Mood:  happy

Iraqi Corruption

 Showdown brewing

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/iraq.corruption/

• Story Highlights
• NEW: Rep. Henry Waxman demands documents on Iraq contractor
  
• Waxman accuses State Department of covering up "an epidemic of corruption"
  
• State Department says it will provide information if it is kept classified
  
• Ex-Iraqi official estimates the total lost to corruption at $18 billion
  

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democrats' top investigator in Congress reacted angrily Friday to a report that the former Blackwater USA employee accused of killing an Iraqi vice presidential guard was hired by another U.S. contractor weeks later.

The report comes alongside Rep. Henry Waxman's warning of a "confrontation" with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over how much Americans should be able to learn about corruption in Iraq.

In a sharply worded letter, Waxman demanded Rice turn over a long list of documents related to the contractor, Andrew Moonen.

"Serious questions now exist about whether the State Department may have withheld from the U.S. Defense Department facts about this Blackwater contractor's shooting of the Iraqi guard that should have prevented his hiring to work on another contract in support of the Iraq War," wrote Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Moonen is accused of fatally shooting an Iraqi guard and fleeing the scene, according to a Congressional memo describing the investigation report. He was fined, fired and flown home from Iraq, and the company later paid $20,000 in compensation to the victim's family.

Moonen returned to the United States within a few days of the incident, his attorney said, but in February he returned to Kuwait working for Combat Support Associates (CSA), a company spokesman said.

CNN reported Thursday night that CSA said it was unaware of the December incident when it hired Moonen, because the State Department and Blackwater kept the incident quiet and out of Moonen's personnel records.

Waxman wrote it is "hard to reconcile this development" with previous assertions State Department officials have made in recent days.

Waxman earlier accused Rice and the State Department of a cover-up of what he called "an epidemic of corruption" in Iraq in general.

He branded the State Department's anti-corruption efforts "dysfunctional, under-funded and a low priority."

Waxman further blasted the department for trying to keep secret details of corruption in Iraq, especially relating to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"Corruption is increasing in Iraq, and the State Department can't keep us from knowing that -- can't censor that -- just because it might embarrass or hurt our relationship with [al-]Maliki," Waxman said at the House committee hearing. Watch Waxman ask why negative comments must be said behind closed doors »

Deputy Secretary of State Larry Butler repeatedly refused to answer questions from Waxman about Iraqi corruption but offered full disclosure if his testimony would be kept secret.

Asked if he believes the Iraqi government has the political will or the capability to root out corruption, Butler responded, "Mr. Chairman, questions which go to the broad nature of our bilateral relationship with Iraq are best answered in a classified setting."

But he was more forthcoming when talking about efforts that al-Maliki has taken to improve matters, commending the prime minister for dispatching Iraqi forces to surround a refinery to ensure oil did not end up on the black market.

But Waxman appeared unmoved.

"Why can you talk about the positive things and not the negative things?" he asked. "Shouldn't we have the whole picture?"

"I'd be very pleased to answer those questions in an appropriate setting," Butler replied.

Waxman laughed and asked, "An appropriate setting for positive things is a congressional hearing, but for negative things, it must be behind closed doors?"

"As you know, this goes to the very heart of diplomatic relations and national security," Butler said.

"It goes to the very heart of propaganda," Waxman said, putting funding for anti-corruption activities through June 15, 2006, at $65 million, "or less than 0.003 percent of the total" spent by the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

The State Department said details of anti-corruption efforts must be secret to protect investigators and Iraqi allies.

In a letter to Rice last week, Waxman called the department's position "ludicrous."

Fellow Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky agreed. "It's pretty clear that the administration just wants to muzzle any comments that reflect negatively on the [al-]Maliki government," he said.

Earlier, the former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, told the hearing that al-Maliki had protected family members from corruption investigations, citing Salam al-Maliki, Iraq's former transportation minister and the prime minister's cousin.

Al-Radhi resigned last month and fled Iraq after he and his family were attacked and 31 of his anti-corruption employees were killed. He said corruption has affected "virtually every agency and ministry, including some of the most powerful officials in Iraq."

"Corruption has stopped possible advances by the government on the political level, on economic reconstruction, on basic services, amenities and infrastructure and on the rule of law," he told the committee, estimating the total lost to corruption at $18 billion.

In Baghdad, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh acknowledged his country is plagued with a "high level" of corruption, but he said officials are trying to rein in the problem.

U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, said there appeared to be no U.S. plan for countering the corruption. He urged Congress to consider conditioning future appropriations on such a plan "so we can achieve some results rather than have just more efforts."

Waxman questioned whether Iraq's government was "too corrupt to succeed." If so, he added, "We need to ask if we could, in good conscience, continue to ... prop up his regime."

CNN's Bob Constantini contributed to this report.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 6:02 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  on fire

I posted this on www.BlueOregon.com just minutes ago

under the topic of the Impeachment issue & my

House Representative Earl Blumenauer

 I repaeat my cousins words

<see last paragraph of this post of mine for his quote>

This isn’t rocket science
Crimes have been committed
They need to be investigated its that simple.
My cousin shot himself in the head in Baghdad in 2005 in his trailer
He was in a war that was waged based on lies and cooked information
He was a high ranking US Military official, training the Iraqi police force

His death bed note said "Death before Dishonor"
He was working with "contractors” & his commanding officer was that General Petraeus guy.
He got nowhere with Petraeus.
He was disgusted, it was fruitless, (sound familiar to anyone)
He was the highest ranking officer to die in Iraq (he was, but now I’m not sure in that recently there is so many dieing over there)
Here is a news story on my cousin
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2440&print=true
Get this He killed himself out of disgust for this immoral war.
Geeee morals what’s that ?

I have written Earl about this war
And about illegal spying on citizens, and other violations by this administration

Either you act like Petraeus did to my cousin Ted, or you do what is ethical and just.

Its one or the other.

I have been sticking up for Earl for years on Indy Media and other places as I also do for Ralph Nader....
But I draw my line now, due to his stubborn refusal to know right form wrong
He is pretty much almost irritated by us wanting Impeachment

I stand by my cousins words "I will not be sullied any more"
This man Bush deserves nothing but a trial.
It makes no difference if it is popular, or worth it, or if it will stick and he be removed

As Bonnie Tinker said at the town hall meeting, "the time for Justice is always now"

My cousin Ted thought so
John Bradach’s nephew thought so
And with the sincerity that Joe Walsh (The Lone Vet) has asked numerous times so courageously, "How many more must die before you wake up and do something?"
Apparently it could be millions (or more)

For this rocket science program has The Blumenauer clan touting that they care.
But if they did they would be out wearing a red shirt.
I have been there 10 weeks in a row, it is in sacrifice of my lunch hour I do this to bring Justice to the table at Earls office, in hopes that guys just like my cousin Ted and John's nephew, and the Iraq refugees I just recently met can have a little peace and a chance to live another day. I need my representative to represent me.

It’s amazing my cousin a Col. shot himself to keep his honor. Yet Earl and Willie all sit around and pretend they care but their hands are tied.
I wish my cousin had his hands tied that fateful day

I wish Earl (Willie) could see the difference between crimes worthy of Impeachment vs. rocket science spin.
So many are dead. So many are dieing.
And I read out here bickering over fine print law, and justification to do what ever they want (fill in blank) at their own whim n peril, with no remorse
Its plain and its simple - Our country is murdering the Iraqi population.

If your against this reckless administration trashing the constitution and international law then come on out and put your BLOOD red "Impeach" shirt on and stand for justice and honesty

OR....

bicker and hem n haw over sally said, she said, and/or fine print rules of Congress and Executive law.
But like my cousin Ted, who was a professor at West Point said, “This is wrong I will die before I listen to Petraeus and Bush for one more day” (my words)

BANG! One shot to his head.
Ya got really love this frickin war and the men who keep it going
I can see why these Representative (rocket scientists) don’t get it
Its so hard to know right form wrong.

Ya know the suicide rate is escalating over there?
And the horror stories from Refugee’s and Veterans are Horrific (actually mind numbing)
Those torture pictures alone scarred me for life, yet Bush uses back room signage statements (more fine print) to use rendition and sick torture methods, scrapping Geneva, and habeas corpus and as much as spits on the constitution

Oh "we don’t want to start a circus by bringing up Impeachment"….noooooo!
I would rather be at a circus than this blood bath….. millions are now dead!

One side for Peace Justice, and Impeachment

One side for Law Breaking and Blood, Death, Murder, and Suicide Provocateurs
(who all for war profiteering/greed/oil/power)

Pick your sides, no need to bring your rocket scientific stuff …..its either, your on one side or the other.

That said to help clarify the right n wrong part, read this short clip Ted wrote before he died, notice the part to Petraeus his “cdrs”
Sounds to me like Move On was “Right On”!

(quote)

Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. [sic] Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it.
COL Ted Westhusing
Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/10/blumenauer-resp.html?cid=85210388#comment-85210388

Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:24 AM PDT

Updated: Friday, 5 October 2007 2:27 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  loud

Iranian and Israeli news outlets are reporting that Russia has evacuated its entire staff of nuclear engineers and experts who were working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor, increasing speculation that the United States is preparing an imminent military attack on Iran.

According to the Khorramshar News Agency, which represents ethnic Arabs in opposition to Ahmadinejad's regime who live near the reactor, the Russians packed their bags and left on Friday.

DEBKAfile offers three different scenarios to explain the sudden withdrawal of the experts.

a) Russian-Iranian negotiations about how work will proceed on Bushehr have again hit a roadblock. This is highly unlikely because Vladimir Putin is set to visit Iran later in the month to sign a set of nuclear accords.

b) The Russians have learned that an Iranian attack against American interests in the Persian Gulf or Israel is imminent. This is extremely doubtful because any preemptive Iranian attack would give Israel and the U.S. the pretext they are desperately searching for to launch a devastating bombing campaign.

c) Moscow or Tehran have been tipped off that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is imminent and the Russians are getting their people out of harm's way. This seems to be the most plausible scenario, especially since reports emerged Friday from numerous "unnamed" worldwide intelligence sources that military action is just around the corner.
 

With every passing week, war rhetoric and maneuvering escalates as an assault on Iran seems all but inevitable.

This past weekend, Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said there was no alternative to a military option and that plans should be enacted for a "limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

Veteran newsman Seymour Hersh reports that the Bush administration has switched targets from Iran's nuclear facilities to instead target the Revolutionary Guard in a series of planned "surgical" air strikes.

"During a video conference over the summer, Bush allegedly told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was considering striking Iranian targets across the border and that the British "were on board," reports AFP.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 6:51 PM PDT

Updated: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 6:54 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

10 Things You

Didn't Know About Sputnik

Compiled by the U.S. News library staff

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/09/28/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-sputnik.html 

1. The former Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the first man-made satellite, on Oct. 4, 1957.

2. The satellite was the size of a basketball and weighed approximately 180 pounds.

3. It traveled at 18,000 mph, 500 miles above the Earth's surface.

4. It orbited the Earth every 98 minutes, flying over the United States seven times a day.

5. Shortly after its launch, the New York Times explained that the literal translation of "sputnik" is "something that is traveling with a traveler." Additionally, "the traveler is the earth, traveling through space, and the companion 'traveling with' it is the satellite."

6. Carrying only a simple radio transmitter, the satellite emitted a "beep...beep...beep" signal back to Earth for 23 days, until Oct. 27, 1957—when its battery reportedly died.

7. Sputnik remained in orbit until Jan. 4, 1958, when it re-entered and burned up in Earth's atmosphere.

8. Sputnik II was launched on Nov. 3, 1957, carrying the first living thing into space: a dog named Laika. This satellite was six times as heavy as the first, coming in at over 1,100 pounds. Unfortunately, there was no plan in place to get the dog safely back to Earth, and it died in space.

9. Americans were caught off guard by these Soviet advances, occurring at the height of the Cold War. Wonder and awe over the technological advancements combined with feelings of panic and paranoia. Many wondered whether the Soviets now had the ability to launch missiles that could reach the United States. Many also wondered how long it would take the United States to catch up.

10. In response, the space race between the two countries heated up. The United States stepped up its own space plan, launching its first satellite (the Explorer I, which discovered the Van Allen radiation belts) on Jan. 31, 1958. Later that year, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which created NASA.

Sources:

Encyclopedia Britannica Online
NASA
New York Times 

Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:26 AM PDT

Updated: Monday, 1 October 2007 11:30 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

An Iraq war veteran

reflects on the Sept. 15 march

By Michael Prysner

The writer is an Iraq war veteran.

I remembered the first time I held it, wondering if I would ever wear it home, wondering if it would be stained by blood or shredded by bullets. It looks much different now than the first time I put it on—it is faded from 12 months of desert sand and sun. The elbows and knees are worn from lying in the street. The boots are tattered from kicking down doors and walking over cities of rubble. As I put it on for the first time since I returned from Iraq, I finally felt as if I was putting it on for a purpose.

For so many years, that uniform has not stood for justice and freedom. It is the uniform that the Iraqi people saw stomp through their towns. It is the uniform that drove humvees and manned machine guns. It is the uniform that dragged people from their homes and interrogated them in prison camps. But on the streets of Washington, D.C., the uniform took on new meaning.

It was no longer worn with the intention of fighting for the government, but fighting against it. For me, and for my brothers and sisters in Iraq Veterans Against the War, the uniform that once symbolized fear and destruction would now be worn in the spirit of justice and resistance.

A significant factor in ending the war in Vietnam was the ability of protesters and GIs to strike fear in the heart of the government. Countless citizens and soldiers threw their bodies into the gears of the war machine, and made the ruling class realize that instead of fighting their war, we would fight them.

This war will end when the government begins to fear the masses—when the army they sent to spread imperialism becomes the army that marches to their offices and charges through the police barricades.

The first time I put on that uniform, I hoped I would wear it with honor. On Sept. 15, I finally did. I could finally do something right while wearing it. The nearly 200 people arrested on that day—many of whom were Iraq war veterans—showed the government that we will do more than just march.

We will defy them at every turn; we will not fade away, but only grow in numbers and intensity. The longer this war rages on, the more we will resist and the more we will sacrifice.

Wearing that uniform at the steps of the Capitol, I knew that the most important action that I could do was to advance towards the barricade, and help light the spark that will empower people to stop this government.

For the first time, that uniform was worn fighting a just war. When I emerged from jail that night, I saw hundreds of cheering supporters outside. Then, I knew that sooner or later we will win this war against imperialism. And I have never felt prouder wearing that uniform.

Get involved with ANSWER!

Posted by Joe Anybody at 9:46 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

OUT OF CONTROL  -  CORRUPT MERCERNARIES

Blackwater 'impeded' probe into contractor deaths

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/iraq.blackwater/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) 9/26/07-- Private military contractor Blackwater USA "delayed and impeded" a congressional probe into the 2004 killings of four of its employees in Falluja, Iraq, according to the House oversight committee said Thursday in a report. 

Blackwater contractors Jerry Zovko, Scott Helvenston, Mike Teague and Wesley Batalona were ambushed, dragged from their vehicles and killed on March 31, 2004.

The burned and mutilated remains of two of the men were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River, an image that fueled American outrage and triggered the first of two attempts to retake the city from Sunni Arab insurgents.

The company stalled the committee's investigation into the incident by "erroneously claiming" documents related to the incident were classified, trying to get the Defense Department to make previously unclassified documents classified and "asserting questionable legal privileges," according to a report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Democratic staff.

According to Blackwater's reports on the killings, the men killed in Falluja had been sent into the area without proper crew, equipment or even maps.

One company document found a "complete lack of support" for its Baghdad office from executives at the company's headquarters in North Carolina, the committee report states.

"According to these documents, Blackwater took on the Falluja mission before its contract officially began, and after being warned by its predecessor that it was too dangerous. It sent its team on the mission without properly armored vehicles and machine guns. And it cut the standard mission team by two members, thus depriving them of rear gunners," the report states.

In a written response to the report, Blackwater called it "a one-sided version of this tragic incident."

"What the report fails to acknowledge is that the terrorists determined what happened that fateful day in 2004," the company said. "The terrorists were intent on killing Americans and desecrating their bodies. Documents that the committee has in its possession point out that the Blackwater team was betrayed and directed into a well-planned ambush."

The report notes that members of the now-defunct Iraqi Civil Defense Corps "led the team into the ambush, facilitated blocking positions to prevent the team's escape, and then disappeared."

Blackwater did not discuss details of the report's findings, noting the incident is still the subject of a lawsuit by the slain contractors' families.

The committee's chairman, California Democrat Henry Waxman, has scheduled a hearing Tuesday on Blackwater's operations in Iraq. The company's chairman, Erik Prince, is scheduled to testify at that hearing.

The committee previously disclosed that the day before the fatal mission, the manager of Blackwater's Baghdad office warned his bosses he lacked armored vehicles, radio gear and ammunition.

During February's hearing and in a subsequent written response, Blackwater general counsel Andrew Howell told the committee that documents on the attack had been classified by the U.S. government. But the Pentagon later told the committee the documents had not been classified.

In addition, Blackwater made "multiple attempts" to get the Defense Department to declare company and Coalition Provisional Authority reports on the incident classified, the report states. The Pentagon refused.

The families of the slain men have sued Blackwater Security Consulting, one of the most familiar of hundreds of private military contractors operating in Iraq. The families allege the company failed to provide their relatives with adequate gear and weaponry. Blackwater has denied the allegations and argued the men agreed to assume the risks of working in a war zone.

Thursday's report adds to the intense scrutiny the company has faced since it was involved in shootings September 16 in western Baghdad. Iraqi authorities said Blackwater guards protecting a U.S. Embassy convoy opened fire indiscriminately, killing as many as 20 civilians.

Blackwater said its employees responded properly to an insurgent attack on the convoy.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on Thursday told a Senate committee that "something went tragically wrong" in the Baghdad incident, and that the State Department and Iraqi authorities are conducting a thorough investigation. He said Blackwater guards had fired their weapons on 56 of the 1,873 escort missions they have conducted in Iraq in 2007, "And each such incident is reviewed by management officials to ensure that procedures were followed."

"I personally was grateful for the presence of my Blackwater security detail, largely comprised of ex-Special Forces and other military, when I served as ambassador to Iraq," Negroponte told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday in response to questions. "Their alert and controlled posture kept me safe -- to get my job done."

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:29 PM PDT

Updated: Thursday, 27 September 2007 4:31 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  down

The Statue of Liberty

Should Weep

New York based Judith Karpova risks losing everything she has, or going to jail for a long time. Her crime? She went to Iraq in February 2003 as a Human Shield. She was prepared to risk her life to attempt to avert an illegal war, invasion and illegal occupation. 'The charges (are) that I violated the travel ban against Iraq' states Ms Karpova: 'No hearing was ever held. The strangest part of the decision involves the fact that the Director of OFAC changed between 2004 and 2005. Most oddly, the court resolves the issue of whether OFAC violated impartiality, by both bringing the charges and finding me guilty.' The charge was not alone violation of the travel ban, but boosting the Iraqi economy. It is shocking to read of the plight of Ms Karpova at the hands of the U.S. 'Justice' system. I was in Iraq and Baghdad at the same time as the Human Shields. Did they break the US/UK driven UN embargo (which was to force Saddam to give up the weapons of mass destruction they knew he did not have) did they aid Iraq financially? Well if you call going to the local soukh to buy local produce, aiding Iraq, yes. If you call giving a few Dinars to children as young as five, forced out of school to sell cigarettes, clean shoes, as a result of the embargo (in a country which valued education above all and with Palestine had the highest PhD's per capita on earth) yes, they put a little extra food on a family table, a miniscule amount more money circulated in the soukh, in a country where many families often ate in rota, one giving up food for a day, to give a little more for the others. When children fainted in school, the reason was usually: 'It's not my turn to eat today' - courtesy USA and Britain. When they visited the hospitals and held grief stricken parents, watching their children die, for want of often the simplest medications, vetoted by the US and UK and gave them another few Dinars to try and find that life saver, on the blck market, did they re-charge the Iraqi ecomomy? With the equivalent of usually about $5? No they re-charged, a small life, if they were in time. Don't forget, all Iraq's bank accounts were frozen, state and private.Did they aid Iraq by the few dollars a night, they paid the family owned hotels, they stayed at near Firdos Square, where Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled? If you count giving a small living to a family, who had somehow kept the hotels going, from love and pride, through the thirteen grinding embargo years, in an outward looking country, which welcomed visitors with open arms, who now barely ever came, yes. And they gave them their pride back. Did they aid Iraq by buying the occasional meal in the small hotel restaraunts? Yes, as above and they gave the Chef his pride back. Inventive meals were produced again, when even hotels could afford only most basic ingredients. Imagination was challenged and wonders were produced from little, in gratitude also to those who came in solidarity, in a country where 'embargo related causes' (U.N.) were estimated to have killed one and a half million people (majority the under fives, the sick and the elderly) in thirteen years. Did they aid Iraq by their presence? Yes. The people, the children (broadly, half the population is under fifteen) had known nothing but thirteen years of deprivation (Iraq imported seventy percent of almost everything prior to the embargo) and thirteen years of illegal US and UK bombings. Iraq's children were diagnosed by child psychiatrists from the West as 'the most traumatised child population on earth', as a result. These children who had known nothing but fear and deprivation from the West, suddenly learned, either first hand, or from the media, that not all westerners were George W. Bush and Tony Blair, but there were those who were prepared to risk their lives, with them, as they waited again for the bombs to fall. They learned of the 'greater love that no man (or woman) has' than to be prepared to suffer, even die, for another. Lastly, Ms Karpova and those who travelled to Iraq, acted explicitly in the true spirit of that which the United Nations was meant to stand, declared in San Franciso on the 26th June 1945, betrayed by the U.S. and U.K. from Hiroshima Day 1990 (the date of the imposition of the embargo) to now (there was no U.N, mandate for the invasion of Iraq) : 'We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save successive generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind - and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small - and to establish conditions under which justice and respect arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.' Further: 'And to these ends, to practice tolerance and live together as good neighbours and unite our strength to maintain international peace a security and to ensure, but the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used .....' And to: ' ... take effective, collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace and to bring about by peaceful means ... justice and international law, adjustment or settlement or settlement of international disputes or situtuations which might lead to a breach of the peace'. Ms Karpova and those prepared to risk so much in travelling to Iraq on the eve of war, uniquely embody the wonderous aspiration of the San Franciso declaration, so shamefully trashed, broken and ignored by Washington and Whitehall. It is the architects of the Iraq disaster in the latter who should be in Court. Ms Karpova and those prepared to stand for right in a far away place, should be honoured by their countries, the United Nations and be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Should the Court do anything but laud and aquit her, even the Statue of Liberty should weep - or topple. Ms Karpova can be reached at:  dahlia@wildblue.net Her lawyer, Michael Sussman at:  sussman@frontiernet.net Also check out the case of Doctor Dhafir, who was born in Iraq and and has been a US citizen for over 30 years. On February 26, 2003 the US government arrested Doctor Dhafir and charged him with violating the economic sanctions against Iraq. More information check out  http://www.dhafirtrial.net/

homepage: http://www.arbuthnot4iraq.blogspot.com

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:53 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  loud

(quote) 

Thinkers target White House

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20909702/

When two Democratic analysts at a centrist think-tank voiced positive thoughts recently about the effects "on the ground" of General David Petraeus's Iraq troop surge, they unleashed a storm in a very Washington-ian teacup.

The pair in question – Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution – were accused of aiding the George W. Bush propaganda machine and, sure enough, the White House lost no time e-mailing their views far and wide.

But their real crime might have been to damage their own prospects of securing coveted postings in the next Democratic-controlled White House. Most other Democratic analysts in Washington are working assiduously in the opposite direction.

Each administration has about 3,000 political appointments in its gift.

All of the Democratic 2008 campaigns, including that of Hillary Clinton, have branded the surge a failure and want an immediate drawdown of US troops. Equally, all are calling for higher taxes on private equity groups and all now question the merits of 1990s-style free trade agreements.

There are few contradictory voices from the centrist or left-leaning think-tanks.

"If you are an ambitious Democrat at a think-tank, now is not the time to say things that will be displeasing to the campaigns," said Steve Clemons, a foreign policy analyst at the non-partisan New America Foundation.

Nor does the self-censorship necessarily have a left-leaning bias. The Democratic campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, are maintaining a studious silenceon the Israel-Palestine dispute, in spite of the Bush administration's question-able record.

"If you want a White House job in January 2009 and you have entrepreneurial views on solving the Israel-Palestine question, then the best advice is to keep your mouth shut," said Mr Clemons.

Washington's constantly expanding plethora of think-tanks occupy a unique category. Unlike universities, they include many people who lack strict scholarly credentials. But, in contrast to think-tanks in other western democracies, they are choc-a-bloc with former and future government officials.

Some describe Washington's think-tanks as holding-pens – or incubators – for future administrations. Given the widespread expectations of a Democratic victory next year, many see the liberal Center for American Progress, which is headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to the Clinton administration, in that light.

But think-tanks can also resemble retirement homes. Many believe that the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute's best days are behind it after it was seen as a virtual proxy for the White House.

The AEI's long list of fellows include Paul Wolfowitz, the former president of the World Bank and architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq; John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations; and Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

But after generating so many of the ideas and people that have driven the Bush administration, the AEI – and other conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – are no longer perceived to be writing the political narrative of the future.

"If you look at all the campaigns, the most glaring contrast is that none of the Republican candidates is coming out with detailed or original policy proposals," said Norm Ornstein, a non-partisan fellow at the AEI."

As a result, perhaps unfairly because AEI continues to generate a lot of ideas, the liberal think-tanks are in the ascendant. They are now seen as the relevant ideas factories for the first time in a generation."

Nor does the AEI see eye-to-eye any longer with the Bush administration. "There is some deep disgruntlement among neo-conservatives who believe that the Bush administration has betrayed them," said Kurt Campbell, head of the Center for a New American Security, a new, centrist think-tank that was launched in June. "However, the neo-cons remain remarkably engaged and on the offensive in Washington's ongoing battle of ideas."

Meanwhile, Washington is playing its customary parlour game of guessing which figures would populate a future administration. Should Hillary Clinton become president, many see Richard Holbrooke, the former UN ambassador, or Strobe Talbott, head of Brookings and former deputy secretary of state, as the next secretary of state.

Susan Rice, who is a former Clinton administration official, now at Brookings and a senior adviser to Mr Obama, and Kurt Campbell are tipped for senior national security positions.

Gene Sperling, Mr Clinton's former economic adviser who is now at the Center for American Progress – also advising Mrs Clinton's campaign – is tipped to take a senior economic position.

As a long-running Clinton loyalist, Mr Podesta could "write his own ticket", said one Democrat.However, the fact is that a Republican could still win in 2008 – or another Democrat."

There are a lot of people assuming that 2008 is a done deal," said John Bolton at the AEI. "People are counting their chickens before they are hatched."

(end quote)

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:47 PM PDT

Updated: Friday, 21 September 2007 4:54 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

Reyes' Opening Statement at FISA Hearing

by NPT Staff Posted on September 20, 2007

http://www.newspapertree.com/news/1667-reyes-opening-statement-at-fisa-hearing

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held an open hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) with witnesses Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for the National SecurityDivision, U.S. Department of Justice.

Here are Chairman Silvestre Reyes'

opening statement.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:39 PM PDT

Updated: Thursday, 20 September 2007 3:42 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink