Monday, 14 May 2007

Michael Moore Responds to Treasury Secretary's Investigation Threat

by: Michael Moore

May 12, 2007

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/51794/



Under investigation by the Bush Dictatorship for taking ill 9/11 clean up workers to Cuba for better treatment than they received in America, Moore answers, "I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide."



Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson


Secretary Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury



Secretary Paulson,

I am contacting you in light of the document sent to me dated May 2, 2007, which was received May 7, 2007 indicating that an investigation has been opened up with regards to a trip I took to Cuba with a group of Americans that included some 9/11 heroes in March 2007 related to the filming of my next documentary, on the American Healthcare system. SiCKO, which will be seen in theaters this summer, will expose the health care industry's greed and control over America's political processes.

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Regime's abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Dictatorship, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests, and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Regime has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

There are a number of specific facts that have led me to conclude that politics could very well be driving this Bush Regime investigation of me and my film.

First, the Bush Regime has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of Herr Fuhrer George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles.

It is well documented that the industry is very concerned about the impact of SiCKO. They have threatened their employees if they talk to me. They have set up special internal crises lines should I show up at their headquarters. Employees have been warned about the consequences of participating in SiCKO. Despite this, some employees, at great risk to themselves, have gone on camera to tell the American people the truth about the health care industry. I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions -- Herr Fuhrer Bush -- would want to harass, intimidate, and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience.

And, third, this investigation is being opened in the wake of misleading attacks on the purpose of the Cuba trip from a possible leading Republican candidate Fred Thompson, a major conservative newspaper The New York Post, and various right wing blogs.

For five and a half years, the Bush Regime has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community. These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care. I understand why the Bush Regime is coming after me -- I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

I demand that the Bush Regime immediately end this investigation and spend its time and resources trying to support some of the real heroes of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

Sunday, 13 May 2007

Preventing War with Iran

by: Noam Chomsky

April 07, 2007

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/story/50197/


Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements - from Washington and Baghdad - about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble.

What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed - or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule - notably absent - would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush Regime and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.


"The Iran effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim - though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush Regime against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through - as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam - fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites - nuclear and otherwise - in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.


Promoting democracy - at home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion - this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over US$100,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years - with scattered and temporary exceptions - and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.

Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Venezuela Criticizes DEA As 'New Cartel'

by: Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press

Monday, May 07, 2007

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_drugs




CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela on Monday said it will not allow U.S. agents to carry out counter-drug operations in the country, accusing the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration of being a "new cartel" that aids traffickers.

Justice Minister Pedro Carreno said the South American nation suspended cooperation with the agency in 2005 after determining that "they were moving a large amount of drugs." President Hugo Chavez at the time also accused the DEA of spying.

"The United States with its DEA monopolizes the shipping of drugs like a cartel," Carreno told reporters. "We determined that we were evidently in the presence of a new cartel." He did not elaborate.

U.S. officials say about 10 DEA agents have remained in Venezuela working with law enforcement contacts even after the Chavez government suspended formal cooperation.
Carreno was responding to comments by John Walters, the U.S. director of National Drug Control Policy, who told the Colombian magazine Semana in an interview published last week: "Chavez has refused to cooperate. It's a shame. Venezuela is gaining in importance for the drug traffickers."

Carreno said Venezuela is making important strides in fighting drug trafficking.

"The Venezuelan government doesn't accept blackmail," Carreno said. Security agencies are willing to follow up on any information provided to track down traffickers, he added, but "what we will not permit them to do is carry out operations in our territory."

Saturday, 21 April 2007

Don't Slag Sanjaya: He's A True Star

by: ACE BURPEE

Source:
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/04/20/4078911-sun.html



His name has become a household word, but now the best thing to happen to television in years (for me, not so much for many others, apparently) has been kicked off American Idol.

Sanjaya Malakar's unprecedented and glorious run on the biggest TV show in the world has finally come to an end.

American Idol fans, you have your show back.

And I could not be less interested in how it turns out.


A five-pack on the would-be star:

5. Don't be mad at Sanjaya. Aren't you always telling your kids that all you're asking is that they try their best? He likes his parents, he tries hard, he's good to others. This should be your kid's role model.

4. Sanjaya was raked over the coals for apparently being a sub-par singer in what essentially is a singing competition. Since when is a good singing voice a pre-requisite for joining the music industry? Neil Young wouldn't win American Idol and he's done OK for himself.

3. If you want someone to blame for Sanjaya ruining your show, blame the guy who canceled The Gong Show in 1980. There should never have been a talent contest by any other name.

2. Do those who wanted the kid off the show also want Gabe to stop dancing? I hope not.

1. I'm going to start growing my hair and go as Sanjaya for Halloween. That's a mark of your impact on popular culture. How many other Idol contestants could be a Halloween costume? None. That means the biggest star didn't win.

Sunday, 8 April 2007

Arab Street Warms To Showman Ahmadinejad

by: Andrew England (in Cairo)

Friday, April 06, 2007

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a2ccdde6-e450-11db-bf06-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html


On the dusty streets of Cairo, once considered the most important capital in the Arab world, Egyptians mulled over the recent performance of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, with most concluding he deserved a thumbs-up.

The Iranian President’s eye-catching showmanship as he announced the release of the 15 British sailors and marines seems to have generated admiration laced with a hint of frustration – why couldn’t Arab leaders be more like him?

The fact that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is the leader of a Persian, predominantly Shia nation, seemed not to matter. “I consider Ahmadi-Nejad a leader of the Arab and Muslim people. He has the confidence. It angers and upsets me to no end, and a source of our Arab humiliation, that we don’t have such a leader among the Arab nations,” says Mohamed Ali, a 20-year-old student.

As Sunni Arab leaders voice concerns about sectarian tensions they say are fuelled by Iran and its interference in Iraq and Lebanon and watch Tehran’s nuclear programme with suspicion, other, ordinary Arabs see Mr Ahmadi-Nejad as a breath of fresh air.

The feelings are compounded by the perception that Sunni states, such as US allies Egypt, Jordan, and Arabia, simply follow Washington’s bidding, analysts say.

Abdullah Alshayji, a professor of international relations and head of the US studies unit at Kuwait University, says the Iranian leader strikes a balance that resonates in the Arab world: candid and outspoken in his criticism of the west and Israel, while appearing as a humble man of the people.

“We see that this could really give credence to Iran, that they are standing up to the two dominant powers,” Mr Alshayji says.

“What we see is Iran gaining the hearts and minds by standing up to the major powers, so it is likely the masses in the Arab street, or maybe the Muslim street, look at Iran as the only country that can play head to head with the these powers, while the Arab leaders cannot be counted on.”

Still, others say Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s and Iran’s image in the Arab world have been hurt by the continuing violence in Iraq and the recent street clashes in Lebanon – both countries where Iran backs Shia movements.

Iran’s growing influence in the region has also triggered reactions among the governments of Sunni states. Recent announcements by Egypt, Jordan, and the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council that they would look at developing nuclear technology were deemed in part to be a message directed at Tehran.

Arabia has also become conspicuously more active in the region, hosting last week’s Arab League summit after initially giving up its turn to hold the meeting. Riyadh has also recently brokered a deal on a Palestinian unity government, another area where Sunni states complain of Iranian interference.

Mr Alshayji says that Iran’s decision to “embrace” the Palestinian issue and support Hamas proved to be a major embarrassment to Sunni leaders.

“Iran has played very smart politics and very showmanship politics, and has been able to gain a lot of support in the Arab street,” says Prof Alshayji.

Back in Cairo, Ashraf al-Loughi, a 43-year-old carpenter, describes Mr Ahmadi-Nejad as a “decent, moderate, man who didn’t want any problems”.

“He released the British sailors. He had the decency to send them home,” Mr Loughi says.


Additional reporting by: Waleed Marzouk

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Apocalypse again -- Call Up The Vietnam Vets -- Where Else Can Bush Get 21,500 Trained Soldiers For His 'Surge'?

by: Paul Whitefield, Los Angeles Times
(PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.)

January 21, 2007

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal21jan21,0,1717035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles — Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth — because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes — lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.


Saturday, 7 April 2007

Another U.S. Base In The Indian Ocean?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Source:
http://www.sibernews.com/news/news-feature/-200703137651/


India, from a long-term perspective, has every reason to be concerned about the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the U.S. and Sri Lanka. THE TEN-YEAR Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) signed by the United States and Sri Lanka on March 5, which provides for among other things logistics supplies and re-fuelling facilities, has major ramifications for the region, particularly India.

However, New Delhi's silence on the development is a reflection of the changed geo-political environment in the post-Cold War era with the emergence of the U.S. as the sole superpower. The new dynamics in India-U.S. ties could be another reason for South Block's silence.

For all the sophistry and spin by the Americans, the ACSA is a military deal and, on the face of it, is loaded in Washington's favour. For the U.S., it is as good as acquiring a base in the Indian Ocean and at little or no cost. In the immediate context, the ACSA suits the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime as an advertisement of its influence with the superpower in general and in its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in particular.

Just a few years ago, such an agreement would have been inconceivable given the sensitivities of India in view of the geographical proximity of Sri Lanka. For example, the grant of permission by Colombo to Voice of America to establish its transmitter in the island and the leasing of oil tanks in Trincomalee port to pro-American firms were major bones of contention between India and Sri Lanka for decades.

Both the subjects were covered elaborately in the exchange of letters between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka's President J.R. Jayawardene as part of the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The key element in the letters was the agreement that given "the importance of nurturing this traditional friendship, it is imperative that both Sri Lanka and India reaffirm the decision not to allow our respective territories to be used for activities prejudicial to each other's unity, territorial integrity and security."

The provisions of the ACSA cannot be described as being detrimental to New Delhi's interests in the current phase of its relations with Washington.

However, in a possible new context India has every reason to be concerned about the pact. A brief summary of the nature of the agreement will illustrate this.

Sri Lanka is the 90th country to sign an ACSA with the U.S.; Washington had been keen on such an agreement for years. The fact it took so long for Colombo to join the ACSA club is illuminating. The agreement provides a framework for increased inter-operability to transfer and exchange logistics supplies, and support and re-fuelling services during peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and joint exercises.

The U.S. is engaged in these operations in different parts of the globe. Sri Lanka, a nation of 20 million saddled with an ethnic conflict, does not have the capabilities or infrastructure for such ventures even if it desired. The definition of some of the operations under the ASCA could be politically tricky. Iraq and Afghanistan are a case in point. Are the U.S. and its allies engaged in peacekeeping operations or waging a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer will depend on who is posing the question to whom.

The categories of allowable goods and services include food, petroleum, and transportation. Of course, the provision of weapons systems or ammunition is expressly prohibited under the agreement. There are examples galore where food and fuel have been used as weapons. Indeed, there are safeguards in the pact that logistics support allowed under it cannot be transferred beyond the forces of the receiving party without consent of the providing party. And all transactions must be mutually agreed upon before any transfer is made.

However, is a foolproof mechanism possible to ensure compliance in letter and spirit of such accords particularly for smaller countries in dealing with a superpower?

Curiously, the signatory to the document from the Sri Lankan side was Gothabaya Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary and brother of the President. The American side was represented by its envoy in Colombo, Robert Blake. The ACSA comes under the Pentagon's jurisdiction. Though the signing ceremony took place in Colombo, the Sri Lankan regime did not deem it necessary to issue any statement on the subject. The Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Information merrily circulated the press release issued by the U.S. Embassy in Colombo on the deal.

Friday, 6 April 2007

Injured In Iraq, A Soldier Is Shattered At Home

by: Deborah Sontag

April 05, 2007

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/05VET.html



DUNBAR, Pa. — Blinded and disabled on the 54th day of the war in Iraq, Sam Ross returned home to a rousing parade that outdid anything this small, depressed Appalachian town had ever seen. “Sam’s parade put Dunbar on the map,” his grandfather said.

That was then.

Now Mr. Ross, 24, faces charges of attempted homicide, assault and arson in the burning of a family trailer in February. Nobody in the trailer was hurt, but Mr. Ross fought the assistant fire chief who reported to the scene, and later threatened a state trooper with his prosthetic leg, which was taken away from him, according to the police.

The police locked up Mr. Ross in the Fayette County prison. In his cell, he tried to hang himself with a sheet. After he was cut down, Mr. Ross was committed to a state psychiatric hospital, where, he said in a recent interview there, he is finally getting — and accepting — the help he needs, having spiraled downward in the years since the welcoming fanfare faded.

“I came home a hero, and now I’m a bum,” Mr. Ross, whose full name is Salvatore Ross Jr., said.
The story of Sam Ross has the makings of a ballad, with its heart-rending arc from hardscrabble childhood to decorated war hero to hardscrabble adulthood. His effort to create a future for himself by enlisting in the Army exploded in the desert during a munitions disposal operation in Baghdad. He was 20.

He was also on his own. Mr. Ross, who is estranged from his mother and whose father is serving a life sentence for murdering his stepmother, does not have the family support that many other severely wounded veterans depend on. Various relatives have stepped in at various times, but Mr. Ross, embittered by a difficult childhood and by what the war cost him, has had a push-pull relationship with those who sought to assist him.

Several people have taken a keen interest in Mr. Ross, among them Representative John P. Murtha, the once-hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania. When Mr. Murtha publicly turned against the war in Iraq in 2005, he cited the shattered life of Mr. Ross, one of his first constituents to be seriously wounded, as a pivotal influence.

Mr. Murtha’s office assisted Mr. Ross in negotiating the military health care bureaucracy. Homes for Our Troops, a nonprofit group based in Massachusetts, built him a beautiful log cabin. Military doctors carefully tended Mr. Ross’s physical wounds: the loss of his eyesight, of his left leg below the knee, and of his hearing in one ear, among other problems.

But that help was not enough to save Mr. Ross from the loneliness and despair that engulfed him. Overwhelmed by severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including routine nightmares of floating over Iraq that ended with a blinding boom, he “self-medicated” with alcohol and illegal drugs. He finally hit rock bottom when he landed in the state psychiatric hospital, where he is, sadly, thrilled to be.

“Seventeen times of trying to commit suicide, I think it’s time to give up,” Mr. Ross said, speaking in the forensic unit of the Mayview State Hospital in Bridgeville. “Lots of them were screaming out cries for help, and nobody paid attention. But finally somebody has.”

Finding a Way Out

Fayette County in southwestern Pennsylvania, once a prosperous coal mining center, is now one of the poorest counties in the state. The bucolic but ramshackle town of Dunbar sits off State Route 119 near the intersection marked by the Butchko Brothers junkyard.

Past the railroad tracks and not far up Hardy Hill Road, the blackened remains of Mr. Ross’s hillside trailer are testament to his disintegration. The Support our Troops ribbon is charred, the No Trespassing sign unfazed.

Mr. Ross lived in that trailer, where his father shot his stepmother, at several points in his life, including alone after he returned from Iraq. Its most recent tenant, his younger brother, Thomas, was in jail when the fire occurred.

Many in Mr. Ross’s large, quarreling family are on one side of the law or the other, prison guards or prisoners, police officers or probationers. Their internal feuds are so commonplace that family reunions have to be carefully plotted with an eye to who has a protective order out against whom, Mr. Ross’s 25-year-old cousin, Joseph Lee Ross, joked.

Sam Ross’s childhood was not easy. “Sam’s had a rough life from the time he was born,” his grandfather, Joseph Frank Ross, said. His parents fought, sometimes with guns, until they separated and his mother moved out of state. Mr. Ross bore some of the brunt of the turmoil.

Private Ross says that from his first days of basic training, he was hooked. But just months into his tour in Iraq, an explosion left him with several disabilities.

Joseph Frank Ross, outside the trailer that his grandson is accused of burning down. Mr. Ross said, “Sam’s had a rough life from the time he was born.”

“When that kid was little, the way he got beat around, it was awful,” his uncle, Joseph Frank Ross Jr., a prison guard, said.

When he was just shy of 12, Mr. Ross moved in with his father’s father, who for a time was married to his mother’s mother. The grandfather-grandson relationship was and continues to be tumultuous.

“I idolized my grandpaps, but he’s an alcoholic and he mentally abuses people,” Mr. Ross said.

His grandfather, 72, a former coal miner who sells used cars, said, “I’m not an alcoholic. I can quit. I just love the taste of it.”

The grandfather, who still keeps an A-plus English test by Mr. Ross on his refrigerator, said his grandson did well in school, even though he cared most about his wrestling team, baseball, hunting and fishing. Mr. Ross graduated in June 2001.

“Sammy wanted me to pay his way to college, but I’m not financially fixed to do that,” his grandfather said.

Feeling that Fayette County was a dead end, Mr. Ross said he had wanted to find a way out after he graduated. One night in late 2001, he said, he saw “one of those ‘Be all you can be’ ads” on television. The next day, he went to the mall and enlisted, getting a $3,000 bonus for signing up to be a combat engineer.

From his first days of basic training, Mr. Ross embraced the military as his salvation. “It was like, ‘Wow, man, I was born for the Army,’ ” he said. “I was an adrenaline junkie. I was super, super fit. I craved discipline. I wanted adventure. I was patriotic. I loved the bonding. And there was nothing that I was feared of. I mean, man, I was made for war.”

In early 2003, Private Ross, who earned his jump wings as a parachutist, shipped off to Kuwait with the 82nd Airborne Division, which pushed into Iraq with the invasion in March. The early days of the war were heady for many soldiers like Private Ross. He was assigned to an engineer squad given the task of rounding up munitions.

On May 18, Private Ross and his squad set out to de-mine an area in south Baghdad. Moving quickly, as they did on such operations, he collected about 15 UXO’s, or unexploded ordnances, in a pit. Somehow, something — he never learned what — caused them to detonate.

“The initial blast hit me and I went numb and everything went totally silent,” he said. “Then I hear people start hollering, ‘Ross! Ross! Ross!’ It started getting louder, louder, louder. My whole body was mangled. I was spitting up blood. I faded in and out. I was bawling my eyes out, saying, ‘Please don’t let me go; don’t let me go.’ ”

A Casualty of War

When his relatives first saw Mr. Ross at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, he was in a coma. “That boy was dead,” his grandfather said. “We was looking at a corpse lying in that bed.”

As he lay unconscious, the Army discharged him — one year, four months and 18 days after he enlisted, by his calculation. After 31 days, Mr. Ross came off the respirator. Groggily but insistently, he pointed to his eyes and then to his leg. An aunt gingerly told him he was blind and an amputee. He cried for days, he said.

It was during Mr. Ross’s stay at Walter Reed that Representative Murtha, a former Marine colonel, first met his young constituent and presented him with a Purple Heart.

From the start of the war, Mr. Murtha said in an interview, he made regular, painful excursions to visit wounded soldiers. Gradually, those visits, combined with his disillusionment about the Bush regime’s management of the war, led him to call in late 2005 for the troops to be brought home in six months.

“Sam Ross had an impact on me,” Mr. Murtha said. “Eventually, I just felt that we had gotten to a point where we were talking so much about winning the war itself — and it couldn’t be won militarily — that we were forgetting about the results of the war on individuals like Sam.”

Over the next three years, Mr. Ross underwent more than 20 surgical procedures, including: “Five on my right eye, one on my left eye, two or three when they cut my left leg off, three or four on my right leg, a couple on my throat, skin grafts, chest tubes and, you know, one where they gutted me from belly button to groin” to remove metal fragments from his intestines.

But, although he was prescribed psychiatric medication, he never received in-patient treatment for the post-traumatic stress disorder that was diagnosed at Walter Reed. And, in retrospect he, like his relatives, said he believes he should have been put in an intensive program soon after his urgent physical injuries were addressed.

“They should have given him treatment before they let him come back into civilization,” his grandfather said.

A Hero’s Welcome

The parade, on a sunny day in late summer 2003, was spectacular. Hundreds of flag-waving locals lined the streets. Mr. Ross had just turned 21. Wearing his green uniform and burgundy beret, he rode in a Jeep, accompanied by other veterans and the Connellsville Area Senior High School Marching Band. The festivities included bagpipers, Civil War re-enactors and a dunking pool.

“It wasn’t the medals on former Army Pfc. Sam Ross’s uniform that reflected his courage yesterday,” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote. “It was the Dunbar native’s poise as he greeted well-wishers and insisted on sharing attention with other soldiers that proved the grit he’ll need to recover from extensive injuries he suffered in Iraq.”

For a little while, “it was joy joy, happiness happiness,” Mr. Ross said. He felt the glimmerings of a new kind of potential within himself, and saw no reason why he could not go on to college, even law school. Then the black moods, the panic attacks, the irritability set in. He was dogged by chronic pain; fragments of metal littered his body.

Mr. Ross said he was “stuck in denial” about his disabilities. The day he tried to resume a favorite pastime, fishing, hit him hard. Off-balance on the water, it came as a revelation that, without eyesight, he did not know where to cast his rod. He threw his equipment in the water and sold his boat.

“I just gave up,” he said. “I give up on everything.”

About a year after he was injured, Mr. Ross enrolled in an in-patient program for blind veterans in Chicago. He learned the Braille alphabet, but his fingers were too numb from embedded shrapnel to read, he said. He figured that he did not have much else to learn since he had been functioning blind for a year. He left the program early.

Similarly, Mr. Ross repeatedly declined outpatient psychiatric treatment at the veterans hospital in Pittsburgh, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. He said he felt that people at the hospital had disrespected him.

After living with relatives, Mr. Ross withdrew from the world into the trailer on the hill in 2004. That year, he got into a dispute with his grandfather over old vehicles on the property, resolving it by setting them on fire. His run-ins with local law enforcement, which did not occur before he went to Iraq, the Fayette County sheriff said, had begun.

But his image locally had not yet been tarnished. In early 2005, Mr. Murtha held a second Purple Heart ceremony for Mr. Ross at a Fayette County hospital “to try to show him how much affection we had for him and his sacrifice,” Mr. Murtha said.

A local newspaper article about Mr. Ross’s desire to build himself a house came to the attention of Homes for Our Troops.

“He’s a great kid; he really is,” said Kirt Rebello, the group’s director of projects and veterans affairs. “Early on, even before he was injured, the kid had this humongous deck stacked against him in life. That’s one of the reasons we wanted to help him.”

Mr. Ross, who had received a $100,000 government payment for his catastrophic injury, bought land adjacent to his grandfather’s. Mr. Rebello asked Mr. Ross whether he might prefer to move to somewhere with more services and opportunities. But Mr. Ross said that Dunbar’s winding roads were implanted in his psyche, “that he could see the place in his mind,” Mr. Rebello said.
A Life Falls Apart
In May 2005, Mr. Ross broke up with a girlfriend and grew increasingly depressed. He felt oppressively idle, he said. One day, he tacked a suicide note to the door of his trailer and hitched a ride to a trail head, disappearing into the woods. A daylong manhunt ensued.

Mr. Ross fell asleep in the woods that night, waking up with the sun on his face, which he took to be a sign that God wanted him to live. When he was found, he was taken to a psychiatric ward and released after a few weeks.

The construction of his house proved a distraction from his misery. Mr. Ross enjoyed the camaraderie of the volunteers who fashioned him a cabin from white pine logs. But when the house, which he named Second Heaven, was finished in early 2006, “they all left, I moved in, and I was all alone,” he said. “That’s when the drugs really started.”

At first, Mr. Ross said, he used drugs — pills, heroin, crack, and methadone — “basically to mellow myself out and to have people around.” Local ne’er-do-wells enjoyed themselves on Mr. Ross’s tab for quite some time, his relatives said.

“These kids were loading him into a car, taking him to strip clubs, letting him foot the bills,” his uncle, Joseph Ross Jr., said. “They were dopies and druggies.”

Mr. Ross’s girlfriend, Barbara Hall, moved in with him. But relationships with many of his relatives had deteriorated.

“If that boy would have come home and accepted what happened to him, that boy never would have wanted for anything in Dunbar,” his grandfather said. “If he had accepted that he’s wounded and he’s blinded, you know? He’s not the only one that happened to. There’s tens of thousands of boys like him.”

Some sympathy began to erode in the town, too. “There’s pro and con on him,” a local official said. “Some people don’t even believe he’s totally blind.”

After overdosing first on heroin and then on methadone last fall, Mr. Ross said, he quit consuming illegal drugs, replacing them with drinking until he blacked out.

Mr. Ross relied on his brother, Thomas, when he suffered panic attacks. When Thomas was jailed earlier this year, Mr. Ross reached out to older members of his family. In early February, his uncle, Joseph Ross Jr., persuaded him to be driven several hours to the veterans’ hospital in Coatesville to apply for its in-patient program for post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Due to the severity of his case, they accepted him on the spot and gave him a bed date for right after Valentine’s Day,” his uncle said. “Then he wigged out five days before he was supposed to go there.”

It started when his brother’s girlfriend, Monica Kuhns, overheard a phone call in which he was arranging to buy anti-depressants. She thought it was a transaction to buy cocaine, he said, and he feared that she would tell his sister and brother.

After downing several beers, Mr. Ross, in a deranged rage, went to his old trailer, where Ms. Kuhns was living with her young son, he said.

“He started pounding on the door,” said Ms. Hall, who accompanied him. “He went in and threatened to burn the place down. Me and Monica didn’t actually think he was going to do it. But then he pulled out the lighter.”

Having convinced himself that the trailer — a source of so much family misery — needed to be destroyed, Mr. Ross set a pile of clothing on fire. The women and the child fled. When a volunteer firefighter showed up, Mr. Ross attacked and choked him, according to a police complaint.

A judge set bail at $250,000. In the Fayette County prison, Mr. Ross got “totally out of hand,” the sheriff, Gary Brownfield, said. Mr. Ross’s lawyer, James Geibig, said the situation was a chaotic mess.

“It was just a nightmare,” Mr. Geibig said. “First the underlying charges — attempted homicide, come on — were blown out of proportion. Then bail is set sky high, straight cash. They put him in a little cell, in isolation, and barely let him shower. Things went from bad to worse until they found him hanging.”

Now Mr. Geibig’s goal is to get Mr. Ross sentenced into the post-traumatic stress disorder program he was supposed to attend.

“He does not need to be in jail,” Mr. Geibig said. “He has suffered enough. I’m not a bleeding heart, but his is a pretty gut-wrenching tale. And at the end, right before this incident, he sought out help. It didn’t arrive in time. But it’s not too late, I hope, for Sam Ross to have some kind of future.”
Few Americans Trust Military Or Media For Information On Iraq War: Poll

Thursday, April 05, 2007


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Most Americans have little or no confidence in the information they receive from the military or the media about the situation in Iraq, according to a poll released Thursday.

The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 52 percent have little or no faith in the military's portrayal of the four-year war, compared with 60 percent who feel the same way about the press reports of the conflict.

The figures are a far cry from the overwhelming confidence Americans had in the military and the media at the outset of the war in March 2003.

At the time, fully 85 percent said they had at least a fair amount of confidence in military information and 81 percent were confident the press was giving an accurate picture of the war.
Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said the poll findings mirror the public's perception of how well the war is going overall.

"People are questioning whether they are getting good information about how things are going and it's affecting the public's confidence in the government and military as well as the press," Dimock told AFP.

He noted differences along party lines in how people responded to the survey questions with Democrats more skeptical about government information whereas Republicans were more leery of press coverage.

The survey of 1,038 adult Americans was conducted between March 30 and April 2 and had a 3.5 percent plus or minus margin of error.
Ecuador Confirms Decision To
Rejoin OPEC

Wednesday, April 04, 2007


BRASILIA (AFP) - Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa confirmed here Wednesday that his country will return to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, 15 years after quitting the oil cartel.

"The decision to return to OPEC has been taken and this will open up a lot of opportunities, among them access to credit in Middle East banks," Correa said in a news conference during an official visit to Brasilia.

OPEC president Mohammed al-Hamili said last month that Ecuador could return to the group it left in 1992 "at any time."

Ecuador's bid is backed by Venezuela, the only Latin American member of OPEC. Ecuador produces 530,000 barrels of oil per day -- its top export -- and is the fifth largest producer in South America.

Correa had announced that Ecuador would apply to rejoin OPEC after the leftist leader was elected in November.

However, the Andean nation faces a debt to OPEC of 5.3 billion dollars, which it left when it withdrew from the organization.
Brits Out Of Falkland Islands: Venezuela's Chavez

Tueday, April 03, 2007


CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez proclaimed on Monday that the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina on the 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the territory which sparked a war with Britain.

"Enough already with colonialism," Chavez said on state television voicing solidarity with his fellow South American country which still lays claim to the British-run islands in the south Atlantic.

"Venezuela is among the countries demanding dialogue with Britain, which does not want to discuss it," he said.

"Today we pay tribute to those Argentine soldiers who gave their lives attempting to recover what belonged to them," he said.

Chavez did not miss the opportunity to criticize the United States, which he often refers to as "the empire," and which he said "disgraced" itself by aiding Britain in the conflict.

He also criticized Latin American countries that stood by "with their arms folded" during the 10-week conflict except for Cuba, "the only government that offered to send troops to go fight."

Chavez also proposed setting up a South American military organization for similar situations in the future.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, prime minister during the 1982 Falklands War, paid homage to British veterans on the 25th anniversary of the conflict in low-key ceremonies in London.

More than 900 people died -- including 649 Argentine and 255 British troops and three islanders -- during air, land, and sea hostilities.

Wednesday, 4 April 2007

U.S. Effort To 'Pacify' Somalia Meets Resistance

by: G. Dunkel


April 01, 2007


Source:
http://www.workers.org/
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/somalia-0405/


Some 100 to 200 U.S. Army Special Forces are currently operating in Somalia. While not generally reported, the New York Times on both March 22 and March 23 did mention this fact. The Independent, a major bourgeois British paper, reported March 6 that special forces from both Britain and the U.S. were operating in Somalia.

They are meeting armed resistance from the Somali people.

Some analysts, like Ignatio Ramonet in Le Monde Diplomatique, a social democratic monthly in France, claim the U.S. has opened up a third theater in its “war on terror,” which is really a war to dominate the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan are the other two theaters. Somalia is right across the Gulf of Aden from the Arabian Peninsula and every ship headed through the Suez Canal must pass close by.

U.S. Army Special Forces intervened in Somalia at least once before, in 1992. After a major defeat in 1993, when U.S. helicopters strafed the capital but were downed by small arms fire—memorialized in the movie and book “Black Hawk Down”—the U.S. and the U.N. withdrew their forces. However, the CIA continued to supply some Somali agents and operatives with money, weapons and intelligence.

The country did not have an effective central government from the late 1980s to 2005.
The Islamic Courts Union started growing strong in 2004, especially in the capital city of Mogadishu, where constant fighting was making economic activity difficult. By June of 2006, however, after the ICU had established its authority, Mogadishu was so stable that families could even go to the beach, something that had been impossible for 15 years. (Toronto Star, March 22)

The U.S. government, however, considered the ICU an ally of al Qaeda and an obstacle to Anglo-U.S. domination of the region. Washington enticed the regime in neighboring Ethiopia, using significant financial and political support, to cooperate with some of its “assets” in Somalia operating under the name of the Transitional Government. Thousands of Ethiopian troops, backed by imperialist special forces and U.S. Navy ships, invaded Somalia and the ICU was swept from power by the end of 2006.

The ICU tried to mount a resistance in southern Somalia, near Kenya, but the special forces called in air strikes from a U.S. carrier group off the Somali coast and dislodged the ICU from its bases.

Kenyan authorities rounded up Somali refugees who fled the fighting and the U.S. set up a program of “extraordinary renditions,” with at least four flights taking captives to Mogadishu and then on to Ethiopia. (Independent, March 6)

While the ICU couldn’t hold on in southern Somalia, anger was growing in Mogadishu and other Somali cities. When Ethiopian and Somali troops from the U.S.-backed “transitional government” tried to stage a raid March 21 on a Mogadishu neighborhood opposed to the present regime, they were met with heavy weapons and a sustained fire fight. Some 15 raiders were killed and members of the community burned their bodies, dragged them through the streets and walked on them. A significant number were also wounded.

The next day a Byelorussian plane—carrying supplies to 1,000 Ugandan troops occupying Mogadishu as African Union “peacekeepers”—was shot down by a missile fired from an opposition neighborhood.

Even in a country poorer and more disunited than Afghanistan, the U.S. government and its agents can’t stop the resistance to foreign occupation. The U.S. ruling class wants to send more U.S. troops to Somalia, which is reported to have significant off-shore oil reserves, but it can’t even find enough for its beleaguered campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.



---------------------------------------------------------

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011


Email:
ww@workers.org

Subscribe:
wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net

Support independent news: