in
1789 and Bill of Rights in 1791. This extraordinary document's Preamble
said what our country's liberties are in 52 historic words even though
the language belied the reality:

    "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide
for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

And so it was with all its flaws in a nation beholden to privileged
white male property owners, doing little for others including women,
nothing for black slaves who were property, and even less for "original
Americans" exterminated to make way for "newer ones." We called it
democracy Winston Churchill once said was the "worst form of government
except for all those others that have been tried." Today it's also
called "Western civilization" Gandhi thought "would be a good idea"
when asked what he thought about it.

At best, our form of it is a flawed, unfinished project. At worst, it's
heading in reverse at a time of our single-minded pursuit of empire in
an age of:

    -- Predatory capitalism and corporate dominance, incompatible with
democracy;

    -- Sparta-like iron-fisted militarism and all its fallout: mass
killing and destruction, occupation, torture and overall inhuman
barbarism;

    -- The most secretive, intrusive, repressive and lawless government
in our history;

    -- An unprecedented wealth disparity former US Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis once warned about saying: "We can either have
democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in
the hands of a few, but we can't have both;"

    -- The rollback of civil liberties and essential human rights and
needs;

    -- A contempt for the rule of law;

    -- A deepening social decay;

    -- The absence of checks and balances and separation of powers and
a president usurping "unitary executive" powers to claim the law is
what he says it is; and

    -- The loss of our constitutional freedoms heading the nation
toward tyranny and ruin unless reversed. 

More than ever, the right to freely express dissent is crucial to
surviving. Lose it, as is happening, and lose everything.

The Constitution's First Amendment explicitly bestows that right no
government can lawfully remove, but this one's doing it anyway. It
states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances." No other nation in history ever granted more of these
freedoms, and few, if any, matched them in law or practice.

Nonetheless, there were numerous examples of abusive earlier laws
violating various constitutionally guaranteed rights including that of
free expression. The Sedition Act of 1798 (with the ink barely dry on
the Bill of Rights) did it making it a crime to publish "false,
scandalous, and malicious writing" against the president (John Adams)
or Congress but allowed it against the vice-president and Adams rival
(Thomas Jefferson). It thus illegally banned dissent the Constitution
allows.

During WW I, the Espionage Act was passed (under Democrat Woodrow
Wilson) in 1917 imposing a maximum 20 year sentence for anyone causing
"insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or (encouraging) refusal of duty
in the military or naval forces of the United States." It was aimed at
First Amendment speech protesting the war and US participation in it
everyone lawfully has the right to do. The Sedition Act in 1918 went
further criminalizing "disloyal, scurrilous (or) abusive"
anti-government speech. Shamefully, the Supreme Court upheld the
Espionage Act, most notably in (Eugene) Debs (five time socialist
presidential candidate) v. United States resulting in his serving
prison time for speaking out against militarism and the US entry into
WW I.

Other High Court Rulings Affirming or Infringing on First Amendment
Rights

    -- On war protests when the Warren Court in 1968 disallowed draft
card burning claiming it would disrupt the "smooth and efficient
functioning" of the draft system. But in 1969 the Court said students
had free speech rights and could wear black arm bands protesting the
Vietnam war. And it ruled for KKK leader Brandenburg against Ohio in
1969 holding that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless
it directly incites lawless action. Then in 1971, the Court upheld
Cohen against California ruling four-letter word anti-war profanity was
permissible on a jacket in Los Angeles country courthouse corridors.
Don't try it in the halls of Congress.

    -- On flag burning in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson when Justice William
Brennan, writing for the majority, said "if there is a bedrock
principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not
prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the
idea offensive or disagreeable," and that includes the right to protest
by burning the flag in public.

    -- On obscenity where Courts ruled against pornographic speech
especially to protect children from it but held no government can
prohibit its possession in the home.

    -- On slander and libel impermissible in cases of intentional
instances of "actual malice" or speech provably false, but acceptable
for opinions which cannot be held legally defamatory.

    -- On political speech in the famous Buckley v. Valeo 1976 ruling
when the High Court held that limits on campaign contributions "serve
the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the
electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of
individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and
discussion." However, the Court found expenditure limits imposed
"substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech." The Court
also ruled in 2003 upholding provisions barring the raising of "soft
money" contributions to a political party, not a candidate.

Now the High Court is considering arguments on that restriction in the
five year old McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and may soon rule to
weaken it. At issue is a provision barring corporations and unions from
funding campaign ads 60 days before an election and 30 days before a
primary naming a candidate for federal office. In their 5 - 4 December,
2003 decision, the court upheld the provision, but its new majority may
rule otherwise inviting a tsunami of paid political speech as the 2008
federal elections heat up.

On press freedom with High Courts ruling for and against the media on
matters of taxes and content issues involving political speech,
religious speech, "criminal syndicalism," defamation, obscenity,
personal injury, hate or other offensive speech, and other
constitutional issues affecting press freedom. Various High Courts have
had differing notions of free speech and press rights with some like
the current hard right sitting one unlikely to be shy ruling they're
not what the Constitution says they are.

The Post 9/11 Climate of Fear and Attack on Dissent

Thomas Jefferson said "What country can preserve its liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance." He also said free speech "cannot be limited
without being lost." Former US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
added "Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no
power to restrict expression (regardless of its) ideas...subject matter
(or) content....Our people are guaranteed the right to express any
thought, free from government censorship." Former Bush White House
spokesperson Ari Fleicher's response was: "There are reminders to all
Americans that they need to watch what they say (and) watch what they
do...." implying those who don't at best are unpatriotic and at worst
are terrorists or sympathetic to them meaning you'll be targeted for
prosecution.

Indeed they will and have been, with a vengeance, with lots of help
from the dominant media, the courts and even academia, one of the
latest examples being Catholic liberal arts Emmanuel College adjunct
professor Nicholas Winset April 23. He lost his academic freedom and
job when the Massachusetts-based college fired him by letter ordering
him to stay off campus for holding a five minute classroom
demonstration on the Virginia Tech mid-April shootings school officials
deemed inappropriate even though students hearing it felt otherwise and
seemed supportive.

Though now unemployed, Professor Winset is a free man. Other academics
like former South Florida University (USF) Professor Sami Al-Arian are
not. He was arrested, indicted, exonerated in court but remains
imprisoned under harsh conditions in isolation reserved for dangerous
hardened criminals because of his courageous and effective public
advocacy for human and civil rights and liberation for his Palestinian
people long oppressed for six decades.

Dr. Rafil Dhafir's fate was the same for his "Crime of Compassion" (see
dhafirtrial.net, Katherine Hughes). He, too, was arrested, indicted,
tried, convicted and is now imprisoned for violating the Iraqi
Sanctions Regulations (IEEPA) and 58 other trumped up charges including
his public stance against gross injustice and for using his own funds
and what he could raise through his Help the Needy charity to bring
desperately needed essential to life humanitarian aid to Iraqi people
the Clinton and Bush administrations disgracefully wished to deny them.

The (Professor) Ward Churchill Solidarity Network web site defends the
academic freedom and right of free expression for one of the nation's
most courageous advocates of those rights and much more for his own
Native Indian peoples and all others. Churchill was viciously and
unjustifiably attacked for his essay analyzing the 9/11 attacks he
later included in his important 2003 book On the Justice of Roosting
Chickens. It detailed the stunning history of US military interventions
since 1776 at home and abroad, the fact that this nation has been at
war every year since inception (without exception) to the present day
with one or more adversaries as well as our post-WW II obstruction,
subversion and violation of constitutional and international law
proving this country is and always was arrogant and lawless.

For his public stance on this and other injustices, Churchill receives
a steady stream of death threats, and his home has been vandalized.
He's also been viciously vilified in the corporate media and by
University of Colorado (CU) officials (taking orders from the state's
governor) who announced June 26, 2006 Churchill would be fired even
though he's a distinguished award-winning tenured professor of ethnic
studies guilty of no misconduct. His case continues so far unresolved
while he remains suspended on pay from academic duties but backed in
his struggle by CU students, noted academic members of "teachers for a
democratic society," and many other supporters speaking out publicly in
his behalf.

Another noted academic is also under attack and may be denied his
well-deserved tenure because of his courageous writing and
outspokenness. He's political science Professor and Israeli-Palestinian
history and conflict expert Norman Finkelstein of DePaul University in
Chicago. As a prominent public figure, he became a target of the hard
right in the age of George Bush, but it was that way earlier for him as
well. Finkelstein completed his doctoral dissertation at Princeton in
1988 on the theory of Zionism also exposing Joan Peters' "colossal
hoax" in her 1984 best seller From Time Immemorial in which she falsely
claimed Palestine was uninhabited when the Jews arrived. Ever since,
Finkelstein's been practically radioactive for supporting the
Palestinians' struggle for freedom and justice after decades of Israeli
oppression and occupation.

Finkelstein is a major scholar known worldwide and a highly regarded
DePaul academic evaluated by his students as "truly outstanding, and
among the most impressive" of all university political science
professors. That's why his Department of Political Science recommended
he be granted tenure when it said of him his academic record "exceeds
our department's stated standards for scholarly production (and)
department and outside experts we consulted recognize the intellectual
merits of his work." Nonetheless, Finkelstein is being attacked and
vilified by DePaul officials making his tenure struggle a much greater
issue. It's for his academic freedom right to dissent publicly and in
his writings and for his constitutional right of free expression no one
should be denied use of even when exercised on the most sensitive of
all political issues most public figures won't touch - criticizing
Israeli policies openly, harshly and deservedly. For that he should be
praised.

Instead, Finkelstein is assailed and denounced. He's called a
self-hating Jew, an anti-semite, a Holocaust- denier and more.
Unmentioned is that his now departed parents survived the Warsaw ghetto
and years in concentration camps including time at Auschwitz, and that
he lost all other family members on both sides at the hands of the
Nazis who exterminated them.

Nonetheless, university officials want to deny him tenure even though
two campus committees voted he be granted it. For now, the issue is
very much in play with his Department of Political Science and College
Personnel Committee supporting him and administration officials opposed
including College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean Chuck Suchar who
incredibly wants Finkelstein judged according to Vincentian," or
religious, values, not on his merits as a teacher and scholar. What
he's saying, of course, is that faculty members expressing views other
than ones DePaul considers acceptable will be punished for them.

Like his CU counterpart, Ward Churchill, Finkelstein's struggle
continues unresolved thus far with DePaul students, academics around
the world and others expressing their support through the Norman G.
Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign gathering signatures on his behalf and
on a letter sent to the school's administration. It says "Dean Suchar's
letter sets a dangerous precedent, and also sends the signal that arts
and sciences are now endangered at DePaul University and in the
American academy in general" where free expression and dissent no
longer will be tolerated.

The Corporate-Controlled Media's Assault on Free Expression

The dominant major media have always functioned to achieve what noted
Australian academic, author and psychologist Alex Carey called "taking
the risk out of democracy" to "protect corporate power against
democracy" by acting as national thought-control police gatekeepers
controlling what information reaches the public and what's suppressed.
It's worse than ever now resulting from virtually uninterrupted media
consolidation with friendly Democrat and Republican administrations
allowing five giant global media cartels today to control most
newspapers, magazines, radio, television, book publishing, and films.
Other than the internet, they hold a stranglehold over the kinds of
news, information, entertainment and other programming and material
most people get from which they form their views of the nation's state,
its government, and the world.

The media giants supplying it are master manipulators. They make sure
the public gets their one-sided corporate/state-friendly views in their
role as government/business partners instead of their watchdogs. It's
called censorship, the willful suppression of free expression, ideas
and thought in an age of sophisticated mind control "manufactur(ing) of
consent" (see Manufacturing Consent - Edward S. Herman and Noam
Chomsky) in a democracy where it can't be done by force. It's an effort
to program the public mind to go along with whatever agenda best serves
wealth and power by effectively suppressing dissent against it.

The work of three noted print journalists are prominent cases in point,
but shamefully what's true for them applies across all the entire
dominant media landscape that ranges from pathetic to appalling. One
example is Washington Post columnist and so-called dean of the
Washington press corps and political "pundits" at age 77, David Broder.
In many ways he's the worst of a bad lot because of his ill-deserved
image as a man of integrity, decency, honor and perceived wisdom. It
hides his dark side unprincipled support for the rogue administration
in power and his willingness to cover for it and suppress its
indisputable record of lawlessness and contempt for ordinary people
everywhere.

Since George Bush took office in 2001, Broder has been out in front
characterizing him as a strong, decisive, effective, and principled
leader protecting the nation against threats to our national security
including waging just wars for it. His harshest comments are reserved
for Bush critics he attacks maliciously like calling Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid a "loose cannon" and "an embarrassment" for daring to
say Iraq is a lost war even though anyone with common sense knows it is
including high present and former Washington officials unwilling to
deny what Broder does.

Broder is an "award-winning" journalist. It's long past time he took
his ill-deserved trophies and ended his morally corrupt and
intellectually dishonest lifetime career of misreporting at the
Washington Post where he's done it for the past 40 years.

The New York Times never met a Republican president or US-instigated
war of aggression it didn't love, fully support and be willing to give
plenty of front page space to journalists like Judith Miller assigned
to wave the flag and lead the journalistic charge. Miller had the
dubious honor leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 and held it until she
was forced to resign in disgrace in late 2005 ending her controversial
28 year career at the Times but not her presence in the corporate media
where she's welcomed on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal
never shy to publish material extremist enough at times to make a Nazi
blush.

Miller is picking up there where she left off in shame across town with
her latest near-full page "When Activists Are Terrorists" piece
defending New York police Gestapo thuggery against anti-war protesters.
Removed from leading the charge to wars of aggression, Miller's now out
in front supporting police brutality and illegal political spying
against people exercising their First Amendment right to protest
publicly she can't tolerate so she's taking aim against them in a venue
always friendly to her kind of extremist views.

With Miller gone, the New York Times continues its pro-war stance with
military correspondent Michael Gordon, and former Miller
co-conspirator, now putting out regular propaganda like they both once
did together and Gordon always was comfortable doing alone. Michael
Munk in an online February 11, 2007 After Downing Street.org article
calls him "The Ghost of Judith Miller" citing one example of his
reported "evidence" that Iran is supplying Iraq resistance fighters
with "more effective IEDs" without a shred of evidence to prove it
because there is none. The New York Times shamelessly ran Gordon's
preposterous piece February 10 (and all his others prominently) titled
"Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran (and) Used Against US Troops"
citing anonymous sources only to back up his unsupportable claim.

Like Miller, Gordon excels in state and corporate supportive
Times-speak suppressing the free and open kind his readers want but
never get from him. Most often he cites as sources unnamed "American
intelligence (or) Western officials (or those old faithfuls) high
administration (or) Pentagon officials" while almost never quoting
others with contrary views debunking his and theirs. Gordon, like
Miller, is important because he writes lead stories on what media
critic Norman Solomon calls the most valuable print real estate in the
country - the front pages of the New York Times that are read by
government and business leaders and opinion-makers everywhere. He's
also the same Michael Gordon who wrote the false and discredited story
on Saddam's aluminum tubes. He now continues putting out regular
falsified reports on the Times front pages as an agent of the state he
and his employer serve.

One of his latest efforts is titled "General Says Iraq Pullback Would
Increase Violence." In it he parrots Iraq military commander General
David Petraeus' administration-friendly line that reducing US forces
would increase "sectarian violence" and increase internal instability
caused, in fact, by the military occupation the general's in charge of
running. Without a US presence, the generalissimo says, "It can get
much, much worse (and) right now (with the troop surge) it's a good bit
better" claiming "sectarian" killings declined two-thirds since January
while ignoring how out-of-control things really are and the reverse of
how he and Gordon portray them.

Gordon also goes along with Petraeus' assessment that "The new
hydrocarbon law is of enormous importance," ignoring how it's
structured to suck out Iraq's enormous oil wealth transferring most of
it to Big (US) Oil from Iraqis who own it. Finally, comes the key part
of the article with Gordon trumpeting the general's unsubstantiated
claim of continued (unrevealed) evidence showing Iran is providing
Shiite "militants" military and other support. Citing computer
documents supposedly seized in a March Karbala raid, Petraeus claims
"There are numerous documents which detailed a number of different
attacks on coalition forces, and our sense is these records were kept
so they could be handed in to whoever it is who is financing them" -
pointing his finger directly at Iran from his previous comments with
Gordon obligingly implying the same view on the Times front page.

Along with falsifying news, the Times also excels in suppressing it as
willing Pentagon partners going along with Department of Defense (DOD)
rules on reporting on Iraq. An absurd one on its face states: "Names,
video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable
photographs of wounded service members will not be released without
service member's 'prior' written consent." Of course, the Times and
rest of the dominant media rarely ever do what this DOD regulation
forbids so, rule or no rule, the Bush administration's
happy-face-of-war is preserved to suppress its true ugly hidden one.

One other recent example of intimidation and censorship also deserves
mention. It's a story reported April 27 by AP, the Chicago Tribune and
elsewhere that a straight 'A' Chicago area Cary-Grove High School
senior of Chinese ethnicity, with no history of disciplinary problems
or trouble with the law, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct
for comments he made in an assigned creative-writing classroom essay.
Students were told to "write whatever comes to your mind. Do not judge
or censor what you are writing" and apparently were also told to
exaggerate. Lee followed instructions, made comments his teacher
thought were violent, and she reported it resulting in his arrest and
removal to an off-campus learning program.

This is a small incident, likely to be easily resolved, about one
student in one school. Yet it signifies a state-induced climate of fear
and intimidation heightened by TV transmitted color-coded terror
alerts, daily reports of permanent war, imagined enemies stalking us
everywhere, and events like the over-reported and hyped Virginia Tech
shootings making it worse. Now even freely expressed creative classroom
speech is threatened with suppression and punishment unless it conforms
to acceptable school content norms, whatever they are. In the age of
George Bush, it's another reminder of former press secretary Ari
Fleischer's warning that Americans (even teenage straight 'A' high
school students) "need to watch what they say," or else.

Organizations in the Lead for Free Expression

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) was founded in 1974 to
support our constitutional right of free expression and defend against
the dangers of censorship. It's an "alliance of 50 national non-profit
organizations, including literary, artistic, religious, educational,
professional, labor and civil liberties groups" united for that common
purpose and to promote an open marketplace of ideas and thought.

It does it through local and national grassroots organizing and
activism on:

    -- free speech issues;

    -- educational activities;

    -- conferences and public meetings;

    -- publications like its quarterly Censorship News reaching 25,000
readers;

    --providing help, advice, and information to individuals,
organizations and community groups around the country;

    -- monitoring and interpreting litigation and legislation on First
Amendment issues;

    -- and aiding "thousands of artists, authors, teachers, students,
librarians, readers, museum-goers and others around the country
opposing censorship" on issues ranging from:

    -- politics and political correctness

    -- the media and internet

    -- academic freedom

    -- race and ethnicity

    -- religion

    -- culture

    -- the arts and entertainment

    -- sex education and orientation

    -- class

    -- science

    -- obscenity, and more. 

NCAC rejects all barriers in a pluralistic society on any material no
matter how controversial or abhorrent to some. That's what the free
interchange of speech, ideas and thought are all about in a democratic
society that can't be one without upholding that freedom. Today,
supporting and telling the truth is what Orwell called "a revolutionary
act" in times of "universal deceit" now plaguing us. It's why
organizations like NCAC are important defenders of our constitutionally
protected free speech rights as well as being bulwarks against the
forces effectively denying them to us.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression is in
this fight as well to defend "free expression in all its forms (as)
concerned with the musician as with the mass media, with the painter as
with the publisher, and as much with the sculptor as the editor." The
Center was established in 1990 and is based near Jefferson's home in
Charlottesville, VA, also near the University of Virginia he founded in
1819 is and with which it has close ties. Its mission ranges over a
wide range of programs in education, the arts, and in judicial and
legislative matters involving all forms of free expression. Each year
around Jefferson's April 13 birthday, "Jefferson Muzzles" are awarded
to individuals or organizations committing especially outrageous
affronts to free expression. Annual William J. Brennan, Jr. Awards
(honoring the former High Court Justice) are also given to individuals
or groups showing special commitment to free expression issues and
values in the spirit of the former Justice.

The Free Expression Network (FEN) is another organization, among many
others, in the struggle for free and open expression. It's an NCAC
financially sponsored "alliance of organizations dedicated to
protecting the First Amendment right of free expression and the values
it represents, and to opposing governmental efforts to suppress
constitutionally protected speech." It does it through its Free
Expression Network Clearinghouse web site as well as maintaining a
listserv for private communications among its members who also meet
quarterly with invited guests to share information and strategies. Its
many member organizations include the Thomas Jefferson Center, People
for the American Way, ACLU, American Society of Newspaper Editors,
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, The Center for Media
Education, Feminists for Free Expression, and First Amendment Center.

Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our First Amendment Rights

Organizations like NCAC, the Jefferson Center, FEN and others
courageously defend our First Amendment rights especially under attack
post-September 11, 2001. Six weeks later, the USA Patriot Act began
assaulting those rights (and Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment
ones too) all of which were well eroded already.

Most disturbing in the law is Section 215 under which federal
investigators may seek a search warrant relating to an ongoing
terrorism or intelligence investigation without meeting probable cause
standards for it. It can then be used for intrusive unconstitutional
searches without our knowledge for "any tangible things" about our
speech-related activities in libraries, bookstores, banks and other
repositories of our financial records, places of worship, medical
provider records, internet use records, floppy disks, computer hard
drives and other documents or places with records or information on our
speech-related activities.

Section 505 of the Patriot Act is about as intrusive as Section 215 as
it authorizes administrative subpoena targeting of bank and other
financial records, credit reports, telephone and e-mail logs and more
by use of a National Security Letter (NSL). Again, no probable cause
standard is needed, and those receiving NSLs are gagged from disclosing
its issuance so those targeted never know. Unlike Section 215, however,
NSLs require no judicial oversight, only that they relate, without
corroborating evidence, to an ongoing terrorism investigation on
federal investigators' say alone.

A scant two decades longer than Orwell imagined, high tech surveillance
makes it possible for modern-day thought control police to watch and
know our activities, control our lives, and, if they wish, make us
believe and accept as true "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, (and)
Ignorance is Strength" under an omnipotent state using its will to
subvert ours. Where there's a "signing statement," there's a way to do
it on top of complicit congressional pre and post-9/11 legislation
passed to make it simple enough already.

George Bush is a serial abuser of the presidential practice of
attaching "signing statements" to laws passed although nothing in the
Constitution allows it. He's done it around 800 times, more than all
past presidents combined, using his usurped "Unitary Executive" power
to claim the law is what he says it is. He issued one "statement"
shortly after 9/11 authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to
eavesdrop, for the first time ever, without legally required Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants on international
phone and e-mail communications originating from or received within the
US.

Then following the passage of the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act
of 2006, he issued another "signing statement" giving himself broad
authority to order opening US citizens' mail without a warrant. In so
doing, he violated US law and regulations including FISA permitting
warrantless surveillance only for foreign intelligence collection
between "foreign powers" for up to one year. With a warrant, FISA
courts nearly always approve requests allowing surveillance and
physical searches of US citizens' "premises, information, material, or
property used exclusively by" a foreign power or by an individual
thought to be an "agent of a foreign power."

Never satisfied, the Bush administration now wants expanded warrantless
spying authority within and outside the country requesting Congress
amend the FISA law legalizing what it's already doing anyway, law or no
law. On May 2, director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell,
testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee claiming the
president may legally authorize warrantless surveillance (under the
Constitution's Article II making him commander-in-chief) but wants FISA
amended so it can do it without challenge it'll ignore anyway. It also
wants to fix and modernize what McConnell calls "communication gaps" in
intelligence gathering including "monitoring" the internet, cell phones
and other new technology as well as "transit traffic" international
phone calls and emails.

Amendments requested would further erode laws protecting against
illegal searches and seizures and our First Amendment rights connected
to them. They would also allow surveillance of any non-citizens in the
country "reasonably expected to possess, control, transmit, or receive
foreign intelligence information while such a person is in the United
States," even if they're not a target of an investigation. In addition
the administration wants legal cover to spy on anyone it claims engages
in activities related to buying or developing WMDs, even with no
evidence to prove it. Bottom line: the Bush administration wants
Congress to give it near limitless authority to spy on anyone in any
way in the name of national security, and sadly, rhetoric aside, this
complicit Congress will likely give in, further eroding what little
freedom we still have.

Post-9-11, other unconstitutional speech-related monitoring began as
well including John Ashcroft's short-lived Terrorism Information and
Prevention System (Operation TIPS). The idea was to use civilian
informers like postal employees to report "unusual" neighborhood
activities, police-state style. The scheme flopped when the postal
service refused to be spies. Then there was the Pentagon's Total
Information Awareness (TIA) renamed Terrorism Information Awareness to
monitor anything about anyone under the spurious cover of it relating
to "terrorism." TIA came under considerable congressional flack but
some or all its activities continue under new names relating to other
Pentagon projects and initiatives so illegal military spying continues
unabated.

One program is called the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON)
to conduct domestic intelligence by amassing a huge data base, again
spuriously related to "terrorism." It focuses on war protesters
targeted by police state monitoring of their constitutional right to
freely oppose the nation's illegal wars of aggression, meaning in
Pentagon-think they're threats to national security in the age of
George Bush. Now the Pentagon has second thoughts after drawing flack
for its illegal intrusions against peace activists. Under secretary of
defense, James Clapper, announced through his spokesperson in late
April TALON's results have been disappointing and doesn't "merit
(being) continued (as) the program (is) currently constituted...in the
light of its image in Congress and the media."

What he's likely saying is TALON's activities will be rebranded and
continued, the same way all improperly intrusive domestic spying
activities drawing flack are carried out in impressive Orwellian style.
What he's not saying is all Pentagon domestic spying/surveillance
programs violate the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against them.
However, last year's Public Law 109-364 (HR 5122 - Defense
Authorization Act) revised the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse
Comitatus allowing the president illegal authority to give the military
free reign on claims of a public emergency or that old standby
"national security" in the "war on terror." That includes monitoring
freely expressed speech and cracking down on it if so ordered.

Scott Horton reports on another Bush administration assault on free
expression in his April Harper's magazine article titled "The Plot
Against the First Amendment." In it he notes an important case going to
trial in June in Northern Virginia "that will mark a first step in a
plan to silence press coverage of (whatever the administration calls)
essential national security issues." It would ban exposing policies
like secret renditioning captives to torture-prisons to be held without
charge, brutalized, denied due process, tried in military tribunals,
and disposed of as the administration wishes. The scheme to pull this
off is the work of disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his
deputy Paul J. McNulty, the central figures in a "growing scandal over
the politicization of the prosecution process."

Inspiring Gonzales' scheme is Britain's Official Secrets Act, the
latest 1989 version of which is quite detailed but is intended overall
to protect against revealing information the UK government claims
relates to "national security." The act makes it crime for designated
British subjects (in some cases all of them) under its 16 sections to
do whatever that provision prohibits including disclosing what the
state wants kept secret. Gonzales' interest is to devise a scheme based
on the UK model to keep print publications and broadcasters from
reporting information Washington claims is secret and thus criminal to
disclose. In other words, the idea is to silence the media when
government wants it silenced, as if it wasn't already secretive enough,
except when it's dutifully trumpeting state and corporate-friendly
propaganda, lies and distortion not good enough for Gonzales wanting
more restrictions.

Horton reports Gonzales sees this scheme "as a panacea for his
problems....Then you can torture and abuse prisoners....without fear of
political repercussions." So they won't have to "close down Guantanamo
(just) Close down the press." Horton explains further Gonzales wanted
to propose the idea in end-run fashion with no official secrets
language headlined he'd never even get Republican allies to adopt out
of fear alone. So his idea was to "spin it out of whole cloth (by)
reconstru(ing) the (repressive) Espionage Act of 1917" including in new
legislation "the essence of the UK Official Secrets Act and try getting
this version "ratified in the Bush administration's 'vest pocket'
judicial districts (of) the Eastern District of Virginia and the Fourth
Circuit."

The sordid tale continues, but it's coming to a head in a June Northern
Virginia trial the outcome of which will indicate whether the
administration can criminalize legal acts of journalism on matters it
wants kept secret. If it can, Horton says what all free press advocates
would agree on. It would be a "dream world for Karl Rove and Alberto
Gonzales (and) a nightmare for the rest of us."

In addition, this scheme and all other Bush administration assaults on
First Amendment freedoms make a sham out of the president's galling
hypocrisy May 3 on World Press Freedom Day. Agence France-Presse (AFP)
reported he denounced (with effrontery) a host of other countries for
their lack of press freedom including China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Russia,
Belarus and Venezuela (all US targets for daring to place their own
sovereignty above ours) saying "The United States values freedom of the
press as one of the most fundamental political rights and as a
necessary component of free societies" except whenever the press
anywhere dares criticize his wars of aggression and other repressive,
unjust and illegal policies.

That's the way things are by the rules of George Bush's Global War on
Terror (GWOT) rebranded The Long War about to undergo another
rebranding because the current name denotes the wrong message of
endless wars and occupation the public is tiring of. The name may
change, but the mission won't so long as George Bush remains president.
According to him, opposition to his wars gives aid and comfort to the
nation's enemies that's tantamount to treason. So is dissent and any
criticism of his agenda by his reasoning but not according to the law
of the land.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines the strict limits of
what George Bush makes light of. It states: "Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering
to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be
convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the
same overt act, or on confession in open court." Crimes of treason
include:

    -- armed insurrection or rebellion;

    -- mutiny or unlawfully taking over command of the US government or
military;

    -- sabotage including damaging or tampering with national defense
material;

    -- sedition intended to incite rebellion;

    -- subversion defined as free speech gone too far by blatantly
transmitting false information;

    -- Syndicalism that's an act of organizing a political party or
group advocating the violent overthrow of the government;

    -- Terrorism defined as the systematic use of violence or threats
of violence to intimidate or coerce the government or whole societies
by targeting innocent noncombatants.

Speaking for the president, an unnamed White House spokesman said in
January, 2003 George Bush "considers this nation to be at war, and, as
such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an
act of treason" although he had no legal basis to say it, and publicly
expressed opposition to government policies is not an act of treason as
the Constitution defines it above. Nonetheless, according to
Bush-think: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,"
and by implication are guilty of treason. According to Bush, if a US
citizen or foreign state "continues to harbor or support terrorism (it)
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile power," meaning,
justified or not, line up behind George Bush, or else.

It's a dangerous and frightening time in America today as the nation
hurtles toward tyranny, and our right to speak out and protest
continues being challenged and undermined. That makes the battle for
the last frontier of press freedom crucial to preserving our fragile
democracy now somewhere between life support and the crematorium.

The Last Frontier of Press Freedom and Crucial Battle to Save It 

If the telecom and cable giants prevail, lawmakers will remove the few
remaining regulatory barriers remaining giving them full control over
what they already have most of plus one remaining free and open public
media space - the online world of internet communication still able to
produce material like this article free from the censoring power of
media giants or government to prevent.

Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy,
says in his book, Digital Destiny, the telecom and cable companies are
lobbying ferociously for "new national policies....to connect everyone
to what they call a 'superbroadband' Internet highway. (If they get
their way), the companies vow that the nation will benefit from
advances in healthcare, improvements in the quality of life for senior
citizens, and major boosts for jobs and the economy." But to achieve
this, government must get out of the way and give the media giants free
reign as "Competition....will address any problem once handled by law
or regulation and also bring us the promised digital cornucopia." It's
hard believing any sane person would buy this argument, but who said
lawmakers invoke reason or the public interest when huge campaign
contributions are the mother's milk of politics, and no need guessing
where they come from.

Today, the internet is last frontier of press freedom Net Neutrality
supporters, like this writer, are fighting back to save. We're up
against giant corporate predators aiming to take from us what's ours,
and going against them is no easy task. There's even an astonishing and
threatening report by Steve Watson (infowars.net) that federal
government funded researchers "want to shut down the internet and start
over, citing the fact that at the moment there are loopholes in the
systems whereby users cannot be tracked and traced all the time." They
call their proposed substitute Internet 2 claiming it would be faster
and more streamlined for those willing to pay more for it.

Supporters of this idea won't say telecom and cable giants will control
it, and they and government regulation would allow only "appropriate
content" in the fast lane with whatever else is allowed "relegated to
the slow lane internet." What's even more at stake is a free and open
public internet space, as we know it, that will almost certainly
disappear if this new scheme is developed with powerful gatekeepers in
charge deciding what's published, what's not, and how much users will
be charged.

Also at stake is bipartisan support for "all out mandatory ISP snooping
on all US citizens" plus the Pentagon's recently announced "effort to
infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror," its
foreign wars, and all others to come. Further, there are government
efforts to force bloggers and activists (like this writer) "to register
and regularly report their activities to Congress." Non-compliance
could result in a prison term up to one year.

These are just some of the threats to the one remaining public space
available to anyone to publish material free from corporate or
government control or interference so long as the material doesn't
advocate an armed insurrection to unseat the government the law says is
treasonous.

Congress this year will resume debate from where the 109th Congress
left off last year and likely will decide Net Neutrality's fate. The
battle lines are drawn with public advocates facing down powerful cable
and telecom giants going all out to gain what we the people can't
afford to lose - keeping the internet free and open that's become a
symbol and best hope to revive our flagging democratic society,
structure and culture close to the tipping edge of tyranny.

If the media giants prevail, they'll establish internet toll roads or
premium lanes so users wanting speed and access will have to pay more
for it. Those who can't or won't will get slower service or none at
all. Content as well be controlled with whatever is judged unfriendly
to state or corporate interests kept out in a new age of online thought
control.

Organizations like SavetheInternet.com are in the forefront supporting
internet freedom, and it just marked its first anniversary. It's a
coalition of more than a million "everyday people....banded together
with thousands of non-profit organizations, businesses and bloggers to
protect Internet freedom." Its coordinator is FreePress.net, "a
national nonpartisan organization (this writer belongs to and supports)
working to increase informed public participation in crucial media
policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more
competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong
nonprofit and noncommercial sector (aiming for) a more democratic US
media system (leading) to better public policies."

SavetheInternet's diverse members include Common Cause, Consumers
Union, American Library Association, Consumer Federation of America,
Prometheus Radio Project, ACLU, and hundreds of other groups and
organizations from unions, women's groups, religious organizations, the
arts, media, business and more.

SavetheInternet.com members and the public can't afford to lose this
battle, and already over 1.6 million signatures have been collected on
a congressional petition drive to save the internet as we know it.
However, the outcome of this struggle is very much up for grabs with
media giants outspending public citizen advocates 500 to 1. Winning in
spite of their effort isn't everything, it's the only acceptable thing,
and potential media reform depends on how it turns out and whether this
nation can regain its democratic moorings now in tatters.

For now, one victory has been won but at a great cost, and it might end
up less than it appears. In late December, media giant AT & T agreed to
observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months as part of an
FCC deal allowing its $85 billion merger with BellSouth to be approved.
The agreement does not preclude other media giants from continuing to
lobby for ending Net Neutrality that's now up to Congress to prevent by
making it permanent by law.

Legislation has been drafted to prevent internet companies from
charging content providers extra for priority access. In addition, the
Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S.215) was introduced in the Senate
in January with House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet chairman Edward Markey strongly in support saying "Saving the
Internet is vital for civic involvement....and free speech." It aims to
ensure broadband service providers aren't gatekeepers and won't
discriminate against internet content, applications or services by
offering preferential treatment to select customers and not others.
Nonetheless, a final resolution remains an unfulfilled goal with
powerful divergent interests on either side of this issue vying for
which way it will turn out. It's crucial the outcome guarantees
permanent Net Neutrality and that our representatives in Congress make
it the law of the land.


New Postal Rate Increases Will Undermine Small Publications

Free expression in the nation is coming under assault in numerous ways
that must be strongly and effectively countered if we're to save it.
Another First Amendment enemy emerged when the US Postal Service (USPS)
for the first time ever in its 215 year history implemented what Free
Press founder and noted professor of media studies at the University of
Illinois' main Champaign-Urbana campus called "a radical reformulation
of its rates for magazines" placing a much greater cost burden on
smaller publications than on larger ones standing to benefit from the
policy change.

The new rates are scheduled to take effect July 15 that will force
small publications to pay postal rates as much as 20% higher than the
largest ones in a willful effort to undermine them, weaken competition
further, and make it almost impossible for new independent magazines or
other publications to be launched. The scheme was secretly crafted
without public involvement or congressional oversight by media giant
Time Warner, the largest magazine publisher in the country, and postal
officials agreed to it announcing the change protests against which
have been mounted. This is another effort toward media consolidation
that will further erode the most precious of our constitutional rights
- our free and independent speech without which no democracy can
survive.

McChesney explained how corrupt and sleazy the whole scheme is that his
Free Press organization is taking the lead to undo. The deadline for
USPS comments has passed, but it's never too late standing against what
no one constitutionally has the right to take from us. A good place to
start is freepress.net.

Congressional Efforts to Criminalize Speech

Legislation is being introduced in Congress in the form of an Orwellian
"hate crimes" bill that's being supported by organizations like People
for the American Way (PFAW), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and other
action groups for civil and human rights everyone should support. PFAW
makes a credible case on its web site "urging Congress to expand the
current federal (hate crimes) law to protect victims of hate crimes
based on disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. In
addition, we have advocated extending the protections of present law to
'all' hate crimes victims."

These stated aims are noble, but the problem is Congress will likely
pass a hate crimes bill other than what PFAW wants though it may appear
otherwise, although it won't likely override a George Bush veto. Hate
and all other crimes are abhorrent, and laws are needed protecting us
from them, but not ones that harm more than they help. That's what's
likely to emerge from the 110th Congress with legislation on a hate
crimes bill called The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592) already
passed in the House with the Senate soon to take it up. In an effort to
criminalize preaching hate against gays, minorities and all other
targeted groups, Congress is likely to produce a "Thought Crimes Act"
that may make dissent a crime and/or ban any exercise of free
expression government wishes to deny making it punishable by heavy
fines, imprisonment or both.

The 110th Congress will pass a hate crimes bill because all Democrats
will vote for it, and no Democrat-led body ever failed not to. But
what's likely to emerge, if it becomes law, may turn out to be another
blow to our First Amendment rights eroding them further that's not what
PFAW, HRC, other civil and human rights groups and ones supporting free
and open expression want or should tolerate. In the age of George Bush,
anyone may be prosecuted for terrorist-related activities without
corroborating evidence because repressive laws were passed making it
possible. If hate crimes legislation gives government similar latitude
against unacceptable speech it calls "hate," another serious blow will
have been struck against our First Amendment freedoms already reeling
under so many others.


John McCain's Assault On the First Amendment

Republican presidential candidate John McCain proposed his "Stop the
Online Exploitation of Our Children's Act" on December 6, 2006 as
another example of what this hawkish, anti-democratic figure would do
if elected in 2008. If this act becomes law, it will fine bloggers up
to $300,000 for posting offensive statements, photos and videos online
as a thinly veiled hardball effort exploiting the issue of child abuse
to suppress anti-war voices. This is another intrusive effort to
regulate speech allowing the federal government the right to decide
when our First Amendment rights apply and when not to stifle criticism
by imposing heavy fines on dissenters. In John McCain's world, only
government-supportive voices will be allowed online while critics
Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff calls "disaffected people
living in the United States (with) radical ideologies and potentially
violent skills" will be heavily fined and effectively banned.


The War On Free Expression We Can't Afford to Lose

A play on Thomas Jefferson's words might be that "All tyranny needs to
gain a foothold is for people of good conscience" to be denied their
First Amendment rights to speak, write and otherwise communicate freely
and openly without fear of recrimination in a state they want to remain
democratic but won't without that right. Today our freedoms are
jeopardized in an atmosphere of heightened fear with too few people
aware how threatened their most important one of all is at a time
there's risk they all may be lost without a concerted effort to save
them.

It starts by propping up our First Amendment one without which none of
the others are guaranteed or safe. Freedom of expression is the
foundation of a free society, or as Jefferson put it: "Information is
the currency of democracy (and) If a nation expects to be ignorant
(uninformed or misinformed) and free....it expects what never was and
never will be."

Potentially, it's never been easier if we can hold what we have and act
to restore what's eroding. There's never been more ways to do it
including an expanding and amazing online world of web sites,
databases, portals, subject gateways, desktops, laptops, palmtops,
"begged and borrowed new and used-tops," remote access, authentication
protocols, logins, iPods, eservices, ebooks, eresources,
eworld-at-our-fingertips, and a wondrous almost limitless future online
world connecting potentially everyone to almost anything with a click
provided we're the gatekeepers, not the corporate predators out to get
what belongs to us.

They'll do it unless we're mobilized and energized enough to stop them
in a mega-struggle where they have the resources and friends in high
places, and we're the people potentially empowered as famed Chicago
community organizer Sol Alinsky noted saying: "The only way to beat
organized money is with organized people," and with enough of them
committed they'll win. It's our choice, and the stakes are too great
not to go all out for what we can't afford to lose.

It starts at the grass roots with a well-coordinated massive outreach
effort to bring together educators; human and civil rights groups;
labor; the clergy; alternative media journalists; writers; artists;
women's groups; small business; your friends, family and neighbors; and
other organizations and activists of all stripes concerned enough to
build a collective mass-action movement in numbers too large to be
stopped. History's lessons are clear. Whenever enough determined people
are set on achieving something and go about it effectively, no power of
government anywhere can deter them. Is saving our Republic not
incentive enough to go for it? It starts with saving and preserving our
most precious of all First Amendment rights to speak freely and openly
and be able to spread our ideas, thoughts and beliefs widely for the
things we hold most dear - our rights as free people.

[Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net.]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:45:41 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:45:41 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Pentagon Moved to Fix Iraqi Media Before Invasion
Message-ID: <20070509154541.4b885d25@viola.tamara-b.org>

IPS - May 9, 2007
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37663

IRAQ: 'Pentagon Moved to Fix Iraqi Media Before Invasion'

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, May 9 (IPS) - In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of
Iraq, the Pentagon planned to create a 'Rapid Reaction Media
Team' (RRMT) designed to ensure control over major Iraqi media while
providing an Iraqi 'face' for its efforts, according to a ?White Paper'
obtained by the independent National Security Archive (NSA) which
released it Tuesday.

The partially redacted, three-page document was accompanied by a longer
power point presentation that included a proposed six-month, 51
million-dollar budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first
phase in a one-to-two-year ?'strategic information campaign''.

Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. ?'media
consultants'' who were to be paid 140,000 dollars each for six months'
work. A further 800,000 dollars were to be paid for six Iraqi ?'media
consultants over the same period.

Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon
offices -- Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among
other things, specialise in psychological warfare, and the Office of
Special Plans under then undersecretary of defence for policy, Douglas
Feith -- in mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion,
according to NSA analyst Joyce Battle.

?'The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre-and post hostilities efforts
to develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of
U.S./UK media experts with a team of ?hand selected' Iraqi media
experts to communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon
liberation of Iraq,'' according to the paper.

The ?'hand-picked'' Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would
provide planning and programme guidance for the U.S. experts and help
?'select and train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers (?the face')
for the USG/coalition sponsored information effort.'' USG is an
abbreviation for U.S. government.

?'It will be as if, after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North
Korean people turned off their TVs at night, and turned them on in the
morning to find the rich fare of South Korean TV spread before them as
their very own,'' the paper enthused, adding that ?'a re-constituted
free Iraqi domestic media can serve as a model in the Middle East where
so much Arab hate-media are themselves equivalent to weapons of mass
destruction.''

Whether the plan was implemented as described in the paper is not
clear, although the NSA Tuesday also released an audit by the
Pentagon's Inspector-General regarding two dozen, mostly
non-competitive contracts totalling 122.5 million dollars awarded by
the defence department to three defence contractors that carried out
media-related activities in Iraq after the invasion.

The contractors included the Rendon Group and Scientific Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) which received a 25 million-dollar
contract to create an Iraqi Media Network whose aims appear to be
roughly consistent with those laid out in the White Paper, but which
largely fell apart after about six months as a result of alleged
incompetence and infighting.

SAIC is the same company that hired World Bank communications staffer
Shaha Ali Riza at the reported behest of then deputy defence secretary
(now World Bank President) Paul Wolfowitz with whom she was
romantically involved. Riza worked for SAIC from March to May, 2003, as
part of a ?'Democracy and Governance'' team.

The third company covered by the audit is the five-year-old Lincoln
Group which, among other activities, has reportedly paid millions of
dollars to Iraqi newspapers to publish pro-U.S. articles since the
invasion.

The RRMT was conceived as a ?'quick start bridge'' between Iraq's
state-controlled media network and an ?'Iraqi Free Media'' which the
White Paper's authors described as the long-term goal of the programme.

?'After the cessation of hostilities, having professional US-trained
Iraqi media teams immediately in place to portray a new Iraq (by Iraqis
for Iraqis) with hopes for a prosperous, democratic future, will have a
profound psychological and political impact on the Iraqi people,''
according to the paper.

?'The mission will be to inform the Iraqi public about USG/coalition
intent and operations, to stabilise Iraq (especially preventing the
trifurcation of Iraq after hostilities and to provide Iraqis hope for
their future,'' it went on, noting that the RRMT will immediately
?'collocate and interface with the designated CENTCOM commander in
Baghdad, and begin broadcasting and printing approved USG information
to the Iraqi public.'' CENTCOM stands for U.S. Central Command.

The paper lays out a number of ?'major tasks'' needed to set up the
RRMT and its operations and to ?'translate USG policy and thematic
guidance into information campaign (news and entertainment).''

Among the ?'themes and messages'' to be communicated, the Paper ranked
first ?'the De-Baathification programme'', followed by ?'recent history
telling (e.g., ?Uncle Saddam,' History Channel's ?Saddam's Bomb-Maker,'
?Killing Fields, etc.); USG-approved ?Democracy Series';
?'Environmental (Marshlands re-hydration)''; ?'Mine Awareness'';
?'Re-starting the Oil''; ?'Justice and rule of law topics''; and ?'War
Criminals/Truth Commission.''

The plan also listed several related themes to be stressed in
programming, including ?'political prisoners and atrocity interviews'',
?'Saddam's palaces and opulence,'' and ?'WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) disarmament.''

As for ?'Entertainment and News Magazine programming, the plan listed
at the top ?'Hollywood'', followed by ?'News networks''; ?'Arab country
donations''; and ?'Sports''.

The plan also called for the production of ?''on-the-shelf
programming'' during the first month of the occupation, a process that
included obtaining the rights to pre-existing programmes, producing new
programmes, securing translations if produced in another language; and
preparing print products, including the ?'first edition of the new Iraq
weekly newspaper (with section for missing persons, Shia news, Kurd
news, and Sunni news, etc.)''

All but two million dollars of the total budget was to be devoted to
media infrastructure and operating costs, including transmitters and
studios for both radio and television and microwave links and repeaters.

The power point presentation called for the RRMT to ?'identify and vet
Iraqi media experts and ?anchors', and train a group of Iraqi
journalists to staff the new networks.

The RRMT should also ?'identify the media infrastructure that we need
left intact, and work with CENTCOM targeteers to find alternative ways
of disabling key sites,'' including, presumably, those media outlets
whose messages were not consistent with the themes the Pentagon wished
to convey.

?'Evidently, the Baghdad headquarters of the Arab satellite network
?al-Jazeera was not part of ?the media infrastructure that we need left
intact,''' noted the NSA's Battle, who pointed to the Apr. 8, 2003 U.S.
missile attack that hit the network's Baghdad bureau, killing reporter
Tariq Ayoub. The Pentagon had been extensively briefed on the bureau's
location before the invasion, and the offices were well-marked as a
?'TV'' facility.

Al-Jazeera's Kabul bureau which was located in a downtown office
building was also destroyed by two ?'smart bombs'' during the U.S. air
campaign in Afghanistan in late 2001. In April, 2004, during an
extended battle covered by al-Jazeera -- for Fallujah, Iraq, U.S.
President George W. Bush suggested attacking the network's Qatar
headquarters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
according to leaked notes of the talks. 

(END/2007) 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:47:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:47:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Surge getting bogged down in fortifications
Message-ID: <20070509154724.3757883d@viola.tamara-b.org>

Just World News via Electronic Iraq - May 9, 2007
http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer3062.shtml

Surge getting bogged down in fortifications

by Helena Cobban
Just World News

Just over two weeks ago, insurgents in Iraq's Diyala province rammed an
explosives-packed truck into the tall concrete blast walls that
'surging' US soldiers had put up to protect their new, small,
neighborhood-style patrol base. The attackers pushed the heavy wall
right over on top of the soldiers inside the base, killing nine and
injuring 20.

The US military is a reactive, lesson-learning institution. Thus, in
today's WaPo we have this story telling us that for the 'surging'
soldiers,

    defending their small outposts is increasingly requiring heavy
bulwarks reminiscent of the fortresslike bases that the U.S. troops
left behind.

    To guard against bombs, mortar fire and other threats, U.S.
commanders are adding fortifications to the outposts, setting them
farther back from traffic and arming them with antitank weapons capable
of stopping suicide bombers driving armored vehicles. U.S. troops
maintain the advantage of living in the neighborhoods they are asked to
protect, but the need to safeguard themselves from attack means more
walls between them and civilians.

If you want to see what the new outer ring of fortifications at a
'patrol base' now looks like, click on the photo in that story. They
have apparently put huge tubs filled with sandbags right behind those
high concrete walls, presumably to prevent attackers from once again
tipping the walls over onto the US soldiers inside...

Evidently, all these fortifications and fortifications of
fortifications, are severely hampering the achievement of what was
supposed to be the main point of distributing the 'surging' soldiers
more widely throughout Iraq's populated areas-- that was, to enable the
soldiers to "be with the people", both in order to keep tabs on them
and to build up some friendly alliances with members of the Iraqi
public.

That piece in today's WaPo, which was by Ann Scott Tyson, tells us just
how bad relations have even become between the US soldiers and the
supposedly 'loyal' Iraqi troops who are in the patrol bases alongside
them. Writing of one outpost in Sadr City she says,

    U.S. troops staff guard towers on the roof 24 hours a day and,
uncertain of the loyalties of their Iraqi counterparts, also stand
sentry at the American section inside.

... So the surge is completely doomed not to work as planned. (You can
read some of my earlier thoughts on that, here.)

Jonathan Weisman and Tom Ricks write in today's WaPo that:

    Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving
President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has
turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive
deadline.

    In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with
the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the
commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle
on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political
reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which
begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough
new strings on war funding.

    "Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get
a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith
(R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans,
demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point.
That is very clear to me."

    "September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a
member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If
we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be
a very bleak month for this administration."

Meanwhile, I just also want to flag this significant piece that Peter
Spiegel and Julian Barnes had in Sunday's L.A. Times. The title is On
Iraq, Gates may not be following Bush's playbook As the president
pushes for more time and money for the war, the Pentagon chief's
message has seemed to run counter..

The reporters have amassed some pretty shrewd pieces of evidence for
this. Including this:

    Gates was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which
recommended in its report last year that most combat troops withdraw by
early 2008. Gates did not sign the report; he has said that formal
deliberations did not start until after he left for the Pentagon. But
several people who worked on the report said Gates was closely involved
in early drafts and would have supported its eventual conclusions.

    "Knowing how that group got along and how we shared our views,
there remains no question in my mind that Bob Gates, had he not become
secretary of Defense, would have supported those recommendations," said
Leon E. Panetta, a former Clinton White House chief of staff and a
member of the Iraq panel.

It has long been my contention that last November's replacement of
Rumsfeld as SecDef by Gates marked an important turning-point in the
Bush administration's handling of the war. Gates looks like a canny,
patient player of the bureaucratic game. Let's hope he is also as canny
(or at least, realistic) at grand strategy.

[Helena Cobban is a columnist for the Christian Science Monitor. This
piece originally appeared at her blog, Just World News.]

? 2003-2005 Electronic Iraq/electronicIraq.net



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:48:57 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:48:57 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] A Small War Guaranteed to Damage a Superpower
Message-ID: <20070509154857.288aa448@viola.tamara-b.org>

Tom Dispatch via Electronic Iraq - May 9, 2007
http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer3064.shtml

A Small War Guaranteed to Damage a Superpower

by Patrick Cockburn

At 3 am on January 11, 2007 a fleet of American helicopters made a
sudden swoop on the long-established Iranian liaison office in the city
of Arbil in northern Iraq. Their mission was to capture two senior
Iranian security officials, Mohammed Jafari, the deputy head of the
Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the
head of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. What made the
American raid so extraordinary is that both men were in Iraq at the
official invitation of the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who held
talks with them at his lakeside headquarters at Dokan in eastern
Kurdistan. The Iranians had then asked to see Massoud Barzani, the
president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, in the Kurdish capital
Arbil. There was nothing covert about the meeting which was featured on
Kurdish television.

In the event the U.S. attack failed. It was only able to net five
junior Iranian officials at the liaison office that had existed in
Arbil for years, issuing travel documents, and which was being upgraded
to a consular office by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Baghdad. The
Kurdish leaders were understandably furious asking why, without a word
to them, their close allies, the Americans, had tried to abduct two
important foreign officials who were in Iraq at the request of the
Iraqi president. Kurdish troops had almost opened fire on the American
troops. At the very least, the raid showed a contempt for Iraqi
sovereignty which the U.S. was supposedly defending. It was three
months before officials in Washington admitted that they had tried and
failed to capture Jafari and General Frouzanda. The U.S. State
Department and Iraqi government argued for the release of the five
officials as relative minnows, but Vice-President Cheney's office
insisted fiercely that they should be held.

If Iran had undertaken a similar venture by, for example, trying to
kidnap the deputy head of the CIA when he was on an official visit to
Pakistan or Afghanistan, then Washington might have considered the
attempt a reason for going to war. In the event, the US assault on
Arbil attracted bemused attention inside and outside Iraq for only a
few days before it was buried by news of the torrent of violence in the
rest of Iraq. The U.S. understandably did not reveal the seniority of
its real targets -- or that they had escaped.

Multiplying Enemies

The Arbil raid is significant because it was the first visible sign of
a string of highly significant American policy decisions announced by
President George W. Bush in an address to the nation broadcast in the
U.S. a few hours earlier on January 10. There have been so many
spurious turning points in the war -- such as the capture of Saddam
Hussein in 2003, the handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi government in
2004, or the elections of 2005 -- that truly critical moments are
obscured or underrated.

The true importance of Bush's words took time to sink in. In the months
prior to his speech, the U.S. seemed to be feeling its way towards an
end to the war. The Republicans had lost control of both houses of
Congress in the November 2006 elections, an unexpectedly heavy defeat
blamed on the Iraq war. Soon afterwards, the bipartisan Iraqi Study
Group of senior Republicans and Democrats, led by James Baker and Lee
Hamilton, spelled out the extent of American failure thus far, arguing
for a reduced U.S. military commitment and suggesting negotiations with
Iran and Syria.

President Bush did the exact opposite of what the Baker-Hamilton report
had proposed. He identified Iran and Syria as America's prime enemies
in Iraq, stating: "These two regimes are allowing terrorists and
insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq." Instead
of reducing the American commitment, Bush pledged to send 20,000 extra
troops to Iraq to try to secure Baghdad. In other words, the U.S. was
going to respond to its lack of success in the conflict by escalating
both the war in Iraq and America's confrontation with Iran in the
Middle East as a whole. The invasion of 2003 had destabilized the whole
region; now Bush was about to deepen that instability.

The raid on Arbil showed that the new policies were not just rhetoric.
Iraqis were quicker than the rest of the world to pick up on what was
happening. "People are saying that Bush's speech means that the
occupation is going to go on a long time," the Iraqi political
scientist Ghassan Attiyah told me soon after the President had stopped
speaking. Although the new U.S. security plan for Baghdad, which began
on February 14th, was sold as a temporary "surge" in troop numbers, it
was evident that the reinforcements were there to stay.

In April, the Pentagon announced that it was increasing Army tours in
Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Without anybody paying much attention,
American officials stopped talking about training Iraqi army troops as
a main priority. This was an important shift in emphasis. Training and
equipping Iraqi troops to replace American soldiers -- so they could be
withdrawn from Iraq -- had been the cornerstone of U.S. military
planning since 2005. Now, the policy was being quietly downgraded,
though not abandoned altogether.

Could the new strategy succeed? It seemed very unlikely. The U.S. had
failed to pacify Iraq between 2003 and 2007. Now, with much of the
American public openly disillusioned with the war, Bush was to try for
victory once again. Common sense suggested that he needed to reduce the
number of America's enemies inside and outside Iraq, but his new
strategy was only going to increase them.

The U.S. Army was to go on fighting the five-million-strong Sunni
community, as it had been doing since the capture of Baghdad. The Sunni
demand for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was not being met. At the
same time, the U.S. was going to deal more aggressively with the 17
million Shias in Iraq. It would contest the control over much of
Baghdad and southern Iraq of the Mehdi Army, the powerful militia led
by the nationalist Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is regarded with
cult-like devotion by many Shia Iraqis. Not content with this,
Washington was also more openly going to confront Iran, the most
powerful of Iraq's neighbors.

As with so many U.S. policies under Bush, the new strategy made sense
in terms of American domestic politics, but in Iraq seemed a recipe for
disaster. Iran was easy to demonize in the U.S., just as Saddam Hussein
had been blamed four years earlier for everything wrong in Iraq and the
Middle East. The New York Times, which had once uncritically repeated
White House claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction,
now ran articles on its front page saying that Iran was exporting
sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraq that were killing American
soldiers. There was no reference to the embarrassing discoveries of
workshops making just such bombs in Baghdad and Basra. Above all, the
Bush administration was determined to put off the day -- at least until
after the Presidential election in 2008 -- when it had to admit that
the U.S. had failed in Iraq.

A Security Plan Lacking Security

I was in Baghdad soon after Bush had spoken. I had never known it to be
so bad. My driver had to take a serpentine route from the airport,
driving along the main highway, then suddenly doing a U-turn to dart
down an alleyway. He was trying to avoid checkpoints that might be
manned by Police Commandos in their mottled uniforms who often acted as
Shia death squads. The journey to the al-Hamra Hotel in Jadriyah, a
district built in a loop of the Tigris river, took three times as long
as normal. In the following days, I could see Mehdi Army checkpoints,
civilians with guns and a car slewed across the road, operating almost
within sight of the heavily guarded July 14 Bridge that leads to the
Green Zone.

The extent of the military failure over the previous three-and-a-half
years was extraordinary. The foreign media never quite made clear how
little territory the U.S. and the Iraqi army fully controlled -- even
in the heart of Baghdad. It was astonishing, in early 2007, to look out
from the north-facing windows in the Hamra and see columns of black
smoke billowing up from Haifa Street on the other side of the Tigris
river. This is a two mile long militant Sunni corridor less than a mile
from the northern end of the Green Zone. Since the early days of the
fighting, the U.S. Army, supported by Iraqi army troops, had been
unsuccessfully trying to drive out the insurgents who ruled it.

Sometimes, U.S. commanders persuaded themselves (and embedded
journalists) that they were making progress. On this occasion, I looked
up and read a long, optimistic article about Haifa Street in an
American paper, claiming there were signs that "the tide was turning on
Iraq's street of fear." It was no longer an arrow pointing at the heart
of the Green Zone; rebel leaders had been arrested or killed; large
weapons caches had been discovered; insurgent attacks were less intense
and less frequent; Iraqi troops were at last being effectively
deployed. Having finished reading the piece, I was reflecting on
whether or not the U.S. military and its local allies were at last
achieving something on Haifa Street when I glanced at the piece and
realized, with a groan, that it was dated March 2005, almost two years
earlier.

American commanders often genuinely believed that they were in command
of towns and cities which Iraqis, including the local police, told me
were dominated by Sunni insurgents or Shia militia. On one occasion in
early 2007, senior U.S. and Iraqi officers were giving a video press
conference from Diyala, a much fought over province northeast of
Baghdad, confidently claiming that they were winning the fight against
the Sunni rebels. Even as they were speaking an insurgent squad
attacked and captured the mayor's office in Baquba, the capital of
Diyala. It only withdrew after blowing up the building and kidnapping
the mayor. The government announced that it was dismissing 1,500
policemen in Diyala because of their repeated failure to resist the
insurgents. When I checked with a police commander a few months later
he said threw up his hands in disgust and said that not a single
policeman had been fired.

The addition, promised by Bush, of five extra brigades to the U.S.
forces in Baghdad made, at least at first, some difference to security
in the capital. The number of bodies of people tortured, shot in the
head, and dumped in the street, went down from the horrific levels of
late 2006. These death-squad killings were mostly of Sunni and were the
work of the Mehdi Army or of army and police units collaborating with
them.

A few days before the security plan began, Muqtada al-Sadr stood down
his militiamen, telling them to dump their arms and move out of
Baghdad. He was intent on avoiding direct military confrontation with
the U.S. reinforcements. But while the Shia were killing fewer Sunni,
the Sunni insurgents were still slaughtering Shia civilians with
massive suicide bombs, often vehicle-borne, targeting crowded market
places. These did not stop and improved security measures made little
difference. On February 3, a truck delivering vegetables blew up in the
Shia-Kurdish Sadriya quarter in central Baghdad killing 135 people and
wounding 305. Ten weeks later, long after the Security Plan had been
launched, another vehicle bomb blew up in the same market, killing 127
people and wounding 148. Not surprisingly, local people jeered and
threw stones at American and Iraqi soldiers who turned up after the
explosion. The main failing of the security plan for ordinary Iraqis,
many of whom had initially welcomed it, was simply that it did not
deliver security for them or their families.

Who Rules Iraq?

There was a central lesson of four years of war which Bush and Tony
Blair never seemed to take on board, though it was obvious to anybody
living in Iraq: the occupation was unpopular and becoming more so by
the day. Anti-American guerrillas and militiamen always had enough
water to swim in. The only community in Iraq that fully supported the
U.S. presence was the Kurds -- and Kurdistan was not occupied.

It is this lack of political support that has so far doomed all U.S.
political and military actions in Iraq. It makes the country very
different from Afghanistan where foreign troops are far more welcome.
Opinion polls consistently show this trend. A comprehensive Iraqi
survey has been conducted by ABC News, USAToday, the BBC, and ARD
annually over the last three years. Its findings illuminate the most
important trends in Iraqi politics. They show that, by March 2007, no
less than 78% of Iraqis opposed the presence of U.S. forces, compared
to 65% in November 2005 and 51% in February 2004. In the latter year,
only 17% of the population thought that violence against U.S. forces
was acceptable, while by 2007 the figure had risen to 51%. This pool of
people sympathetic to Sunni insurgents and Shia militias was so large
as to make it difficult to control and impossible to eliminate them.

Again and again, assassinations and bombs showed that the Iraqi army
and police were thoroughly infiltrated by militants from all sides.
Nowhere was safe. Some incidents are well known. In April 2007, a
suicide bomber blew himself up in the caf? of the Iraqi parliament in
its heavily defended building in the Green Zone. The bomber had somehow
circumvented seven or eight layers of security. Earlier, on March 23,
the deputy prime minister, Salam al-Zubaie, was badly injured by a
bomber who got close to him with the connivance of his bodyguards.

There were lesser unknown incidents indicative of the divided loyalties
of the security forces. On March 6, militants from the Islamic State of
Iraq movement -- of which al Qaida in Iraq is part -- stormed Badoush
prison northwest of Mosul. In the biggest jailbreak since 2003, they
freed 68 prisoners of whom 57 were foreign. Of the 1,200 guards at the
prison, 400-500 were on duty at the time, but did nothing to stop the
Islamic militants breaking in or the prisoners breaking out. Some
American soldiers see that the problem is not about a few infiltrators.
"Any Iraqi officer who hasn't been assassinated or targeted for
assassination is giving information or support to the insurgents," one
US marine was quoted as saying. "Any Iraqi officer who isn't in bed
with the insurgents is already dead."

Some problems facing the U.S. and Britain in Iraq have not changed
since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Getting rid of the Iraqi
leader was far easier than finding a successor regime that would not be
more dangerous to American interests. It is a dilemma still unresolved
more than four years into the occupation.

A prime reason why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his war
with Iran in 1980-88 is that it did not want a Shia clerical regime,
possibly sympathetic to America's enemies in Tehran, to come to power
in Iraq. It was the same motive that stopped President Bush senior
pushing on to Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam after defeating the Iraqi
army in Kuwait in 1991. After 2003, Washington was in the same
quandary: If elections were held, the Shia, comprising 60% of the
population that had been long excluded from power, were bound to win.

The nightmare for Washington was to find that it had conquered Iraq
only to install black-turbaned clerics in power in Baghdad, as they
already were in Tehran. At first, the U.S. tried to postpone elections,
claiming that a census had to be held. It was only on the insistence of
the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that two elections were held in
2005, in which the Shia religious parties triumphed. Washington has
never been comfortable with these Shia-Kurdish governments. It demanded
that they try to reconcile with the Sunni -- though exactly how Shia
and Kurdish leaders are supposed to do this, given that the main Sunni
demand is a timetable for an American withdrawal, has never been clear.

For their part, the Shia, have become increasingly suspicious that the
U.S. and Britain do not intend to relinquish real control over security
to the elected Iraqi government. There were many examples of this. For
instance, in the Middle East the most important force underpinning
every government is the intelligence service. In theory (as I explain
in my book, The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq), the Iraqi
government should get its information from the Iraqi National
Intelligence Service (INIS) that was established in 2004 by the US-run
Coalition Provisional Authority. But a peculiarity of the INIS is that
its budget is not provided by the Iraqi Finance Ministry but by the CIA.

Over the next three years, they paid $3 billion to fund its activities.
During this time it was run by General Mohammed Shahwani, who had been
the central figure in a CIA-run coup in 1996 against Saddam Hussein
that had failed disastrously. For long periods he was even banned from
attending Iraqi cabinet meetings. A former Iraqi cabinet minister, who
was a member of the country's National Security Council, complained to
me that "we only get information that the CIA wants us to hear." Iraqis
did not fail to spot the extent to which the power of their elected
government was being trimmed. The poll cited above showed that by
Spring 2007 only 34% of Iraqis thought their country was being run by
their own government; 59% believed the U.S. was in control. The Iraqi
government had been robbed of legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.

Destabilizing Iraq

In the course of 2006 and 2007, Baghdad disintegrated into a dozen
hostile cities at war with each other. There were fewer and fewer mixed
Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. Terror engulfed the city like a poisonous
cloud. There was a lot to be frightened of: Sunni insurgent groups; the
Shia militias, Mehdi Army, and the Badr Organization; police and police
commandos; the Iraqi army and the Americans. One day I received an
e-mail message from an old friend. He wrote: "Yesterday the cousin of
my stepbrother (as you know, my father married twice) was killed by
Badr troops three days after he was arrested. His body was found in the
trash in al-Shula district. He was one of three other people who were
killed after heavy torture. They did nothing, but they are Sunni people
among the huge numbers of Shia people in the General Factory for Cotton
in al-Khadamiyah where they were working. His family couldn't recognize
his face [and only knew it was him] because of the wart on his arm."

Most of my Iraqi friends had fled Iraq for Jordan or Syria or, when
they could get a visa, Western Europe. Soon, I could not enter the
coffee shop of The Four Seasons, the hotel where I usually stayed in
the Jordanian capital of Amman, without seeing several Iraqis I knew
sitting at other tables. These were the better-off. The poor often had
to chose between staying in jobs where they were at risk, becoming
permanently unemployed, or taking flight. I was in contact with a Sunni
family called al-Mashadani who lived in the west Baghdad district of
Hurriya. It was under attack by Shia militiamen. Khalid, the father,
worked as mechanic in the railway station. He was forced to leave his
job when the repair yard was taken over by Shia militiamen. He stayed
away and asked a Shia fellow worker to pick up his salary. This worked
until the Shia militias found out what was happening and threatened to
kill any Shia who passed on the salary of a Sunni.

Khalid was forced to leave for Syria where he found work. He left
behind his wife, Nadia, and four children, the eldest of whom was eight
years old. Living with them in the house was Nadia's sister, Sarah,
whose husband had been an ordinary guard at the Oil Ministry building.
He was killed by the resistance who considered that his job made him a
collaborator with the government. On December 25, 2006, this whole
family group was told by the Shia militia to get out of their house
immediately without taking any possessions or be killed. They fled into
the night and sat beside the road until a charitable minibus driver
picked them up. Eventually, they found refuge in a school. Nadia
recalled that "we stayed 29 days in a dark and damp room and we
couldn't go out of it when the students were studying." Her husband in
Syria offered to return, but she told him to stay because the family
could not afford for him to lose his job.

Nadia blames the Americans for the sectarian civil war that had
engulfed her family. She says: "We were living together, Sunni and
Shia, and there was no sign of sectarian differences between us in Iraq
until the Americans came and encouraged sectarianism and let in foreign
terrorists." Many Iraqis similarly see sectarianism as the work of the
Americans. This is not entirely fair. Sectarian differences in Iraq
were deeper under Saddam Hussein and his predecessors than many Iraqis
now admit. But in one important respect, foreign occupation did
encourage and deepen sectarianism. Previously a Sunni might feel
differently from a Shia but still feel they were both Iraqis. Iraqi
nationalism did exist, though Sunni and Shia defined it differently.
But the Sunnis fought the U.S. occupation, unlike the Shia who were
prepared to cooperate with it. After 2003, the Sunni saw the Shia who
took a job as a policeman as not only a member of a different
community, but as a traitor to his country. Sectarian and national
antipathies combined to produce a lethal brew.

The war in Iraq that started in 2003 has now lasted longer than the
First World War. Militarily, the conflicts could not be more different.
The scale of the fighting in Iraq is far below anything seen in
1914-18, but the political significance of the Iraq war has been
enormous. America blithely invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein to
show its great political and military strength. Instead it demonstrated
its weakness. The vastly expensive U.S. war machine failed to defeat a
limited number of Sunni Arab guerrillas. International leaders such as
Tony Blair who confidently allied themselves to Washington at the start
of the war, convinced that they were betting on a winner, are either
discredited or out of power.

At times, President Bush seemed intent on finding out how much damage
could be done to the U.S. by the conflict in Iraq. He did so by
believing a high proportion of his own propaganda about the resistance
to the occupation being limited in scale and inspired from outside the
country. By 2007, the administration was even claiming that the
fervently anti-Iranian Sunni insurgents were being equipped by Iran. It
was a repeat performance of U.S, assertions four years earlier that
Saddam Hussein was backing al-Qaeda. In this fantasy world, constructed
to impress American voters, in which failures were sold as successes,
it was impossible to devise sensible policies.

The U.S. occupation has destabilized Iraq and the Middle East.
Stability will not return until the occupation has ended. The Iraqi
government, penned into the Green Zone, has become tainted in the eyes
of Iraqis by reliance on a foreign power. Even when it tries to be
independent, it seldom escapes the culture of dependency in which its
members live. Much of what has gone wrong has more to do with the U.S.
than Iraq. The weaknesses of its government and army have been exposed.
Iraq has joined the list of small wars -- as France found in Algeria in
the 1950s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s -- that
inflict extraordinary damage on their occupiers.

Baghdad-Arbil
April 2007

[Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent,
Patrick Cockburn was awarded the 2005 Martha Gellhorn prize for war
reporting. His book on his years covering the war in Iraq, The
Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq (Verso) was a finalist for the
National Book Critics Circle Award for non-fiction. This essay will be
the new introduction to the paperback edition of that book, due this
fall.]

Copyright 2007 Patrick Cockburn



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:50:25 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:50:25 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Cockburn Interviews Iraq's FM on Iran and Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509155025.262787c3@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - May 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05092007.html


An Interview with Hoshyar Zebari
Iraq's Foreign Minister on Iran and Iraq

By PATRICK COCKBURN
Baghdad.

The five Iranian officials whose abduction in an a US helicopter raid
in January led to a crisis in relations between the US and Iran could
be released in June according to the Iraqi foreign minister.

In an interview in Baghdad, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister,
said that legally the US can only hold the Iranians for six months. It
must then charge them, hand them over to Iraq or release them.

The Iranians were captured when the US launched a surprise raid on a
long-established Iranian office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital in
northern Iraq, on 11 January. Mr Zebari confirmed that the real targets
were two senior Iranian security officials, the deputy head of Iran's
National Security Council and General Minojahar Farouzanda, the head of
intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Both men were on an
official visit to northern Iraq at the time of the US attack during
which they had seen Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish
President Massoud Barzani. Misled by the presence of their official car
at the liaison office in Arbil - although they were in Mr Barzani's
headquarters at Salahudin - US forces tried and failed to seize them.

Mr Zebari said there was "a possibility they will be released". This is
because under an agreement governing such detentions the US "can detain
them for 90 days and this can be renewed once. This is the military
rule for holding such people: charge them, hand them over to the Iraqi
authorities or release them. The time for their detention will expire
in June when a decision will have to be made."

The Arbil raid came after George Bush made a speech on 10 January,
identifying Iran and Syria as prime enemies of the US in Iraq. Mr
Zebari has been outspoken in demanding their release, He said that
since the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting last week the Iranian prisoners have
been allowed to receive family visits.

Mr Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq since 2004, is one of the few
successful and internationally highly regarded ministers in post-Saddam
Hussein Iraqi government. He said that both the US and Iran had to
realise that the other has a stake in what is happening in Iraq. "No
matter how dismissive the Iranians are about not talking to the
Americans, the Americans are players here. And even if the Americans
view the Iranians negatively they are here; they are players whether we
want it or not." Mr Zebari is triumphant over the success of the summit
on Iraq held in Sharm el-Shaikh last week, seeing it as an early step
in defusing confrontation between Tehran and Washington. He pointed out
that, unlike most of Iraq's Arab neighbours, Iran supports the present
government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Iran doesn't want to bring down this government," he says. "It's
friendly, its Shia-led; they know everybody in it. They could not find
a better government in a lottery. It came to power legitimately through
the popular will of the people." Arab countries dislike the government
because it is essentially a Shia-Kurd coalition and is democratically
elected. Saudi Arabia recently spoke of the "illegal occupation". Iraq
is also opposed to the US negotiating unilaterally with Syria and Iran,
as recommended by the Baker-Hamilton report, without the Iraqi
government being part of the process and the discussions being focussed
on Iraq.

Mr Zebari is convinced that a US withdrawal at this stage would lead to
the disintegration of Iraq, an explosive expansion of militias as each
community sought to defend itself and a triumph for al-Qa'ida. He does
not sound impressed by the "surge" and attempts to regain control of
Baghdad, saying: "It has made improvements but not great improvements."

He wants the Iraqi government to push ahead with reconciliation with
Sunni insurgents, action against the militias, modification of the
constitution and de-Baathification. This could be a case of showing
willing rather than expecting results. He himself points out that the
key leaders of insurgent groups, that operate under a bewildering
series of names, are mostly former officers in Hussein's Special
Republican Guards and are likely to prove irreconcilable.





From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:52:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:52:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Spending, 2008
Message-ID: <20070509155259.2ff27e27@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - May 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/leys05092007.html

A Look Inside the Numbers:

Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Spending, 2008

By JEFF LEYS

Don't lose the forest for the trees.

Congress is now considering President Bush's request for an additional
$145 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through
September 30, 2008. The House Armed Services Committee is including
these funds in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2008,
which runs from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. Of this, $142
billion will be for the military and $3 billion will be for the State
Department.

President Bush submitted this request on February 5, the same date on
which he requested $93 billion for the wars for this year's budget and
$482 billion for the regular baseline military budget for FY 2008 (a
62% increase over the baseline military budget in 2001).

While political gamesmanship will continue over war funding for this
fiscal year (which ends on September 30), the substantive debate on
this year's supplemental bill is all but over. Congress will most
likely approve these funds, including "benchmark" requirements placed
upon Iraq's government. These "benchmarks" are meaningless in terms of
ending U.S. military action in Iraq. Most likely, not even a "goal"
date for withdrawal from Iraq will be included in the final
supplemental bill for this year.

The antiwar movement must quickly shift its focus to the $145 billion
supplemental spending request for FY 08. If the focus doesn't shift,
the war will end up being fully funded through September 30, 2008 and
beyond.

But then: What is to be done?

Congress could, if it so chooses-and if there is sufficient public
pressure--exercise "the power of the purse" and bring the Iraq war to
an end. The time to act is short.

As noted, the 2008 war funds are already included in the Defense
Authorization bill currently before Congress. Authorization bills set
spending levels for the next fiscal year and guide the development of
the appropriations bills. Once the Authorization bill is passed, the
next stop is the Appropriations Committee, which crafts the legislation
that actually appropriates the funds for expenditure.

In the last two years, Congress included Iraq and Afghanistan war
funding in the same Defense Appropriations bill that contained funds
for the baseline military budget. In 2005, Congress approved $50
billion as a "reserve" fund while in 2006 it approved $70 billion as a
"bridge" fund. If Congress chooses to include the $142 billion
supplemental war request and the regular baseline military budget in
the same appropriations bill this year, the most likely time for
Congress to act will be in June (in the House) and in July (in the
Senate). Most likely, a final conference committee bill will be acted
upon in September (Democrats most likely will want to position
themselves as the party of "fiscal responsibility" by passing all
appropriations before October 1, the start of the fiscal year).

Congress must use the leverage it has with the Defense Authorization
and the Defense Appropriations bills to force an end to the Iraq war.
Congress could attach provisions to the Defense Authorization bill and
to the Defense Appropriations Bill requiring that all U.S. troops be
withdrawn from Iraq by a specific date during FY 08 and prohibiting the
expenditure of any funds for any form of continued military action in
or against Iraq after that date. This "date certain" withdrawal could
be December 31, 2007 (as proposed in legislation introduced by
Representatives Waters, Woolsey and Lee). Or it could be March 31,
2008-implementing the policy objective put forth by Congress in the
initial supplemental spending bill that President Bush vetoed. The only
funds appropriated should be for the safe and orderly withdrawal of all
U.S. military forces from Iraq. Congress must then hold fast in
February 2008, when Bush would most certainly seek additional war funds
with yet another supplemental spending package.

If the above scenario is pursued, would Bush veto the entire military
budget for Fiscal Year 2008? If he does, would Congress show political
and ethical resolve, holding firm and resubmitting the baseline
military budget and supplemental war budget in the same bill and with
the same deadlines for a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq?

Our responsibility is to press the demand for the immediate withdrawal
of U.S. troops from Iraq (and, indeed, the complete cessation of all
military action against Iraq-e.g., after ground troops are withdrawn we
cannot allow an air war to continue).

But it's also our responsibility to engage the legislative process with
concrete demands that have a basis in the reality of power politics in
Washington, D.C. Simply saying "withdraw now", without any substantive
legislative or political strategy, moves us to the land of the
irrelevant-and, sadly, accepting a position of irrelevance ends up
reinforcing the broad and lamentable complicity that we as U.S.
citizens collectively bear for the blood-spilling in Iraq.

We must also have a solid grounding in the complexities of the
supplemental war spending request for FY 2008. In particular, we should
be prepared to refute the argument that a cut-off of funding will,
"ipso facto", further endanger troops currently deployed in Iraq. It is
not necessary to be able to cross every "t" and dot every "i", but the
response should be grounded in an understanding of the war budget.

What follows is an effort to break down and analyze the various
components of the military's request for $142 billion in supplemental
spending for FY 08. This analysis will focus upon the Army's request
for funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Arguments similar to those
detailed in the analysis of the Army's spending request apply to the
spending requests submitted by the Air Force and the Navy and Marine
Corps. This analysis is based upon the voluminous materials that the
various Armed Services submitted in February 2007 to justify and detail
their budgetary requests. This material is available on the website of
the Comptroller of the Department of Defense. The data includes funding
for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The military services do not
provide a break out by specific war.

AVERAGE TROOP STRENGTH IN FY 2008

The Fiscal Year 08 supplemental spending bill provides for full funding
for current levels of troop strength through September 30, 2008. The
slightly smaller number in FY 08 is likely due to a gradual end of the
troop "surge" that was initiated this year.

    Average Troop Strengths

    Army FY 07 FY 08
    Active Duty 123,000 119,000
    Reserve 9,000 9,000
    National Guard 24,000 24,000
    Total 156,000 149,000
    [FN-1]

    Marine FY 07 FY 08
    Active Duty 23,280 23,280
    Reserve 3,214 3,214
    Total 26,494 26,494
    [FN-2]

Subsistence-in-Kind is a key indicator of the level of anticipated
troop deployments during FY 08. The Army is budgeting for an average
troop level of 159,580 troops in FY 08 compared to 170,771 in FY 07
(and 119,277 in FY 06). [FN-3]

Subsistence-in-Kind (SIK) is the provision of "(food and drink) to
Soldiers while deployed in support of both OEF and OIF. SIK includes
the cost of procuring subsistence for garrison dining facilities
(Subsistence in Messes), operational rations, and augmentation rations.
The Army provides subsistence in mess facilities and operational
rations for members of all military services participating in Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). [FN-4]

The anticipated average number of Army units deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan is the final indicator that the U.S. plans to fully fund
the wars through all of FY 08. The Army plans to maintain an average of
14 Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) in Iraq in FY 08, the same as in FY 06.
It does reflect a draw down from the average of 18 BCT's in FY 07, but
that is simply because the troop surge of this year may wind down next
year. The Army plans to maintain the same level of Combat Support
Brigades and Combat Service Brigades in Iraq as in FY 06 and in FY 07.
[FN-5].

Clearly the Department of Defense is not anticipating any significant
reduction in military operations in Iraq any time soon. The Army's
justification material submitted in February 2007 for the Operation and
Maintenance segment of its budget consistently uses the phrase: "The FY
2008 estimate assumes a level of effort consistent with the tempo of FY
2007 operations." [FN-6]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE - ARMY

Operation & Maintenance is by far the largest budget category. The Army
seeks $46.2 billion for FY 08-or 33% of the total military request for
FY 08. This category includes such subcategories as: equipment
maintenance; body armor and other protective gear; the Logistical Civil
Augmentation Program (LOGCAP); and OPTEMPO.

Equipment Maintenance--Army

"The troops in Iraq will be left without necessary supplies, equipment
and weapons" is a common argument advanced to justify continued funding
of the war in Iraq.

This argument can be refuted through an analysis of the Army's
justification materials for war funding. The following analysis focuses
solely on the question about whether denying specific forms of funding
might have a negative impact on troops currently deployed in Iraq. This
analysis assumes that a cut off of funding would be tied to a safe and
orderly withdrawal of these troops.

Theater Maintenance and Reset are the two broad categories of equipment
maintenance. Theater Maintenance occurs in Southwest Asia: at forward
repair bases in Iraq; or at repair facilities in Kuwait or Qatar. Reset
occurs after a unit has redeployed to its home base from Iraq.

The Army is seeking to shift more repair work to Theater Maintenance,
increasing its budget in this area to $2.3 billion in FY 08 (compared
to $1.2 billion in FY 07). [FN-7] Unfortunately, the Army does not
further break down how this $2.3 billion will be spent for each
subcategory of Theater Maintenance. The subcategories include
maintenance of Armored Security Vehicles and Stryker vehicles,
explaining that the Stryker program "provides for the support of the
deployed and next deploying SBCT.Funding also supports SLAT armor
(protection against Rocket Propelled Grenade attacks) removal /
reconstitution (spare parts in-theater) and sustainment package for
Ranger Stryker vehicles." [FN-8] SBCT stands for "Stryker Brigade
Combat Team".

"Left Behind Equipment" is another subcategory within Theater
Maintenance. The Army explains that "Upon deployment, units are
required to leave behind certain items of equipment and draw from the
Theater Provided Equipment (TPE). The equipment left behind in CONUS
must be repaired in preparation for reissue. Due to the severe
shortages of equipment in CONUS, a large majority of the equipment is
redistributed to support next deploying units, activations and
shortages within units undergoing Reset." [FN-9]

This means that a unit deployed to Iraq leaves some of its equipment
behind in the U.S. CONUS is short for the command for Continental
United States. These deploying units then are issued equipment once
they arrive in Iraq or Afghanistan (or at a staging area in Kuwait
prior to entering Iraq).

It is clear that some unspecified portion of the $2.3 billion sought
for Theater Maintenance is for troops currently deployed in either Iraq
or Afghanistan. However, it is also clear that some unspecified portion
is to repair equipment in-theater for use by troops in the process of
being deployed to Iraq. It cannot plausibly be argued that cutting
funds for the portion dedicated to repairing equipment for use by units
in the process of being deployed to Iraq would in any way harm the
troops currently deployed in Iraq (if, indeed, the goal is to withdraw
from Iraq).

RESET OF EQUIPMENT

Reset is the other broad category of equipment maintenance and repair.
Reset is the process of restoring a piece of equipment to full
functionality. Reset takes place after a unit is redeployed to its home
base outside of Iraq. The Army states that the higher demands placed
upon equipment used in Iraq "increase maintenance requirements for
equipment employed in the theater and do not immediately curtail when
units and equipment redeploy to home station. Maintenance and supply /
resupply actions following redeployment restore the depth to our
force" [FN-10]

The Army seeks $7.8 billion for Reset for FY 08. That is 17% of the
$46.2 billion sought by the Army in the supplemental for Operation and
Maintenance. Since Reset is to prepare equipment for use by units that
deploy back to Iraq-rather than units currently deployed in
Iraq-eliminating Reset funds will not harm troops currently deployed in
Iraq. It does not result in denying any troops currently deployed in
Iraq any form of equipment necessary in Iraq.

BODY ARMOR AND OTHER PROTECTIVE GEAR - ARMY

The Army seeks $2.9 billion for "Clothing and Personal Equipment". Of
this amount, $1.1 billion is for Individual Body Armor; $1.3 billion
for Other Force Protection; and $0.5 billion for the Rapid Fielding
Initiative, which "provides deployers and next deployers with enhanced
individual clothing and equipment for increased force protection,
mobility, survivability and lethality." [FN-11]

The Individual Body Armor includes funds for the purchase of 150,000
sets of Next Generation Ballistic Plates, Side Plates and Outer
Tactical Vests as well as 150,000 Improved Advanced Combat Helmets.
[FN-12]

It can indeed be plausibly argued that the expenditure of these funds
directly benefits troops deployed in Iraq. At the same time, these
expenditures could be reduced if the U.S. begins the withdrawal of
troops from Iraq with complete withdrawal from Iraq completed by either
December 31, 2007 or March 31, 2008.

OPTEMPO and LOGCAP--Army

The Army is seeking $9.8 billion for OPTEMPO, the pace and tempo of
operations. No further breakout of this amount is provided in the
Army's justification materials. The Army states, "The estimated average
annual deployed force will consist of approximately 150,000 Soldiers
conducting continuous operations in harsh conditionsHeavy units
equipped with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles consume large
amounts of resources ( e.g., fuel, parts and supplies) during these
types of operations" [FN-13]

The Army seeks $6 billion for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
(LOGCAP) in FY 08 compared to $5.1 billion in FY 07. LOGCAP is the
civilian contract support which provides basic services to the military
forces in theater. It is the contract made famous by Haliburton a few
years back. LOGCAP includes such items as "food services, power
generation, electrical distribution, facilities management, dining
facility operations, pest management" and other services. [FN-14]

It can be plausibly argued that a reduction in the funds for OPTEMPO
and for LOGCAP would have a negative impact upon troops deployed to
Iraq. At the same time, it can be plausibly argued that the amount
allocated for OPTEMPO could be reduced by withdrawing U.S. troops to
their bases in Iraq as a prelude to withdrawal and then completing the
withdrawal from Iraq. Similarly, the LOGCAP funding amount would be
reduced by the draw down and complete withdrawal of U.S. military
forces from Iraq.

PROCUREMENT OF VEHICLES, WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

"If the supplemental budget isn't passed, troops in Iraq will be
without vehicles with upgraded armor to protect against IED's; without
ammunition; without combat vehicles", or so the argument goes. Yet this
argument is without merit-unless the U.S. fully intends to keep troops
in Iraq for at least the next 18 to 36 months.

The procurement process spans three years. Simply because money is
appropriated in the budget for a specific fiscal year does not mean
that the money will be spent that year nor does it mean that the item
being procured will be produced that fiscal year. Congress appropriates
money in a fiscal year and grants authority to the Defense Department
to enter into contracts for particular items. The Pentagon enters into
contracts, obligating the funds to be paid to the company that produces
the item. The company produces the item and delivers it to the Defense
Department. All this takes place over a period of up to three years
following the appropriation of funds.

To address this lag time in the normal procurement process, the Army
established the "Rapid Equipping Force" and the "Rapid Fielding
Initiative". The funds for these programs are included in the Operation
and Maintenance portion of the budget and were discussed in the section
on "Individual Body Armor and Other Protective Gear" above.

The Army seeks $21.1 billion for Procurement in the FY 08 supplemental
spending request. The total military request is for $36 billion in
procurement funds. I'll focus on just a handful of items to illustrate
the procurement process and to refute the argument that failure to fund
the procurement of these items will further endanger troops in Iraq by
leaving them without vehicles, equipment or weapons-unless, of course,
the U.S. intends to continue to wage the war in Iraq for up to 3 years
into the future.

It should be noted that the following discussion applies to the
military's request for supplemental funding for procurement in Fiscal
Year 2008. The Army is also seeking funding for many of the following
items within its regular baseline military budget request.

1) HMMWV--High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle

The Army is seeking $1.3 billion in supplemental spending in FY 08 to
procure 6690 HMMWV's, "a lightweight, high performancefamily of
tactical vehicles" (known in the popular lexicon as Humvees). Those
purchased will have "integrated armor and safety initiatives such as
fire suppression and safety restraints" [FN-15].

The first HMMWV procured with FY 08 supplemental funds will be
delivered to the Army in January 2009. The last one will be delivered
in December 2009. [FN ?16].

2) Armored Security Vehicle - ASV

The Army seeks $302 million in supplemental funding in FY 08 to
"procure 371 ASV. The ASV is used by the Military Police (MP) to
perform missions of Area Security, maneuver and Mobility Support,
Police Intelligence Operations, and Law and Order Operations.ASV is
also used by MPs to conduct Force Protection and Stabilization
Operations in a war environment. Additionally, ASV is increasingly
being used as a Convoy Protection Platform for Combat Support and
Combat Services Support Units." [FN-17]

The first Armored Security Vehicle funded by the FY 08 supplemental is
scheduled to be delivered in June 2009. The last will be delivered in
April 2010. [FN-18]

3) Modification of In-Service Equipment

The Army seeks $1.1 billion in supplemental funding for various
modifications to various pieces of in-service equipment. Modifications
include: "Fragmentation (FRAG) Kit #3 provides armored protection
around the HMMWV fuel tank. FRAG Kit #4 provides armored panel
protection to the vehicle underbody for HMWWV and M915A2." [FN-19]

The FRAG Kit #3 "design is 95% complete" as of the February 2007 Army
justification materials. The first output of this kit is scheduled for
the first quarter of FY 2009 (which is October--December 08) with the
last output of kits set for the fourth quarter of FY 09 (which is
July--September 09). [FN-20]

FRAG Kit #4--armor for the underbelly of the HMMWV--further illustrates
the reality that funds appropriated for procurement will not end up
providing equipment to troops currently deployed in Iraq. The Army
notes in its justification material that two prior designs failed in
the design and testing phases and states that "Currently, theater, ARL,
ATEC and TARDEC are trying a 3rd generation design to another set of
requirements. Currently, this effort is in the early design phase and
any successful Proof of Principle testing will require a MINIMUM of 180
days to develop and successfully integrate onto the M1114 UAH and M1151
Family."

The installation schedule provides for the first output of FRAG Kit #4
to occur in the second quarter of FY 09 (January--March 2010) with the
final output scheduled in the first quarter of FY 10 (Oct to December
2010). [FN-21]

4) Bradley Base Sustainment

The Army seeks $1.4 billion to procure 481 recapitalized (upgraded)
Bradley vehicles. The "A3 conversion improves on the Operation Desert
Storm (ODS) variant through the addition of two 2nd Generation Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR) devices, upgraded core electronics, improved
ballistic fire control systems, enhanced command and control,
situational awareness, and a collective Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical (NBC) protection system." [FN-22]

The contract is scheduled to be awarded in November 2007, with the date
of first delivery to be in March 2009. The last vehicles are set to be
delivered in February 2010. [FN-23]

5) Stryker Vehicle Modifications

The Army seeks $0.5 billion in supplemental funding to procure
"additional Survivability Enhancements for Stryker Vehicles (both 1
inch Slat armor and Stryker Reactive Armor Tiles (SRAT))" [FN-24]

The contract is scheduled to be awarded in July 2008, with the first
delivery of the Stryker vehicle set for August 2009. Vehicles will be
produced through July 2010. [FN-25].

6) Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles

The Army seeks $48 million to procure 148 sets of Bradley Reactive
Armor Tiles. [FN-26]. "The tiles provide increased armor protection and
crew survivability against shaped charge threats" [FN-27].

The contract is scheduled to be awarded in June 2008 with the first set
of 84 tiles to be delivered in June 2009 and the second set of 64 tiles
to be delivered in the fourth quarter of FY 09 (July--September 2009).
[FN-28]

7) Abrams Upgrade

The Army seeks $1.3 billion in supplemental funding to upgrade 235
M1/M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Program configuration
which "has improved frontal and side armor for enhance crew
survivability." [FN-29]

The first upgraded vehicle is to be delivered in January 2009 with the
last being delivered in December 2009. [FN-30]

8) Ammunition

One might think that ammunition would be very readily and quickly
produced and delivered after Congress has appropriated funds to procure
ammunition. You'd be wrong. The earliest that any ammunition procured
with the supplemental spending package would be delivered is May 2008,
with delivery continued through May 2009. That's for a single item-the
CTG 12 Gauge Breaching Round "used to gain access through high doors
and entryways." [FN-31]

Otherwise, the earliest expected date for delivery of a procured
ammunition item would be in October of 2008. Most items would not begin
to be delivered to the Army until January 2009 (or later), with
delivery continuing into 2010. [FN-32]


ENDNOTES

1) p. 4. "Operation and Maintenance, Army: Justification Book, Volume
I", Department of the Army, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Supplemental Budget
Estimates, February 2007.

2) Department of the Navy. FY 2008 GWOT Request. Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps. O-1 Line Item Summary, in Department of the
Navy. Fiscal Year (FY) 2008/2009 Budget Estimates. Justification of
Estimates. FY 2008 Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Request, February
2007.

3) p. 31. Army Military Personnel. Department of Defense. FY 2008
Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF). February 2007.

4) Ibid, p. 4.

5) op. cit., "Operation and Maintenance, Army", p. 4

6) See for example, Ibid, p. 7, 8, 10, 11.

7) Ibid. p. 16

8) Ibid, p. 17

9) Ibid, p. 17

10) Ibid, p. 22

11) Ibid, p. 8 and 9

12) Ibid, p. 8

13) Ibid, p. 13

14) Ibid, p. 13

15) p. 19. "Other Procurement, Army: Tactical and Support Vehicles,
Budget Activity 1", Department of the Army, Procurement Programs,
Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2008 Global War on Terror
Budget Estimate. February 2007.

16) Ibid, p. 22

17) Ibid, p. 59

18) Ibid, p. 62 and 63

19) Ibid, p. 91

20) Ibid, p. 97

21) Ibid, p. 125

22) p. 3. Department of the Army; Procurement Programs; Committee Staff
Procurement Backup Book; FY 2008 Global War on Terror Budget Estimate;
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. February 2007.

23) Ibid., p. 5, 6, 7

24) Ibid, p. 9

25) Ibid, p. 13, 14, and 15

26) Ibid, p. 25

27) Ibid, p. 27.

28) Ibid, p. 27

29) Ibid, p. 58

30) Ibid, p. 62

31) p. 40 and 42. Department of the Army: Procurement Programs;
Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book; FY 2008 Global War On Terror
Budget Estimate; Procurement of Ammunition, Army. February 2007.

32) Ibid.

[Jeff Leys is Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and a
national organizer for the Occupation Project campaign of sustained
nonviolent civil disobedience to end Iraq war funding. He can be
reached via email at jeffleys at vcnv.org.]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:53:58 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:53:58 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Mission Accomplished: Truck Bomb Kills 14 in Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509155358.59384b08@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Truck Bomb Kills 14 in Iraq

By RAVI NESSMAN
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A suicide truck bomb ripped through the Interior
Ministry in the relatively peaceful Kurdish city of Irbil on Wednesday,
killing 14 people and wounding dozens, officials said.

Kurdish officials blamed al-Qaida-linked insurgents for the first major
attack in the regional capital in more than three years.

The bombing came as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad for
an unannounced visit that included meetings with top Iraqi government
officials, leaders of influential Iraqi factions and the senior U.S.
military commander.

About 200 supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took to
the streets in the southern city of Najaf in protest, carrying banners
reading: "The Iraq people reject Cheney's visit."

Cheney's trip was aimed at encouraging rival Iraqi factions to work
together to overcome their divisions in the conflict that has claimed
the lives of more than 3,370 American troops.

The U.S. military said an American soldier was killed and four others
were wounded Tuesday in a shooting attack in the volatile province of
Diyala, northeast of Baghdad.

The explosion in Irbil, 217 miles north of Baghdad, underscored how
even relatively safe areas of Iraq were not immune from the violence.

Irbil, the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region, had been
spared much of the sectarian violence wracking the rest of the country.

But attacks have been on the rise in southern and northern areas in
Iraq as Sunni and Shiite militants have fled a three-month-old security
crackdown in Baghdad and brought their brutal tactics with them.

The Interior Ministry building was badly damaged. Kurdish TV showed
piles of rubble and twisted metal beams. Rescue workers reached into
the wreckage to pull out one of the victims of the blast. Windows were
blown out down the street and wreckage was scattered nearly 100 yards
away.

The nearby security headquarters was also damaged.

Ahmed Nasruldin, 50, an employee at a local university, was riding to
work when the blast spun his bus around.

"The bus windows were smashed and my face and head were hurt by
shrapnel. A woman beside me fell on my side, her shoulder was broken,"
he said.

The regional minister for the interior, Karim Sinjari, said 14 people
were killed and 87 were wounded.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman blamed the attack on Ansar al-Sunnah, a
Sunni Arab insurgent group, and Ansar al-Islam, a mostly Kurdish
militant group with ties to al-Qaida in Iraq. Ansar al-Islam has been
blamed for a number of attacks, including attempts to assassinate
Kurdish officials.

Othman said authorities learned that insurgents were planning a large
attack a week ago when police arrested a militant cell in the town of
Sulaimaniyah.

"During questioning they confessed that were getting training lessons
in a neighboring country and that was Iran," he said.

The last major attack in Irbil took place Feb. 1, 2004, when twin
suicide bombers killed 109 people in two Kurdish party offices. Ansar
al-Sunnah claimed responsibility for that attack.

"Kurdistan is a safe region and this will have its effect on trade, and
companies will fear coming to this region," Othman said.

U.S. officials have expressed fears that Sunni insurgents led by
al-Qaida are carefully picking their targets to provoke retaliatory
violence to derail efforts to stabilize the country.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, said
Shiite-dominated Iran was providing support to some of the Sunni
insurgents. He said the military had credible intelligence to support
the allegation but did not elaborate.

"It's not all Sunni insurgents but rather we do know that there is a
direct awareness by Iranian intelligence officials that they are
providing support to some select Sunni insurgent elements," Caldwell
told reporters in Baghdad.

On Sunday, a U.S. general also said powerful armor-penetrating roadside
bombs believed to be of Iranian origin were turning up in the hands of
Sunni insurgents south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere in northern Iraq, gunmen killed four Iraqi journalists in a
drive-by shooting near the northern city of Kirkuk, police said. The
four journalists worked for the independent Raad media company, which
publishes several weekly newspapers and monthly magazines that deal
with politics, education and arts.

Ethnic tensions have risen in Kirkuk, 180 miles north of Baghdad, over
Kurdish demands for a referendum on incorporating the oil-rich city
into their autonomous region - a move opposed by many Arabs.

In Mosul, gunmen killed two members of the minority Yazidi religious
sect and wounded another in a drive-by shooting.

A car bomb also exploded near an Iraqi military checkpoint in Baghdad,
killing a civilian and wounding two soldiers, police said.

Gunmen also killed a car parts salesman in a drive-by shooting near his
shop in Suwayrah, 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Police found four decapitated heads in the Sabtiyah area north of
Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, health officials said. Police
found three other bodies as well.

Caldwell reported a "slight uptick" in the numbers of execution-style
killings usually blamed on so-called sectarian death squads led by the
Shiite militias, particularly the Mahdi Army loyal to al-Sadr.

The numbers had been declining as the militias agreed to lay low to
avoid confrontation with the Americans during the security crackdown
and an increase was further indication of restlessness among the
militants.

The predominantly Shiite southern areas also have seen a spike in
violence and unrest, blamed in part on militants who have fled a
security crackdown in Baghdad. The U.S.-led offensive is intended to
curb violence and allow the Shiite-led government some breathing room
to implement reforms, including proposals to empower minority Sunnis
Arabs and help end the insurgency. There has been little evidence,
though, of any movement toward those reforms.

The U.S. military, meanwhile, said two children were among five people
killed when a helicopter fired at militants operating an illegal
checkpoint and planting a roadside bomb near Mandali, a town on the
Iranian border 60 miles east of Baghdad.

Two suspected militants - identified as Abd al-Qader Dadoush and Wadeh
Kalifa Doudoush - also were killed, according to a statement.

The military said the cause of the civilian casualties was under
investigation. But it denied reports that a U.S. helicopter had fired
on an elementary school, killing seven students in Baqouba, the
provincial capital of Diyala that lies to the west of Mandali.

? 2007 The Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:55:19 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:55:19 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Strong Blast in Baghdad As Cheney Visits
Message-ID: <20070509155519.7ec627fa@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_EXPLOSION?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Strong Blast in Baghdad As Cheney Visits

By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A thunderous explosion struck Baghdad on Wednesday,
coinciding with a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to discuss
efforts to reduce the violence in Iraq.

The blast, which occurred about 6:25 p.m., appeared to strike in the
vicinity of the heavily fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad, but
that could not immediately be confirmed. Witnesses said it appeared to
have been fired from the mostly Shiite areas on the east side of the
Tigris River.

Cheney's spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said, "His business was not
disrupted. He was not moved."

The U.S. military and the U.S. Embassy said they had no information but
were looking into what happened.

Cheney, who arrived earlier Wednesday for an unannounced visit, met
with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Cheney's visit drew protests from followers of radical anti-U.S. Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands a heavily armed militia in Baghdad.

Both leaders acknowledged problems in the pace of reducing violence in
Iraq but pledged their governments would continue working together
toward a solution.

Al-Maliki is coming under increasing pressure from Washington to
demonstrate progress in easing sectarian violence, and Cheney's
unannounced visit to Iraq was depicted by U.S. officials as an attempt
to press al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders to do more to achieve
reconciliation among factions.

In February, a suicide bomber attacked the main gate of the U.S.-run
Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan while Cheney was staying there after
having been stranded by a snowstorm. The vice president was rushed to a
bomb shelter but was not injured.

The explosion killed 23 people, including two Americans, and delivered
a propaganda blow that undercut the U.S. military and the weak Afghan
government it supports. U.S. officials believe a Libyan al-Qaida
leader, Abu Laith al-Libi, was behind the attack.

Meanwhile, al-Sadr supporters rallied Wednesday in Baghdad and Shiite
areas to the south to protest the Cheney visit and demand the
withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

Protesters in Baghdad and the holy city of Najaf chanted "No to the
occupation" and "No to America."

In Baghdad's Kazimiyah district, clothing merchant Abbas Abdul-Karim
said he joined the rally because Cheney was "one of the planners of
destroying our beloved country" and that he could not accept "the visit
of this criminal to Iraq."

? 2007 The Associated Press



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:56:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:56:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Tuesday Bombing damages government credibility in Shiite
	heartland
Message-ID: <20070509155659.036acf1c@viola.tamara-b.org>

AFP - May 8, 2007
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070508123652.5b5qex4p.html

Bomb damages government credibility in Shiite heartland

KUFA, Iraq (AFP) - A powerful car bomb exploded in the Iraqi city of
Kufa on Tuesday, killing 16 people and unleashing a wave of anger at
the government's apparent inability to protect the Shiite heartland.

Iraq's southern shrine cities of Najaf, Karbala and Kufa have often
been targeted by Sunni insurgents waging a sectarian war against the
country's majority population.

"The final toll of the attack in Kufa is 16 killed and 70 wounded,"
Bassim Naema, spokesman for the provincial health department, told AFP.

Mayor Abu Dhar Yussef said a car packed with explosives appeared to
have targeted a two-storey restaurant popular with pilgrims who flock
to the shrines in this Shiite town 140 kilometres (87 miles) south of
Baghdad.

"Why did it take security forces more than half an hour to get to the
area?" demanded the enraged mayor amid a scene of devastation in the
marketplace.

"Why did they not send us more support than just some ambulances and
firemen?"

Angry crowds filled the main square and brandished bloodied body parts
to news cameras while chanting anti-American slogans and condemning
terrorism.

Kufa is a stronghold of supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr,
and each time government security forces fail to prevent an attack it
triggers calls for his Mahdi Army militia to return to the streets.

"We blame the Iraqi government and the American army for this
incident," shouted Hussein Kadhim.

"How could a driver leave his car in this area? How could he have
passed through several checkpoints and then park it in a forbidden
zone?" asked Ahmed Mohammed amid the chanting crowds.

"The Iraqi government should admit that it can't protect the people,"
he added in disgust.

Every bloody blast in these overwhelmingly Shiite cities has become
fodder for the government's critics in Sadr's movement.

"The government is responsible for the security, economy and welfare of
the people -- what has it really achieved in those respects?" asked
parliamentarian Nasser al-Rubayi, a member of Sadr's opposition
parliamentary bloc.

"We expect from now on there will be a mass explosion whenever we have
security violations," he added. "There could be a popular revolt, and
the government should tell the people if it can carry out its duties or
not."

Pilgrims from all over the Shiite Islamic world, especially Iran, flock
to the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala, where some of Shiism's most
revered leaders are buried.

Kufa also receives its share of pilgrimage traffic, and in July 12
people -- mostly Iranian pilgrims -- were killed in a bomb attack,
while another 50 Iraqis died in a December car bombing.

Under the influence of Al-Qaeda's extremist Sunni ideology, many
insurgent groups target Shiites as heretics, as well as because of
their current dominance in the US-backed government.

Shiites, sometimes with the complicity of security forces, have
unleashed a campaign of revenge killings targeting Sunnis in mixed
areas, leaving piles of corpses on the streets in the morning.

Last year the US military identified these sectarian gangs as the
biggest threat to stability in the country, but in the wake of a new
joint US-Iraqi security operation, their activity has declined
dramatically.

Al-Qaeda-led Sunni groups are now once more seen as the greatest threat.

Sectarian violence is particularly fierce in the more mixed regions
around Baghdad, and farther north in Diyala province where Shiites are
regularly massacred by insurgents.

On Tuesday, a suicide attack on a police station in Jalawlah, an area
inhabited predominantly by Kurdish Shiites, killed two police and
wounded 20 others, mostly civilians.

In Baghdad itself, a bomb exploded killing two people and wounding four
others, medical sources said.

The violence comes as Iraq's national unity government, seen as key to
bringing the country out of its current crisis, shows increasing signs
of unraveling.

Over the past few days, top Sunni politicians have repeatedly
threatened to pull out of the Shiite dominated government because they
are being excluded from the governing process.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi told CNN on Monday that if the
situation was not addressed soon, his Islamic Party of Iraq, which
together with its Sunni allies controls six cabinet seats, would
withdraw from the government on May 15.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:59:15 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:59:15 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Iraq: Child Mortality Jumps 125%
Message-ID: <20070509155915.4c546364@viola.tamara-b.org>

Electronic Iraq - May 8, 2007
http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer3055.shtml

Child Mortality Jumps 125%

by Jeff Severns Guntzel

Since 1990, Iraq's child mortality rate has gone up by 125 per cent,
according to a new report from Save the Children. No other country on
earth has seen such a jump. Of course no other country on earth has
sustained a bombing campaign like that of 1991, or economic sanctions
strict as those levied against Iraq for more than a decade, or the
combination of bombing, occupation and sectarian violence that Iraq has
experienced since 2003. It is a special blend of disaster custom made
for Iraq.

Here is an excerpt from Andrew Buncombe's article on the mortality
rates:

    Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq's mortality
rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125.
While many other countries have higher rates - Angola, Somalia and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 -
the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.

    ...Sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime were imposed by the UN
in 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and remained in place until
after the coalition invasion in 2003. The sanctions, encouraged by the
US as a means to topple Saddam, were some of the most comprehensive
ever put in place and had a devastating effect on Iraq's infrastructure
and health services.

    Precisely how many children died because of sanctions is unknown
but a report in 1999 from the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef),
suggested that between 1991 and 1998 an additional 500,000 died.

    ...Save the Children's report, State of the World's Mothers 2007,
found the majority of child deaths occur in just 10 countries - either
those with large populations such as India and China, or those with
sparse health services such as Afghanistan and Angola. Aids remains one
the central factors affecting mortality rates.

You can read the Save the Children report on infant mortality worldwide
here:
http://www.savethechildren.org/campaigns/state-of-the-worlds-mothers-report/2007/

? 2003-2005 Electronic Iraq/electronicIraq.net,



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 15:59:53 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:59:53 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] NATO convoy ambushed in Afghanistan, opens fire on civilians
Message-ID: <20070509155953.599885cc@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 8, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_VIOLENCE?SITE=KTVB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

NATO convoy ambushed, opens fire on civilians, purported victim says

By NOOR KHAN
Associated Press Writer

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- Suspected Taliban militants ambushed a
NATO convoy in southern Afghanistan early Tuesday, and a gunshot victim
said soldiers fleeing the scene shot him and killed a man in a bakery.

NATO said one civilian was killed and two wounded in the cross-fire
after militants fired rocket-propelled grenades and guns as the convoy
passed through a civilian area. NATO said soldiers returned fire, but
did not specify if the casualties were caused by militants or soldiers.

Afghan officials have pleaded repeatedly with international troops to
exercise caution to prevent civilian casualties, which has fueled
distrust of international forces and the U.S.-backed government of
President Hamid Karzai.

One of the victims, Sidiqullah Khan, was shot in the leg and the hand.
He said his friend, a baker with whom he was talking during the clash,
was killed.

"I was sitting in a bread shop. There was some fighting with a NATO
convoy. The NATO convoy came and started firing on us," Khan said from
his hospital bed. "My friend was killed."

NATO said the incident was being investigated.

The Taliban "chose the time and location of the attack, deliberately
putting the lives of civilians at risk," said Lt. Col. Mike Smith, a
spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force. "ISAF
soldiers go to great lengths to minimize the risk to civilians, but
this incident will be fully investigated by the Afghan National Police,
supported by ISAF."

Kandahar provincial police chief Esmatullah Alizai declined comment on
the incident, saying it is being investigated.

Any civilian casualties are likely to feed anti-foreign troop sentiment
in Kandahar, where a NATO convoy fleeing a suicide bomb attack in
December opened fire on civilians, leaving at least one dead and six
wounded.

According to an Associated Press tally, based on reports from Afghan
and Western officials, 151 civilians have been killed by violence in
the first four months of this year, including at least 51 blamed on
NATO and the U.S.-led coalition.

That total does not include 51 civilians that Afghan officials say were
killed in clashes and U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in the western
province of Herat late last month. NATO said it is investigating the
deaths. The coalition has said previously that 136 "suspected Taliban
fighters" were killed in the clashes and airstrikes.

Separately in Kandahar, a driver working with the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees was assassinated by men on a motorbike as he
left for work Tuesday morning. Alizai said a police investigation found
the killing was caused by a family dispute.

The U.N. identified the man as Sadequllah, 38, and said that he had
been working for the U.N. for 15 years.

"The motives for this attack need to be established, and we are working
with the authorities in Kandahar to help the investigation," said Tom
Koenigs, the special representative for the U.N. secretary-general for
Afghanistan.

Last month, a powerful remote-controlled bomb destroyed a U.N. vehicle
in Kandahar, killing four Nepalese guards and an Afghan driver. The
attack on a three-vehicle U.N. convoy was the bloodiest in Afghanistan
for the world body since the hard-line Taliban militia's 2001 ouster.

"The safety and well-being of those Afghan and international staff who
work for the U.N. in Afghanistan is a matter of paramount importance to
us," Koenigs said in a statement. "We will spare no effort to ensure
that Sadequllah's murderers are found and properly brought to account."

A recent Human Rights Watch report said NATO and U.S. military
operations killed at least 230 civilians in 2006 and that most of the
year's 900 civilian combat fatalities were from insurgent attacks.

? 2007 The Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:01:08 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:01:08 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Afghanistan: Civilian deaths 'deeply shame' the US
Message-ID: <20070509160108.2c784208@viola.tamara-b.org>

BBC - May 8, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6636343.stm

Civilian deaths 'deeply shame' US

An American commander in Afghanistan has said that he is "deeply
ashamed" by the killings of 19 Afghan civilians by US Marines in early
March.

He said that the military had paid condolence payments to the families
in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

Western forces have been accused of carelessness over civilian lives
when attacking the Taleban and their allies.

It has become a major issue, with Nato recently saying that its biggest
error last year was killing civilians.

In January, it promised to do better.

'Honour stain'

"I stand before you today, deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry
that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people," US army
spokesman Col John Nicholson told reporters in Washington by video
conference from Afghanistan. 

"The deaths and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hands of Americans
is a stain on our honour and on the memory of the many Americans who
have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

"We made official apologies on the part of the US government and
payments of about $2,000 for each death," he said, after US officials
visited some of the families left bereaved by the incident.

US forces were accused of killing the civilians during shooting near
the city of Jalalabad.

Journalists said at the time that US troops confiscated their photos
and video footage of the aftermath of the violence.

The Americans said the fighting started when a convoy of Marines was
attacked by a suicide bomber and came under co-ordinated small-arms
fire.

They said that their soldiers returned fire, and acknowledged that at
least eight Afghan civilians had been killed, with a further 35 injured.

Reports said that as they left the scene along a busy highway, the
Americans fired indiscriminately on civilians and their vehicles.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai strongly condemned the incident at the
time.

Criminal inquiry

Thousands of local people took to the streets shortly after the attack
to protest against what happened.

The Associated Press news agency said it would complain to the US
military after journalists said US soldiers allegedly deleted footage
of the aftermath of the Nangarhar violence.

Freelance journalists working for the Associated Press said troops
erased photos and video showing a vehicle in which three people were
shot dead during the incident.

A US military commander determined that the Marines used excessive
force and referred the case for possible criminal investigation.

Correspondents say that military killings of civilians have eroded
Afghan support for international forces and have put the Western-backed
government in Kabul under pressure.

On Thursday, Nato forces vowed to improve co-ordination with the Afghan
authorities to avoid civilian deaths.

Their pledge follows the reported deaths of about 50 civilians last
week in fighting in western Afghanistan between US-led troops and
militants.

In recent days there have been protests by Afghans in different parts
of the country - including Jalalabad - over civilian killings.

The bloodshed has returned to levels not seen since the fall of the
Taleban in 2001, and a quarter of more than 4,000 people killed last
year were believed to have been civilians.

Correspondents say fewer civilians are killed by international forces
than in suicide and other attacks by the Taleban.

? BBC MMVII



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:02:11 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:02:11 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Farmed fish given meal tainted with melamine
Message-ID: <20070509160211.54b56f51@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via MSNBC - May 8, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18556690/

Farmed fish given meal tainted with melamine

Not clear if contaminated fish entered the human food supply

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Farmed fish were fed meal spiked with an industrial
chemical linked to the ongoing recall of pet foods, though the
contamination level was probably too low to pose a danger to anyone who
may have eaten the fish, federal health officials said Tuesday.

The Canadian-made meal included what was purported to be wheat gluten,
a protein source, imported from China. The material was actually wheat
flour spiked by the chemical melamine and related, nitrogen-rich
compounds to make it appear more protein rich than it was, officials
said.

After pigs and chickens, the farmed fish mark the third food animal
given contaminated feed. The level of contamination is expected to be
too low to pose any danger to human health, said Dr. David Acheson, the
FDA?s assistant commissioner for food protection.

It wasn?t immediately clear if any of the farmed fish entered the food
supply. However, Acheson said at least one firm?s fish were still too
young and small to be sold. Investigators were visiting other U.S.
aquaculture farms that used the contaminated feed.

Melamine, a chemical found in plastics and pesticides and not approved
for use in pet or human in the U.S., contaminated pet food that either
sickened or killed an unknown number of dogs and cats. Since March 16,
more than 100 brands of pet food have been recalled because they were
contaminated with melamine.

Acheson said that fish samples would be screened for signs of melamine.
?Depending upon what we find in that testing, that is going to drive
the next steps,? Acheson said.

Canadian officials are aware of the finding, Acheson said.

?We used it to make pet food. They used it to make fish meal,? he told
reporters.

Federal health and food officials have said some 20 million chickens
and thousands of hogs also were fed feed contaminated by melamine. As
with the fish, they said the risk to human health is very low.

U.S. investigators also have learned that the purported Chinese wheat
gluten and a second ingredient, rice protein concentrate, were actually
simple wheat flour. The flour was spiked with melamine and related,
nitrogen-rich compounds to make it appear more protein rich than it
was. In tests, nitrogen levels are measured to gauge the overall
protein content of food ingredients.

?What we discovered is these are not wheat gluten and rice protein
concentrate but in fact are wheat flour contaminated by melamine,?
Acheson said.

The FDA is considering enforcement options, he added. The ingredients
came from two Chinese firms: Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology
Development Co. and Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd.

This story will be updated as it develops.

? 2007 The Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:03:15 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:03:15 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Deal Is Offered for Wolfowitz' Exit at World Bank
Message-ID: <20070509160315.539f5a49@viola.tamara-b.org>

The New York Times - May 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08wolfowitz.html

Deal Is Offered for Chief?s Exit at World Bank

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, May 7 ? Leading governments of Europe, mounting a new
campaign to push Paul D. Wolfowitz from his job as World Bank
president, signaled Monday that they were willing to let the United
States choose the bank?s next chief, but only if Mr. Wolfowitz stepped
down soon, European officials said.

European officials had previously indicated that they wanted to end the
tradition of the United States picking the World Bank leader. But now
the officials are hoping to enlist American help in persuading Mr.
Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily, rather than be rebuked or ousted.

The goal, they said, is to avert a public rupture of the bank board
over a vote, possibly later this week, to sanction Mr. Wolfowitz. Even
if the vote is a reprimand, they said, it could effectively make it
impossible for him to stay on.

The Europeans worked to arrange a quick exit for Mr. Wolfowitz as a
special bank committee concluded that he was guilty of breaking rules
barring conflicts of interest in arranging for a pay raise and
promotion for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion and a bank employee, in
2005.

The decision was sent to Mr. Wolfowitz on Sunday night after a month of
turmoil over the situation. The panel?s findings were not made public,
but people familiar with the report said that it reviewed documents and
testimony before concluding that Mr. Wolfowitz had breached his
obligations in arranging for Ms. Riza?s reassignment from the bank to
the State Department.

?What I?m hearing from colleagues is, ?Let?s not push the Americans too
hard,? ? said a senior European official involved in policy on the
bank. ?We want to avoid a split between the United States and its
European allies. We?re willing to say: ?O.K., you find a capable
American to run this institution and we can live with that.? ?

In another sign of Mr. Wolfowitz?s difficulties, his top communications
aide, Kevin Kellems, resigned Monday, saying that ?the current
environment surrounding the leadership? at the bank made it ?very
difficult to be effective in helping to advance the mission of the
institution.?

Mr. Kellems said in a statement that he had ?tremendous respect and
admiration? for the bank?s staff but made no mention of Mr. Wolfowitz,
with whom he had a close association when the bank president was deputy
secretary of defense.

European officials did not disclose details of how they were
communicating with the Bush administration, but they said the
suggestion that Mr. Wolfowitz resign in return for having an American
successor was first raised with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.
in mid-April.

Well before Mr. Wolfowitz took office in 2005, leading European
countries had begun agitating to discard the custom that had existed
since the 1940s of the United States choosing the bank president. The
United States has that prerogative because it contributes the largest
share of the bank?s financing.

Bush administration officials say that American leadership of the World
Bank is essential to maintaining influence over its policies and
priorities, including which bank programs and countries receive
financing. The officials fear that if the bank is headed by someone
lacking the confidence of Congress and Americans in general, it could
lead to a breach similar to the one between the former United Nations
secretary general, Kofi Annan, and critics on Capitol Hill.

European countries customarily choose the chief of the bank?s sister
institution, the International Monetary Fund, though a
European-American conflict has arisen there as well. Its focus is a
drive supported by the Bush administration to reduce the European
voting share in favor of China and other fast-growing countries.

The United States has 16.4 percent of the voting share at the 24-member
World Bank board that chooses the president. Europeans have twice that
share if they stick together, which many bank officials say they have
signaled they are willing to do to remove Mr. Wolfowitz.

The senior European official said Mr. Wolfowitz?s credibility was now
?beyond repair.?

That view has echoed through the bank?s ranks. Hundreds of bank
employees assembled at an auditorium on Monday to hear Mark Malloch
Brown, the former top aide to Mr. Annan at the United Nations, say that
with Mr. Wolfowitz in charge, the bank?s anti-poverty agenda was
?hugely at risk? because Europeans were balking at the financing.

No bank president has ever resigned in a crisis atmosphere like the
current situation, so there is no precedent for what would happen if he
left.

The committee?s finding of guilt against Mr. Wolfowitz was tempered by
a finding that the bank shared at least some blame for the failure of
Mr. Wolfowitz to comply with its rules. According to people familiar
with the report, it said the advice from ethics officials at the bank
to Mr. Wolfowitz was less than clear and evidently subject to
misinterpretation. Nevertheless, the report was clear in its conclusion
that Mr. Wolfowitz breached his obligations.

Mr. Wolfowitz?s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, said the bank was giving Mr.
Wolfowitz too little time to rebut its conclusions before a board vote
later this week.

?I don?t feel it would be appropriate to share the report, but I am
deeply troubled that they have only given us 48 hours to respond,? he
said in an interview. ?This is not fair to Mr. Wolfowitz.?

The report, as transmitted to Mr. Wolfowitz, did not recommend any
punishment for him. Bank officials, speaking anonymously because the
proceedings are supposed to be confidential, said that the special
committee was still working Monday on what to recommend.

It was not clear whether the committee, consisting of 7 of the bank?s
24 board members, would recommend removing him from office or, more
likely, express a loss of confidence in his leadership in a manner
intended to force his resignation. Bank officials say the majority of
the bank board has determined that he should go.

The Bush administration has repeatedly backed Mr. Wolfowitz, but
President Bush and Mr. Paulson have also called for the completion of
the bank?s internal review process. Now that that is done, the
administration is likely to face renewed pressure.

European and American officials say that Mr. Paulson has said that the
bank process must be respected before the United States is pushed into
a position on Mr. Wolfowitz. Several European officials said they
believed that Mr. Paulson was in favor of Mr. Wolfowitz leaving, but
that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were insisting on standing
up for him.

Mr. Wolfowitz?s selection in 2005 drew enormous criticism in Europe,
but France and Germany wanted to repair the wounds left from their
opposition to the Iraq war and went along with him.

That mood has changed, many European officials say. As expressed in
editorials, political commentaries and even blogs, European sentiment
is against Mr. Wolfowitz and in favor of more aid for poor countries.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany favors Mr. Wolfowitz?s resignation,
people familiar with her thinking say, but is also eager to avoid a
confrontation with Mr. Bush. But as chief of the European Union, she is
said to feel obliged to reflect European views, reflected in the
European Parliament?s call for Mr. Wolfowitz to resign last month.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, due to step down as soon as this
summer, has stood by Mr. Bush, but his presumed successor, Gordon
Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, has tangled with Mr. Wolfowitz
on some bank policies.

European officials say that the Netherlands and the Nordic countries
have been most critical of Mr. Wolfowitz.

Bank officials say that, as of now, only the United States, Japan and
Canada would vote in favor of Mr. Wolfowitz. They represent less than
30 percent of the voting shares. Most directors are reported willing to
vote against Mr. Wolfowitz, but some countries, mainly in Africa, are
said to be wavering.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:04:27 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:04:27 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Wolfowitz Scandal Jeopardizes  World Bank Funds
Message-ID: <20070509160427.677e68ee@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Washington Post - May 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700490_pf.html


Scandal May Jeopardize World Bank Funds

By Peter S. Goodman and Krissah Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers

The leadership crisis engulfing the World Bank began with talk of
favoritism for a girlfriend and ill feeling about the Iraq war. But as
the bank's board this week considers the fate of President Paul D.
Wolfowitz, the ethics controversy has swelled into a test of who
controls the institution and its future relevance in battling global
poverty.

The outcome could determine whether governments from Berlin to Buenos
Aires would be willing to contribute new funds in support of the bank's
mission.

"There's a real danger because of this Wolfowitz stuff that donors are
going to find a reason not to give," said Elizabeth Stuart, senior
policy adviser for Oxfam International, an anti-poverty group in
Washington.

The sense of turmoil surrounding the bank intensified yesterday with
the resignation of a senior Wolfowitz aide, Kevin Kellems. Once a key
spokesman in helping Wolfowitz deflect criticism, Kellems initially
defended the president, telling reporters that "all arrangements" in
the substantial pay raise Wolfowitz engineered for his companion had
been "made at the direction of the bank's board of directors."

In subsequent weeks, however, as documents were leaked showing that
bank officials had not been informed about the size of the raise,
Kellems declined to repeat his assertion. He issued a written statement
yesterday explaining his departure: "Given the current environment
surrounding the leadership of the World Bank group, it is very
difficult to be effective."

Kellems previously worked for Wolfowitz as a special adviser at the
Pentagon during planning for the Iraq war. He later served as
communications director for Vice President Cheney and was one of a
handful of senior advisers Wolfowitz brought to the World Bank,
provoking complaints among staff that the new president was using the
institution to further the Bush administration's agenda.

Yesterday, Wolfowitz reviewed a report written by a bank committee
investigating his role in the pay raise for his companion, Shaha Riza,
said senior bank officials. In technical language, the report finds
that Wolfowitz breached multiple ethics rules, the officials said, but
contains no explicit recommendations about what should happen next.

Wolfowitz has until late today to respond. His comments are to be
forwarded with the report to the bank's executive board, which could
begin deliberating as soon as tomorrow. The 24-member board could
censure Wolfowitz, urge him to resign, declare a lack of confidence in
his leadership or fire him.

"We've requested additional time," said Wolfowitz's lawyer, Robert S.
Bennett. "It's not fair to require him to answer within 48 hours."

Uncertainty is paralyzing the bank, officials said, warning that the
longer the leadership crisis continues, the greater the chance it will
harm its coffers.

The World Bank president leads a campaign to replenish the
International Development Association (IDA), a program that offers
grants and low- or no-interest loans to the world's poorest countries.
The development fund directs more than half its money to Africa, home
to 300 million of the world's poorest people.

Wolfowitz has aimed to raise a fresh $20 billion for the IDA by early
next year. The fund has about $10 billion but has reserved that money
for loans over the coming year. In seeking replenishment, Wolfowitz
must court some of the very governments, notably in Europe, now
publicly calling for him to quit.

Some African leaders, noting Wolfowitz's focus on the continent,
support him. But European officials have suggested that, as long as he
remains, they may withhold funds, perhaps funneling more aid through
the European Union, which has historically been less focused than the
World Bank on helping Africa.

"That would be very bad," said Faida Mitifu, Congo's ambassador to the
United States, whose government received $365 million in IDA loans last
year.

In the best circumstances, World Bank presidents struggle to raise
funds, making it harder than ever for Wolfowitz to do so with this
cloud over his head, development experts said.

"The great danger is that this will spill over into the IDA
negotiations, that the board will leave this unresolved and that the
shareholders will take it out on IDA," said Dennis de Tray, a vice
president at the Center for Global Development in Washington. He
worried that donors would "treat the World Bank and IDA as an extension
of the United States."

Analysts say a funding shortage could weaken the bank's already waning
influence at a time when Venezuela's president, Hugo Ch?vez, is
widening his reach in Latin America with aid and populist rhetoric, and
as China distributes loans and grants across Africa in pursuit of
energy and commodities.

The World Bank's largess often comes with strings, requiring recipient
governments to adopt controversial policies such as privatizing state
industries. Other loans have fewer obligations, making them more
attractive to many leaders.

Wolfowitz asserts the bank would be best served by an end to what he
has called the "smear campaign" against him.

"I have worked very hard to build support for IDA," Wolfowitz told the
investigating committee. "If I am forced out in a circus-like process,
it will only give those who are already looking for a reason not to
contribute . . . the excuse they are seeking."

The investigating committee concluded that Wolfowitz broke ethics rules
in engineering a job transfer and raise for his girlfriend, a bank
official. Wolfowitz has maintained he did nothing wrong, acting with
the guidance of the ethics committee by finding her another job to
avoid a conflict of interest and compensating her for the career
disruption .

The European parliament has called for Wolfowitz to resign. Last week,
five former finance ministers from Latin American nations said he must
go. But while the bank's executive board has the power to end the
president's tenure, some analysts doubt it has the political will.

Under an agreed-upon arrangement that has lasted since the inception of
the bank six decades ago, the U.S. president selects the president of
the World Bank while Europe decides who runs the bank's sister
institution, the International Monetary Fund. President Bush has said
he wants Wolfowitz to stay. If the board overrides his wishes, it will
jeopardize Europe's claims on the IMF, said a senior administration
official.

Analysts surmise that the conflict will ultimately end with a
negotiated outcome and not a decisive board vote because no one is sure
what would happen were a vote held. The board traditionally operates on
consensus. Its members take direction from the foreign governments they
represent, for whom the leadership of the World Bank is but a minor
foreign-policy issue. In interviews this week, bank officials and
analysts said even the governments opposing Wolfowitz were unlikely to
authorize their executive directors to vote to remove him, which would
risk a fresh imbroglio with the Bush administration.

Most executive directors represent multiple countries. If countries
within the blocs are split, that could force the executive director to
abstain, making the outcome even more uncertain.

"The executive directors are not going to want to have a decisive
vote," said Ralph C. Bryant, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution who has served as an adviser to the World Bank. "Everybody
would like to have somebody else make the hard decision."

Most analysts assume the bank's board will try to finesse the issue,
perhaps approving a vote of no confidence in hopes Wolfowitz would then
resign. Some argue that if the risks of a vote are large, the damage if
the board backs down could be greater.

"If they want to have a multilateral institution, they have to have the
gumption to do this and vote," said Colin I. Bradford, a former chief
economist at the United States Agency for International Development.
"If they don't, you have a double crisis. You not only have a
dysfunctional president and a dead replenishment of IDA, you also have
a dysfunctional board. You've severely weakened the bank."

? 2007 The Washington Post 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:05:48 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:05:48 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Idiot-In-Chief, The Queen,
	and a profound ignorance of US History
Message-ID: <20070509160548.3657b82b@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Independent - May 8, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2521642.ece

Bush meets the Queen - and she ages 200 years

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

The Queen's state visit to the US reached its climax yesterday as
George Bush welcomed her to the White House with trumpets, national
anthems a 21-gun salute and, it must be recorded, yet another
presidential verbal stumble.

After 55 years on the throne and having met US presidents stretching
back to Dwight Eisenhower, the 81-year-old monarch by any standards is
one of the most permanent fixtures on the international scene. But even
she was not around in Philadelphia 231 years ago, as Mr Bush almost
implied.

"The American people are proud to welcome your majesty back to the
United States, a nation you've come to know very well," he said in
front of 7,000 notables and not-so-notables assembled on the South Lawn
of the White House on a sunny, spring morning. "After all you've dined
with 10 US presidents. You've helped our nation celebrate its
bicentennial in 17 - in 1976," he said.

Of course, it was 1776 when representatives of the original 13 colonies
issued the Declaration of Independence from the Britain of her distant
ancestor George III. Only two centuries later did the present monarch
travel here, to participate in the lavish bicentennial celebrations.

As he realised his error, America's current King George looked somewhat
sheepishly at her. She looked back at him from under her hat. Whether
she was amused or not was impossible to say. But Mr Bush rescued
himself with deft self-deprecation: "She gave me a look only a mother
could give a child," he said to much laughter.

As American royal-related gaffes go this was small beer - certainly
when compared with the notorious "talking hat" incident, during the
Queen's last state visit in 1991. On that occasion, the White House
protocol department provided her with a lectern that was too tall. All
that TV viewers could see was a bobbing hat, as she delivered her
prepared remarks.

This time, however, Mr Bush swiftly made amends for any offence,
referring to the Queen as a "great leader" and praising the "special
relationship" between the US and Britain.

After the welcome ceremony, Mr Bush and his wife, Laura, held a private
lunch for their guests, before accompanying the Queen and Prince Philip
on the short walk across Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House, where the
royal couple are staying.

Last night Mr Bush, noted for his laid-back Texan style of
entertainment, was hosting the first white-tie dinner of his
presidency, complete with a performance by the violin virtuoso Itzhak
Perlman.

"We did sort of have to convince him a little bit," Mrs Bush said of
the efforts that she and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, made
to persuade the President to agree to the event.

Whatever the verbal slips, the Queen's visit is providing some sorely
needed relief for Mr Bush from the relentless bad news from Iraq, his
almost daily battles with the Democrat-controlled Congress, and an
approval rating of 28 per cent, the lowest of any president in almost
30 years.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:07:54 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:07:54 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Blair's Endless Goodbye: Tony Rejects "living Dead" Jibe
Message-ID: <20070509160754.38fc2aec@viola.tamara-b.org>

Channel 4 News - Snowmail (UK) - May 9, 2007
http://www.channel4.com

Blair rejects 'living dead' jibe
==================================

One of the longest goodbyes in British political history has
effectively begun with Tony Blair saying he will tell us tomorrow when
he will be going. But most predictions are that it will be a seven week
business climaxing with the European Summit at the end of June. But the
best laid plans....

Now I am going to break with convention here, I would normally have
offered you some thoughts about the Blair years but I have actually
done a podcast about them for tomorrow morning and indeed the following
morning.

So listen to my podcast tomorrow:
http://www.channel4.com/news/watchlisten/morning-report.jsp

But actually tonight, we have an interesting sideways look at the Blair
years with the Booker prize winning novelist Ian McEwan. 

In a sense he is the iconic writer of the Blair period, having won the
Booker prize in the first year of the new Labour government and then
having written his novel 'Saturday' against the backdrop of the
anti-war protest of 2003.

McEwan describes on tonight's programme the "Iraq Blair" and the
"non-Iraq Blair". He believes history will be kinder to the latter,
very tough on the former but that in some way an image of both will
survive.

Also, how much do you know about Tony Blair? Take our Best of Blair
online quiz: http://linkger.com/e5297d


Mobility in Blair's Britain under  spotlight 
===========================================

Faisal Islam in the meantime is looking at the nuts and bolts of who
went up and who went down and what actually happened to the foundations
of British society in the Blair years. 

He has some very damning thoughts from Blair's from Sir Peter Lampl,
both philanthropist and Blair advisor on education renewal. He is
pretty critical.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:09:32 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:09:32 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Latest Wave of UK "Terror" Arrests Includes Widow of 7/7
	Bomber
Message-ID: <20070509160932.3366092e@viola.tamara-b.org>

Channel 4 News - Snowmail (UK) - May 9, 2007
http://www.channel4.com

7/7 bomber's widow arrested
===========================

I suppose a cynic might suggest that on the day the Home Office is
broken up with terrorism going one way and justice the other, it is not
a bad day to revive old terrorist trails. 

There have been arrests and the police say that among those arrested
today was the widow of one of the 7/7 bombers, Mohamed Siddique Khan.

More on the arrest (below):  

Channel 4 News - May 9, 2007
http://linkger.com/830669

Widow of July 7 bomber arrested

By: James Blake

Four people arrested over the July 7 attacks including the widow of the
ring leader Mohammed Siddique Khan.

Nearly two years on from the July 7 bombings and the police are back in
Beeston. There have been dawn raids at a number of addresses in Leeds.
One man was arrested on Tempest Road - where one of the bombers used to
live.

Four people have been arrested this morning, including the wife of the
supposed ringleader - Mohammed Siddique Khan.

Hasina Patel was pregnant when her husband bombed a tube train near
Edgeware Road. She is even thought to have reported her husband missing
to police on that day. Now she has been arrested.

There have been raids and an arrest too in Birmingham. Forensic
officers have been searching a student hall of residence - Victoria
Hall - where may students of Birmingham University live. Officers
removed a silver Peugeot car for tests. Terror arrests

    * The widow of Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the July
7th London bombers was one of four people arrested by anti-terrorist
police this morning. The arrests for suspicion of commissioning,
preparing or instigating acts of terrorism, follow the charging last
month of three others in connection with the attacks which killed 52
people.

    * Hasina Patel, 29, and two men were arrested in West Yorkshire and
officers are continuing to search 5 properties in Dewsbury, Beeston and
Batley

    * Another man was arrested in Selly Oak, Birmingham, where police
are searching one flat, there and another in Handsworth.

It is the biggest terrorist investigation ever in Britain. But for a
year and a half after the July 7th bombings no one was arrested. Then
last month - three men were charged in connection with the attacks. Two
of them were about to board a flight to Pakistan.

At that time the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch said more people
were involved.

    "I firmly believe that there are other people who have knowledge of
what lay behind the attacks of July 2005. Knowledge that they have not
shared with us. In fact, I not only believe it but I know it for a
fact. "
    - Peter Clarke, Head Anti-Terrorist Branch

Hasina Patel, and the other three arrested, are all being taken to the
High Security Paddington Green Police station today where they'll be
questioned.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:10:58 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:10:58 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Scum consistently rises to the surface of the Bush Regime
Message-ID: <20070509161058.6fe4c55e@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Nation - May 9, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/truthdig


The Scum Also Rises

by Robert Scheer

As Paul Wolfowitz twists in the wind after being found guilty in a
World Bank investigation of public payola to his girlfriend, it does
seem that his career might finally be coming to an end. Pity that the
Iraq debacle, which Wolfowitz promoted, was not sufficient reason for
removing him from public office; instead, President Bush rewarded
"Wolfie" with a promotion to head the World Bank. Add him to the
rapidly growing list of Bush alums whose career trajectory suddenly
plummets upon the disclosure of a pattern of lying obvious to most
observers but not to the President himself.

To understand why scum consistently rises to the surface of the Bush
Administration, it is best to refer to the wisdom contained in the
final memoir of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut. In an excerpt published
in 2006, Vonnegut observed that "George W. Bush has gathered around
him...most frighteningly, psychotic personalities, or PPs, the medical
term for smart, personable people who have no consciences."

How better to explain the unwavering arrogance of people--certainly
Wolfowitz, but clearly he is not alone in this Administration--who
consistently get it wrong yet plow on undeterred by the inconvenience
of fact or logic? Most of us, once associated with the grievous
distortions of evidence and outright lies justifying the invasion of
Iraq, not to mention the horrid waste and death attendant upon the
subsequent occupation that Wolfowitz oversaw, would feel the need to
pause for a spell of critical self-reflection. Not so Wolfowitz, who,
unmoved by the death and destruction he wrought, sailed on to the World
Bank and announced that he would fight what he claimed was that
venerable institution's penchant for, yes, he used the word,
"corruption."

Toward that end he would bring with him a score of Pentagon underlings
whose hands were almost as bloody as his from the Iraq disaster. One of
them, Kevin Kellems, former spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney,
suddenly resigned his $250,000-a-year job at the World Bank on Monday.
Another veteran from the Iraq buildup to be rewarded was Wolfowitz's
lover, Shaha Riza, his resident Muslim expert, who was promoted to a
State Department position paying more than Secretary Condoleezza Rice
earns. Not quite the $400,000 that Wolfowitz would be raking in at the
World Bank, but Riza's salary had the advantage of being tax-free--she
is still technically a "foreign national," despite her access to the
inner sanctums of US security debates.

Such rich rewards for folks ostensibly fighting world poverty would not
seem troubling to the PPs Vonnegut referred to, as they are suffering
from a malady that renders them morally tone-deaf. Citing what he calls
the classic medical text on PPs, "The Mask of Sanity," Vonnegut noted
in his "Custodians of Chaos" piece: "Some people are born deaf, some
are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally
defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and
many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These
are people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking
charge of everything.

"PPs are presentable," Vonnegut reminds us, lest we be fooled by their
equanimity on talk shows, "they know full well the suffering their
actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care
because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!" Vonnegut includes the
executives who gave us the Enron and WorldCom scandals with the
neoconservatives to indicate the malady's extent. This could be
dismissed as the standard liberal claptrap--turning the culprits into
victims whose illness made them do it. But I offer his observations as
the most plausible explanation of the headlong pursuit of disaster, for
themselves and the planet, on the part of these otherwise canny
overachievers.

Yes, their mendacity does often catch up with them, and folks like
Wolfowitz do not tend to be well regarded after they have lost the
perks of power. The problem is that the truth arrives too late to
prevent considerable suffering. Indeed, Wolfowitz's embarrassment at
the World Bank is a minor inconvenience compared with the opprobrium he
should be receiving after each day's dose of disaster news from Iraq
disproves the cakewalk of a regime change that he had so assuredly
promised.

Then, too, this lying lout will no doubt be rewarded with something
similar to the $4 million contract that former CIA Director George
Tenet recently received to share a few details of how he went about
betraying us. 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:12:37 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:12:37 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bush Would Veto Democrats' New Iraq Bill
Message-ID: <20070509161237.1660f82a@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via San Francisco Chronicle - May 9, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/05/09/national/w073958D89.DTL

Bush Would Veto Democrats' New Iraq Bill

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

(05-09) 11:04 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Bush would veto any
bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war
only into summer, his spokesman said Wednesday, even as the Pentagon
held out hope that troops could begin withdrawing if the Iraqi
government makes progress by fall.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that if violence
in Iraq declines enough to allow the government to move forward,
including steps toward political reconciliation, the U.S. could begin
pulling troops out.

The Pentagon, said Gates, is "looking for the direction of events ? we
don't have to have it all locked in place and everything complete ...
If (we) see some very positive progress and it looks like things are
heading in the right direction, then that's the point at which I think
we can begin to consider reducing some of those forces."

He added that "getting the level of violence in Iraq to point where the
political process can go forward and seeing some progress in
reconciliation sets the stage for us to begin withdrawing our units ...
and allowing those security responsibilities to be assumed by the
Iraqis."

Senators pressed Gates on reports that commanders in Iraq may want to
wait until next April to make an assessment of the buildup. But Gates
insisted that the evaluation will be in September, although he added
that he didn't know what the result would be.

"What are the prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel,
to see some encouragement which would enable the Congress to have the
fortitude to support the president and go beyond September and the full
funding of the $500 billion?" asked Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Gates replied, "I think that the honest answer is, Senator, that I
don't know."

Gates also told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill
would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to
repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just
doesn't "have the agility to manage a two month appropriation."

"I essentially have 10,000 faucets all running money," Gates said.
"Turning them on and off with precision and on a day-to-day basis, or
even a month-to-month basis, gets very difficult." And, he said that if
Congress votes again in July, but rejects the funding bill, "I would
have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in
August and September because I wouldn't have the money to pay salaries."

The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give
Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do
not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war
through September.

"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the
spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are
still in the bill," White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air
Force One traveling with Bush.

Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form,
Snow said, "Yes."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said White House chief of staff
Josh Bolten had "another good meeting" with Senate leaders on the
matter.

"We remain hopeful we can achieve a deal, and the president's chief of
staff remains open to meeting with anyone, anytime, anywhere to bring
closure to this process," she said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., emerged from the closed-door
meeting to say no deal was struck.

Bolten's meeting Wednesday with Reid and Republican leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., lasted about an hour, and revealed a slightly
different tone and approach in the Senate than in the House, said a
senior administration official who was in the session and spoke on
condition of anonymity to speak more freely about private discussions.

The talk was mostly about the process of getting a bill through both
chambers and to the president, but there also were some substantive
discussions about content that the official would not detail. The White
House's view is that Democrats in the Senate and House need to better
coordinate where they want to go with a bill, but this is not
preventing Bolten from talking about specifics in the meantime, the
official said.

Bush vetoed an earlier bill because it set deadlines for U.S. troop
withdrawals from Iraq.

The short-term funding bill is backed by House Democrats, but is
unlikely to survive the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority
and several of them do not support funding the war in brief
installments.

Snow talked with reporters on Air Force One as Bush flew to Kansas to
see the devastation from last week's tornado.

In other comments Wednesday, Gates said that the Iraqis are assuming
more security responsibilities day by day, but the U.S. cannot abandon
the country prematurely. Doing so, he said, would allow al-Qaida
terrorists to use Iraq's western Anbar province as a base to plan
operations against the United States.

[Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.]




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:13:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:13:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Spinning Hillary Centrist
Message-ID: <20070509161359.1f90b6fc@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Nation - May 7, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman


[Editor' s Note: This is an excerpt of a longer article about Hillary
Clinton's circle of advisers, which will appear May 16 in the print
version of The Nation.]


Spinning Hillary Centrist

by Ari Berman

As Hillary Clinton charges toward the Democratic nomination for
President, her campaign has a coterie of influential advisers. There's
her husband, of course, widely regarded as one of the sharpest
political strategists in the business. There's ?ber-Washington insider
and former head of the Democratic National Committee Terry McAuliffe.
There are A-list policy wonks like former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin.
But perhaps the most important figure in the campaign is her pollster
and chief strategist, Mark Penn, a combative workaholic. Penn is not
yet a household name, but perhaps he should be. Inside Hillaryland, he
has elaborately managed the centrist image Hillary has cultivated in
the Senate. The campaign is polling constantly, and Penn's
interpretation of the numbers will in large part decide her political
direction.

Yet Penn is no ordinary pollster. Beyond his connections to the
Clintons, he not only polls for America's biggest companies but also
runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. This creates a dilemma for
Hillary: Penn represents many of the interests whose influence
candidate Clinton--in an attempt to appeal to an increasingly populist
Democratic electorate--has vowed to curtail. Is what's good for Penn
and his business good for Hillary's political career? And furthermore,
can she convincingly claim to fight for the average American with Penn
guiding strategy in her corner? 

Despite the risks he poses, it's easy to figure out why Hillary clings
to Penn. The Clintons (like the Bushes) put a premium on loyalty, and
they credit Penn with saving Bill's presidency. After the 1994
election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress and Clinton
was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, Bill turned to
Dick Morris, a controversial friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris
knew Penn from his days as a pollster in New York and brought him into
the White House. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They
immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous
strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like
welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that
supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who
said 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-Chips and school
uniforms,'" says a former Clinton adviser. When Morris got caught with
a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second
term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the
Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest." He became
known as the "most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies
like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White
House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling
firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only
person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same phone
line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction
between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at
the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of
controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter and
Gamble's Olestra drug from charges that it caused anal leakage, blamed
Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically
modified foods for Monsanto. Penn invented the concept of
"inoculation," in which corporations are shielded from scandal through
clever advertising and marketing. Selling an image, companies realized,
was as important as winning a legislative favor.

Penn kept his foot in the political world through the Clintons. In 2000
he became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York,
persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and
relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban
transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn
became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the
business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election
campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The
massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an
undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of
one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M).
A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President
Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and a top executive in the WPP
firmament. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel,"
says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The
press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing
and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric
utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release
blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California
electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which
darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The
firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to
Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which
thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its
plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of massive human
rights violations in Nigeria. B-M pioneered the use of
pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage
stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer
organizations. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of
Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its
current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical
and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave
57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview. B-M's
Washington lobbying arm, BKSH & Associates, is run by Charlie Black, a
leading GOP operative who maintains close ties to the White House,
including Karl Rove, and was former partners with Lee Atwater, the
political consultant who crafted the Willie Horton smear campaign used
by George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in 1988. Black regularly
disparages the Clintons; he has called Hillary a "martyr figure" and
said Bill "tearfully embraced...government preferences for [a]
homosexual lifestyle." In recent years Black's clients have included
the likes of Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon right in
the run-up to the war; Lockheed Martin; and Occidental Petroleum. In
the summer of 2005 he landed a contract with the Lincoln Group, the
disgraced PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi
news outlets. The agreement, according to Intelligence Online, allowed
the Lincoln Group to "tap into BKSH's extensive contacts in the
Republican administration." When asked by The New Yorker if there was
too much cronyism in Iraq, Black responded, "I just wish I could find
the cronies."

Black is only one cannon in B-M's Republican arsenal. Its "grassroots"
lobbying branch, Direct Impact--which specializes in corporate-funded
astroturfing--is run by Dennis Whitfield, a former Reagan Cabinet
official, and Dave DenHerder, the political director of the Bush-Cheney
'04 campaign in Ohio. That's not all. B-M recently partnered with
lobbyist Ed Gillespie, the former head of the Republican National
Committee, in creating the new ad firm 360Advantage, which is run by
two ad men for the Bush-Cheney campaigns and which includes a few
prominent Democrats. Its first project was a campaign for the
neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine against "liberal bias" in the
media. There's more than a little irony that some Democrats would
assist a conservative media machine that so regularly smears the
Clintons. Yet the so-called "bipartisan" firm is hardly objective--of
its thirteen principals, ten are Republicans.

As expected with such a lineup, B-M has a highly confrontational
relationship with organized labor. "Companies cannot be caught
unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns," read the "Labor
Relations" section of its website (until it was scrubbed after Mark
Schmitt of The American Prospect quoted the language in March). It
consults frequently with George Washington University professor Jarol
Manheim, author of The Death of a Thousand Cuts: Corporate Campaigns
and the Attack on the Corporation and Biz-War and the Out-of-Power
Elite: The Progressive-Left Attack on the Corporation. And it lends
help to some of the most controversial union-busting efforts in America.

Back in 2003 two large unions, UNITE (which later merged with HERE, the
hotel and restaurant union) and the Teamsters, launched a major drive
to organize 32,000 garment workers and truck drivers at Cintas, the
country's largest and most profitable uniform and laundry supply
company. Its longtime CEO, Richard Farmer, was a mega-fundraising
"pioneer" for George W. Bush. Despite posting $3.4 billion in sales and
$327 million in profits last year, the company had a record of
overcharging consumers, denying workers overtime pay, keeping unsafe
working conditions (an employee in Tulsa died recently when caught in a
300-degree drier) and using any means necessary to block the union
drive. Management fired employees under false pretenses, according to
worker complaints documented by the unions; vowed to close plants; and
screened anti-union videos. A plant manager in Vista, California,
threatened to "kick driver-employees with his steel-toed boots,"
according to a complaint UNITE HERE filed with the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB). To put a soft face on its harsh tactics, Cintas
hired Wade Gates, a top employee in B-M's Dallas office, as its chief
spokesman. Gates coined Cintas's shrewd response to labor: "the right
to say yes, the freedom to say no," which has been repeated endlessly
in the press. In a speech at the USC Gould School of Law last year,
Gates outlined Cintas's strategy, calling for an "aggressive defense
against union tactics." Says Ahmer Qadeer, an organizer for UNITE HERE:
"It's the Burson influence that's made Cintas much, much slicker than
they were." The unions have won two NLRB rulings against Cintas, but
for four years the company has continued to resist the organizing
campaign.

In 2004 Hillary Clinton asked for an investigation into whether Cintas
received preferential regulatory treatment from the Environmental
Protection Agency in return for giving large political donations to
President Bush. Union officials say she's been supportive of their
organizing drive. She's a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act,
which would allow workers to form unions if a majority sign cards
authorizing representation, thus avoiding the coercion and intimidation
commonly practiced by companies like Cintas during union election
campaigns (Cintas bitterly opposes the EFCA). She told the
International Association of Firefighters recently, "I believe that it
is absolutely essential to the way America works that people be given
the right to organize and bargain collectively." Penn has portrayed
Clinton as a hero to America's underdogs. "She has a very, very strong
base among the Democratic primary voters--first and foremost among
voters who have real needs, people who may not have healthcare, people
worried about losing a job, people who know someone serving in the war,
people in the working and middle class, people whose lives really
depend upon having the kind of champion and advocate that Hillary
represents," Penn said to the Washington Post.

Yet Hillary apparently sees no contradiction between her own advocacy,
as painted by Penn, and the anti-union, pro-corporate work of her chief
strategist's company. "Clearly not," says spokesman Howard Wolfson. "I
don't think it reflects on her at all. Mark's work away from the
campaign is Mark's work, and his campaign work is separate from
that." (Wolfson told me to talk to Penn for additional information, but
when I contacted Penn he referred all questions to Wolfson.)

Penn recently told the Washington Post, in a largely flattering
profile, that he'd been "cleared of all client responsibilities, except
for Microsoft, for the duration of the campaign." Microsoft is a
strange exception, given that it was the corporate entity the Clinton
Administration challenged most directly. Moreover, Penn has no plans to
take a formal leave from B-M. (Because B-M is a subsidiary of the WPP
Group, which is a UK-based company, it doesn't have to report its CEO's
salary or ownership stake in the company.) President Bush forced Karl
Rove to sell his direct-mail business in 1999, but don't expect a
similar move from Hillary. "Senator Clinton is no different, frankly,
from Mark's other clients," Howard Paster says. "Burson-Marsteller is a
lot bigger firm than Senator Clinton. There's a whole 'nother life we
live." Adds Doug Schoen, when asked if his former partner's arrangement
represents a conflict of interest: "I only see that if there are
particular interests we are advocating using our contacts. Mark doesn't
lobby. I don't lobby. We retain a strict differentiation between the
corporate world and the political world."

But it's difficult to tell where Penn's corporate life ends and his
political one begins. Most Democratic consultants do some business
work--it's the easiest way to pay the bills. Yet nobody wears as many
hats--and advises as many corporations--as Penn does. "Penn and Schoen
have displayed a thirst for corporate work, often in conflict with the
policy agendas of their political clients, that has long set the bar
among Democratic pollsters," wrote Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal
on his blog recently. "My employers and partners over the years had
corporate lines they (variously) refused to cross--tobacco, pharma, big
oil, aggressively anti-union--both out of ideological principle and to
avoid putting their valued political clients in a tough spot. A quick
glance at the Penn, Schoen, Berland client list shows they not only
crossed some of those lines, but did so with enthusiasm."

Furthermore, few Democratic consultants so consistently and publicly
advocate an ideology that perfectly complements their corporate
clients. Every election cycle Penn discovers a new group of swing
voters--"soccer moms," "wired workers," "office park dads"--who happen
to be the key to the election and believe the same thing: "Outdated
appeals to class grievances and attacks upon corporate perfidy only
alienate new consistencies and ring increasingly hollow," Penn has
written. Through his longtime association with the Democratic
Leadership Council, Penn has been pushing pro-corporate centrism for
years. Many of the same companies that underwrite the DLC, such as Eli
Lilly, AT&T, Texaco and Microsoft, also happen to be clients of Penn's.

Yet despite occupying such a divisive place in the Democratic Party and
outsized role in the corporate world--and despite his company's close
ties to Republican political operatives and the Bush White House--Penn
remains a leading figure in Hillary's campaign, pitching the
inevitability of her nomination to donors and party bigwigs. According
to the New York Times, "[Hillary] Clinton responds to Penn's points
with exclamations like, Oh, Mark, what a smart thing to say!"
Politically, his presence means that triangulation is alive and well
inside the campaign and that despite her populist forays, Hillary won't
stray too far from the center. "Penn has a lot of influence on her, no
doubt about it," says New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf, who
worked with Penn in '96. "He's not going to let her drift too far
left." 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:15:26 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:15:26 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Pelosi's Toothless Threat to Sue Bush
Message-ID: <20070509161526.3b804696@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - may 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05092007.html

Constitutional Backlash?

Pelosi's Toothless Threat to Sue Bush

By DAVE LINDORFF

The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership's position in
Congress on impeachment was revealed in stark terms yesterday, when
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would sue the president
in court if he resorted to a signing statement to kill the next version
of Congress's Iraq funding bill.

Suing Bush over a signing statement, given the number of Federalist
judges that this administration has named to the federal district and
appellate courts, and to the US Supreme Court, is not just an exercise
in futility; it is a dangerous tactic which could backfire disastrously
by leading to a ruling that it's perfectly constitutional for a
president to ignore laws passed by the Congress. Does Pelosi really
want to risk such a catastrophe?

The only solution is to impeach the president over his signing
statements, and there is no need to wait for the next one to take
action. Bush has invalidated more than 1200 laws or parts of laws
passed by Congress since 2001 using what are called "signing
statements."

Republican apologists for the president have noted that other
presidents, including Clinton, also issued signing statements, which is
true. But they fail to mention that other presidents did not use those
signing statements to then ignore or invalidate laws passed by
Congress. They merely used them to register their view that a law, or a
part of a law, was unconstitutional.

Bush has made a wholly different argument. For the past six years, he
has been claiming that because he is commander in chief in a time of
war, by which he means the so-called "war" on terror, he has had what
he calls "unitary executive" authority. By this he means that
legislative and judicial power, as well as executive power, are all in
his hands for as long as the threat of terrorism is with us. Since this
"war" on terror never really ends, what he is claiming is that
separation of powers no longer exists in America. Indeed, the
Constitution itself is set aside. The president is a dictator during
his term of office, and Congress is just a debating club.

At this point, it should be clear to anyone, including Speaker Pelosi,
that the only remedy for this gross abuse of power by the president is
impeachment.

Unfortunately for America and the Constitution, Pelosi is still
hamstrung by her foolish insistence that "impeachment is off the table."

As long as she continues to refuse to allow impeachment of President
Bush, she cannot hope to stop the war, restore habeas corpus, undo the
Military Commissions Act, stop illegal spying on Americans by the
National Security Agency, or win passage of any significant legislation
to deal with global warming. She cannot really do anything, because
Bush will simply issue signing statements and use his claim of "unitary
executive authority" to invalidate any legislation passed by Congress.

Pelosi needs to be told by her colleagues and by all Americans who care
about the survival of the Constitution that this is not an issue for
the courts. It is an issue that demands impeachment.

The Founding Fathers were clear that where abuse of power occurs, it is
Congress, not the Courts, that must have the responsibility to take
corrective action. Abuse of power is not a violation of the law, and so
it is not something that the courts are likely to handle properly even
under the best of circumstances. Abuse of power is a so-called
"political crime," which requires a political response, which is
precisely why the Founders included an impeachment clause in the
Constitution.

Pelosi has ducked this issue for long enough, and now she's about to do
serious damage to the nation because of her political cowardice.

Basta! Enough!

If the American republic is to survive, it is time to impeach this
president on a charge of abuse of power.

[Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the
Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns
titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press.
Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by
Barbara Olshansky. He can be reached at: dlindorff at yahoo.com]




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:16:36 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:16:36 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Better to Be a Chimpanzee
Message-ID: <20070509161636.629a405e@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Nation - May 8, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070521&s=ehrenreich


Better to Be a Chimpanzee

by BARBARA EHRENREICH

Hiasl, a 26-year old Austrian-based chimpanzee, is petitioning the
courts for human status, and let me be the first to extend him a warm
welcome to our species. My animal rights activism has never gone beyond
the cage-free eggs' stage; it's the human possibilities raised by
Hiasl's case that caught my attention. If a chimpanzee can be declared
a person, then there's nothing in the way of a person becoming an
ape--and I'm not just talking about a retroactive status applied to
ex-husbands. In fact, I predict a surge in trans-specied people, who
will eagerly go over to the side of the chimps.

The transition need not involve costly, time-consuming, surgical arm
extensions and whole-body Rogaine treatments, since we are practically
chimpanzees already. We share 99 percent of our genome with them,
making it possible for chimps to accept human blood transfusions and
kidney donations. Despite their vocal limitations, they communicate
easily with each other and can learn human languages. They use tools
and live in groups that display behavioral variations attributable to
what anthropologists recognize as culture.

And we may be a lot closer biologically than Darwin ever imagined. Last
May, paleontologists reported evidence of inter-breeding between early
humans and chimps as recently as 5 million years ago, and proposed that
modern humans are the result of this ancient predilection for
bestiality.

Hiazl's motivation is economic: The animal sanctuary where he resides
has run out of funds, and, in Austria, only a person can receive
personal donations. Many humans in this country may be similarly
motivated to seek chimp status. There are individuals who commit crimes
in order to gain access to the free food and medical care available in
a prison. How much easier and more pleasant to have oneself declared a
chimp and win entry to the soft life of a zoo animal! Not only are the
guards friendly, but one's enclosure has been designed with far more
psychological forethought than the average office or cubicle.

True, not all chimps have it as easy as Hiazl, who spends most of his
time watching TV. There's the danger of being sold to a pharmaceutical
company for research, for example, but this should decline as chimps
achieve human status. We can't expect much progress on chimpanzee
rights in Bush's America, according to Elizabeth Hess, author of the
forthcoming book Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human. But in
addition to the Austrian debate, the Spanish parliament is considering
a bill to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes.
Once apes achieve these protections, American humans are going to want
them too. I'm thinking food, shelter, and medical-veterinary care.

Another reason to make the human-to-ape transition is the sex, at least
if you're smart enough to declare yourself a bonobo or pygmy
chimpanzee. Bonobos, who are genetically as close to humans as larger
chimpanzees, use sex much as we use handshakes --as a form of greeting
between individuals in any gender combination. See an old friend, and
you start rubbing genitals together, with mutual orgasm serving as a
hearty "How ya doin', pal?" Plus, bonobo bands are female-dominated,
which should be a special enticement to women investigating their
chimpanzee transition options.

There are is another, less selfish reason, to seek chimpanzee status.
Like me, you may be a wee bit disappointed in our own species. Here we
are--the tool-wielding, word-spouting brainiacs of the earth - and what
have we done with our powers? We've poisoned the world, encrusted it
with our unsightly infrastructure, and exterminated most of our fellow
earth-dwellers, from elephants and tigers to fish.

Of course, what makes humans especially obnoxious is our tendency to
believe in our absolute superiority over all creatures. We alone, of
all species, have come up with religions and philosophies that declare
us uniquely deserving of global hegemony. Yet one by one, our "unique"
human traits have turned out to be shared: Chimpanzees have culture;
dolphins make art (in the form of bubble patterns); female vampire bats
share food with their friends; male baboons will die to defend their
troop; rats have recently demonstrated a capability for reflection that
resembles consciousness. We are animals, and they are us.

But just because you want, for whatever reason, to attain the status of
a chimp, don't assume that you'll make the cut. Just as we don't know
how the Austrian court will rule in Hiasl's case, we have no reason to
believe that the chimps will have us. 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:18:08 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:18:08 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] The Hidden Costs of America's Hypermasculine Culture
Message-ID: <20070509161808.015833d5@viola.tamara-b.org>

Los Angeles Times via Alternet - May 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51626

The Hidden Costs of America's Hypermasculine Culture

By Mark Dery

[This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.]

So there's a smoking crater where Don Imus used to sit. That's fine
with those of us who never understood the appeal of his grizzled-codger
shtick, which, to me, always sounded like Rooster Cogburn reading The
Turner Diaries.

But if we're going to administer a ritual flaying to every blowhard who
channels the ugly American id, how is it that a hate-speech Touretter
like Ann Coulter has escaped the skinning knife? She called Democratic
presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot" at the Conservative
Political Action Conference; insisted on The Big Idea with Donny
Deutsch that Bill Clinton's "promiscuity" is proof positive of "latent
homosexuality"; quipped on Hardball Plaza that Al Gore is a "total
fag"; and wrote, in her syndicated column, that the odds of Hillary
Clinton "coming out of the closet" in 2008 are "about even money."

Obviously, racism -- slavery, lynching, institutionalized
discrimination -- has taken a much greater toll, in this country, than
homophobia. According to the most recent FBI report on hate crimes
(2005), most such attacks (54.7 percent) were racially motivated; only
14.2 percent were inspired by the sexual orientation of the victim.

But there's another reason the media haven't given Coulter a prime-time
water-boarding: Her problem is our problem. As a society, we view
racial epithets as Class-A felonies, whereas homophobic slurs are
parking violations (if that). Coulter laughed off her Edwards crack on
Hannity & Colmes, saying, "The word I used ... has nothing to do with
gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss." Of course, as noted
etymologist Mike Damone observed in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a
wuss is "part wimp and part pussy." Not that it means you're a fag or
anything. Even if you are a fag. Which is just British slang for
"cigarette," anyway. So why are you looking at me like that?

Seriously, though, Coulter's choplogic reminds us that homophobia is so
ubiquitous as to be invisible in American society. Only people whose
idea of formal attire is a white sheet with eyeholes would dare to use
the N-word in public, but homophobic smears reverberate throughout pop
culture. Little wonder, too: Asked, in a 2003 Pew study, if
homosexuality should be accepted by society, only a razor-thin majority
(51 percent) of Americans answered yes, in contrast to 83 percent in
Germany, 77 percent in France, and 74 percent in Great Britain.

Our long tradition of demonizing our political and ideological
opponents is founded on homophobic innuendo. Camille Paglia derided Al
Gore for his "prissy, lisping Little Lord Fauntleroy persona," which
"borders on epicene." John Kerry, who spent his childhood summers in
France, was too "French" to be presidential timber -- meaning, too much
of a girlyman. Now, Jonathan Edwards is too heteroflexible to be
commander-in-chief; only Straight Guys with a Queer Eye pay $400 for a
haircut, right?

George W. Bush learned an unforgettable lesson about the anxious nature
of masculinity in America when Newsweek tarred his father with the
"wimp" charge, a perception Bush 41 never really overcame. The resolve
never to be branded a wimp is the key to Dubya's psychology: the
you-talkin'-to-me? pugnacity and cock-of-the-walk swagger at press
conferences; the cowboy bluster about getting Saddam dead or alive; the
Top Gun posturing on the aircraft carrier, in a crotch-gripping flight
suit that accentuated the Presidential Unit (leading G. Gordon Liddy to
swoon -- on Hardball, for Freud's sake -- "what a stud").

Doesn't all this chest-thumping machismo and locker-room homophobia
protest a little too much? Paging Dr. Freud, pink courtesy phone: What
can we say about a country so anxiously hypermasculine that it can give
rise to Godmen, a muscular-Christianity movement that seeks to lure
Real Men back to church with services that feature guys bending metal
wrenches with their bare hands and leaders exulting, "Thank you, Lord,
for our testosterone!"

The trouble with manhood, American-style, is that it is maintained at
the expense of every man's feminine side -- the frantically repressed
Inner Wussy -- and the demonization of the feminine and the gay
wherever we see them. In his book The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy
Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, clinical psychologist
Stephen Ducat calls this state of mind "femiphobia" -- a pathological
masculinity founded on the subconscious belief that "the most important
thing about being a man is not being a woman" (which, for many straight
guys, is another way of saying: not gay).

Okay, so maybe I'm overstepping the bounds of my Learning Annex degree
in pop psychology. But the hidden costs of our overcompensatory
hypermacho are worse, far worse, than a few politicians slimed by
reich-wing pundits. The horror in Iraq has been protracted past the
point of lunacy by George W.'s bring-it-on braggadocio, He-Ra
unilateralism, and damn-the-facts refusal to acknowledge mistakes (even
as the body count mounts and billions of dollars go down the drain) --
all hallmarks of a pathological masculinity that misreads diplomacy as
weakness and confuses arrogant rigidity with strength. It is a
masculinity founded not on a self-assured sense of what it is, but on a
neurotic loathing of what it is not (yet secretly fears it may be):
wussy. And it will go to the grave insisting on battering-ram stiffness
(stay the course! don't pull out!) as the truest mark of manhood.

[Mark Dery is a cultural critic who teaches in the Department of
Journalism at New York University. Dery is at work on Paradise Lust, a
book about the culture war, on the Web, between sexual revolutionaries
and the morality police. ]

? 2007 Independent Media Institute.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:19:13 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:19:13 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bad year for hurricanes predicted
Message-ID: <20070509161913.64025414@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via Toronto Globe & Mail - May 9, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070509.whurricane0509/BNStory/Science/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070509.whurricane0509

Bad year for hurricanes predicted

By JOE STINEBAKER
Associated Press

HOUSTON ? Two U.S. national hurricane experts say they expect an
especially active storm season in the Atlantic this year, with one
predicting 17 tropical storms and hurricanes.

Philip Klotzbach, a research associate at Colorado State University,
and Joe Bastardi, the chief hurricane forecaster for AccuWeather Inc.,
acknowledged Tuesday that similar predictions for the 2006 season were
wrong, but they still think there will be a more active storm cycle
this year.

Mr. Klotzbach and Mr. Bastardi spoke at the Second Annual AccuWeather
Hurricane Summit, a gathering of more than 100 weather experts and
academics to discuss the coming season with members of the energy
industry, whose business can be severely affected by storms.

?We didn't predict very well last year,? Mr. Klotzbach said, noting
that 2006 turned out to be an average year.

Chances of a more active season seemed borne out Wednesday, when
forecasters said subtropical storm Andrea has formed off the
southeastern U.S. coast, more than three weeks before the start of
Atlantic hurricane season.

The season, which officially runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, averages 9.6
named storms, with 5.9 of them becoming hurricanes and 2.3 of them
major hurricanes.

Last year, there were 10 named storms in the Atlantic, of which five
became hurricanes. None of the hurricanes made landfall in the United
States, the first time since 2001 that has happened.

Mr. Klotzbach and a colleague at Colorado State, William Gray, issued
their most recent prediction April 3, forecasting a ?very active?
season with 17 named storms, including nine hurricanes and five intense
hurricanes.

Mr. Klotzbach said there is a 74-per-cent chance that a major hurricane
will strike the United States, with a 49-per-cent chance that it will
hit along the Gulf Coast between the Florida Panhandle and Brownsville,
Tex.

Although Mr. Bastardi predicts fewer storms than his counterparts, he
agreed that 2007 would be more active than usual. He expects 13 or 14
named storms, six or seven of which will strike the U.S. coast. Mr.
Bastardi said the Texas Gulf coast is twice as likely to be hit as in
an average year and Florida appears four times as likely.

?We are living in a time of climatic hardship,? he said. ?We're in a
cycle where weather extremes are more the norm and not the exception.?

Mr. Bastardi said he fears climatic conditions could lead to storms
that intensify relatively late in their life when they are closer to
landfall.

Last year's hurricane season was in contrast to the devastating 2005
season, which set a record with 28 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes,
including Hurricane Katrina.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:20:39 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:20:39 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Judge THROWS OUT charges against Posada Carriles
Message-ID: <20070509162039.54de2057@viola.tamara-b.org>

CNN - May 9, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/08/posada.charges/index.html?eref=rss_world

Judge throws out charges against anti-Castro militant

(CNN) -- A federal judge dropped charges against former CIA operative
and anti-Castro Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles on Tuesday,
blasting what she called government "fraud, deceit and trickery" in an
interview with Posada that led to the charges.

Posada, 79, was charged with seven counts of immigration fraud. He was
arrested in Miami in May 2005 after entering the country illegally.

U.S. district judge Kathleen Cardone ordered Posada's electronic
bracelet cut off in the courtroom Tuesday and cleared the way for him
to return to Miami a free man.

Posada's attorney, Arturo Hernandez, told CNN the ruling was "an
incredible legal victory."

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security said
they were reviewing Cardone's decision.
Cuba, Venezuela want Posada to face charges

The Cuban government reacted angrily to news of Posada's release,
calling him a "known terrorist" in a statement released by Dagoberto
Rodriguez Barrera, chief of the Cuban Interest Section in Washington.

In the statement, the Cuban government blames the White House for
having "made all the efforts necessary to protect the bin Laden of the
hemisphere, [out of] fear that he could have talked and recount the
whole history about the U.S. government links with his terrorists'
activities."

The Cuban government accuses Posada of being involved in the 1976
downing of a Cuban passenger plane, which killed 73 people. Posada has
denied any role in the airliner attack.

He's also accused of being involved in a string of hotel bombings in
Havana and making attempts on the life of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Venezuela and Cuba have both asked that Posada be extradited, but an
immigration judge in September 2005 ruled he could not be sent to
either country out of concern he might face torture there.

Posada's presence in the United States presented a problem for U.S.
officials, who want to support anti-Castro Cubans but were sensitive to
terrorist charges against Posada.

"As with each and every defendant who comes before this court,
defendant in this case is entitled to certain rights under the United
States Constitution," Cardone wrote in her 38-page ruling. "This court
will not set aside such rights nor overlook government misconduct
because defendant is a political hot potato. This court's concern is
not politics, it is the preservation of criminal justice." Judge
condemns government's 'manipulation'

Cardone threw out the interview with immigration authorities that was
the basis of the charges against Posada. The interview was poorly
translated for him, she found, and "No effective communication existed
between defendant and the interviewers."

"In light of the fact that the indictment in this case is based upon
statements made during the naturalization interview, this court finds
that the interpretation is so inaccurate as to render it unreliable as
evidence of defendant's actual statements," she wrote.

In addition, Cardone condemned what she called government manipulation
in the case, noting that Posada's naturalization interview was unusual
in that it stretched eight hours over two days, as opposed to the usual
maximum of 30 minutes.

Cardone called the interview a "pretext for a criminal investigation."

Although "warnings" were provided to Posada at the beginning of the
interview, she wrote, they were read to him in English without any
translation, and his attorney continually was told that if Posada
exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it
would result in termination of the interview.

"More importantly," she wrote, "defendant did not receive an
explanation of the true import of the government's inquiry."

The "defendant had few options, and the government took advantage of
his situation and manipulated it to serve its own ends," she wrote.

She said the mere fact that he was questioned about bombings "belies
the argument that this was a routine naturalization interview."
Government 'violated universal sense of justice'

"This court finds the government's tactics in this case are so grossly
shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of
justice," Cardone wrote. "As a result, this court is left with no
choice but to dismiss the indictment."

Posada was jailed for nine years in Venezuela in connection with the
airliner attack, but was never convicted and escaped in 1985. In
Panama, he was convicted of plotting with three Cuban exiles to kill
Castro while the leader was visiting Panama in 2000. He later received
a presidential pardon and surfaced in Guatemala and Mexico before
heading to the United States.

He has said he was smuggled over the Mexican border into Texas and came
by bus to South Florida. However, the government argued that his
longtime friend and benefactor, Santiago Alvarez, smuggled him into the
country on his fishing boat. Alvarez is currently jailed on unrelated
weapons charges.

Posada received CIA training in explosives and sabotage at Fort
Benning, Georgia, after he helped organize the failed Bay of Pigs
operation to oust Castro in 1961. He has said he stopped working for
the CIA in 1968, but in the 1980s helped the U.S.-based secret Contra
supply network in Central America.

After his U.S. arrest, Posada was held in a New Mexico jail. He posted
$350,000 bond last month, prompting outrage from Venezuela and other
countries.

(CNN) -- A federal judge dropped charges against former CIA operative
and anti-Castro Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles on Tuesday,
blasting what she called government "fraud, deceit and trickery" in an
interview with Posada that led to the charges.

Posada, 79, was charged with seven counts of immigration fraud. He was
arrested in Miami in May 2005 after entering the country illegally.

U.S. district judge Kathleen Cardone ordered Posada's electronic
bracelet cut off in the courtroom Tuesday and cleared the way for him
to return to Miami a free man.

Posada's attorney, Arturo Hernandez, told CNN the ruling was "an
incredible legal victory."

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security said
they were reviewing Cardone's decision. Cuba, Venezuela want Posada to
face charges

The Cuban government reacted angrily to news of Posada's release,
calling him a "known terrorist" in a statement released by Dagoberto
Rodriguez Barrera, chief of the Cuban Interest Section in Washington.

In the statement, the Cuban government blames the White House for
having "made all the efforts necessary to protect the bin Laden of the
hemisphere, [out of] fear that he could have talked and recount the
whole history about the U.S. government links with his terrorists'
activities."

The Cuban government accuses Posada of being involved in the 1976
downing of a Cuban passenger plane, which killed 73 people. Posada has
denied any role in the airliner attack.

He's also accused of being involved in a string of hotel bombings in
Havana and making attempts on the life of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Venezuela and Cuba have both asked that Posada be extradited, but an
immigration judge in September 2005 ruled he could not be sent to
either country out of concern he might face torture there.

Posada's presence in the United States presented a problem for U.S.
officials, who want to support anti-Castro Cubans but were sensitive to
terrorist charges against Posada.

"As with each and every defendant who comes before this court,
defendant in this case is entitled to certain rights under the United
States Constitution," Cardone wrote in her 38-page ruling. "This court
will not set aside such rights nor overlook government misconduct
because defendant is a political hot potato. This court's concern is
not politics, it is the preservation of criminal justice." Judge
condemns government's 'manipulation'

Cardone threw out the interview with immigration authorities that was
the basis of the charges against Posada. The interview was poorly
translated for him, she found, and "No effective communication existed
between defendant and the interviewers."

"In light of the fact that the indictment in this case is based upon
statements made during the naturalization interview, this court finds
that the interpretation is so inaccurate as to render it unreliable as
evidence of defendant's actual statements," she wrote.

In addition, Cardone condemned what she called government manipulation
in the case, noting that Posada's naturalization interview was unusual
in that it stretched eight hours over two days, as opposed to the usual
maximum of 30 minutes.

Cardone called the interview a "pretext for a criminal investigation."

Although "warnings" were provided to Posada at the beginning of the
interview, she wrote, they were read to him in English without any
translation, and his attorney continually was told that if Posada
exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it
would result in termination of the interview.

"More importantly," she wrote, "defendant did not receive an
explanation of the true import of the government's inquiry."

The "defendant had few options, and the government took advantage of
his situation and manipulated it to serve its own ends," she wrote.

She said the mere fact that he was questioned about bombings "belies
the argument that this was a routine naturalization interview."
Government 'violated universal sense of justice'

"This court finds the government's tactics in this case are so grossly
shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of
justice," Cardone wrote. "As a result, this court is left with no
choice but to dismiss the indictment."

Posada was jailed for nine years in Venezuela in connection with the
airliner attack, but was never convicted and escaped in 1985. In
Panama, he was convicted of plotting with three Cuban exiles to kill
Castro while the leader was visiting Panama in 2000. He later received
a presidential pardon and surfaced in Guatemala and Mexico before
heading to the United States.

He has said he was smuggled over the Mexican border into Texas and came
by bus to South Florida. However, the government argued that his
longtime friend and benefactor, Santiago Alvarez, smuggled him into the
country on his fishing boat. Alvarez is currently jailed on unrelated
weapons charges.

Posada received CIA training in explosives and sabotage at Fort
Benning, Georgia, after he helped organize the failed Bay of Pigs
operation to oust Castro in 1961. He has said he stopped working for
the CIA in 1968, but in the 1980s helped the U.S.-based secret Contra
supply network in Central America.

After his U.S. arrest, Posada was held in a New Mexico jail. He posted
$350,000 bond last month, prompting outrage from Venezuela and other
countries.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:21:53 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:21:53 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Briton Convicted in Bush-Blair "bomb Al-Jazeera" Memo Leak
Message-ID: <20070509162153.431d5b48@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_IRAQ_MEMO?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Briton Convicted in Bush-Blair Memo Leak

LONDON (AP) -- A British civil servant and an aide to a legislator
were convicted Wednesday of leaking a classified memo about a meeting
between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush in a breach of the
Official Secrets Act.

David Keogh, a cipher expert who was convicted on two counts, had
admitted passing on the secret memo about April 2004 talks between the
two leaders in which Bush purportedly referred to bombing Arab
broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Keogh was accused of passing the memo to his co-defendant, Leo
O'Connor, 44, who in turn handed it to his boss, Tony Clarke, then a
legislator who voted against Britain's decision to join the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Keogh, 50, told London's Central Criminal Court he felt strongly about
the memo, which he had to relay to diplomats overseas using secure
methods, and hoped it would come to wider attention.

"The main person in my mind was John Kerry, who at the time was
American candidate for the U.S. presidential election in 2004," Keogh
had testified.

He admitted holding "unfavorable" views on Bush, but said he did not
think publishing the document would hurt Britain's security or
international relations.

The Daily Mirror newspaper reported that the memo showed Blair arguing
against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha,
Qatar. The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's
suggestion was serious.

Blair said he had no information about any proposed U.S. action against
Al-Jazeera, and the White House called the claims "outlandish and
inconceivable."

The document, marked "Secret-Personal," was intended to be restricted
to senior officials. The memo's contents are considered so sensitive
that much of the trial was heard behind closed doors. Witnesses and
counsel did not refer to the contents in open court.

? 2007 The Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:22:41 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:22:41 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Mission Accomplished: Truck Bomb Kills 14 in Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509162241.3c53f664@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Truck Bomb Kills 14 in Iraq

By RAVI NESSMAN
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A suicide truck bomb ripped through the Interior
Ministry in the relatively peaceful Kurdish city of Irbil on Wednesday,
killing 14 people and wounding dozens, officials said.

Kurdish officials blamed al-Qaida-linked insurgents for the first major
attack in the regional capital in more than three years.

The bombing came as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad for
an unannounced visit that included meetings with top Iraqi government
officials, leaders of influential Iraqi factions and the senior U.S.
military commander.

About 200 supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took to
the streets in the southern city of Najaf in protest, carrying banners
reading: "The Iraq people reject Cheney's visit."

Cheney's trip was aimed at encouraging rival Iraqi factions to work
together to overcome their divisions in the conflict that has claimed
the lives of more than 3,370 American troops.

The U.S. military said an American soldier was killed and four others
were wounded Tuesday in a shooting attack in the volatile province of
Diyala, northeast of Baghdad.

The explosion in Irbil, 217 miles north of Baghdad, underscored how
even relatively safe areas of Iraq were not immune from the violence.

Irbil, the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region, had been
spared much of the sectarian violence wracking the rest of the country.

But attacks have been on the rise in southern and northern areas in
Iraq as Sunni and Shiite militants have fled a three-month-old security
crackdown in Baghdad and brought their brutal tactics with them.

The Interior Ministry building was badly damaged. Kurdish TV showed
piles of rubble and twisted metal beams. Rescue workers reached into
the wreckage to pull out one of the victims of the blast. Windows were
blown out down the street and wreckage was scattered nearly 100 yards
away.

The nearby security headquarters was also damaged.

Ahmed Nasruldin, 50, an employee at a local university, was riding to
work when the blast spun his bus around.

"The bus windows were smashed and my face and head were hurt by
shrapnel. A woman beside me fell on my side, her shoulder was broken,"
he said.

The regional minister for the interior, Karim Sinjari, said 14 people
were killed and 87 were wounded.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman blamed the attack on Ansar al-Sunnah, a
Sunni Arab insurgent group, and Ansar al-Islam, a mostly Kurdish
militant group with ties to al-Qaida in Iraq. Ansar al-Islam has been
blamed for a number of attacks, including attempts to assassinate
Kurdish officials.

Othman said authorities learned that insurgents were planning a large
attack a week ago when police arrested a militant cell in the town of
Sulaimaniyah.

"During questioning they confessed that were getting training lessons
in a neighboring country and that was Iran," he said.

The last major attack in Irbil took place Feb. 1, 2004, when twin
suicide bombers killed 109 people in two Kurdish party offices. Ansar
al-Sunnah claimed responsibility for that attack.

"Kurdistan is a safe region and this will have its effect on trade, and
companies will fear coming to this region," Othman said.

U.S. officials have expressed fears that Sunni insurgents led by
al-Qaida are carefully picking their targets to provoke retaliatory
violence to derail efforts to stabilize the country.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, said
Shiite-dominated Iran was providing support to some of the Sunni
insurgents. He said the military had credible intelligence to support
the allegation but did not elaborate.

"It's not all Sunni insurgents but rather we do know that there is a
direct awareness by Iranian intelligence officials that they are
providing support to some select Sunni insurgent elements," Caldwell
told reporters in Baghdad.

On Sunday, a U.S. general also said powerful armor-penetrating roadside
bombs believed to be of Iranian origin were turning up in the hands of
Sunni insurgents south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere in northern Iraq, gunmen killed four Iraqi journalists in a
drive-by shooting near the northern city of Kirkuk, police said. The
four journalists worked for the independent Raad media company, which
publishes several weekly newspapers and monthly magazines that deal
with politics, education and arts.

Ethnic tensions have risen in Kirkuk, 180 miles north of Baghdad, over
Kurdish demands for a referendum on incorporating the oil-rich city
into their autonomous region - a move opposed by many Arabs.

In Mosul, gunmen killed two members of the minority Yazidi religious
sect and wounded another in a drive-by shooting.

A car bomb also exploded near an Iraqi military checkpoint in Baghdad,
killing a civilian and wounding two soldiers, police said.

Gunmen also killed a car parts salesman in a drive-by shooting near his
shop in Suwayrah, 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Police found four decapitated heads in the Sabtiyah area north of
Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, health officials said. Police
found three other bodies as well.

Caldwell reported a "slight uptick" in the numbers of execution-style
killings usually blamed on so-called sectarian death squads led by the
Shiite militias, particularly the Mahdi Army loyal to al-Sadr.

The numbers had been declining as the militias agreed to lay low to
avoid confrontation with the Americans during the security crackdown
and an increase was further indication of restlessness among the
militants.

The predominantly Shiite southern areas also have seen a spike in
violence and unrest, blamed in part on militants who have fled a
security crackdown in Baghdad. The U.S.-led offensive is intended to
curb violence and allow the Shiite-led government some breathing room
to implement reforms, including proposals to empower minority Sunnis
Arabs and help end the insurgency. There has been little evidence,
though, of any movement toward those reforms.

The U.S. military, meanwhile, said two children were among five people
killed when a helicopter fired at militants operating an illegal
checkpoint and planting a roadside bomb near Mandali, a town on the
Iranian border 60 miles east of Baghdad.

Two suspected militants - identified as Abd al-Qader Dadoush and Wadeh
Kalifa Doudoush - also were killed, according to a statement.

The military said the cause of the civilian casualties was under
investigation. But it denied reports that a U.S. helicopter had fired
on an elementary school, killing seven students in Baqouba, the
provincial capital of Diyala that lies to the west of Mandali.

? 2007 The Associated Press.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:24:04 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:24:04 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Peace Action: Tell Congress to Stop Funding the War in Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509162404.2c553e2d@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Kevin Martin, Peace Action - May 9, 2007
<Peaceact at mail.democracyinaction.org>

Tell Congress to Stop Funding the War in Iraq

Dear Peace Action Supporter,

Instead of responding to President George "Endless War" Bush's veto of
the nearly $100 billion supplemental war funding bill with a proposal
to only fund the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops,
contractors and bases from Iraq, the House of Representatives will vote
Thursday or Friday on a plan to give Bush $40 billion now and force a
second vote in July on the balance of the money. The second vote will
be conditioned on "benchmarks" to be met by the Iraqi government.

Media reports will portray this as a crafty challenge to Bush by the
congressional leadership (though early reports are the Senate will not
take this approach, so a conference committee will presumably need to
be called in the next week or so to reconcile the House and Senate
bills).

Make no mistake, this is a vote to continue funding the war. Peace
Action has never supported a dime for this war, and we're not about to
start now.

There will be many more rounds in this legislative saga this summer,
and we will keep track of and work to impact the to-ing and fro-ing
between Bush and Congress.

But we need to remain clear and consistent in our demands to Congress,
and right now, today, is an opportunity to tell your representative you
want this war to end - period.

Please call your representative today (you can reach him or her through
the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121) and urge a vote against the
supplemental appropriations bill that continues funding the wars and
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.  While you're at it, call back two
more times and tell your Senators to bring our troops home for the
holidays.

After calling, visit http://peaceblog.wordpress.com to tell us how your
call went.

Thanks and Peace,

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:25:12 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:25:12 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] US Embassy Staff in Iraq to Wear flak Jackets, Helmets
Message-ID: <20070509162512.10651318@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP - May 9, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_GREEN_ZONE?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

U.S. Embassy Staff in Iraq to Wear Armor

By ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. Embassy has ordered its staff to wear flak
jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings
following an increase in mortar and rocket attacks against the heavily
protected Green Zone.

The order, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, was issued last
week after four Asian contract workers were killed during a barrage
into the Green Zone, a 3.5-square mile area along the west bank of the
Tigris River in the center of Baghdad. The area contains the U.S. and
British embassies and many key Iraqi government offices.

U.S. government employees who work outside of a "hardened structure"
such as the current embassy building or travel "a substantial distance
outdoors" must wear "personal protective equipment," meaning flak
jackets and helmets, the order said.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman confirmed the order was in effect until
further notice. But he refused to say more, citing security, and would
not allow his name to be published, citing embassy regulations.

Mortar and rocket attacks have occurred from time to time since the
early months of the U.S. presence in Iraq. But the recent attacks have
raised new concern since they are occurring despite the U.S.-led
crackdown, which has put thousands more American soldiers on the
streets in attempts to restore order.

It's not clear what groups have been responsible for the recent attacks
on the Green Zone. Some barrages have been launched from
Shiite-dominated areas, but the Green Zone is also within range of
Sunni militant strongholds.

? 2007 The Associated Press. 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:26:09 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:26:09 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Cheney: Iraq Remains a Dangerous Place DUH!
Message-ID: <20070509162609.5bc89510@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via San Francisco Chronicle - May 9, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/05/09/international/i085248D95.DTL

Cheney: Iraq Remains a Dangerous Place

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

(05-09) 11:57 PDT BAGHDAD, (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said
Wednesday that Iraq remains a dangerous place, a point underscored by a
thunderous explosion that rattled windows in the U.S. Embassy where he
spent most of the day.

After talks with Iraqi military and political officials, the vice
president said Iraq's leaders seem to have a better sense now that they
need to do more to reconcile sectarian and political differences.

"I think they recognize it's in their interests as well as ours to make
progress on the political front," Cheney said.

"They do believe we are making progress but we have a long way to go,"
the vice president said.

Cheney spoke less than an hour after an explosion could be heard in the
U.S. Embassy where he spent most of the day. Windows rattled and
reporters covering the vice president were briefly moved to a more
secure area.

Said Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride: "His meeting was not
disturbed and he was not moved."

Asked about security in Baghdad, Cheney told reporters, "I have to rely
on reports, because obviously I spent the day here basically in our
embassy in the Green Zone."

But he said based on conversations he had throughout the day, Iraqi
leaders felt that sectarian violence was "down fairly dramatically."

"I think everybody recognizes there still are some security problems,
security threats, no question about it," Cheney said.

In Washington, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said President Bush
wanted Cheney to travel to Baghdad to press upon Iraqi leaders the need
to quickly pursue reconciliation measures and meet the benchmarks set
by them and Washington.

"This gives an opportunity at a very high level for this message to be
delivered," Bartlett said.

The White House also said Bush would veto any bill drafted by House
Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer
months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said such short-term funding
would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to
repair and replace equipment.

The blast in Baghdad struck about 6:25 p.m. local time, just half an
hour before Cheney's wrap-up news conference. It appeared to strike in
the vicinity of the heavily fortified Green Zone, which contains the
U.S. and British embassies and many Iraqi government buildings.

Earlier, Cheney met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The
prime minister said they discussed "practical steps ... to support our
efforts working on both the security front as well as the domestic
political issues."

Al-Maliki is coming under increasing pressure from Washington to
demonstrate progress in easing sectarian violence, and Cheney's
unannounced visit to Iraq was depicted by U.S. officials as an attempt
to press al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders to do more to achieve
reconciliation among factions.

Cheney said that much still must be done by Iraq to reconcile
differences.

"I do sense today that there is a greater awareness on the part of
these Iraqi officials I talked to of the importance of their working
together to resolve these issues in a timely fashion," he said.

Cheney also said that, while he didn't want to butt in on domestic
legislative issues, he did make Iraqi leaders aware of U.S. concerns
about talk of a two-month summer recess. With many pending important
issues, including how to share oil revenues, "any undue delay would be
difficult to explain," Cheney said.

Echoing officials in Washington, Cheney rejected Democratic proposals
that would provide only short-term money to pay for war efforts.

Cheney said efforts to restrict funds resulted in the first Bush veto
and that the administration still believes that spending for operations
in Iraq should "not contain conditions that limit the flexibility of
our commanders on the ground in Iraq or interferes with the president's
constitutional prerogatives."

Appearing before reporters with Cheney, Gen. David Petraeus, commander
of coalition forces in Iraq, cited progress on the ground in reducing
sectarian violence, especially in volatile Anbar Province. Still, he
said, he still believes that the conflict in Iraq will continue to
require a substantial U.S. commitment.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:27:05 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:27:05 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Alliance built on a commandeered house in Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509162705.4db27c83@viola.tamara-b.org>

The International Herald Tribune - May 7, 2007
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5612085


Alliance built on a commandeered house in Iraq

By Kirk Semple

JUWAYBA, Iraq: Nearly every day, the sheik stops by the villa that was
once his home, but is now an American garrison. Sometimes he comes with
tips about the insurgency, or with news of political developments in
this rural village near the Euphrates River.

But mostly he comes to ask for his house back.

"To take my home in this way is not right," the sheik, Hamed Moussa
Khalaf al-Duleimi, said one afternoon in April, putting a wrinkled,
bronzed hand on the knee of the 31-year-old American commander, Captain
Chris Calihan.

Sheik Duleimi, 74, has not lived here since January, when marines on a
counterinsurgency mission burst in late one night, announced that they
were turning his house into a military base and evicted him. He sent
his family to a rented apartment in Falluja while he moved into a son's
home just across the road.

Most Iraqis, particularly here in the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province,
regard the Americans as occupiers who came uninvited to Iraq and who,
in their rush to remove Saddam Hussein, may have damaged the country
beyond repair.

But the prevailing view is also a deeply conflicted one, because most
people here now want the Americans to stay, at least until some
semblance of stability is restored.

"It's not just my house," Sheik Duleimi continued. "They have taken
Iraq. They have taken everything."

On a recent afternoon, the sheik, as usual, showed up at the garrison
gate unannounced and was escorted in by a soldier.

He swept past Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees, his long dark robe
and spotless white headdress billowing around him, and through the
battered marble portico, now a bunker of sandbags. Calihan, who
commands Company B, First Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, First
Infantry Division, was waiting for him in the grand foyer.

For security reasons, that is as far as the sheik has been allowed to
go. In the shadowy world of tribal politics here in Anbar, it is almost
impossible for the Americans to know who is friend and who is foe.

"May God bless you with goodness," the sheik said, using a traditional
Arabic greeting, as he settled into an armchair that had once been his.

Despite the sheik's antipathy toward the American enterprise in Iraq,
his visits with the captain are cordial and have become something of a
self-affirming ritual for both men. The regular contact helps the
captain maintain at least the tacit cooperation of the community's
leaders in the fight against the hard-core Sunni resistance.

The sheik, meanwhile, can remind the American whose house this really
is.

The interaction captures the uneasiness of the alliance forged all over
Iraq between the American military and the Iraqi leadership, a mix of
cooperation and barely concealed antagonism.

On this particular visit, the sheik brought a cousin to meet the
captain. The cousin hoped to recover several weapons the marines had
confiscated during their operation in January. But the cousin had no
record of the serial numbers.

"The guns were old, from our fathers' generation," Sheik Duleimi said,
worrying a strand of amber-colored beads between his fingers.

But without the serial numbers, Calihan said, he could do nothing. The
sheik's cousin thanked the captain, and, escorted by a soldier, left
the two men to talk.

The sheik asked if he could take a quick walk around the house and
videotape it "for myself." Calihan laughed. He had heard a version of
this request many times. "I can't let you tape the house for security
reasons," he said.

Both men were smiling: They know how the conversation goes.

The sheik said he was not receiving enough compensation for his house ?
the military was giving him about $2,000 a year in rent. He asked about
the claim he had filed for $40,000 worth of lost furniture; the captain
said it was still under review.

As they spoke, the sheik's eyes flicked around the room, tracking the
movement of the soldiers and taking in the alterations and damage: the
thick electrical cables run through holes in the walls, scuff marks on
the plaster, captured weapons ? including a rusty surface-to-air
missile launcher ? hung like trophies. All the windows had been punched
out, filled with sandbags and covered with plywood.

Most of the 11 rooms, including the kitchen, had been converted to
barracks with bunk beds and cots. A company of Iraqi Army soldiers,
most of them Shiites, had moved into one wing. The garden of fruit
trees and flowers was now a muddy parking lot for armored vehicles.

"I have patience in life," the sheik said, his voice worn from years of
smoking. "It's not easy, but I have patience. From Baghdad to Qaim,
there is not a house like my house. Nobody spent money like I did."

"It's a beautiful house," the captain replied evenly. "You're kind for
letting us stay here." This, too, was a familiar refrain ? and a
fiction they both perpetuated. It allowed the sheik to retain some
dignity.

Called away on other business, the captain left the sheik under guard
to ensure that he did not wander off.

The sheik said he began building the house in 1991 and was nearly done
when the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003. Then the Americans, he said,
helped usher in a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, which he blamed
for inflaming sectarian tension throughout Iraq and attracting foreign
jihadists to Anbar.

The Americans "destroyed everything in Iraq," he said.

But he opposes an immediate withdrawal of American forces. First, he
said, he wanted to see the advent of a new government with no sectarian
prejudices. "Someday, the Americans will leave," he said. "But they
have to fix the situation."

The sheik glanced at the sleepy young soldier guarding him. He was
slumped in a chair, nibbling on a Pop-Tart. "If the American soldiers
are done with their mission, I want them to leave the house," the sheik
continued, an edge to his voice. "The American forces destroyed this
house. My house is raped."

It appeared that the captain would be delayed indefinitely, so Sheik
Duleimi decided to leave. On his way out, he ducked into a big room
where he had once received guests. It had a cantilevered ceiling,
recessed lighting, a chandelier. It was now occupied by two dozen Iraqi
soldiers. As he entered, several soldiers stood up in respect.

"In the past, there were many guests who came here to visit me," the
sheik said wistfully, looking past the soldiers. "If there were any
problems with members of the tribe, we solved it here."

As he turned to leave, he paused. "Take care of my house," he murmured
to the soldiers, then shuffled out of the room, his sandals scraping
against the tiles he had laid.

(C) The International Herald Tribune



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:28:17 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:28:17 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
Message-ID: <20070509162817.010ca44f@viola.tamara-b.org>

Alternet - May 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51624

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, 

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the
members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of
their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling
on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to
Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist
Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to
the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the
first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short
of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi
parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at
times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would
present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi
parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under
Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a
majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what
will happen next is unclear.

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines
and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own.
The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or
supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is
it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for
Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to
hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the
United States and Britain.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's
resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are
the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of
nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by
Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.

By "separatists," we mean groups who oppose a unified Iraq with a
strong central government; key figures like Maliki of the Dawa party,
Shia leader Abdul Aziz Al-Hakeem of the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq ("SCIRI"), Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi of the
Sunni Islamic Party, President Jalal Talabani -- a Kurd -- and Masoud
Barzani, president of the Kurdish Autonomous Region, favor partitioning
Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a
weak central administration in Baghdad. (The partition plan is also
favored by several congressional Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Biden of
Delaware.)

Iraq's separatists also oppose setting a timetable for ending the U.S.
occupation, preferring the addition of more American troops to secure
their regime. They favor privatizing Iraq's oil and gas and
decentralizing petroleum operations and revenue distribution.

But public opinion is squarely with Iraq's nationalists. According to a
poll by the University of Maryland's Project on International Public
Policy Attitudes, majorities of all three of Iraq's major
ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central
government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that
large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United
States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of
Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate
in the short term as a result.

That's nationalism, and it remains the central if unreported motivation
for many Iraqis, both within the nascent government and on the streets.

While sectarian fighting at the neighborhood and community level has
made life unlivable for millions of Iraqis, Iraqi nationalism --
portrayed as a fiction by supporters of the invasion -- supercedes
sectarian loyalties at the political level. A group of secular, Sunni
and Shia nationalists have long voted together on key issues, but so
far have failed to join forces under a single banner.

That may be changing. Reached by phone last week, nationalist leader
Saleh Al-Mutlaq, of the National Dialogue Front, said, "We're doing our
best to form this united front and announce it within the next few
weeks." The faction would have sufficient votes to block any measure
proposed by the Maliki government. Asked about the Americans' reaction
to the growing power of the nationalists, Mutlaq said, "We're trying
our best to reach out to the U.S. side, but to no avail."

That appears to be a trend. Iraqi nationalists have attempted again and
again to forge relationships with members of Congress, the State
Department, the Pentagon and the White House but have found little
interest in dialogue and no support. Instead, key nationalists like
al-Sadr have been branded as "extremists," "thugs" and "criminals."

That's a tragic missed opportunity; the nationalists are likely Iraq's
best hope for real and lasting reconciliation among the country's
warring factions. They are the only significant political force focused
on rebuilding a sovereign, united and independent Iraq without
sectarian and ethnic tensions or foreign meddling -- from either the
West or Iran. Hassan Al-Shammari, the head of Al-Fadhila bloc in the
Iraqi parliament, said this week, "We have a peace plan, and we're
trying to work with other nationalist Iraqis to end the U.S. and
Iranian interventions, but we're under daily attacks and there's huge
pressure to destroy our peace mission."

A sovereign and unified Iraq, free of sectarian violence, is what
George Bush and Tony Blair claim they want most. The most likely reason
that the United States and Britain have rebuffed those Iraqi
nationalists who share those goals is that the nationalists oppose
permanent basing rights and the privatization of Iraq's oil sector. The
administration, along with their allies in Big Oil, has pressed the
Iraqi government to adopt an oil law that would give foreign
multinationals a much higher rate of return than they enjoy in other
major oil producing countries and would lock in their control over what
George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades.

Al-Shammari said this week: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass
this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it
to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise
up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the
next day." In the Basrah province, where his Al-Fadhila party dominates
the local government, Al-Shammari's fellow nationalists have been
attacked repeatedly by separatists for weeks, while British troops in
the area remained in their barracks.

The nationalists in parliament will now press their demands for
withdrawal. At the same time, the emerging nationalist bloc is holding
hearings in which officials from the defense and interior ministries
have been grilled about just what impediments to building a functional
security force remain and when the Iraqi police and military will be
able to take over from foreign troops. Both ministries are believed to
be heavily infiltrated by both nationalist (al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) and
separatist militias (the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade).

The coming weeks and months will be crucial to Iraq's future. The
United States, in pushing for more aggressive moves against Iraqi
nationalists and the passage of a final oil law, is playing a dangerous
game. Iraqi nationalists reached in Baghdad this week say they are
beginning to lose hope of achieving anything through the political
process because both the Iraqi government and the occupation
authorities are systematically bypassing the Iraqi parliament where
they're in the majority. If they end up quitting the political process
entirely, that will leave little choice but to oppose the occupation by
violent means.

[Raed Jarrar is Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service
Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. ]

? 2007 Independent Media Institute.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:32:12 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:32:12 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Women Under Attack: The Talibanization of Iraq
Message-ID: <20070509163212.776057af@viola.tamara-b.org>

Ms Magazine via Alternet - May 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51621

The Talibanization of Iraq

By Bay Fang
Ms. Magazine

Yanar Mohammed returned to Iraq from Canada in 2003 because she thought
the veil of tyranny had finally been lifted from her native country.
She and two other women started the Organization for Women's Freedom in
Iraq (OWFI), with the goal of fighting for women's rights.

But since those days, her OWFI cofounders have fled the country, and
Mohammed herself has received numerous death threats for her work.
OWFI, one of the few remaining nongovernmental organizations left in
Iraq, has been forced to operate in complete secrecy.

"We live in a state of continuous fear -- if our hair shows on the
street, if we're not veiled enough at work," says Mohammed, 47. "It's a
new experience for women in Iraq. After four years, it's turned into
Afghanistan under the Taliban."

Throughout much of recent history, Iraq was one of the most progressive
countries in the Middle East for women. These rights diminished
somewhat after the 1991 Gulf War, partly because of Saddam Hussein's
new embrace of Islamic tribal law as a way of consolidating power, and
partly due to the United Nations' sanctions against the regime. Still,
as bad as it was during Saddam's time, women's well-being and security
have sharply deteriorated since the fall of his regime.

Furthermore, extremists in both Sunni and Shiite areas have taken over
pockets of the country and imposed their own Taliban-like laws on the
population. Women college students are stopped and harassed on
campuses, so going to school is a risk. Islamist "misery gangs"
regularly patrol the streets in many areas, beating and harassing women
who are not "properly" dressed or behaved.

Zainab Salbi also grew up in Iraq, experiencing firsthand the
oppression of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime as the daughter of
Saddam's pilot. When Hussein was toppled, she too began traveling back
to Iraq to work for women's rights.

"The violence during Saddam's time was ... committed by the government,
Saddam's family, people in power. Now the violence is ... being
committed by everyone around you," says Salbi, who founded the group
Women for Women International in 1993. That organization now operates
in nine countries, including Iraq, to help women survivors of war and
civil strife rebuild their lives.

But today, most of her friends have left the country. Women for Women
International keeps its locations secret and takes all sorts of
security precautions. Salbi herself stopped traveling back to her
homeland two years ago. "At first I was able to say I knew 10, 20 women
who had been assassinated," she says. "Now, I've lost count. ... They
are pharmacists, professors, reporters, activists ..."

"Often, the first salvo in a war for theocracy is a systematic attack
on women and minorities who represent or demand an alternative or
competing vision for society," wrote Yifat Susskind, Iraq coordinator
of the international human- and women's-rights organization MADRE, in a
report she authored on "gender apartheid" in Iraq. "These initial
targets are usually the most marginalized and, therefore, most
vulnerable members of society, and once they are dealt with,
fundamentalist forces then proceed towards less vulnerable targets."

In some parts of Baghdad, like the Shiite slum of Sadr City, religious
courts following strict interpretations of sharia law have become the
de facto authority. "We used to have a government that was almost
secular. It had one dictator," says Yanar Mohammed. "Now we have almost
60 dictators -- Islamists who think of women as forces of evil. This is
what is called the democratization of Iraq."

Women make up 31 percent of the Iraq National Assembly, but nearly half
of the women parliamentarians ran on the list of the Shiite alliance --
the group with major U.S. support -- and they have had to toe the
conservative line of their party. Some of the women parliamentarians
could be forces for moderation and progress, but the dangerous
political environment of targeted assassinations has prevented them
from being very outspoken.

Increased violence against women in the streets has had a parallel
effect on the increase in domestic violence, including "honor"
killings. In response to the rise in domestic violence, OWFI has set up
women's shelters in four cities around the country. If the shelters
cannot protect a woman, an "underground railroad" network helps her
escape the country and set up a new life.

For those remaining in Iraq, a recent survey by the United Nations
Development Programme shows one-third live in poverty and 5 percent in
extreme poverty -- a sharp deterioration from before the 2003 invasion.
Women generally have a harder time finding work in Iraq, and years of
war have left an estimated half million widows in the country,
according to OWFI.

The few women activists still in Iraq feel that time is running out.
"Both violence and progress often start with women," says Salbi. "A
classic example was with the Taliban -- they started with violence
against women, and everyone looked the other way ... but eventually
everyone suffered. We need to take this moment to raise the world's
attention. Iraqi women are holding up, but they can't hold it on their
own -- they need us to help." [...]

For the rest of this story, get the Spring issue of Ms. magazine,
available now on newsstands or by subscription at
http://www.msmagazine.com. 

For more information on organizations assisting women in Iraq, and how
you can help, visit the websites of: 

Global Fund for Women, 
http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/

MADRE
http://www.alternet.org/story/51621/www.madre.org

Women for Women International.
http://www.alternet.org/story/51621/www.womenforwomen.org/iraq.htm

? 2007 Independent Media Institute. 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:35:20 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:35:20 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Support for Caretakers Missing From Mother's Day
Message-ID: <20070509163520.018e08c0@viola.tamara-b.org>

Womens eNews -May 9, 2007
http://www.womensenews.org

COMMENTARY 

Support for Caretakers Missing From Mother's Day

By Susan Feiner and Drucilla Barker

(WOMENSENEWS)--The news media loves stories about highly educated
mothers opting out of rewarding careers to stay at home with their
young children.

Anecdotal evidence unsupported by serious research is also constantly
drumming home the idea that women consider themselves the best
providers of child care. For example, a 2006 Salary.com survey of what
mothers do "on the job" leads with the headline "Dream Job: Stay at
Home Mom." Although the survey claims that equal numbers of working and
stay-at-home mothers participated, quotes from the happy, at-home
mothers dominate the report.

For instance, working mothers are "horrified" at the thought of hiring
strangers to care for their children, they believe that mother's care
is "priceless" and that motherhood is the "greatest job in the world."
It's easy to stay on message: Women must choose between work and family.

But the opposite message is sent to low-income mothers.

The recent debate over the welfare-to-work provisions of Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families--or welfare--captures this difference.
Congress did not debate the best means to provide even minimally
adequate day care to the children of single parents. Instead they
wondered whether or not the required hours of paid work should be
increased!

Why does popular sentiment portray some mothers as virtuous when they
drop out of the labor force to care for their families, while others
are responsible only if they work for pay outside the home?

Look to history.

14th Century Debate

The notion that children need the undivided attention of their mothers
harks back at least to the 14th century when the Venetian-born French
scholar Christine de Pizan (1365 to 1430) defied the edicts of powerful
men and put pen to paper in "The Book of the City of the Ladies"
criticizing male opposition to women seeking life beyond motherhood.
This kicked off a 300-year debate known as "Querelle des femmes."

The current discussions, however--in which mothers who can afford to
stay home are often encouraged to do so--can be more directly traced to
a late 19th century vision of domesticity in which men specialized in
full-time breadwinning and women specialized in full-time caretaking.
This idealized household division of labor was generally impossible to
attain. Few men earned a high enough wage to support a non-working
wife; many mothers were unmarried, widowed or deserted and domestic
servants were not able to live with their own families.

The propriety of this household arrangement was widely shared among the
elite. It is ironic to find that some of the most ardent supporters of
free markets made an exception in the case of women; they persistently
called for laws restricting a mother's paid employment.

Radical class and race differences in earnings meant that only affluent
households could achieve this idealized arrangement.

Households with dependent spouses were presented in magazines,
newspapers and movies as both desirable and the norm.

But households in which both adults worked for pay were viewed as
deviant.

Same Reality Gap

This same reality gap about working parents exists today.

Stephanie Coontz shows in her 2005 book, "Marriage, A History," that
U.S. women have always worked alongside their husbands on farms, in
shops and in factories.

It was not until the 1950s that anything like a majority of American
families featured a "traditional" breadwinning father and a
stay-at-home mother tending to the kids. By the end of the 1950s many
more women were working. And today--hand-wringing over working mothers
aside--75 percent of U.S. mothers are in the paid labor force.

Meanwhile, in the first decade of the 21st century, as in the 14th, the
either-or alternatives society presents to women have no analog in the
lives of men.

Who would waste time urging men to abandon their careers, become
financially dependent and work in near isolation from other adults so
they can experience the joys of changing diapers, doing the laundry and
showing off squeaky clean plates?

The persistence of the debate and controversy only aggravates the
stresses that many families feel about how to assure their children's
safety and well-being when they are at work.

High Costs of Care

Most U.S. parents (except those whose children are in the
extraordinarily successful but notoriously underfunded Head Start
program) pay the full costs of pre-kindergarten day care. A 2006 report
by a national child care think tank found that average child-care fees
for one infant range from $3,803 to $13,480 per year. In 42 states
tuition at four-year public universities costs less than full-time
infant care.

Yes, the Bush administration did raise the child-care tax credit. Even
so, in 38 states families earning under $18,000 will spend 30 percent
or more of their annual income for infant care. Child-care fees for a
family with a 4-year-old average $3,016 to $9,628 a year. In 47 states
the average annual child-care fees for preschoolers exceeds 10 percent
of the state's median household income.

Adding insult to injury is the lack of any national provision for paid
parental leave. Equally as troubling is the fact that U.S. child-care
providers earn an average wage of only $8.68 an hour or about $18,060 a
year. Consequently many individuals holding these jobs do not earn much
above the 2004 federal poverty line ($15,670) for a family of three.

Custom and the short supply of affordable high quality child care have
long forced women--even when they worked for pay--to feel torn about
careers and parental obligations. But this can change.

Let's take off our rose-colored glasses this Mother's Day and recognize
the actual work done in the home.

When we take as our starting point the reality that caring work is not
terribly different from any other work--it involves knowledge, skills
and interpersonal behaviors that can be taught and learned; its quality
and effectiveness depend on the skills of the caregiver, not on their
status as a biological or adoptive parent--we will be that much closer
to a Mother's Day worth celebrating. Gender equality requires the
social provision of this socially necessary labor.

[Susan Feiner is professor of women's studies and economics at the
University of Southern Maine in Portland. Beginning in July, Drucilla
Barker will become the director of the Women's Studies Program at the
University of South Carolina, Columbia. Their most recent book,
"Liberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work and
Globalization," was named a Choice Outstanding Academic Title.]

For more information:

"Work-Life Imbalance Acute for Hourly Wage Parents": -
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2694/

Nation's Network of Child Care Resource and Referral, "Breaking the
Piggy Bank: Parents and the High Price of Child Care" - [Adobe PDF
format]: - (http://www.naccrra.org/docs/policy/price_report_summary.pdf

"Microcredit? Spare Us the Praise for a Panacea"
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3097/

Copyright 2006 Women's eNews. 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:38:25 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:38:25 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] The Hard Bigotry of the New York Times
Message-ID: <20070509163825.75661805@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Ed Pearl - May 9, 2007

AfterDowning Street 
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22231


The Hard Bigotry of the New York Times

By David Swanson

A New York Times editorial on May 7th is titled "The
Soft Bigotry of Iraq," and begins:

"Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most
Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up
President Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill."

Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial or corrupt
corporate interests, the New York Times pretends to be
writing only about Republicans, while building into its
editorial the assumption that the Democrats, too, must
retreat in the face of a veto. The Democrats, as we all
need to be constantly reminded, are in the majority,
yet the Times' editorial arrives at this as its
penultimate sentence:

"The final version of the spending bill should include
explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even
if Mr. Bush won't let Congress back them up with a
clear timetable for America's withdrawal."

"Mr. Bush" won't LET Congress pass a bill demanded by
the vast majority of Americans? Why, because he might
veto it again? If he vetoes enough of these war
spending bills, Americans will get what they wanted
anyway: he'll have to end the war.

The New York Times clearly believes that Americans'
attention spans have been reduced to zero, and that we
can now forget things even while they are still
happening. Bush just vetoed a bill because it included
a meaningless non-binding request to end the war while
leaving a huge military presence behind and stealing
most of the oil. The bill was miles behind the public's
demand for peace, but Bush vetoed it, and demanded a
bill free of even the nonbinding request to end the
war. Immediately, the chant arose from the media: Stand
Up to Bush! Don't back down! Send him a bill with no
request to end the war!

The criteria for "standing up" were instantly redefined
to include "benchmarks", such as oil theft, but no
"timeline" to end the war, only "timelines" that might
be imposed on those insufferable Iraqis who are
handling the occupation of their own country so poorly.

That's right, the way to stand up to Bush, and not back
down, and be tough, and stand strong, is to impose
demands on Bush's victims. Only in America.

The New York Times' editorial continues: "It is now
essential that the revised version not back away from
demanding that Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki, finally deliver on the crucial national
reconciliation measures he has spent the last year
dodging. And it must make clear that American support
for his failures - and Mr. Bush's - is fast waning."

So, now, over four years into a criminal war supported
by fewer that a quarter of Americans, Congress should
pass LEGISLATION in order to communicate that Americans
may soon cease supporting the failures of Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki? I'd like to see a poll on what percentage of
Americans even know who Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is. Then
I'd like to see a poll on whether Americans would
prefer for Congress to

A.-pass a bill to make clear that their support for
Maliki's and Bush's failures is waning; or B.-pass a
bill to cut off the money and end the war.

The New York Times goes on to claim that some even
unlikelier beliefs are commonly held: "What Mr. Maliki
needs to do to slow Iraq's bloodletting is no mystery.
Iraq's security forces must stop siding with the Shiite
militias. Iraq's oil revenue must be apportioned
fairly. Anti-Baathist laws now used to deny Sunni Arabs
employment and political opportunities must be
rewritten to target only those responsible for the
crimes of the Saddam Hussein era."

The bloodletting is generated first and foremost by the
occupation of Maliki's country by a foreign army.
Therefore, the first thing he needs to do is to demand
that the occupiers leave. Rewriting the laws of a
puppet government at this point is not going to restore
order. And "oil revenue apportioned fairly" is code for
giving Exxon Mobil and other U.S. and British
corporations control over most of the oil. This has
been explained in an op-ed printed by the New York
Times in March:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19606

It's explained well here as well:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22108

But this recent article by the New York Times buried
the lead at the bottom of the story:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22103

The May 7th editorial then takes a turn into irony:

"Without these steps, Mr. Maliki and his allies cannot
even minimally claim to be a real national government.
With them, there is at least a chance that Iraqis can
muster the strength to contain the chaos when, as is
inevitable, American forces begin to leave."

A puppet government in an occupied land can only be
legitimate if it obeys its master. True enough. But why
must the New York Times agree so wholeheartedly with
Fox News that Americans should only reduce the
occupation after Iraqis have shown they can contain the
insurgency? The Americans can't contain it. It's going
from bad to worse. And were the occupation to go away,
so would most of the insurgency. There must be some
grim humor intended and secret laughter resulting from
this policy of telling the Iraqi people that we will
occupy them until their government has shown that it
can contain the resistance to our occupation after the
occupation is gone.

Then the New York Times goes after Bush for not
demanding more of his victims:

"Mr. Bush acknowledges that these benchmarks are
important. Yet he refuses to insist, or let Congress
insist, that Baghdad achieve them or face real
consequences. Each time Baghdad fails a test, Mr. Bush
lowers his requirements and postpones his target dates
- the kind of destructive denial Mr. Bush called, in
another context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Consider the Baghdad security drive. Last week, The
Washington Post reported that Mr. Maliki's office had
helped instigate the firing of senior Iraqi security
officers who moved aggressively against a powerful
Shiite militia. After betting so many American lives,
the combat readiness of the United States Army and his
own remaining credibility on this bloody push to secure
the capital, it is a mystery why Mr. Bush would allow
the Iraqi leader to undermine it."

So, even while we pretend that the Iraqis have their
own government, Bush is understood to be responsible
for what that government does or does not do. Thus we
can stand up to Bush by criticizing dark-skinned
Arab-speaking Muslims, and avoid the whole
unpleasantness of ending the war.

"Then," the New York Times continues, "there is the
endless soap opera that is one day supposed to produce
a fair share-out of Iraqi oil revenues. The Bush
administration prematurely popped champagne corks in
February when Mr. Maliki's cabinet agreed on a
preliminary draft. Now, in May, there is no share-out,
no legislation and even the preliminary agreement is
starting to unravel. The leading Sunni Arab party in
Mr. Maliki's cabinet is now threatening to withdraw its
ministers, declaring that it has 'lost hope' that the
Iraqi leader will deal seriously with Sunni concerns."

"Share-out" is a stock market term meaning "hand over
the damn oil." The adjective "fair" in this instance is
used to mean "handed over primarily to white
English-speaking Christians."

There is nothing "soft" about the bigotry that allows
the belief that Iraqis cannot best run their own
country and manage their own resources.

The Times' editorial concludes: "Mr. Bush, by contrast,
sees 'signs of hope' in the Baghdad security situation,
urges Americans to give his failed policies more time
and seems offended that Congress wants to impose
accountability on Baghdad and the White House. The
final version of the spending bill should include
explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even
if Mr. Bush won't let Congress back them up with a
clear timetable for America's withdrawal. If Mr. Maliki
and Mr. Bush still don't get it, Congress will have to
enact new means of enforcement, and back that up with a
veto-proof majority."

Again, this is not true. If Congress passes only bills
to end the war, and no bills providing new money to
extend it, the war will eventually end (following the
illegal use of other funds, impeachment, and removal
from office) whether the bill is signed or not.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:41:05 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:41:05 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] FAIR: Democratic Excess? Too Many Candidates for the Media
Message-ID: <20070509164105.1a2cfe75@viola.tamara-b.org>

FAIR - May 8, 2007
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3098

Media Advisory 

Democratic Excess

Media find too many candidatesat only one debate

In the wake of the first candidates' debate among the Democratic
contenders for the White House (4/26/07), many media outlets and
commentators seemed annoyed that the so-called "second-tier" candidates
are even bothering to run. Oddly, similar complaints about a surplus of
GOP contenders in the first Republican debate (5/3/07) were hard to
find in the corporate media.

As FAIR noted recently (4/26/07), early election polls are a terrible
way to predict the likely nominee. So using them to determine which
candidates are viable and which campaigns are merely a nuisance is
unwise. What's more, because the electoral process is about more than
who takes office, but is also a chance to debate national priorities
and policies, it's healthy to allow as many legitimate candidates as
possible a chance to make their case directly to the voters.

That's not the way it's seen by many Washington pundits, thoughat least
when it comes to Democrats. The Washington Post's David Broder declared
(4/27/07) that "six of the eight declared candidates" at the Democrats'
debate in South Carolina "showed themselves to be both substantive and
direct in their responses." That left twoformer Sen. Mike Gravel of
Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohiowho did not measure up to
Broder's standards, as they "provided a counterpoint of left-wing ideas
that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from [Delaware Sen. Joe]
Biden and [Illinois Sen. Barack] Obama."

"Left wing" ideas such as Kucinich and Gravel's opposition to the Iraq
War are shared by a majority of the U.S. population; it's telling that
this is insufficient to make them "serious" for Broder. By contrast,
after the Republican debate, the Post reported (5/4/07) that "the three
candidates who top most national pollsGiuliani, McCain and Romney made
forceful presentations, but those struggling for attention also
generally acquitted themselves well." In response to three of the
candidates expressing support for creationism, the Post noted their
public support (5/6/07): "But a look at public polling on the issue
reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that
belief."

Describing the Democratic debate, the Los Angeles Times argued
(4/27/07) that the wide debate format "allowed each candidate a total
of 11 minutes to talk giving Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom have a
negligible showing in polls, equal time with the front-runners, which
they used to take aggressive hits at [New York Sen. Hillary] Clinton
and Obama." At this point, more than half a year before the first
actual voters have a chance to weigh in, poll numbers should not be the
prime determiner of who gets to participate in a debate; even so,
Kucinich and Gravel are in what amounts to a statistical dead heat in
many polls with candidates treated more seriously by the corporate
media, like Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

While Kucinich and Gravel were asked only eight questions in the April
26 debate, Biden received 11 and Richardson 10nearly as many as the 12
each answered by "front-runners" Clinton, Obama and former vice
presidential candidate John Edwards. This despite the fact Kucinich was
tied with Richardson and Biden in the latest Pew poll (4/18-22/07) and
actually beat Biden in the latest Fox poll (4/17-18/07).

After the GOP debate, the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of
the wide debate (5/4/07): "The breadth of small-fries in the field
makes it hard to define a coherent Republican message, but that's a
sign of intellectual ferment in the troubled GOP. The silver lining for
a party on the verge of the wilderness is the need to go 'off message'
and entertain a variety of ideas."

CNN's Larry King blurted out (4/26/07) to his panel of political
journalists discussing the Democrats: "We were talking around in
agreement. I mean, a lot of people were saying, 'Boy, if Dennis
Kucinich were 6'2.'" It's unlikely that the media would give Kucinich
different treatment if he would only manage to grow a few inches; the
disdainful treatment of Kucinich and Gravel seems motivated by their
politics.

As CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer complained (4/29/07): "Is it
fair to have all these people out there? I mean, it is a free country.
Everybody wants to run for president should have that opportunity and
does. But clearly, somebody like senatorformer Sen. Mike Gravel is not
going to be a serious candidate, and yet he gets equal time, and... I
would just say it honestly: In my view, it just wastes time."

ABC host George Stephanopoulos sounded a similar note (4/29/07):
"Setting aside Mike Gravel, who provided the comic relief, everyone
else seemed credible, seemed intelligent, seemed like they knew what
they were talking about. That has to bring the front-runners down a
bit." CNN's Howard Kurtz seemed annoyed (4/29/07) that Gravel was being
paid any attention at all by the media: "He was sort of a bomb thrower
on that stage. Why should a network allow somebody with, say, zero
chance of becoming president into these debates?"

Expressing precisely the sort of cynicism that turns millions of
Americans off the electoral process, Washington Post reporter Chris
Cillizza responded to Kurtz that money, not popular support, ought to
be all that mattered: "The reality is...two candidates raise about $25
million, one candidate raises $100,000 or less. At some point you need
to say, this is not us making a subjective decision. This is an
objective analysis of what it takes to win a campaign." (NY1, Time
Warner's local cable news channel, actually instituted such a debate
policy, refusing to hold a debate for the New York Democratic Senate
primary because Hillary Clinton's opponent Jonathan Tasini, who had
reached 13 percent in the polls, hadn't raised enough moneyFAIR Action
Alert, 8/4/06.)

Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, though, dissented: "Could I argue
that...that same criterion would be used to eliminate Dennis Kucinich,
who on the other hand does in fact have a coherent worldview that
represents a significant segment of the Democratic party base and,
therefore, he should be on the [stage]."

Some pundits made the political argument more explicit. After the
debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Obama campaign adviser David
Axelrod (4/26/07): "Do you think that [Obama] was hampered by the fact
that you had a radical critique going on of all mainstream Democrats
and elected officials by Mike Gravel, and to some extent, by the
congressman from Cleveland, that it made your guy seem more like he was
part of the establishment than he would like to have seemed?"

Matthews' comment is, in a sense, remarkably honest. Often reporters and
pundits act, when they're trying to winnow the field, as if they're only
aiming to improve the democratic process (Extra!, 9-10/03). But
Matthews' observation makes clear that he is aware that there is a
sizeable segment of the population whose opinions are hardly included
at all in the national political debate. Whether the subject is
withdrawal from Iraq, impeaching Republican officials, or single-payer
healthcare, journalists seem to bristle at the thought of having to
listen to such talk from the more progressive candidates. It stands as
a reminder of how little time such ideas are given in the national
media.

By contrast, MSNBC viewers tuning in before the GOP debate could hear
network analyst Pat Buchanan declare his fondness for the lesser-known
GOP candidates precisely because they are closer to representing
"classic conservatism" than the front-runners. Buchanan singled out
representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Duncan
Hunter (R-Calif.).

And in an online column, Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared (5/3/07),
"Let's hear it for the 'second-' and 'third-' tier presidential
candidates.... But if you know, as I do, some of the other, putatively
lesser, GOP contenders, you have to be impressed with the depth of
their political passion, their knowledge, and even their track records.
They represent, in undiluted form, the vivid primary colors of the
conservative movement."

The disparity is striking: The lesser-known (and generally more
conservative) Republican candidates are cheered for participating in
the process, and a cable commentator like Buchanan can use his perch in
the media to support those candidates. Progressive voices have no
similar presence in the media debate and the Democratic candidates that
most represent progressive ideals are derided for taking up the time of
other, more worthy candidates.

******
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair at fair.org



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:48:54 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:48:54 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Ireland: Hill of Tara in Ireland is under threat
Message-ID: <20070509164854.5e09a49b@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by marcus (activ-l) - May 7, 2007

Protect Tara - partial copy of May 3, 2007 Update below
www.protect-tara.org

Hill of Tara in Ireland is under threat

The Hill of Tara is under immediate threat! This is a call to action 
of all pagans and lovers of this land. The first piece of turf has 
been ceremonially removed, and construction begun. The motorway is 
skirting round the Hill, which is bad enough. No amount of protest 
was ever going to stop it. The Noble Order of Tara from Ireland  
holds this as the most sacred of places as the High Kings of Eire 
were crowned on it, and so far it has been peaceful protest. 
BUT.... the Dept for the Environment has issued a writ to have the 
Henge preserved BY RECORD. Which means that construction will stop 
for a FEW DAYS ONLY, for records to be made. 

All the heritage of Ireland is centered around Tara... they are 
giving their sacred heart away.

The authorities have been keeping it under wraps for the past month, 
until work on the motorway began. There is hardly any news coverage 
of it in Ireland, but masses in Japan!! The Japanese can't believe we 
are so complacent! It's because the people don't know what's 
happening.

The TaraWatch group only have about 6 or 7 people at the site and the 
Garda (police) are threatening to prosecute them, so help is needed in
many ways. Even the Vatican has been petitioned to step in.

I have been in touch with the activists on site, and am waiting to 
hear back on what they want doing next.
I am going to try and rally up some support on other sites. 
Please log on to www.tarawatch.org and do something/ anything.
Time to walk the walk me thinks.

If you care about our ancestral heritage, you will be horrified to 
know that in March a series of bee-hive shaped underground tombs were 
discovered and bulldozed before a court order could be executed. 
There were horse and dog bones, and human bones all over the place.
There are supposed to be archaelolgists on site, but they seem pretty 
tied.

Activists from Brighton are heading out to Tara. I spoke to Siobhan 
Rose toady who's heading the campaign in Ireland; she just wants 
publicity as it's all clamped down on in Ireland; so I will be making 
flyers to hand out everywhere and writing to papers. Also donations, 
as they are taking the Irish Govt. the European Court over this and 
need all the money thay can get; (also for independent archaeologists 
who are not in the pocket of the Govt.)
I am on the case for some fund raising.

This is an atrocity of a cultural and spiritual nature which beggars 
belief. The Stone of Destiny on which the Pagan High Kings of Ireland 
were crowned means nothing to these people when compared to the pay 
off. I posted info on this last year and no-one bothered to reply, 
but now the situation is much worse than ever; the Irish government
have no intention of listening to a few... there must be thousands.
You say you love the Boudicca spirit that defeated the Romans, well 
I'm asking you,

Please rally behind this call to arms; if you don't, everything else 
you talk about with regards to fighting for the Spirit of the Land 
will be a travesty.

PLEASE log onto the website, sign the petition, spread the word 
and donate some cash. http://www.protect-tara.org

                           ***

Updates - What you can do to help
http://www.protect-tara.org/Help.html

May 3rd, 2007

A national monument of major archaeological importance has been
discovered directly in the path of the M3 motorway in the grounds of
Tara, it's an ancient henge, said to be the size of three football
fields. For full information please read the Updates at
http://www.protect-tara.org/update_en.html

It is vital now to help if you can, there is a general election in
Ireland called for May 24, and a number of the opposition parties have
pledged, should they come to power, to reroute the motorway away from
the Tara landscape.

The plight of Tara needs to be kept in the foreground, and urgently so,
as construction of the motorway will soon begin. It is also feared that
the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, will give permission for
this new archaeological find at Tara to be 'preserved by record' -
which means just noted down, and then physically destroyed, letting the
bulldozers for the motorway plough through it.

The issue is receiving international coverage ? please keep the
momentum going by writing letters to the Irish papers, no matter where
you're located in the world, voicing your concern at the destruction of
the ancient Tara landscape. This is not against a motorway for the
area, other feasible motorway routes have always been available right
from the beginning and still are. The motorway can still be re-routed
and the ancient grounds of Tara preserved.

A list of the Letters to the Editor email addresses for the main
Irish newspapers is given below. Please take the time to write a letter
and to assist Tara now, this may well be the last chance to alter the
plans for the motorway through the heart of the priceless Tara
landscape. CONTINUED AT: http://www.protect-tara.org/Help.html


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Wed May  9 16:52:19 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:52:19 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bush Sat on Evidence of anti-Cuba Terror
Message-ID: <20070509165219.4b15ec58@viola.tamara-b.org>


Consortium News - May 7, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050707.html

Bush Sat on Evidence of Cuban Terror

By Robert Parry

Earlier this year, as accused right-wing terrorist Luis Posada Carilles
successfully sought to be freed on bond, the Bush administration
possessed secret evidence implicating the 79-year-old Cuban exile in
terrorist bombings in Havana a decade ago.

The evidence, an FBI document based on interviews with confidential
sources in the late 1990s, linked Posada to a wave of hotel bombings in
1997 that killed an Italian tourist. Administration lawyers have now
filed the document in court as part of the illegal immigration case
against Posada that is scheduled to resume in Texas on May 11.

On April 19, however, Posada was freed on $350,000 bond and allowed to
live in his wife?s home in Miami, where many right-wing Cuban exiles
regard him as a hero.

The relatively gentle handling of Posada and other right-wing Cubans
connected to terrorist acts against the communist government of Fidel
Castro is in marked contrast to George W. Bush?s harsh treatment of
Islamic militants captured during the ?global war on terror.?

While suspected Islamic terrorists are locked away indefinitely at the
U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and can undergo
?alternative interrogation techniques,? Posada has been afforded all
U.S. legal protections and then some.

Bush has refused to extradite Posada to Venezuela or Cuba, where he is
sought on other terrorism charges for masterminding the 1976 mid-air
bombing of a Cubana Airliner killing all 73 people on board, including
the young Cuban national fencing team.

During a court hearing in Texas on Posada, Bush administration lawyers
allowed to go unchallenged testimony from a Posada friend that Posada
would face torture if he were returned to Venezuela where he held
citizenship and once worked as an intelligence officer. The judge,
therefore, barred Posada to be deported there.

After that ruling, Venezuela?s Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez accused the
Bush administration of applying ?a cynical double standard? in the ?war
on terror.? As for the claim that Venezuela practices torture, Alvarez
said, ?There isn?t a shred of evidence that Posada would be tortured in
Venezuela.?

It now appears the Bush administration also was sitting on evidence
implicating Posada in more recent acts of terrorism, the 1997 hotel
bombings in Havana.

The Associated Press reported that the FBI document, now filed with the
court, cited ?confidential sources,? including one source saying that
two Posada associates at a Guatemalan utility company spoke about plans
to assassinate Castro. The source then planted a listening device in an
office and picked up conversations about smuggling a ?putty-like
explosive? into Cuba in the shoes of operatives posing as tourists, the
document said.

The source added that another employee of the utility company found 22
plastic tubes in a closet in August 1997 labeled "high-powered
explosives, extremely dangerous." The explosives were being mixed into
shampoo bottles, the employee said.

According to the AP, the confidential source provided the FBI with a
fax about wire transfers from individuals in New Jersey that was signed
Solo, one of Posada?s aliases. The FBI concluded that at least $19,000
in wire transfers connected to the hotel bombings were sent from the
United States to El Salvador and Guatemala to a "Ramon Medina," the
code name used by Posada in the 1980s when he worked on the Iran-Contra
operations overseen by White House aide Oliver North. [AP, May 4, 2007]

Admissions/Denials

In 1998, in interviews with a New York Times reporter, Posada admitted
a role in the Havana bombings, citing a goal of frightening tourists
away from Cuba. But Posada later denied making the admissions. He also
has denied masterminding the 1976 airliner bombing in collusion with
another notorious Cuban exile, Orlando Bosch, who is living in Miami,
too, with the help and protection of the Bush family.

Not only did the Bush administration take a dive during Posada?s
deportation hearing by letting the Venezuela torture claim go
unchallenged, but also it ignored Bosch?s statement a year ago, when he
justified the 1976 mid-air bombing in a TV interview with reporter
Manuel Cao on Miami?s Channel 41.

 ?Did you down that plane in 1976?? Cao asked Bosch.

?If I tell you that I was involved, I will be inculpating myself,?
Bosch answered, ?and if I tell you that I did not participate in that
action, you would say that I am lying. I am therefore not going to
answer one thing or the other.?

But when Cao asked Bosch to comment on the civilians who died when the
plane crashed off the coast of Barbados, Bosch responded, "In a war
such as us Cubans who love liberty wage against the tyrant [Fidel
Castro], you have to down planes, you have to sink ships, you have to
be prepared to attack anything that is within your reach.?

?But don?t you feel a little bit for those who were killed there, for
their families?? Cao asked.

?Who was on board that plane?? Bosch responded. ?Four members of the
Communist Party, five North Koreans, five Guyanese.? [Officials tallies
actually put the Guyanese dead at 11.]

Bosch added, ?Four members of the Communist Party, chico! Who was
there? Our enemies??

?And the fencers?? Cao asked about Cuba?s amateur fencing team that had
just won gold, silver and bronze medals at a youth fencing competition
in Caracas. ?The young people on board??

Bosch replied, ?I was in Caracas. I saw the young girls on television.
There were six of them. After the end of the competition, the leader of
the six dedicated their triumph to the tyrant. ? She gave a speech
filled with praise for the tyrant.

?We had already agreed in Santo Domingo, that everyone who comes from
Cuba to glorify the tyrant had to run the same risks as those men and
women that fight alongside the tyranny.? [The comment about Santo
Domingo was an apparent reference to a strategy meeting by a right-wing
terrorist organization, CORU, which took place in the Dominican
Republic in 1976.]

?If you ran into the family members who were killed in that plane,
wouldn?t you think it difficult?? Cao asked.

?No, because in the end those who were there had to know that they were
cooperating with the tyranny in Cuba,? Bosch answered.

CIA Files

Beyond Bosch?s incriminating statements about the Cubana Airlines
bombing, other evidence of his and Posada?s guilt is overwhelming.

Declassified U.S. documents show that soon after the Cubana Airlines
plane was blown out of the sky on Oct. 6, 1976, the CIA, then under the
direction of George H.W. Bush, identified Posada and Bosch as the
masterminds of the bombing.

But in fall 1976, Bush?s boss, President Gerald Ford, was in a tight
election battle with Democrat Jimmy Carter and the Ford administration
wanted to keep intelligence scandals out of the newspapers. So Bush and
other officials kept the lid on the investigations. [For details, see
Robert Parry?s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Still, inside the U.S. government, the facts were known. According to a
secret CIA cable dated Oct. 14, 1976, intelligence sources in Venezuela
relayed information about the Cubana Airlines bombing that tied in
anti-communist Cuban extremists Bosch, who had been visiting Venezuela,
and Posada, who then served as a senior officer in Venezuela?s
intelligence agency, DISIP.

The Oct. 14 cable said Bosch arrived in Venezuela in late September
1976 under the protection of Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez,
a close Washington ally who assigned his intelligence adviser Orlando
Garcia ?to protect and assist Bosch during his stay in Venezuela.?

On his arrival, Bosch was met by Garcia and Posada, according to the
report. Later, a fundraising dinner was held in Bosch?s honor. ?A few
days following the fund-raising dinner, Posada was overheard to say
that, ?we are going to hit a Cuban airplane,? and that ?Orlando has the
details,?? the CIA report said.

?Following the 6 October Cubana Airline crash off the coast of
Barbados, Bosch, Garcia and Posada agreed that it would be best for
Bosch to leave Venezuela. Therefore, on 9 October, Posada and Garcia
escorted Bosch to the Colombian border, where he crossed into Colombian
territory.?

In South America, police began rounding up suspects. Two Cuban exiles,
Hernan Ricardo and Freddy Lugo, who got off the Cubana plane in
Barbados, confessed that they had planted the bomb. They named Bosch
and Posada as the architects of the attack.

A search of Posada?s apartment in Venezuela turned up Cubana Airlines
timetables and other incriminating documents.

Posada and Bosch were charged in Venezuela for the Cubana Airlines
bombing, but the case soon became a political tug-of-war, since the
suspects were in possession of sensitive Venezuelan government secrets
that could embarrass President Andres Perez.

Lost Interest

After the Reagan-Bush administration took power in Washington in 1981,
the momentum for fully unraveling the mysteries of anti-communist
terrorist plots dissipated. The Cold War trumped any concern about
right-wing terrorism.

In 1985, Posada escaped from a Venezuelan prison, reportedly with the
help of Cuban exiles. In his autobiography, Posada thanked Miami-based
Cuban activist Jorge Mas Canosa for providing the $25,000 that was used
to bribe guards who allowed Posada to walk out of prison.

Another Cuban exile who aided Posada was former CIA officer Felix
Rodriguez, who was close to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.
Rodriguez then was handling secret supply shipments to the Nicaraguan
contra rebels, a pet project of President Ronald Reagan.

After fleeing Venezuela, Posada joined Rodriguez in Central America and
began using the code name ?Ramon Medina.? Posada was assigned the job
of paymaster for pilots in the White House-run contra-supply operation.

When one of the contra-supply planes was shot down inside Nicaragua in
October 1986, Posada was responsible for alerting U.S. officials to the
crisis and then shutting down the operation?s safe houses in El
Salvador. Even after the exposure of Posada?s role in the contra-supply
operation, the U.S. government made no effort to bring the accused
terrorist to justice.

By the late 1980s, Orlando Bosch also was out of Venezuela?s jails and
back in Miami. But Bosch, who had been implicated in about 30 violent
attacks, was facing possible deportation by U.S. officials who warned
that Washington couldn?t credibly lecture other countries about
terrorism while protecting a terrorist like Bosch.

But Bosch got lucky. Jeb Bush, then an aspiring Florida politician, led
a lobbying drive to prevent the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service from expelling Bosch. In 1990, the lobbying paid dividends when
Jeb's dad, President George H.W. Bush, blocked proceedings against
Bosch, letting the unapologetic terrorist stay in the United States.

In 1992, also during George H.W. Bush?s presidency, the FBI interviewed
Posada about the Iran-Contra scandal for 6 ? hours at the U.S. Embassy
in Honduras.

Posada filled in some blanks about the role of Bush?s vice presidential
office in the secret contra operation. According toa 31-page summary of
the FBI interview, Posada said Bush?s national security adviser, Donald
Gregg, was in frequent contact with Felix Rodriguez.

?Posada ? recalls that Rodriguez was always calling Gregg,? the FBI
summary said. ?Posada knows this because he?s the one who paid
Rodriguez? phone bill.? After the interview, the FBI agents let Posada
walk out of the embassy to freedom. [For details, see Parry?s Lost
History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & Project Truth.]

More Attacks

Posada soon returned to his anti-Castro plotting.

In 1994, Posada set out to kill Castro during a trip to Cartagena,
Colombia. Posada and five cohorts reached Cartagena, but the plan
flopped when security cordons prevented the would-be assassins from
getting a clean shot at Castro, according to a Miami Herald account.
[Miami Herald, June 7, 1998]

The Herald also described Posada?s role in a lethal 1997 bombing
campaign against popular hotels and restaurants inside Cuba. The story
cited documentary evidence that Posada arranged payments to
conspirators from accounts in the United States.

?This afternoon you will receive via Western Union four transfers of
$800 each ? from New Jersey,? said one fax signed by SOLO, a Posada
alias.

Posada landed back in jail in 2000 after Cuban intelligence uncovered a
plot to assassinate Castro by planting a bomb at a meeting the Cuban
leader planned with university students in Panama.

Panamanian authorities arrested Posada and other alleged
co-conspirators in November 2000. In April 2004, they were sentenced to
eight or nine years in prison for endangering public safety.

Four months after the sentencing, however, lame-duck Panamanian
President Mireya Moscoso ? who lives in Key Biscayne, Florida, and has
close ties to the Cuban-American community and to George W. Bush?s
administration ? pardoned the convicts.

After the pardons and just two months before Election 2004, three of
Posada?s co-conspirators ? Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon and
Gaspar Jimenez ? arrived in Miami to a hero?s welcome, flashing victory
signs at their supporters.

While the terrorists celebrated, U.S. authorities watched the men ?
also implicated in bombings in New York, New Jersey and Florida ?
alight on U.S. soil. Washington Post writer Marcela Sanchez noted in a
September 2004 article about the Panamanian pardons that ?there is
something terribly wrong when the United States, after Sept. 11 (2001),
fails to condemn the pardoning of terrorists and instead allows them to
walk free on U.S. streets.? [Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2004]

Posada reportedly sneaked into the United States in early 2005 and his
presence was an open secret in Miami for weeks before U.S. authorities
did anything. The New York Times summed up Bush?s dilemma if Posada
decided to seek U.S. asylum.

?A grant of asylum could invite charges that the Bush administration is
compromising its principle that no nation should harbor suspected
terrorists,? the Times wrote. ?But to turn Mr. Posada away could
provoke political wrath in the conservative Cuban-American communities
of South Florida, deep sources of support and campaign money for
President Bush and his brother, Jeb.? [NYT, May 9, 2005]

Only after Posada called a news conference to announce his presence was
the Bush administration shamed into arresting him. But even then, the
administration balked at sending Posada back to Venezuela where the
government of Hugo Chavez ? unlike some of its predecessors ? was eager
to prosecute.

The Posada-Bosch cases point to one unavoidable and unpleasant