U.N. Mideast line swayed by U.S., Israel: ex-envoy
By Patrick Worsnip
Wed Jun 13
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A former U.N. Middle East envoy quit his job last month making bitter allegations that U.N. policy in the region had failed because it was subservient to U.S. and Israeli interests, according to a leaked document.
In a confidential end-of-mission report, seen by Reuters, Alvaro de Soto poured scorn on the Quartet negotiating group of the United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations, and suggested the world body should pull out.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the report represented De Soto's personal views and disputed his former envoy's conclusion that the Quartet had become a "side-show."
De Soto, a Peruvian diplomat who formerly worked on El Salvador, Cyprus and the Western Sahara, spent two years on the Middle East before resigning in May, ending a 25-year U.N. career. He was replaced by Briton Michael Williams.
His scathing 53-page farewell, addressed to a handful of top U.N. officials and first reported by Britain's Guardian newspaper in Wednesday editions, made clear he left because he was frustrated that he was being ignored.
In the document dated May 5, he railed at restrictions he said were placed on him by U.N. headquarters against talking to the Hamas-led Palestinian government and to Syria.
De Soto condemned economic sanctions imposed by Israel, the United States and the EU on Hamas after it won Palestinian elections last year and said their effective endorsement by the Quartet had had "devastating consequences" for Palestinians.
"The steps taken by the international community with the presumed purpose of bringing about a Palestinian entity that will live in peace with its neighbor Israel have had precisely the opposite effect," he wrote.
"Even-handedness has been pummeled into submission in an unprecedented way since the beginning of 2007."
SIDE-SHOW
Speaking to reporters, Ban regretted that De Soto's report had leaked out, but said: "I'd like to make it clear that this is his personal view. I would not agree with his point that the Quartet has been kind of some side-show."
He said the grouping had been "re-energized" and noted that at its next meeting, in Egypt later this month, it would meet Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Jordanian, Qatari, Syrian and Arab League officials.
De Soto sharply criticized the Islamist Hamas movement for advocating Israel's destruction, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a foe of Hamas, for weak leadership, and the Palestinian failure to halt militant attacks on Israeli civilians.
But he also charged that Israeli policies seemed "perversely designed to encourage the continued action by Palestinian militants."
De Soto blasted what he called "the tendency that exists among U.S. policy-makers ... to cower before any hint of Israeli displeasure and to pander shamelessly before Israeli-linked audiences."
But much of his criticism was aimed at the United Nations, where, he said, "a premium is put on good relations with the U.S. and improving the U.N.'s relationship with Israel."
"I don't honestly think the U.N. does Israel any favors at all by not speaking frankly to it about its failings regarding the peace process," De Soto said.
He said Ban should "seriously reconsider" continued U.N. membership in the Quartet, which he said had become "pretty much a group of friends of the U.S."
De Soto said he regretted that his advice to U.N. headquarters had gone unheeded. "I concluded that my uphill effort was not going to succeed," he said.
Wednesday, 13 June 2007
Palestinian Pinochet Making His Move?
by: Tony Karon
May 17, 2007
Source:
Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5670
There’s something a little misleading in the media reports that routinely describe the fighting in Gaza as pitting Hamas against Fatah forces or security personnel “loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.” That characterization suggests somehow that this catastrophic civil war that has killed more than 25 Palestinians since Sunday is a showdown between Abbas and the Hamas leadership — which simply isn’t true, although such a showdown would certainly conform to the desires of those running the White House Middle East policy.
The Fatah gunmen who are reported to have initiated the breakdown of the Palestinian unity government and provoked the latest fighting may profess fealty to President Abbas, but it’s not from him that they get their orders. The leader to whom they answer is Mohammed Dahlan, the Gaza warlord who has long been Washington’s anointed favorite to play the role of a Palestinian Pinochet. And while Dahlan is formally subordinate to Abbas, whom he supposedly serves as National Security Adviser, nobody believes that Dahlan answers to Abbas — in fact, it was suggested at the time that Abbas appointed Dahlan only under pressure from Washington, which was irked by the Palestinian Authority president’s decision to join a unity government with Hamas.
If Dahlan takes orders from anyone at all, it’s certainly not from Abbas. Abbas has long recognized the democratic legitimacy and popularity of Hamas, and embraced the reality that no peace process is possible unless the Islamists are given the place in the Palestinian power structure that their popular support necessitates. He has always favored negotiation and cooperation with Hamas — much to the exasperation of the Bush Administration, and also of the Fatah warlords whose power of patronage was threatened by the Hamas election victory — and could see the logic of the unity government proposed by the Saudis even when Washington couldn’t. Indeed, as the indispensable Robert Malley and Hussein Agha note, nothing has hurt Abbas’s political standing as much as the misguided efforts of Washington to boost his standing in the hope of undermining the elected Hamas government.
Needless to say, only an Administration as deluded about its ability to reorder Arab political realities in line with its own fantasies — and also, frankly, as utterly contemptuous of Arab life and of Arab democracy, empty sloganizing notwithstanding — as the current one has proved to be could imagine that the Palestinians could be starved, battered and manipulated into choosing a Washington-approved political leadership. Yet, that’s exactly what the U.S. has attempted to do ever since Hamas won the last Palestinian election, imposing a financial and economic chokehold on an already distressed population, pouring money and arms into the forces under Dahlan’s control, and eventually adapting itself to funnel monies only through Abbas, as if casting in him in the role of a kind of Quisling-provider would somehow burnish his appeal among Palestinian voters. (As I said, their contempt for Arab intelligence knows no bounds. )
But while the hapless Abbas is little more than a reluctant passenger in Washington’s strategy — and will, I still believe, repair to his former exile lodgings in Qatar in the not too distant future — Mohammed Dahlan is its point man, the warlord who commands the troops and who has been spoiling for a fight with Hamas since they had the temerity to trounce his organization at the polls on home turf.
Dahlan’s ambitions clearly coincided with plans drawn up by White House Middle East policy chief, Elliot Abrams — a veteran of the Reagan Administration’s Central American dirty wars — to arm and train Fatah loyalists to prepare them to topple the Hamas government. If Mahmoud Abbas has been reluctant to embrace the confrontational policy promoted by the White House, Dahlan has no such qualms. And given that Abbas has no political base of his own, he is dependent entirely on Washington and Dahlan.
Seeing the disastrous implications of the U.S. policy, the Saudis appeared to have put the kibosh on Abrams’ coup plan by drawing Abbas into a unity government with Hamas. And as Mark Perry at Conflict Forum detailed in an excellent analysis Dahlan was just about the only thing that the U.S. had going for it in terms of resisting the move towards a unity government.
Although his fretting and sulking in Mecca couldn’t prevent the deal, the U.S. appears to have helped him fight back afterwards by ensuring that he was appointed national security adviser, a move calculated to provoke Hamas, whose leaders tend to view Dahlan as little more than a torturer and a de facto enforcer for Israel.
But Dahlan appears to have made his move when it came to integrating the Palestinian Authority security forces (currently dominated by Fatah) by drawing in Hamas fighters and subjecting the forces to the control of a politically neutral interior minister. Dahlan simply refused, and set off the current confrontations by ordering his men out onto the street last weekend without any authorization from the government of which he is supposedly a part.
The new provocation appears consistent with a revised U.S. plan, reported on by Mark Perry and Paul Woodward, that emphasized the urgency of toppling the unity government. They suggest the plan emanates from Abrams, who they say is operating at cross purposes with Condi Rice’s efforts to appease the Arab moderate regimes by reviving some form of peace process.. They note, for example, that Jewish American sources have told the Forward and Haaretz that Abrams recently briefed Jewish Republicans and made clear to them that Rice’s efforts were merely a symbolic exercise aimed at showing Arab allies that the U.S. was “doing something,” but that President Bush would ensure that nothing would come of them, in the sense that Israel would not be required to make any concessions.
Whatever the precise breakdown within the Bush Administration, it’s plain that Dahlan, like Pinochet a quarter century, would not move onto a path of confrontation with an elected government unless he believed he had the sanction of powerful forces abroad to do so. If does move to turn the current street battle into a frontal assault on the unity government, chances are it will be because he got a green light from somewhere — and certainly not from Mahmoud Abbas.
But the confrontation under way has assumed a momentum of its own, and it may now be beyond the capability of the Palestinian leadership as a whole to contain it. If that proves true, the petulance that has substituted for policy in the Bush Administration’s response to the 2006 Palestinian election will have succeeded in turning Gaza into Mogadishu. But it may be too much to expect the Administration capable of anything different — after all, they’re still busy turning Mogadishu into Mogadishu all over again.
by: Tony Karon
May 17, 2007
Source:
Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5670
There’s something a little misleading in the media reports that routinely describe the fighting in Gaza as pitting Hamas against Fatah forces or security personnel “loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.” That characterization suggests somehow that this catastrophic civil war that has killed more than 25 Palestinians since Sunday is a showdown between Abbas and the Hamas leadership — which simply isn’t true, although such a showdown would certainly conform to the desires of those running the White House Middle East policy.
The Fatah gunmen who are reported to have initiated the breakdown of the Palestinian unity government and provoked the latest fighting may profess fealty to President Abbas, but it’s not from him that they get their orders. The leader to whom they answer is Mohammed Dahlan, the Gaza warlord who has long been Washington’s anointed favorite to play the role of a Palestinian Pinochet. And while Dahlan is formally subordinate to Abbas, whom he supposedly serves as National Security Adviser, nobody believes that Dahlan answers to Abbas — in fact, it was suggested at the time that Abbas appointed Dahlan only under pressure from Washington, which was irked by the Palestinian Authority president’s decision to join a unity government with Hamas.
If Dahlan takes orders from anyone at all, it’s certainly not from Abbas. Abbas has long recognized the democratic legitimacy and popularity of Hamas, and embraced the reality that no peace process is possible unless the Islamists are given the place in the Palestinian power structure that their popular support necessitates. He has always favored negotiation and cooperation with Hamas — much to the exasperation of the Bush Administration, and also of the Fatah warlords whose power of patronage was threatened by the Hamas election victory — and could see the logic of the unity government proposed by the Saudis even when Washington couldn’t. Indeed, as the indispensable Robert Malley and Hussein Agha note, nothing has hurt Abbas’s political standing as much as the misguided efforts of Washington to boost his standing in the hope of undermining the elected Hamas government.
Needless to say, only an Administration as deluded about its ability to reorder Arab political realities in line with its own fantasies — and also, frankly, as utterly contemptuous of Arab life and of Arab democracy, empty sloganizing notwithstanding — as the current one has proved to be could imagine that the Palestinians could be starved, battered and manipulated into choosing a Washington-approved political leadership. Yet, that’s exactly what the U.S. has attempted to do ever since Hamas won the last Palestinian election, imposing a financial and economic chokehold on an already distressed population, pouring money and arms into the forces under Dahlan’s control, and eventually adapting itself to funnel monies only through Abbas, as if casting in him in the role of a kind of Quisling-provider would somehow burnish his appeal among Palestinian voters. (As I said, their contempt for Arab intelligence knows no bounds. )
But while the hapless Abbas is little more than a reluctant passenger in Washington’s strategy — and will, I still believe, repair to his former exile lodgings in Qatar in the not too distant future — Mohammed Dahlan is its point man, the warlord who commands the troops and who has been spoiling for a fight with Hamas since they had the temerity to trounce his organization at the polls on home turf.
Dahlan’s ambitions clearly coincided with plans drawn up by White House Middle East policy chief, Elliot Abrams — a veteran of the Reagan Administration’s Central American dirty wars — to arm and train Fatah loyalists to prepare them to topple the Hamas government. If Mahmoud Abbas has been reluctant to embrace the confrontational policy promoted by the White House, Dahlan has no such qualms. And given that Abbas has no political base of his own, he is dependent entirely on Washington and Dahlan.
Seeing the disastrous implications of the U.S. policy, the Saudis appeared to have put the kibosh on Abrams’ coup plan by drawing Abbas into a unity government with Hamas. And as Mark Perry at Conflict Forum detailed in an excellent analysis Dahlan was just about the only thing that the U.S. had going for it in terms of resisting the move towards a unity government.
Although his fretting and sulking in Mecca couldn’t prevent the deal, the U.S. appears to have helped him fight back afterwards by ensuring that he was appointed national security adviser, a move calculated to provoke Hamas, whose leaders tend to view Dahlan as little more than a torturer and a de facto enforcer for Israel.
But Dahlan appears to have made his move when it came to integrating the Palestinian Authority security forces (currently dominated by Fatah) by drawing in Hamas fighters and subjecting the forces to the control of a politically neutral interior minister. Dahlan simply refused, and set off the current confrontations by ordering his men out onto the street last weekend without any authorization from the government of which he is supposedly a part.
The new provocation appears consistent with a revised U.S. plan, reported on by Mark Perry and Paul Woodward, that emphasized the urgency of toppling the unity government. They suggest the plan emanates from Abrams, who they say is operating at cross purposes with Condi Rice’s efforts to appease the Arab moderate regimes by reviving some form of peace process.. They note, for example, that Jewish American sources have told the Forward and Haaretz that Abrams recently briefed Jewish Republicans and made clear to them that Rice’s efforts were merely a symbolic exercise aimed at showing Arab allies that the U.S. was “doing something,” but that President Bush would ensure that nothing would come of them, in the sense that Israel would not be required to make any concessions.
Whatever the precise breakdown within the Bush Administration, it’s plain that Dahlan, like Pinochet a quarter century, would not move onto a path of confrontation with an elected government unless he believed he had the sanction of powerful forces abroad to do so. If does move to turn the current street battle into a frontal assault on the unity government, chances are it will be because he got a green light from somewhere — and certainly not from Mahmoud Abbas.
But the confrontation under way has assumed a momentum of its own, and it may now be beyond the capability of the Palestinian leadership as a whole to contain it. If that proves true, the petulance that has substituted for policy in the Bush Administration’s response to the 2006 Palestinian election will have succeeded in turning Gaza into Mogadishu. But it may be too much to expect the Administration capable of anything different — after all, they’re still busy turning Mogadishu into Mogadishu all over again.
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
Venezuela Launches Sale of "Bolivarian" Computers
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
By: Chris Carlson
Source:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2326
Mérida, June 12, 2007 - The Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez announced the launch of their "Bolivarian Computers" last week, consisting of four different models produced in Venezuela with Chinese technology. The new computers will run the open-source Linux operating system and will first be used inside the government "missions" and state companies and institutions but eventually are expected to be sold across Venezuela and Latin America.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez presented the new machines to the public last week at an event in the state of Falcon as he donated them to a school there. The new computers are produced by the joint venture VIT (Venezuela de Industria Tecnológica), which is owned by the Chinese company Lang Chao and the Venezuelan Ministry of Light Industry and Commerce.
"The price of other similar brands is US$ 930, and the price of our computer is US$ 690, almost 40% less," explained President Chavez. "But, in addition, it has an added value, given that it comes with open-source software and a three year guarantee, while other brands only offer one year."
Production of the models began in the end of 2006 and the first 1,619 units were distributed to students of Integral Medicine in the government program Mission Sucre. Chavez promised last October to give a computer to every one of the 11,100 students in the second year of the new medical education program Integral Community Medicine (MIC) and began to follow through with that promise last May.
"I feel excited because the president came through with his promise, and that makes us be more responsible with the program, more dedicated, since it is a big help that motivates us to keep moving forward," said one student.
Units have also been given to the Urban Transportation Fund, the Agrarian Bank, the national mail service Ipostel, and the Experimental University of Simon Rodriguez.
And although the first units have been donated to the public sector, the new Bolivarian computers will also be sold inside Venezuela and exported.
"We are working with cooperatives and small companies to form our own distribution network," said the manager of sales Eduardo Hernandez. "It's a slow process. This month we have already completed the formation (of a distribution network) in Caracas and by the end of the year we will have distribution and technical support throughout the whole country."
The computer factory is located on the Paraguana Peninsula in the state of Falcon and has an annual capacity of 150,000 units. For this year the factory is expected to assemble 80,000 units and 6,000 laptop computers.
Until now Venezuela has always imported computers both from well-known brands and generic brands from the developed world. With this new venture the Venezuelan government hopes to diversify national production, integrate national productive chains, and work towards technological independence for the country.
According to the web page of the new state company, VIT has the objective of "production, marketing and sale of technological products, with an emphasis in manufacturing and assembling computers and accessories. Our efforts are also focused on national export, with a future projection to the international market."
By the end of the year, the intention is to begin to locally produce some of the technology in order to substitute some of the imported components used in the assembly of the machines for components produced in Venezuela. In order to do this, the government has built installations for research and development in order to design the components inside the same factory.
The company is offering 3 different desktop models and one laptop with a price range of US$ 405 (Bs. 870,750) to US$ 1,400 (Bs. 3,010,000). The processors will range in speed from 1.5 GHz to a 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium IV and the laptop will use a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.With respect to the operating system, Venezuela has taken a strong position in favor of open-source software in order to "promote technological development" and help "reach technological independence." For this reason the computers will use the open-source Linux, but the components are also compatible with the Windows operating system.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
By: Chris Carlson
Source:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2326
Mérida, June 12, 2007 - The Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez announced the launch of their "Bolivarian Computers" last week, consisting of four different models produced in Venezuela with Chinese technology. The new computers will run the open-source Linux operating system and will first be used inside the government "missions" and state companies and institutions but eventually are expected to be sold across Venezuela and Latin America.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez presented the new machines to the public last week at an event in the state of Falcon as he donated them to a school there. The new computers are produced by the joint venture VIT (Venezuela de Industria Tecnológica), which is owned by the Chinese company Lang Chao and the Venezuelan Ministry of Light Industry and Commerce.
"The price of other similar brands is US$ 930, and the price of our computer is US$ 690, almost 40% less," explained President Chavez. "But, in addition, it has an added value, given that it comes with open-source software and a three year guarantee, while other brands only offer one year."
Production of the models began in the end of 2006 and the first 1,619 units were distributed to students of Integral Medicine in the government program Mission Sucre. Chavez promised last October to give a computer to every one of the 11,100 students in the second year of the new medical education program Integral Community Medicine (MIC) and began to follow through with that promise last May.
"I feel excited because the president came through with his promise, and that makes us be more responsible with the program, more dedicated, since it is a big help that motivates us to keep moving forward," said one student.
Units have also been given to the Urban Transportation Fund, the Agrarian Bank, the national mail service Ipostel, and the Experimental University of Simon Rodriguez.
And although the first units have been donated to the public sector, the new Bolivarian computers will also be sold inside Venezuela and exported.
"We are working with cooperatives and small companies to form our own distribution network," said the manager of sales Eduardo Hernandez. "It's a slow process. This month we have already completed the formation (of a distribution network) in Caracas and by the end of the year we will have distribution and technical support throughout the whole country."
The computer factory is located on the Paraguana Peninsula in the state of Falcon and has an annual capacity of 150,000 units. For this year the factory is expected to assemble 80,000 units and 6,000 laptop computers.
Until now Venezuela has always imported computers both from well-known brands and generic brands from the developed world. With this new venture the Venezuelan government hopes to diversify national production, integrate national productive chains, and work towards technological independence for the country.
According to the web page of the new state company, VIT has the objective of "production, marketing and sale of technological products, with an emphasis in manufacturing and assembling computers and accessories. Our efforts are also focused on national export, with a future projection to the international market."
By the end of the year, the intention is to begin to locally produce some of the technology in order to substitute some of the imported components used in the assembly of the machines for components produced in Venezuela. In order to do this, the government has built installations for research and development in order to design the components inside the same factory.
The company is offering 3 different desktop models and one laptop with a price range of US$ 405 (Bs. 870,750) to US$ 1,400 (Bs. 3,010,000). The processors will range in speed from 1.5 GHz to a 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium IV and the laptop will use a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.With respect to the operating system, Venezuela has taken a strong position in favor of open-source software in order to "promote technological development" and help "reach technological independence." For this reason the computers will use the open-source Linux, but the components are also compatible with the Windows operating system.
Monday, 4 June 2007
Overheard In A Montreal Restaurant
May 12, 2007
May 12, 2007
If George Wanker Dumbass Bushpig II -- cocaine-addict, drug-trafficker, and alcohol-induced war monger, war profiteer, war criminal, mass murderer, oil bandit extraordinaire, the Hebrew-whores' Grand Pimp and an international whoremaster, Jewish-cockroach lover, Zionazi-sympathiser, and your general cross-worshipping pagan and Jesus-worshipping heretic, son of Bushpig I -- can put a bounty of US$50 million on the head of Osama Bin Ladin, then why isn't Osama Bin Ladin putting a bounty of $500 million on Bushpig's head, since Bushpig is the bigger piece of shit and Osama is much richer than Bushpig with an estimated net worth of 5 billion dollars? Is it because Osama is too nice a guy to bring himself down to Bushpig's level, or he actually did put a bounty on Bushpig's head but our great and good, free and fair media didn't tell us about it in their unbiased news reports?
Saturday, 2 June 2007
Shapur II, Emperor (Shahanhah, King of Kings) of Iran-Persia, 357 CE, Ctesiphon
Shapur II (The Great) was the ninth ruler of the Iranian Sassanid Empire from 309CE to 379CE. During his long reign (seventy years), the Iranian Sassanid Empire saw its first golden era since Shapur I (241CE - 272CE). It is said that Shapur II may have been the only king in history to been crowned in utero: the crown was placed upon his mother's belly. This child, named Shapur, was therefore born Emperor; the government was conducted by his mother and the magnates. But when Shapur II came of age, he turned out to be one of the greatest monarchs of the dynasty and one of the greatest in world history. By his death in 379CE, the Persian Empire was stronger than ever before, considerably larger than when he came to the throne, the eastern enemies were pacified, Rome (Iran's only real rival on the world stage) was forced into several humiliating defeats and treaties, and Persia had gained control over the largest world empire up to that time, an empire about the size of the USA, stretching from Gujrat State in India and modern-day Kyrghistan on the Chinese border to Libya in North Africa, and from Yemen, Oman,and the Gulf Sates on the Arabian Peninsula to the Russian Caucasus republics. It was the mightiest and richest state in world history up to that time, The Superpower of its era.
"I, the embodiment of the Iranian Nation, Land, People, and Religion, and the Ruler or Iran, Shāhanshāh, do hereby Proclaim, in my Imperial Decree, that I do declare of my God-given Right and Imperial Prerogative to do all that I can do and all that must be done to keep my Nation independent, sovereign, and free of any and all foreign invaders an mischief-makers, and that I do declare of my God-given Right and Imperial Prerogative to take the life of any Iranian and all other persons, foreign or domestic, who threaten the independence and integrity, freedom and functions, heritage and wholesomeness, culture and way of life, security and sovereignty of the Iranian Nation, Land, People, and Religion."
Friday, 1 June 2007
COMMENTARY
Hang In There, America: Competent Leadership Is Just 600-plus Days Aaway
by: JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Source:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17240097.htm
So much of what they talked about doing in a new century and a new and different world never came to pass. So much of what they did to grow the power of the presidency and prune the constitutional safeguards crafted by our Founding Fathers, they never talked about.
The American people have turned their backs on Bush and his dreams of planting the seeds of democracy in Mesopotamia at the point of a gun and seeing them spread like kudzu across the Middle East.
He's failed in his quest for victory in Iraq and for a world put in order by a new and stronger United States, and his brash blundering into a dangerous land has made us all much less safe.
The president's approval ratings are below his knees, sinking to 28 percent in one recent poll, and he cannot recover short of the kind of miracle that parts seas and feeds the multitudes.
The war that was never ours to win by military means - the only button this president who never learned war ever learned how to push - is lost. Bush and Cheney and the rest of their cronies and co-conspirators are toast.
The question is: How did such ordinary-looking men - seemingly unable to carry out even the smallest non-political tasks of governing - succeed in doing such extraordinary and lasting damage to our country, our military and our body politic in so few years?
With Congress in the hands of the Democrats, and the 2008 election looming dead ahead, the president can't even count on key figures in his own Republican Party to stand behind him as he embarks on a long and painful lame duckhood.
His hopes of crafting meaningful immigration reform and fixing Social Security are dead on arrival. The legacies that Bush will carry into retirement are the war he started, lost, and stubbornly refused to end, and the corruption that he and his thuggish cronies visited on our democracy and Constitution.
The president's lawyer, "mi abogado," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, dangles in the wind as we learn, day by day, of how grotesquely this regime politicized the professional staff of the Justice Department.
It was Gonzales, as White House counsel, who provided legal cover for the torture and maltreatment of prisoners and suspects that led directly to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the CIA's secret Kafkaesque prisons scattered around the world where "enhanced" interrogation methods were generously, if unproductively, employed.
It was Gonzales, as attorney general, who hired and gave unprecedented hiring and firing powers to a 33-year-old attorney, Monica Goodling, who'd graduated from a TV evangelist's law school. It was Goodling who resigned and took the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions that hadn't even been asked. It was Goodling who was Justice's liaison to the White House and Karl Rove.
Meantime, the White House can't find 5 million e-mail messages involving official business and refuses to provide many of those it can find to the congressional committees investigating the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The agencies of government - the CIA, FBI, Treasury, Department of Defense and who knows who else - use secret executive authority to suck up databases of personal information about ordinary Americans, without regard to their privacy rights, in a search for suspected terrorists.
Have they found any using that information? Have they unearthed terror cells with more potential than the ones in Florida and New Jersey that were penetrated and perhaps manipulated by FBI informants? That sort of terrorist isn't half so frightening as Bush and his cabinet cronies.
Over in Iraq, 150,000 American troops soldier on, attempting, at the cost of their own lives and limbs, to follow the orders of a president who still thinks he can pull victory out of defeat.
A hopelessly divided Iraqi parliament feuds and dithers and contemplates its summer vacation while Americans and Iraqis die in increasing numbers in the streets outside the Green Zone, and the mortar and rocket fire lands inside that sanctuary with increasing frequency.
Six-hundred-fourteen days, and counting. Nineteen months. It doesn't seem possible or even bearable.
---------------------------
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young."
Hang In There, America: Competent Leadership Is Just 600-plus Days Aaway
by: JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Source:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17240097.htm
As of May 17th, there were 613 days left until Jan. 20, 2009, and the end of our long national nightmare as President George W. Bush and his Rasputin, Vice President Dick Cheney, shuffle off to their necessarily well-guarded retirement homes and onto the ash heap of history.
So much of what they talked about doing in a new century and a new and different world never came to pass. So much of what they did to grow the power of the presidency and prune the constitutional safeguards crafted by our Founding Fathers, they never talked about.
The American people have turned their backs on Bush and his dreams of planting the seeds of democracy in Mesopotamia at the point of a gun and seeing them spread like kudzu across the Middle East.
He's failed in his quest for victory in Iraq and for a world put in order by a new and stronger United States, and his brash blundering into a dangerous land has made us all much less safe.
The president's approval ratings are below his knees, sinking to 28 percent in one recent poll, and he cannot recover short of the kind of miracle that parts seas and feeds the multitudes.
The war that was never ours to win by military means - the only button this president who never learned war ever learned how to push - is lost. Bush and Cheney and the rest of their cronies and co-conspirators are toast.
The question is: How did such ordinary-looking men - seemingly unable to carry out even the smallest non-political tasks of governing - succeed in doing such extraordinary and lasting damage to our country, our military and our body politic in so few years?
With Congress in the hands of the Democrats, and the 2008 election looming dead ahead, the president can't even count on key figures in his own Republican Party to stand behind him as he embarks on a long and painful lame duckhood.
His hopes of crafting meaningful immigration reform and fixing Social Security are dead on arrival. The legacies that Bush will carry into retirement are the war he started, lost, and stubbornly refused to end, and the corruption that he and his thuggish cronies visited on our democracy and Constitution.
The president's lawyer, "mi abogado," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, dangles in the wind as we learn, day by day, of how grotesquely this regime politicized the professional staff of the Justice Department.
It was Gonzales, as White House counsel, who provided legal cover for the torture and maltreatment of prisoners and suspects that led directly to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the CIA's secret Kafkaesque prisons scattered around the world where "enhanced" interrogation methods were generously, if unproductively, employed.
It was Gonzales, as attorney general, who hired and gave unprecedented hiring and firing powers to a 33-year-old attorney, Monica Goodling, who'd graduated from a TV evangelist's law school. It was Goodling who resigned and took the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions that hadn't even been asked. It was Goodling who was Justice's liaison to the White House and Karl Rove.
Meantime, the White House can't find 5 million e-mail messages involving official business and refuses to provide many of those it can find to the congressional committees investigating the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The agencies of government - the CIA, FBI, Treasury, Department of Defense and who knows who else - use secret executive authority to suck up databases of personal information about ordinary Americans, without regard to their privacy rights, in a search for suspected terrorists.
Have they found any using that information? Have they unearthed terror cells with more potential than the ones in Florida and New Jersey that were penetrated and perhaps manipulated by FBI informants? That sort of terrorist isn't half so frightening as Bush and his cabinet cronies.
Over in Iraq, 150,000 American troops soldier on, attempting, at the cost of their own lives and limbs, to follow the orders of a president who still thinks he can pull victory out of defeat.
A hopelessly divided Iraqi parliament feuds and dithers and contemplates its summer vacation while Americans and Iraqis die in increasing numbers in the streets outside the Green Zone, and the mortar and rocket fire lands inside that sanctuary with increasing frequency.
Six-hundred-fourteen days, and counting. Nineteen months. It doesn't seem possible or even bearable.
---------------------------
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young."
Readers may write to him at:
P.O. Box 399,
Bayside,
Texas 78340
E-mail: jlgalloway2@cs.com
White House Follows New Path To Secrecy
by: PETE YOST (Associated Press Writer)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_cheney_secrecy_2
WASHINGTON - A newly disclosed effort to keep Vice President Dick Cheney''s visitor records secret is the latest White House push to make sure the public doesn't learn who has been meeting with top officials in the Bush regime.
Over the past year, lawyers for President Bush and Cheney have directed the Secret Service to maintain the confidentiality of visitor entry and exit logs, declaring them to be presidential records, exempt from a law requiring their disclosure to whoever asks to see them.
The drive to keep the logs secret, the administration says, is essential to assuring that the president and vice president receive candid advice to carry out their duties.
Cabinet officers often don't want to give up their meeting calendars to journalists. They have no choice under the Freedom of Information Act, which provides public access to some records kept by federal agencies.
But the FOIA disclosure law, which doesn't apply to Congress, also doesn't apply to presidential records.
The Bush regime has exploited that difference, triggering a battle in the courts.
The regime is seeking dismissal of two lawsuits by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, demanding Secret Service visitor logs.
In trying to get the cases thrown out, the Justice Department has filed documents in court outlining a behind-the-scenes debate over whether Secret Service records are subject to public disclosure. The discussions date back at least to the administration of President Bush's father and involve the Justice Department and the National Archives as well as the White House and the Secret Service.
The government's court filings show that the Bush White House focused on the issue in the months before Election Day 2004.
Discussions moved into high gear when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal prompted news organizations and private groups to demand that the administration turn over Secret Service records of visitors to the White House complex and the vice president's residence.There was precedent for the demands.
During the Clinton administration, Republican-controlled congressional committees obtained Secret Service visitor logs while conducting investigations of the president and first lady.
Christopher Lehane, a former special assistant counsel to President and press secretary to then-Vice President Al Gore, points out the political implications of the Bush regime's campaign to close off access to the records.
"The question it raises is 'what are these guys hiding?'" said Lehane, now a Democratic consultant. "They can live with it because they've only got a year or so left, but it doesn't do a lot for public confidence in open government."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Thursday, "I can't comment on a case in litigation, and I can't speak to the decisions made by other administrations."
The Bush regime says it is standing on principle.
"It is important that the president be able to receive candid advice from his staff and other members of the administration," Fratto said. "To ensure that he receives candid advice, it is essential as a general matter that the advice remains confidential."
In a declaration filed in court a week ago, Cheney's deputy chief of staff, Claire O'Donnell, stated that "systematic public release of the information regarding when and with whom the vice president and vice presidential personnel conduct meetings would impinge on the ability of the OVP (office of the vice president) to gather information in confidence and perform its essential functions, including assisting the vice president in his critical roles of advising and assisting the president."
In May 2006, the Secret Service and the White House signed a memorandum of understanding designating visitor records as presidential.
They are "not the records of an 'agency' subject to the Freedom of Information Act," says the agreement that was not disclosed until months later, in late 2006. The records are "at all times under the exclusive legal custody and control of the White House."
Four months after the memorandum of agreement, Cheney's counsel wrote the Secret Service, stating that visitor records for the vice president's personal residence "are and shall remain subject to the exclusive ownership, custody and control of OVP."
The Sept. 13, 2006, date on the Cheney letter coincides with requests by The Washington Post seeking records on the vice president's visitors under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law enforcement agency "shall not retain any copy of these documents and information upon return to OVP," stated the letter to the Secret Service's chief counsel.
"If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible," the letter added.
The Justice Department filed the Cheney letter last Friday in one of the lawsuits brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is invoking the FOIA law in seeking the identities of conservative religious leaders who visited the White House complex and the vice president's residence. The group, which represents Valerie Palme and her husband in their lawsuit against Cheney and other key regime figures in the leak of Plame's CIA identity, also is seeking White House visitor logs in the Abramoff scandal.
According to government documents, the Secret Service routinely destroyed five of eight categories of information relating to visitors to Cheney's residence. Of the records it retained, the Secret Service regularly turned over handwritten visitor logs to Cheney's office.
The Secret Service stopped the destruction in June 2006 because of lawsuits by various groups, according to the court papers. The law enforcement agency also is retaining copies of the material, contrary to the directive in the September 2006 letter from Cheney's counsel.
The court filings by the government show that:
_On three occasions late in the administration of the first President Bush and during the first term of President Clinton, the Secret Service proposed treating copies of White House visitor documents as non-presidential records. In its court filings, the current Bush administration opposes releasing details of the Secret Service proposals, saying this "poses a substantial risk of creating public confusion" because the proposals were never adopted.
_In January 2001, as Clinton prepared to leave office, White House lawyers proposed the transfer of visitor records from the Secret Service to the White House. The proposal was entitled "Disposition of certain presidential records created by the USSS," or the Secret Service. The records are now at the Clinton library in Little Rock, Ark., the National Archives confirmed Thursday.
_In September 2004, a lawyer for the Bush White House and a special assistant to the director of the Secret Service proposed "informal views on one way to address the disposition" of visitor records, according to court documents. The unnamed associate White House counsel and the Secret Service assistant jointly authored a July 29, 2004, document bearing the same title as the Clinton administration document from 3 1/2 years earlier.
_In July 2005, the Secret Service gave a presentation on the issue to the White House counsel's office, the Justice Department and the National Archives.
_On May 11, 2006, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provided a legal opinion on the issue, which is among the many documents the government is refusing to disclose. Six days later, the White House and the Secret Service signed the agreement designating the records as presidential.
Presidential records are released starting five years after a president leaves office. Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, non-classified material is disclosed first, with classified documents and advice to the president released later after review by federal agencies, the White House and the former president.
Under an executive order President Bush signed in 2001, the archivist of the United States cannot unilaterally release the records without the permission of the current president, former presidents and their representatives.
"The scary thing about this move by the vice president's office is the power grab part of it," said Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, a private group which uses the FOIA law to pierce government secrecy.
"We're looking at a huge problem if the White House can reach into any agency and say certain records have something to do with the White House and they are presidential from now on," Blanton said. "This White House has been infinitely creative in finding new ways and new forms of government secrecy."
by: PETE YOST (Associated Press Writer)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_cheney_secrecy_2
WASHINGTON - A newly disclosed effort to keep Vice President Dick Cheney''s visitor records secret is the latest White House push to make sure the public doesn't learn who has been meeting with top officials in the Bush regime.
Over the past year, lawyers for President Bush and Cheney have directed the Secret Service to maintain the confidentiality of visitor entry and exit logs, declaring them to be presidential records, exempt from a law requiring their disclosure to whoever asks to see them.
The drive to keep the logs secret, the administration says, is essential to assuring that the president and vice president receive candid advice to carry out their duties.
Cabinet officers often don't want to give up their meeting calendars to journalists. They have no choice under the Freedom of Information Act, which provides public access to some records kept by federal agencies.
But the FOIA disclosure law, which doesn't apply to Congress, also doesn't apply to presidential records.
The Bush regime has exploited that difference, triggering a battle in the courts.
The regime is seeking dismissal of two lawsuits by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, demanding Secret Service visitor logs.
In trying to get the cases thrown out, the Justice Department has filed documents in court outlining a behind-the-scenes debate over whether Secret Service records are subject to public disclosure. The discussions date back at least to the administration of President Bush's father and involve the Justice Department and the National Archives as well as the White House and the Secret Service.
The government's court filings show that the Bush White House focused on the issue in the months before Election Day 2004.
Discussions moved into high gear when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal prompted news organizations and private groups to demand that the administration turn over Secret Service records of visitors to the White House complex and the vice president's residence.There was precedent for the demands.
During the Clinton administration, Republican-controlled congressional committees obtained Secret Service visitor logs while conducting investigations of the president and first lady.
Christopher Lehane, a former special assistant counsel to President and press secretary to then-Vice President Al Gore, points out the political implications of the Bush regime's campaign to close off access to the records.
"The question it raises is 'what are these guys hiding?'" said Lehane, now a Democratic consultant. "They can live with it because they've only got a year or so left, but it doesn't do a lot for public confidence in open government."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Thursday, "I can't comment on a case in litigation, and I can't speak to the decisions made by other administrations."
The Bush regime says it is standing on principle.
"It is important that the president be able to receive candid advice from his staff and other members of the administration," Fratto said. "To ensure that he receives candid advice, it is essential as a general matter that the advice remains confidential."
In a declaration filed in court a week ago, Cheney's deputy chief of staff, Claire O'Donnell, stated that "systematic public release of the information regarding when and with whom the vice president and vice presidential personnel conduct meetings would impinge on the ability of the OVP (office of the vice president) to gather information in confidence and perform its essential functions, including assisting the vice president in his critical roles of advising and assisting the president."
In May 2006, the Secret Service and the White House signed a memorandum of understanding designating visitor records as presidential.
They are "not the records of an 'agency' subject to the Freedom of Information Act," says the agreement that was not disclosed until months later, in late 2006. The records are "at all times under the exclusive legal custody and control of the White House."
Four months after the memorandum of agreement, Cheney's counsel wrote the Secret Service, stating that visitor records for the vice president's personal residence "are and shall remain subject to the exclusive ownership, custody and control of OVP."
The Sept. 13, 2006, date on the Cheney letter coincides with requests by The Washington Post seeking records on the vice president's visitors under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law enforcement agency "shall not retain any copy of these documents and information upon return to OVP," stated the letter to the Secret Service's chief counsel.
"If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible," the letter added.
The Justice Department filed the Cheney letter last Friday in one of the lawsuits brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is invoking the FOIA law in seeking the identities of conservative religious leaders who visited the White House complex and the vice president's residence. The group, which represents Valerie Palme and her husband in their lawsuit against Cheney and other key regime figures in the leak of Plame's CIA identity, also is seeking White House visitor logs in the Abramoff scandal.
According to government documents, the Secret Service routinely destroyed five of eight categories of information relating to visitors to Cheney's residence. Of the records it retained, the Secret Service regularly turned over handwritten visitor logs to Cheney's office.
The Secret Service stopped the destruction in June 2006 because of lawsuits by various groups, according to the court papers. The law enforcement agency also is retaining copies of the material, contrary to the directive in the September 2006 letter from Cheney's counsel.
The court filings by the government show that:
_On three occasions late in the administration of the first President Bush and during the first term of President Clinton, the Secret Service proposed treating copies of White House visitor documents as non-presidential records. In its court filings, the current Bush administration opposes releasing details of the Secret Service proposals, saying this "poses a substantial risk of creating public confusion" because the proposals were never adopted.
_In January 2001, as Clinton prepared to leave office, White House lawyers proposed the transfer of visitor records from the Secret Service to the White House. The proposal was entitled "Disposition of certain presidential records created by the USSS," or the Secret Service. The records are now at the Clinton library in Little Rock, Ark., the National Archives confirmed Thursday.
_In September 2004, a lawyer for the Bush White House and a special assistant to the director of the Secret Service proposed "informal views on one way to address the disposition" of visitor records, according to court documents. The unnamed associate White House counsel and the Secret Service assistant jointly authored a July 29, 2004, document bearing the same title as the Clinton administration document from 3 1/2 years earlier.
_In July 2005, the Secret Service gave a presentation on the issue to the White House counsel's office, the Justice Department and the National Archives.
_On May 11, 2006, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provided a legal opinion on the issue, which is among the many documents the government is refusing to disclose. Six days later, the White House and the Secret Service signed the agreement designating the records as presidential.
Presidential records are released starting five years after a president leaves office. Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, non-classified material is disclosed first, with classified documents and advice to the president released later after review by federal agencies, the White House and the former president.
Under an executive order President Bush signed in 2001, the archivist of the United States cannot unilaterally release the records without the permission of the current president, former presidents and their representatives.
"The scary thing about this move by the vice president's office is the power grab part of it," said Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, a private group which uses the FOIA law to pierce government secrecy.
"We're looking at a huge problem if the White House can reach into any agency and say certain records have something to do with the White House and they are presidential from now on," Blanton said. "This White House has been infinitely creative in finding new ways and new forms of government secrecy."
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Death Knell of the US Dollar
by: Clive Maund
29 November 2006
Source:
http://www.clivemaund.com/
This was very bearish action that signals panic, and the probable onset of a severe downtrend.
A break below the crucial support at 80 on the dollar index is expected to mark the transition from a clandestine unloading of dollar assets to an all-out stampede to get what you can for them before its too late.
The conditions leading to an inevitable dollar panic sell-off did not come about overnight. They are the result of years of abuse, principally by the Federal Reserve of the US, which has created a veritable blizzard of dollars, and the universal acceptance of this funny money has, up until now, allowed the United States to freeload economically on the rest of the world, living way beyond its means.
The exponential growth in dollars has been and is created electronically at the touch of a button, so that paying for anything is never a problem, whatever you want you simply print the extra money to pay for.
Because foreigners have so far played along with this game, they are now widely, and to some extent understandably, regarded as stupid.
However, it is a dangerous mistake to underestimate the mental capacities of other peoples. The Chinese, in particular, have an ancient and deep culture, and when it comes to strategic considerations, can outthink - and outflank virtually anyone. So whats going on? - why have they accepted a mountain of paper and IOUs over many years in exchange for real hard work and a vast quantity of real tangible products? The Chinese, and others, have done this to carry them over a bringing period during which they have built up their economies and infrastructure.
Their goal - which they are fast moving towards - is to arrive at the point where there is sufficient domestic and regional demand that they no longer need to rely on orders from countries like the United States. At this point - which we may arrive at sooner rather than later - things will become very dangerous for the US dollar, and the situation is actually far worse than many now believe, because the Chinese and others are preparing to WRITE OFF THEIR DOLLAR ASSETS AS A BAD LOSS - they will try to get what they can for them, of course, but otherwise will be ready to fall back on domestic and regional demand and tough it out, thus severing the umbilical with the United States, which will be left stranded, with no takers for its funny money, a gutted manufacturing base, astronomic debts and fiscal chaos, and a huge military it can no longer afford to service.
When the forces of globalization are let loose, as they have been, this is actually a natural and inevitable process, as orders and work simply move to the lowest bidders. Europe and the United States are uncompetitive and will be sidelined by the powerhouse economies of China and South East Asia.
The Chinese and other trading partners with the US are already rotating out of dollars and into Dinars, Euros, commodities generally, and Precious Metals at an ever increasing pace. As we already know, this has been a primary driver for the commodities boom.
The recent attempt by the United States to maintain its dominance by brute force - a big reason why Iraq was invaded was that it was planning to sell its oil in Euros - is right now, quite literally, running into the sand, and it is now only a question of when, not if, the helicopters arrive on the rooftops to evacuate the last of the embattled US service personnel, like in the film The Killing Fields, although a last wildly dangerous attack on Iran still cannot be ruled out.
Having looked at the fundamentals, lets now see what the charts have to say about the dollar.
On the 1-year chart for the dollar index we can see how the plunge on Thursday broke the dollar down out of a gentle uptrend that had been in force from the May low. It fell steeply again on Friday to arrive in the support zone at the May - June low. This support may provide temporary relief, but the severity of the decline suggests that it wont be long until it resumes, assuming it pauses at all that is, which it may not.
Note the bearish alignment of the moving averages, with the 50-day having closed up the gap with the 200-day in recent months, creating the potential for another severe decline.
On the 6-year chart we can see that the dollar had been marking out a potential Head-and-Shoulders bottom pattern since early 2004, but that the action of the past few days signals that the pattern is aborting, and a clear break below the May lows, which we are close to, will project the index down to the crucial long-term support at and approaching 80.
What is the origin of this strong long-term support? To see this we will have to look at a chart going back many years.
The chart going back to early 1987 shows the origins of the strong long-term support at and above 80, for on this chart we can see that it has bounced repeatedly from this level. It approached this level way back in 1978 (not shown), and again in late 1990, and it bounced from it in 1992, again in 1995, and in late 2004. Clearly it is unlikely that the dollar will drop to this level and fall straight through it, without first pausing above it for a while or staging a weak rally.
That said, however, the fundamental outlook for the dollar is truly awful for reasons made clear above, and so, despite the strength of support at this level, the dollar is not expected to hold above it for very long.
Over the past couple of months it has become obvious to all but those who started it that the US has lost the war in Iraq, and can now only engage in a face-saving or damage limitation exercise. This has further damaged US credibility worldwide.
The deficits are a running sore that continues to exert a bearish influence, and big dollar asset holders such as the Chinese are scrambling to unwind their dollar positions, in a manner that avoids precipitating a panic, which will be quite a feat if they achieve it.
What will happen to the dollar if it breaks below the immensely important support at 80? The prospect is an all-out panic and a rout, and its anyone's guess where it will finally bottom out.
Many forward thinking and intelligent US readers are already aware of the gravity of the situation, and have been mobilizing themselves to get at least a portion of their assets either out of the country, or at least out of US dollar denominated assets.
by: Clive Maund
29 November 2006
Source:
http://www.clivemaund.com/
The dollar plunged with startling ferocity late last week, driven by heavy selling.
This was very bearish action that signals panic, and the probable onset of a severe downtrend.
A break below the crucial support at 80 on the dollar index is expected to mark the transition from a clandestine unloading of dollar assets to an all-out stampede to get what you can for them before its too late.
The conditions leading to an inevitable dollar panic sell-off did not come about overnight. They are the result of years of abuse, principally by the Federal Reserve of the US, which has created a veritable blizzard of dollars, and the universal acceptance of this funny money has, up until now, allowed the United States to freeload economically on the rest of the world, living way beyond its means.
The exponential growth in dollars has been and is created electronically at the touch of a button, so that paying for anything is never a problem, whatever you want you simply print the extra money to pay for.
Because foreigners have so far played along with this game, they are now widely, and to some extent understandably, regarded as stupid.
However, it is a dangerous mistake to underestimate the mental capacities of other peoples. The Chinese, in particular, have an ancient and deep culture, and when it comes to strategic considerations, can outthink - and outflank virtually anyone. So whats going on? - why have they accepted a mountain of paper and IOUs over many years in exchange for real hard work and a vast quantity of real tangible products? The Chinese, and others, have done this to carry them over a bringing period during which they have built up their economies and infrastructure.
Their goal - which they are fast moving towards - is to arrive at the point where there is sufficient domestic and regional demand that they no longer need to rely on orders from countries like the United States. At this point - which we may arrive at sooner rather than later - things will become very dangerous for the US dollar, and the situation is actually far worse than many now believe, because the Chinese and others are preparing to WRITE OFF THEIR DOLLAR ASSETS AS A BAD LOSS - they will try to get what they can for them, of course, but otherwise will be ready to fall back on domestic and regional demand and tough it out, thus severing the umbilical with the United States, which will be left stranded, with no takers for its funny money, a gutted manufacturing base, astronomic debts and fiscal chaos, and a huge military it can no longer afford to service.
When the forces of globalization are let loose, as they have been, this is actually a natural and inevitable process, as orders and work simply move to the lowest bidders. Europe and the United States are uncompetitive and will be sidelined by the powerhouse economies of China and South East Asia.
The Chinese and other trading partners with the US are already rotating out of dollars and into Dinars, Euros, commodities generally, and Precious Metals at an ever increasing pace. As we already know, this has been a primary driver for the commodities boom.
The recent attempt by the United States to maintain its dominance by brute force - a big reason why Iraq was invaded was that it was planning to sell its oil in Euros - is right now, quite literally, running into the sand, and it is now only a question of when, not if, the helicopters arrive on the rooftops to evacuate the last of the embattled US service personnel, like in the film The Killing Fields, although a last wildly dangerous attack on Iran still cannot be ruled out.
Having looked at the fundamentals, lets now see what the charts have to say about the dollar.
On the 1-year chart for the dollar index we can see how the plunge on Thursday broke the dollar down out of a gentle uptrend that had been in force from the May low. It fell steeply again on Friday to arrive in the support zone at the May - June low. This support may provide temporary relief, but the severity of the decline suggests that it wont be long until it resumes, assuming it pauses at all that is, which it may not.
Note the bearish alignment of the moving averages, with the 50-day having closed up the gap with the 200-day in recent months, creating the potential for another severe decline.
On the 6-year chart we can see that the dollar had been marking out a potential Head-and-Shoulders bottom pattern since early 2004, but that the action of the past few days signals that the pattern is aborting, and a clear break below the May lows, which we are close to, will project the index down to the crucial long-term support at and approaching 80.
What is the origin of this strong long-term support? To see this we will have to look at a chart going back many years.
The chart going back to early 1987 shows the origins of the strong long-term support at and above 80, for on this chart we can see that it has bounced repeatedly from this level. It approached this level way back in 1978 (not shown), and again in late 1990, and it bounced from it in 1992, again in 1995, and in late 2004. Clearly it is unlikely that the dollar will drop to this level and fall straight through it, without first pausing above it for a while or staging a weak rally.
That said, however, the fundamental outlook for the dollar is truly awful for reasons made clear above, and so, despite the strength of support at this level, the dollar is not expected to hold above it for very long.
Over the past couple of months it has become obvious to all but those who started it that the US has lost the war in Iraq, and can now only engage in a face-saving or damage limitation exercise. This has further damaged US credibility worldwide.
The deficits are a running sore that continues to exert a bearish influence, and big dollar asset holders such as the Chinese are scrambling to unwind their dollar positions, in a manner that avoids precipitating a panic, which will be quite a feat if they achieve it.
What will happen to the dollar if it breaks below the immensely important support at 80? The prospect is an all-out panic and a rout, and its anyone's guess where it will finally bottom out.
Many forward thinking and intelligent US readers are already aware of the gravity of the situation, and have been mobilizing themselves to get at least a portion of their assets either out of the country, or at least out of US dollar denominated assets.
7 Reasons To Nuke The USA
by: Yamin Zakaria
26 February 2007
According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world.
The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them.
There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.
This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible.
Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side!
The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins!
Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!
Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators.
If it is the ‘terrorists' (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc...) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages.
Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism!
Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.
1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.
2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression, and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.
3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don't find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women's rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.
4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.
5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!
6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.
7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.
Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list.
My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means!
In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea, etc., goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech.
Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!
Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides.
Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs.
The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis, and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.
Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it's armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad do not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.
Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.
They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals.
The Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: "And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)"
.
by: Yamin Zakaria
26 February 2007
According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world.
The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them.
There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.
This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible.
Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side!
The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins!
Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!
Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators.
If it is the ‘terrorists' (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc...) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages.
Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism!
Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.
1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.
2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression, and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.
3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don't find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women's rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.
4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.
5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!
6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.
7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.
Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list.
My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means!
In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea, etc., goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech.
Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!
Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides.
Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs.
The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis, and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.
Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it's armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad do not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.
Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.
They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals.
The Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: "And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)"
.
COLOMBIA POLITICAL SCANDAL IMPERILING U.S. TIES
by: Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
27 February 2007
Source:
www.Boston.com (The Boston Globe)
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/25/colombia_political_scandal_imperiling_us_ties/
Just two weeks ahead of a high-profile visit by President Bush to Latin America, the United States' key partner on the continent is engulfed in an extraordinary scandal that threatens to undermine the credibility of US alliances and policy priorities from Mexico to Argentina.
The widening probe linking dozens of political allies of Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, to the country's right-wing death squads and drug traffickers has started to erode support on Capitol Hill for Colombia, the biggest recipient of US aid outside the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The United States has spent .7 billion since 2000 fighting drugs and the insurgency in Colombia. In a show of support for his center-right ally, President Bush is scheduled next month to be the first US president since John F. Kennedy to visit the Colombian capital of Bogotá.
But after a week that saw the ouster of Uribe's foreign minister over her family's ties to paramilitary militias and the arrest of his hand picked former secret police chief for murder, the next casualty of the scandal could be America's reputation. The region feels forgotten by and estranged from Washington, D.C., since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and a string of victories by leftist presidents.
Bush is not expected to offer significant new aid or trade in his March 8-14 tour, his nemesis Hugo Chávez of oil-rich Venezuela is traversing the continent with an open checkbook.
"Who have we staked all of our political capital on in Latin America? Uribe," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, a think tank in Washington. "If this scandal engulfs him or his armed forces, it will be a devastating blow to the whole design of US policy."
The "para-political" scandal burst open last fall, when a computer seized from paramilitary leader "Jorge 40" revealed the names of dozens of politicians who supposedly collaborated with paramilitaries in intimidating voters, seizing land, and kidnapping or killing labor unionists and political rivals. Other revelations followed, including secret documents signed by officials pledging moral support or kickbacks to the illegal militias.
The paramilitaries formed in the 1980s to combat leftist guerrillas who have terrorized the population for more than 40 years. But the militias, like their leftist rivals, were soon implicated in massacres, kidnapping, and drug trafficking to the United States. The paramilitary umbrella group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is classified as a terrorist organization by Washington, and many of its leaders are wanted for extradition on drug charges.
In a peace process started by Uribe, about 31,000 alleged paramilitary fighters had put down their weapons and agreed to confess to crimes in exchange for lighter penalties, making way for investigations into links to powerful elites.
Eight pro-Uribe congressmen have been arrested for collaborating with paramilitaries, and dozens of national and regional politicians, some who have apparently fled the country, are under investigation. Pro-Uribe legislators, as well as the opposition, have called for special elections to "cleanse" Congress, to erase suspicions that many may have won because of support from paramilitaries. A decorated colonel has been relieved of his post, and other former military officials are also under investigation.
On Monday, Uribe's foreign minister, María Consuelo Araújo, resigned after the Supreme Court arrested her brother, an Uribe-allied senator, for involvement in the kidnapping of a political rival. Her father, a former governor, another brother, and a cousin are also under investigation.
On Thursday came the worst blow. Jorge Noguera, who served as Uribe's campaign manager and later as head of Colombia's secret police, was arrested by the attorney general. Noguera is accused of giving a hit list of trade unionists and activists to paramilitaries, who then killed them. Another former secret police official is serving an 18- year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and drug traffickers.
Already, the scandal has had a ripple effect on Capitol Hill, where questions are being raised about requests for an additional billion in antinarcotics aid and a free-trade pact is up for approval.
"American taxpayers deserve assurances that the Colombian government has severed links to these terrorist groups," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees US foreign-assistance programs. "[This] scandal only reinforces the need to reassess who we are dealing with, whether adequate corrective steps are being taken, and what we are getting for our money."
For the Bush administration, Uribe has been a staunch and rare supporter in a region increasingly dominated by leftist or anti-US leaders. But with Colombia's Congress opening hearings next month into paramilitary power in Uribe's home state, including accusations against Uribe's brother, the scandal threatens to swallow up the president himself.
Uribe's defenders at home and in Washington are standing firm, countering that it is his success in persuading paramilitaries to disarm and confess that has shed light on the links to illegal militias. A recent Gallup Colombia poll gave Uribe a 73 percent approval rating.
"The US applauds the Colombian government for its determination to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute all charges of ties to paramilitary organizations and other illegal armed groups," Eric Watnik, a State Department spokesman, said in a telephone interview from Washington.
But with Bush set to visit Bogotá, US policy to Colombia will be under the microscope. In addition to Democrats in Congress, some of Colombia's neighbors may question why Washington sticks by an administration in the midst of a humiliating crisis.
US Representative William D. Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat active in Latin American affairs, said evidence of the right-of-center government's links to death squads "evokes memories of the 1980s in Central America. I think you're going to see hearings on these issues." Aside from the problems in Colombia, Delahunt contended that "what we have is a Latin America policy that is an afterthought."
Maria McFarland, a Colombia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said Bush has "stood by Uribe unconditionally," despite long standing allegations of his armed forces collaborating with death squads. With proof now emerging, McFarland said, US policy appears hypocritical.
"They are prepared to criticize very harshly leaders they disagree with, but when their allies do something, they turn a blind eye," she said. If the United States continues "to support so strongly a government mired in corruption and links to terrorists and drug lords," it will fuel resentment from other Latin American countries that have been ignored, she said.
Having put so much faith in Uribe, Bush is expected to broaden his agenda during a trip that will also take him to Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, and Mexico.
"We'll see a real emphasis on Mexico and Brazil, on ethanol and biofuel -- an attempt to elevate other regional players," predicted Dan Restrepo of the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington. "Part of the silver lining in all this could be a wake-up call to pursue all of our interests in Latin America."
But Leonardo Carvajal , a professor of foreign affairs at the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogotá, dismissed such comments as failing to take into account the strategic realpolitik of the region.
"Colombia is the beachhead of US interests in Latin America. . . . It doesn't matter what scandal happens," Carvajal said. "Everyone knows that the counterbalance to Chávez is Uribe and that Colombia is the bastion of US interests in Latin America."
by: Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
27 February 2007
Source:
www.Boston.com (The Boston Globe)
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/25/colombia_political_scandal_imperiling_us_ties/
Just two weeks ahead of a high-profile visit by President Bush to Latin America, the United States' key partner on the continent is engulfed in an extraordinary scandal that threatens to undermine the credibility of US alliances and policy priorities from Mexico to Argentina.
The widening probe linking dozens of political allies of Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, to the country's right-wing death squads and drug traffickers has started to erode support on Capitol Hill for Colombia, the biggest recipient of US aid outside the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The United States has spent .7 billion since 2000 fighting drugs and the insurgency in Colombia. In a show of support for his center-right ally, President Bush is scheduled next month to be the first US president since John F. Kennedy to visit the Colombian capital of Bogotá.
But after a week that saw the ouster of Uribe's foreign minister over her family's ties to paramilitary militias and the arrest of his hand picked former secret police chief for murder, the next casualty of the scandal could be America's reputation. The region feels forgotten by and estranged from Washington, D.C., since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and a string of victories by leftist presidents.
Bush is not expected to offer significant new aid or trade in his March 8-14 tour, his nemesis Hugo Chávez of oil-rich Venezuela is traversing the continent with an open checkbook.
"Who have we staked all of our political capital on in Latin America? Uribe," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, a think tank in Washington. "If this scandal engulfs him or his armed forces, it will be a devastating blow to the whole design of US policy."
The "para-political" scandal burst open last fall, when a computer seized from paramilitary leader "Jorge 40" revealed the names of dozens of politicians who supposedly collaborated with paramilitaries in intimidating voters, seizing land, and kidnapping or killing labor unionists and political rivals. Other revelations followed, including secret documents signed by officials pledging moral support or kickbacks to the illegal militias.
The paramilitaries formed in the 1980s to combat leftist guerrillas who have terrorized the population for more than 40 years. But the militias, like their leftist rivals, were soon implicated in massacres, kidnapping, and drug trafficking to the United States. The paramilitary umbrella group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is classified as a terrorist organization by Washington, and many of its leaders are wanted for extradition on drug charges.
In a peace process started by Uribe, about 31,000 alleged paramilitary fighters had put down their weapons and agreed to confess to crimes in exchange for lighter penalties, making way for investigations into links to powerful elites.
Eight pro-Uribe congressmen have been arrested for collaborating with paramilitaries, and dozens of national and regional politicians, some who have apparently fled the country, are under investigation. Pro-Uribe legislators, as well as the opposition, have called for special elections to "cleanse" Congress, to erase suspicions that many may have won because of support from paramilitaries. A decorated colonel has been relieved of his post, and other former military officials are also under investigation.
On Monday, Uribe's foreign minister, María Consuelo Araújo, resigned after the Supreme Court arrested her brother, an Uribe-allied senator, for involvement in the kidnapping of a political rival. Her father, a former governor, another brother, and a cousin are also under investigation.
On Thursday came the worst blow. Jorge Noguera, who served as Uribe's campaign manager and later as head of Colombia's secret police, was arrested by the attorney general. Noguera is accused of giving a hit list of trade unionists and activists to paramilitaries, who then killed them. Another former secret police official is serving an 18- year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and drug traffickers.
Already, the scandal has had a ripple effect on Capitol Hill, where questions are being raised about requests for an additional billion in antinarcotics aid and a free-trade pact is up for approval.
"American taxpayers deserve assurances that the Colombian government has severed links to these terrorist groups," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees US foreign-assistance programs. "[This] scandal only reinforces the need to reassess who we are dealing with, whether adequate corrective steps are being taken, and what we are getting for our money."
For the Bush administration, Uribe has been a staunch and rare supporter in a region increasingly dominated by leftist or anti-US leaders. But with Colombia's Congress opening hearings next month into paramilitary power in Uribe's home state, including accusations against Uribe's brother, the scandal threatens to swallow up the president himself.
Uribe's defenders at home and in Washington are standing firm, countering that it is his success in persuading paramilitaries to disarm and confess that has shed light on the links to illegal militias. A recent Gallup Colombia poll gave Uribe a 73 percent approval rating.
"The US applauds the Colombian government for its determination to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute all charges of ties to paramilitary organizations and other illegal armed groups," Eric Watnik, a State Department spokesman, said in a telephone interview from Washington.
But with Bush set to visit Bogotá, US policy to Colombia will be under the microscope. In addition to Democrats in Congress, some of Colombia's neighbors may question why Washington sticks by an administration in the midst of a humiliating crisis.
US Representative William D. Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat active in Latin American affairs, said evidence of the right-of-center government's links to death squads "evokes memories of the 1980s in Central America. I think you're going to see hearings on these issues." Aside from the problems in Colombia, Delahunt contended that "what we have is a Latin America policy that is an afterthought."
Maria McFarland, a Colombia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said Bush has "stood by Uribe unconditionally," despite long standing allegations of his armed forces collaborating with death squads. With proof now emerging, McFarland said, US policy appears hypocritical.
"They are prepared to criticize very harshly leaders they disagree with, but when their allies do something, they turn a blind eye," she said. If the United States continues "to support so strongly a government mired in corruption and links to terrorists and drug lords," it will fuel resentment from other Latin American countries that have been ignored, she said.
Having put so much faith in Uribe, Bush is expected to broaden his agenda during a trip that will also take him to Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, and Mexico.
"We'll see a real emphasis on Mexico and Brazil, on ethanol and biofuel -- an attempt to elevate other regional players," predicted Dan Restrepo of the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington. "Part of the silver lining in all this could be a wake-up call to pursue all of our interests in Latin America."
But Leonardo Carvajal , a professor of foreign affairs at the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogotá, dismissed such comments as failing to take into account the strategic realpolitik of the region.
"Colombia is the beachhead of US interests in Latin America. . . . It doesn't matter what scandal happens," Carvajal said. "Everyone knows that the counterbalance to Chávez is Uribe and that Colombia is the bastion of US interests in Latin America."
BRITISH TROOPS IN IRAQ FACE RISK OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Monday, March 12, 2007
Source:
www.Dailytimes.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C03%5C12%5Cstory_12-3-2007_pg7_35
"New government figures reveal that more than 2,100 soldiers have returned from Iraq since 2003 suffering from some form of mental illness," Sean Rayment writes in the British newspaper.
"The threat from roadside bombs, the intensity of the combat and the fear associated with fighting a hidden enemy are all factors said to be leading to large numbers of troops returning from operational tours with serious mental conditions."
Psychiatric conditions suffered by service personnel include post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), manic depression, and drug and alcohol dependency.
But it has also emerged that up to seven British service personnel have committed suicide either during or after active duty in Iraq.
The Ministry of Defence is yet to publish figures of the number of soldiers diagnosed with a psychiatric condition after serving in Afghanistan, where the risk of death and injury has been even greater in recent months than in Iraq.
Combat Stress, a mental health charity for veterans, has said that it has seen a 26 percent increase over the past year in the number of troops seeking help. They include 160 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking help for mental health conditions, many of which were not diagnosed while they were serving in the forces.
Robert Marsh, the charity's director of fund-raising, said: "The average veteran does not seek help for at least 10 years. The military could be facing a mental health time bomb."
The MoD's figures show that of the 2,100 troops diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, 904 had developed adjustment disorders, where sufferers have difficulty readjusting to their normal way of life after a traumatic experience.
Up to 328 servicemen and women returned from Iraq with PTSD, which can lead to manic depression, and another 227 were diagnosed with other neurotic disorders.
The figures also stated that 188 had taken part in so-called psychoactive substance misuse, including alcohol and drug abuse, and the abuse of antidepressants.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Source:
www.Dailytimes.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C03%5C12%5Cstory_12-3-2007_pg7_35
Thousands of British troops are facing permanent psychological damage after fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a mental health charity has warned, reports the Sunday Telegraph.
"New government figures reveal that more than 2,100 soldiers have returned from Iraq since 2003 suffering from some form of mental illness," Sean Rayment writes in the British newspaper.
"The threat from roadside bombs, the intensity of the combat and the fear associated with fighting a hidden enemy are all factors said to be leading to large numbers of troops returning from operational tours with serious mental conditions."
Psychiatric conditions suffered by service personnel include post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), manic depression, and drug and alcohol dependency.
But it has also emerged that up to seven British service personnel have committed suicide either during or after active duty in Iraq.
The Ministry of Defence is yet to publish figures of the number of soldiers diagnosed with a psychiatric condition after serving in Afghanistan, where the risk of death and injury has been even greater in recent months than in Iraq.
Combat Stress, a mental health charity for veterans, has said that it has seen a 26 percent increase over the past year in the number of troops seeking help. They include 160 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking help for mental health conditions, many of which were not diagnosed while they were serving in the forces.
Robert Marsh, the charity's director of fund-raising, said: "The average veteran does not seek help for at least 10 years. The military could be facing a mental health time bomb."
The MoD's figures show that of the 2,100 troops diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, 904 had developed adjustment disorders, where sufferers have difficulty readjusting to their normal way of life after a traumatic experience.
Up to 328 servicemen and women returned from Iraq with PTSD, which can lead to manic depression, and another 227 were diagnosed with other neurotic disorders.
The figures also stated that 188 had taken part in so-called psychoactive substance misuse, including alcohol and drug abuse, and the abuse of antidepressants.
COMMENTARY:
A desperate Army Is Scraping The Bottom
by: JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Wed, Mar. 14, 2007
Source:
http://www.realcities.com/
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16903393.htm
An Army already stretched painfully thin is now being asked to find the additional 25,000-plus troops to man President Bush's escalation in Iraq and, it's now obvious, prepare for additional combat rotations next year.
All the easy sweeping up of manpower already has been done. All the obvious moves to rob Peter to pay Paul have been carried out just to keep this unending war going.
Now comes the hardest part: Units that are completing their second or third yearlong combat tours are being extended for another four or six months.
Other units, now home for their promised 12 months with their families, are being told they will go back to combat sooner than that. Army National Guard units that'd already served the maximum time on active duty, in combat, are being told that the rules have changed, and they're again being called back for Iraq service.
It doesn't matter that those Guard units were ordered to leave virtually all of their equipment in Iraq and have had none of it replaced so that they might actually train for the eventuality that has befallen them. Nor does it matter that there may not be equipment and vehicles waiting for them in Iraq when they get there. Nor does it seem to matter that, four years into this war, there still aren't enough sets of body armor to provide one for every soldier sent to Iraq in this escalation. Or that in the fervent search for bodies to fill the quotas the Army has begun combing the lists of wounded soldiers and re-evaluating their fitness to return to the war, rating some soldiers who are no longer physically able to even wear the 35 pounds of body armor good to go.
That might be one solution to the scandalous treatment of soldiers on out-patient status at Walter Reed Army Hospital - rate them good to go and send them back in to Iraq. The Army, that once-magnificent Army we counted on as our shield in a dangerous world, is being bled to death in the streets and on the roads of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Politicians only now are talking about adding 100,000 more soldiers to the Army and Marine Corps, when that's something that should have begun on Sept. 12, 2001.
Where and how do they propose to find and enlist 10,000 or 20,000 more troops each year when it is literally all the recruiters can do to find enough young men and women to fill the existing quota of at least 80,000 each year?
Again, all the cheap fixes have been used. They've raised the maximum age for enlistment from 35 to 42. Should we kick that higher, say 65? Then you would have your choice: Medicare or boot camp? We've doubled the number of convicted felons permitted to enlist. We've lowered the minimum standards to allow for more high school dropouts, more people who test in the lowest quarter on mental aptitude, and more people who are tattooed from elbow to ear. And we've boosted enlistment bonuses too. Sign on the dotted line, young man, and you're on your way to boot camp and Iraq with money in your pocket.
Of course, if the economy does a meltdown there could be a boom in enlistments and all our problems would be solved. If this war continues much longer it may be hard to postpone that economic meltdown.
The Defense Department budget is now running at half a trillion dollars annually. The war in Iraq costs more than billion a week. The long-term costs of Bush's great adventure in taking down the late and unlamented Saddam Hussein are now estimated at perhaps .5 trillion when lifetime health care for thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers and Marines is figured in.
If the war ended today it would cost billions to repair and replace the equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq. All of these costs are being pushed down the line to be borne by our children and grandchildren and their children in the form of burgeoning budget deficits seen and, as yet, unseen.
When is someone, somewhere in this country going to stand up and demand an accounting for all we've lost in a foolish, unjustified and unnecessary war in the wrong place, against the wrong people, at the wrong time - conducted by a president who got every bit of it wrong?
Bayside,
Texas 78340
E-mail: jlgalloway2@cs.com
A desperate Army Is Scraping The Bottom
by: JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Wed, Mar. 14, 2007
Source:
http://www.realcities.com/
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16903393.htm
An Army already stretched painfully thin is now being asked to find the additional 25,000-plus troops to man President Bush's escalation in Iraq and, it's now obvious, prepare for additional combat rotations next year.
All the easy sweeping up of manpower already has been done. All the obvious moves to rob Peter to pay Paul have been carried out just to keep this unending war going.
Now comes the hardest part: Units that are completing their second or third yearlong combat tours are being extended for another four or six months.
Other units, now home for their promised 12 months with their families, are being told they will go back to combat sooner than that. Army National Guard units that'd already served the maximum time on active duty, in combat, are being told that the rules have changed, and they're again being called back for Iraq service.
It doesn't matter that those Guard units were ordered to leave virtually all of their equipment in Iraq and have had none of it replaced so that they might actually train for the eventuality that has befallen them. Nor does it matter that there may not be equipment and vehicles waiting for them in Iraq when they get there. Nor does it seem to matter that, four years into this war, there still aren't enough sets of body armor to provide one for every soldier sent to Iraq in this escalation. Or that in the fervent search for bodies to fill the quotas the Army has begun combing the lists of wounded soldiers and re-evaluating their fitness to return to the war, rating some soldiers who are no longer physically able to even wear the 35 pounds of body armor good to go.
That might be one solution to the scandalous treatment of soldiers on out-patient status at Walter Reed Army Hospital - rate them good to go and send them back in to Iraq. The Army, that once-magnificent Army we counted on as our shield in a dangerous world, is being bled to death in the streets and on the roads of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Politicians only now are talking about adding 100,000 more soldiers to the Army and Marine Corps, when that's something that should have begun on Sept. 12, 2001.
Where and how do they propose to find and enlist 10,000 or 20,000 more troops each year when it is literally all the recruiters can do to find enough young men and women to fill the existing quota of at least 80,000 each year?
Again, all the cheap fixes have been used. They've raised the maximum age for enlistment from 35 to 42. Should we kick that higher, say 65? Then you would have your choice: Medicare or boot camp? We've doubled the number of convicted felons permitted to enlist. We've lowered the minimum standards to allow for more high school dropouts, more people who test in the lowest quarter on mental aptitude, and more people who are tattooed from elbow to ear. And we've boosted enlistment bonuses too. Sign on the dotted line, young man, and you're on your way to boot camp and Iraq with money in your pocket.
Of course, if the economy does a meltdown there could be a boom in enlistments and all our problems would be solved. If this war continues much longer it may be hard to postpone that economic meltdown.
The Defense Department budget is now running at half a trillion dollars annually. The war in Iraq costs more than billion a week. The long-term costs of Bush's great adventure in taking down the late and unlamented Saddam Hussein are now estimated at perhaps .5 trillion when lifetime health care for thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers and Marines is figured in.
If the war ended today it would cost billions to repair and replace the equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq. All of these costs are being pushed down the line to be borne by our children and grandchildren and their children in the form of burgeoning budget deficits seen and, as yet, unseen.
When is someone, somewhere in this country going to stand up and demand an accounting for all we've lost in a foolish, unjustified and unnecessary war in the wrong place, against the wrong people, at the wrong time - conducted by a president who got every bit of it wrong?
When are we going to cut our incredible losses in Iraq - human, spiritual, and monetary - and get back on the road to being a better country and a better people whose leaders believe, as we do, in the U.S. Constitution and habeas corpus and the right to privacy?
ABOUT THE WRITER:
Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at:
P.O. Box 399, ABOUT THE WRITER:
Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at:
Bayside,
Texas 78340
E-mail: jlgalloway2@cs.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
