Oil-related business deals between George W. Bush and several powerful Saudi Sheikhs, from 1979 to 1991, lacked both ethical integrity and Congressional intelligence oversight, since Bush used the same Saudi-controlled global banking network that was also used by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and by Osama bin Laden. once a CIA asset. Yet, several abbreviated FBI and Congressional investigations later, this explosive truth still remains mostly hidden from the American public.

Consider the facts. For decades the current President's father, former President George H. W. Bush, has had publicly close ties to the oil-enriched Saudi royal family in regards to both politics and business. Then consider that the bin Laden family is the most entrusted of all families by the Saudi Royal household. For many decades, every Saudi King has granted the bin Laden’s giant construction conglomerate exclusive contacts to restore all castles and holy sites within the country, and for numerous public works and infrastructure projects.

Also, consider that soon after bin Laden's September 11 attacks, it was public knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was critical funding for bin Laden's al Qaeda network and for his earlier Arabic anti-Soviet fighters in Afganistan. Al Qaeda's predecesor was, in fact, bin Laden's 50,000 highly disciplined "Arab-Afghan" mujahideen, who were the most elite among Ronald Reagan's famous "freedom fighters", that were covertly given massive U.S. CIA support.

What is not generally known is that in years past, George W. Bush had several important business relationships with principle cohorts of Osama bin Laden's long-term financial sponsor, the powerful Saudi multibillionaire and banker to the king, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.

Bush's Deal with Saudi Sheikhs: A Reason to Cover-Up
This amazing story centers around and begins with the fraud-enshrouded Saudi National Commercial Bank (NCB), until recently owned by Sheikh Mahfouz. Following Osama bin Laden's U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the Saudi Arabian Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, that Mahfouz had channelled tens of millions of dollars into terrorist accounts in London and New York. While treasurer to the Saudi King, Mahfouz plundered 2 billion dollars of the 21 billion dollar National Commercial Bank, of which he was then president.

The Saudi National Commercial Bank was affiliated with a global network of many Mahfouz-connected banks, including the InterMaritime Bank of Geneva and New York, whose vice-president brokered a 25 million dollar investment into George W. Bush's Harken Oil and Gas in 1987. Thus, the InterMaritime Bank was once related to the current President Bush through its Mahfouz-connected VP, a man named Dr. Alfred Hartmann. The InterMaritime Bank was also involved in multiple covert CIA operations.

During the 1980's, Sheikh Mahfouz's banking syndicate performed major CIA-inspired banking operations for such former CIA assets as Osama bin Laden, as well as for Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and other drug dealing generals, such as in Pakistan. Much of this is documented in the 1992 U.S. Congressional testimony of Senator John Kerry.

George W. Bush, for his part, had important business relationships not only with Dr. Hartmann, but with a total of nine prominent individuals that are central to Mahfouz's financial empire, including both the “Godfather of Saudi Intelligence” and his partner, a billionaire Bush campaign donor.

If George W. Bush and Sheikh Mahfouz were ever coexisting in each others financial network, then the question is begged as to whether any personal or political reasons exist for the President to have censored the Saudi section of the Senate's report on bin Laden's September 11 attacks.

When two principal individuals are directly connected to the same group of nine persons -- with each of the the eighteen subsequent relationships having zero degrees of separation -- then one would say that a "network" exists that profoundly connects the two principals in question.

More http://globalresearch.ca/arti... Center For Research on Globalization

By Danielle Demetriou
31 March 2004

Any eighteen-year-old who has already gone to the trouble of organising a 3,000-strong anti-war march might be considered something of a freak by her contemporaries.

Aren't teenagers supposed to be slovenly, monosyllabic television addicts, never happier than when sitting in a permanent sulk in their bedrooms?

Well, a study published yesterday suggests that Keirra Box from Brent is far more typical of her age group than the stereotype personified by Harry Enfield's "Kevin the Teenager".

The research shows the current crop of teenagers are politically articulate, socially aware, enthusiastic about the European Union and deeply wary of American values. Just like Ms Box, in fact.

"I think that teenagers are very politically aware but at the same time I don't think they would describe themselves as political," she said.

"They are very interested in a lot of issues, particularly war, top-up fees, examination structure, the anti-social behaviour Bill. But I don't think it was just Iraq that politically regenerated teenagers. It was the fact that there was finally this infrastructure in place for protesting."

The evolution of today's teenagers comes to light in a report in which the behaviour of 2,000 teenagers in the UK and in 15 cities across Europe was analysed and compared with that of their predecessors.

The study uncovers a generation of politically aware teenagers dubbed the "Sunshine Teens" who were concerned with a host of issues to which their predecessors had remained oblivious.

From the political implications of buying a particular brand of trainers to their opposition to genetically modified food, they are increasingly concerned about the global implications of their actions.

At least 85 per cent of teenagers believe it is necessary to expect brands to be "socially responsible" with an emphasis on ethical values as opposed to financial value.

The vast majority also feel a strong sense of European identity, with as many as 78 per cent expressing high levels of approval for the EU, according to the report, conducted by the London-based trends forecasters The Future Laboratory.

"We found that teenagers born after 1985 contrast greatly with the sulky adolescents of Generation X," said Martin Raymond, a director at The Future Laboratory.

"They are optimistic, socially aware, politically engaged and are concerned about environmental and ethical issues.

"They may well wear Nike trainers but, at the same time, they are more aware about their relationship with ethical and environmental responsibilities."

The study was compiled from information collated via teams of 20 researchers in a string of cities across Europe, including Helsinki, Paris, Tallinn, Berlin, Stockholm and Barcelona.

The research, which incorporates studies from a string of think-tank organisations across Europe, was also conducted in seven regions in the UK, from London to Edinburgh.

It found that, in contrast to the stereotype of moody and angst-ridden teens, optimism and pragmatism were the underlying characteristics found among today's teenagers.

Increased political activism among teenagers is also confirmed by soaring membership of a growing number of organisations and groups across Europe. "Politics no longer really concern the individual person, it's about these big groups and their wants and needs now," said Carl, 16, from Newcastle upon Tyne, one of the children interviewed for the report.

Claire, 14, from Hampshire, added: "The Government needs to get a grip and put help and people where they're needed most."

Another aspect of increased awareness is reflected in a rise in anti-brand activism, as teens became increasingly aware of the Third World exploitation involved in the manufacturing industry. That is reflected in the words of 18-year-old Louise, from Italy, who said: "I wouldn't pay money for a T-shirt that had some impressive band slapped on it that was made in an Indian sweatshop."

For teenagers who live in Britain, the war in Iraq and the leadership of Tony Blair were subjects that featured high on the agenda alongside social issues.

"British teenagers in particular were most pre-occupied with health and education and completely anti-war. Iraq was an issue that they all felt strongly about and they see little merit in Tony Blair as a leader," said Mr Raymond.

"They are definitely more involved in community issues and that is supported by the fact that the number of young people who have joined Greenpeace is unusually high."

Reasons for the increase in political activity among teenagers was partly attributed events such as 11 September and the Iraqi conflict. However, among British teenagers it was also believed to be linked to the attitudes of their parents as well as recent world events.

THE HAPPY PUNK

He plays bass in an "oriental hardcore rock band". He refuses to keep big-name clothing labels in wardrobe. And he is outraged by the war in Iraq.

Oskar Billy Reynolds, 16, from Brighton, is one of a growing band of "Sunshine Teens" who are defying teenage stereotypes.

His 21st century outlook is reflected by the fact that his band makes music urging people to stage a revolution rather than tormented ballads on the angst of teenage life. "We don't see ourselves as political, we just have very strong views on the stuff that affects us," says Oskar.

"We're happy punks. We don't get depressed about things and go on and on about how bad and miserable things are. We're about being happy and, at the same time, revolting against what we don't think is right."

While he refuses to see himself as "political", Oskar would be the first to admit he has "very strong views".

Last year, he was among a number of schoolchildren who walked of school in protest at the start of the Iraq conflict.

As he tried to summarise his philosophies, one thing was unmistakable - his wariness of the United States. "America? You must be joking," he says "America's big plan is to take over the world, probably in the form of a massive sports game."

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=506805" title="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=506805" target="_blank"http://news.independent.co.uk... Independent

The Center for American Progress has been digging into the archives to help clarify claims made by the Bush White House as it tries to repair the damage from revelations made in the 9/11 commission public hearings and the newly released book by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

Today in a speech in New Hampshire, President Bush defended his administration's actions before 9/11, saying: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people."

But CAP quickly found previous reports that the president was told of the possibility that al-Qaida was exploring the use of airliners as terror weapons, including against U.S. targets:

FACT: On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
Dateline NBC, 9/10/02 (Transcript in Nexis)

FACT: U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that Islamic terrorists had considered "crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nati on/la-092701genoa.story" title="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nati on/la-092701genoa.story" target="_blank"http://www.latimes.com/news/n... LA Times, 9/27/01.

FACT: A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives … into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/at tack/main509488.shtml" title="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/at tack/main509488.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... CBS News, 5/17/02.

CAP also found this nugget, showing that the State Department under Bush downplayed the importance of the threat of Osama bin Laden in its annual terrorism report in early 2001.

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrori sm.state.dept" title="http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrori sm.state.dept" target="_blank"http://edition.cnn.com/2001/U... CNN, 4/30/2001.

-- Geraldine Sealey

Via email

by Spencer Ackerman

So much for what Condoleezza Rice termed the
"important principle" of executive privilege.
This morning, White House counsel Al Gonzalez informed the 9/11 Commission that Rice will testify in public and under oath before the Commission. This may appear, on the surface, to be a defeat for the White House. But Rice's testimony isn't unconditional. The administration has offered--and the Commission has apparently accepted--what is basically a trade: Rice will testify publicly, but only if no other White House official has to. And by no other White House official, Gonzalez means President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The White House is, in effect, trading a Rice appearance for a guarantee that the administration's two leading men won't be dragged down with her. Which makes this a reasonably good deal for the president and his team.

Gonzalez's letter contains six paragraphs of throat-clearing about why Rice's testimony shouldn't constitute a precedent for White House staff testifying before congressional bodies. It's not until the seventh paragraph that he gets down to business. "The Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official," he writes. "Other White House officials with information relevant to the Commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the Commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the Commission with information through private meetings, briefings and documents, consistent with our previous practice."

More http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?... TNR

By Benjamin Duncan in Washington, DC

Former Vice-President Al Gore sought advice from above

During a 2000 Republican presidential primary debate, then Texas Governor George Bush cited Jesus Christ as his favourite political philosopher.

The 2000 Democratic nominee, then Vice-President Al Gore, told a reporter that he often asked himself: "What would Jesus do?" when making political decisions.

In a recent Gallup poll, 64% of registered voters said their personal religious beliefs would be important in determining their vote for president this year.

While the majority of Americans believe in the separation of church and state, they also believe religion has a significant role to play in presidential elections, according to experts in Washington.

More than 90% of Americans believe in God in one form or another and many equate religious faith with morality and social values, said Clyde Wilcox, a professor of government at Georgetown University.

"A majority of Americans are religious in some way and many take religion as their most important value," Wilcox said.

Core values

Consequently, he said, voters often filter issues and candidates through the prism of their religious beliefs.

"It plays a pretty big role in most people's votes," he said.

Yet the interplay between religion and politics in presidential campaigns does not mean citizens are less adamant about maintaining equal but separate roles for religion and government.

According to a recent Zogby poll, 59% of American adults support the institutional separation of church and state and 76% disapprove of religious leaders endorsing political candidates.

"What this is saying is that we don't want the government to tell religion what to do ... but it doesn't mean that people don't want religious values to influence policy options," Wilcox said.

More http://english.aljazeera.net/... Aljazeera

Kevin Drum

Having finished Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies I now find myself almost afraid to comment on it. With the battle lines already drawn along the predictable lines, it almost seems pointless. If you're a liberal he's a heroic truthteller and if you're a conservative he's a bitter Bush hater. Is anyone going to change their mind at this point?

Maybe not, but let's try to sort out what Clarke actually says and why he says it anyway, because I don't think it's entirely obvious just from the snippets we've seen on TV over the past week. The story is a little more complicated than it appears.

To begin with, the bulk of the book is a fairly straightforward description of terrorism during the 90s: what happened, how we responded, how we eventually put the al-Qaeda pieces together, and what kinds of institutional problems prevented a more effective response. It is largely concerned with Clarke's efforts to get official Washington to take terrorism seriously — he is scathing toward the FBI and the military, and only slightly less so toward the CIA — and there's not much question that during this period Clarke was fundamentally nonpartisan, mostly just a bulldog who was obsessed with terrorism and frequently upset that the rest of the world didn't share his obsession.

So what was it that seemingly turned him into a Democratic partisan? Oddly enough, it appears that the turning point came in August 1998 and was a combination of two things: the Monica Lewinsky scandal and al-Qaeda's attacks on two American embassies. It was only a couple of years earlier that the CIA had finally connected the dots and figured out that the al-Qaeda organization even existed, and the embassy bombings were their first major attack since then. Unfortunately, Republican opportunism made it hard to fight back. Although Clarke says he was "beyond mad" at Clinton for failing to keep his zipper shut, he became flatly infuriated with the recklessness of his conservative opposition:

More http://www.washingtonmonthly.... Washington Monthly

Looking at the headers on tblog I can't help but have questions for some. I can always tell the sites it's useless for me to visit. There are many who seem to have lost their ability to reason. Since I have not I am trying to figure out what drives them to make the choices they have for the current president of America in light of the facts. There are many and I see no need to reference the links that are readily available on my blog and many others.

It's not hard to see, for many, God or religion is not part of their thinking although they may use these words occasionally. So, if their not part of the religious right, the group that drives the Bush machine, then where are they coming from?

I can only think it has to be the patriotism angle. I mean surely they wouldn't defend a president, when he has been shown to be undeniably wrong, just because he's Republican.

Before I go any further let me say something about those public figures that are speaking out against Mr. Bush, those that have now become enemies of the state.

Somehow the fact that they are professional men and women, obviously doing a great job for their country, Republicans and sometimes even Christian, before they decided to speak out against acts Bush and administration have committed since holding office seems to hold no weight or be worthy of consideration for some.

Mr. Clarke should be viewed as a hero for Republicans. My God, he has served under several presidents including the current one and his father. From all I have read he has done a great job. Let's be reasonable here. How has the man held this job so long? Think about it! Mr. Clarke has brought to light,and he is qualified, that Mr. Bush has not been waging a war on terror and in fact, he put it on the back burner in order to wage his own personal war on Iraq and Saddam. Because of George Bush's slackness there is a chance, no matter how small, that 9/11 could have been prevented.

He has personally taken responsibility for any part he played in the administratons failures on 9/11 and been the only one to apologize to the families that continue to live with the horror of that day.

None in the Bush administration have been able to bring themselves to this humble place. They are unable from their lofty, Christian pedestals to admit their mistakes.
I think it's because they weren't mistakes. If they were it would be easy enough to hang one's head and say I'm sorry, at least it should be. No, I believe the Bush administration made intentionally conceived decisions that backfired. For them to admit to these decisions would surely place their jobs in jeopardy. Or would they?

From what I see daily and not just on tblog is people ready to jump to the defense and even slander anyone who even dares question the current administration. This is getting beyond serious. It's become dangerous for America and the world.

I was accused not long ago after daring to suggest that someone might be a little nationalist in their thinking of using the term as a dirty word. They were correct although I didn't attempt to defend myself. It was a lost cause. I will do so now.

Nationalism only finds it's rightful place in countries struggling to retain their culture, autonomy and even the ground they stand upon especially if in danger of being invaded. Iraq would be one of those countries. Other than this nationalist thinking is dangerous. It's dangerous here in France and in the US. The FN here would be just as dangerous as North Korea's Kim Jung-il if they were in office. The same can be said for George Bush and company. This idea that my country is the best/right because it's my country is ludicrous beyond belief.

Americans unless you hail from the natives are just a bunch of expats from Europe. You have that land you hold so dear because your forefathers invaded and slaughtered the natives. No mon ami, it was not always America and there is no such thing as American blood. If you trace your families geneology you will find you hailed from somewhere like Spain, England, Ireland, or God help us all, France. At least the 'bluebloods' as they like to think of themselves have the intelligence to realize this and even cherish their European bloodline. As for myself, I'm Cherokee indian and Irish. I have the best of both worlds.

What, it seems to me, we have witnessed is a US president calling for war on principles other countries didn't agree with. These countries were in turn said to be 'no longer friends or allies' of the US by Mr. Bush. Some US citizens instead of thinking for themselves jumped on the Bush bandwagon, took up his outlandish mantra and began to blast with both barrels. They are so deep in it now they don't know how to get out.

Let me tell you. Look at the facts. Stop the kneejerk thinking and reacting. Stop following the leader. He's going the wrong way. Stop 'blindly' condemning other Americans when their only repeating truths that are being spoken from every part of the planet. Once you've made this miraculous u-turn find another leader, another Republican, if you will, before it's too late. Do what Spain and France has done.
Buck the system!
Dianne Maire

by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence

The recent controversy swirling around the Bush White House, the 9-11 Commission and the Richard Clarke book, Against All Enemies has been very enlightening. Sensing that Bush has almost nothing else to run on in the 2004 elections, the Bush Republican attack machine and their fellow travelers in the Corporate Media have been vigorously trying to change the subject away from their competency in dealing with terrorism before and after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Instead of publicly dealing with the serious issues involved, the Bush Republicans have been attacking the character of anyone who raises any questions about their poor performance on national security issues. This has been the Karl Rove approach to anyone standing in the way of Bush obtaining and retaining political power. This tactic was key in defeating John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary Election.

The tactic was used in the 2002 Congressional Elections to give the Republicans control of Congress. The tactic backfired when used illegally by someone highly placed in the Bush Administration to out the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson over the false “African uranium-nuclear weapons” claims that helped Bush sell his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Most recently, the Republican attack machine went after former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, when the book The Price of Loyalty was published. This book confirmed many of the charges made against the Bush White House in the Clarke book.

While Clarke did his job in our government under Reagan, Bush (the Senior), Clinton and the current Bush very well, the Bush Republicans are now blaming their failings on him.

More http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/... Scoop

By Christopher Hayes, AlterNet
March 30, 2004

On March 8th, a group of 25 handpicked Iraqis signed a constitution that will become the law of the land when the United States transfers sovereignty over to the Iraqi Governing Council this June.

The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) is nearly twice as long and significantly more complicated than the U.S. Constitution. It is also, ironically, far more progressive. Given the right-wing ideologues behind the regime-change experiment, the TAL institutes principles that liberals in American only dream about.

Here are a few highlights:

Article 12: "All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law."[ital added] The Civil Rights Act bans gender discrimination in the United States, but gender equality is nowhere enshrined in the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment would have done that, but after passing the Senate and House in 1971-72 it failed to clear enough statehouses to be ratified.

More
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18267" title="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18267" target="_blank"http://www.alternet.org/story... AlterNet

by Jacob G. Hornberger
Let me see if I have this right. In the United States of America:

1. The president now has the unrestricted power to declare war against a country that has not attacked the United States, wreaking death and destruction on both sides of the conflict.

2. The president now has the unrestricted power to round up unlimited numbers of American citizens within the United States and incarcerate them in military brigs or concentration camps for the rest of their lives and keep them from ever again communicating with friends, families, and attorneys, simply on the president’s certification that the incarcerated Americans are “terrorists,” as he has done with Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.

3. The president now has the unrestricted power to seize American citizens abroad and remove them to its military base in Cuba, where they can be kept for the rest of their lives and kept from ever again communicating with friends, family, and attorneys, solely on the basis of his certification that the imprisoned Americans are “terrorists,” as he initially did with Yaser Esam Hamdi.

4. The president now has the unrestricted power to kill American citizens abroad solely on the basis of his certification that the killed Americans are “terrorists,” as he did to Ahmed Hijazi, the American who was killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen.

Pardon me for asking the following two indelicate questions:

First, if all this is freedom, what exactly is dictatorship?

Second, after the Iraqi people are freed from dictatorship, would it be asking too much to do the same for the American people through the adoption of the following two amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

“The Congress shall have the power to declare war, and this time we really do mean it.”

“No person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and this time we really do mean it.”

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3384.htm" title="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3384.htm" target="_blank"http://www.informationclearin... Information Clearing House

Emad Mekay

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

More http://www.ipsnews.net/intern... IPS

Trailed by a swarm of television cameras, Nicolas Sarkozy sweeps into a meeting hall in the drab Paris suburb of Rosny-sous-Bois. The 48-year-old French Interior Minister is speaking at a convention on crime victims' rights. The meeting quickly turns into a lovefest. As Sarkozy works the room after his speech, Genevieve Celant, leader of a victims' group based in the town of Frejus in Provence, says: "He's young, he's energetic, he keeps his promises. People on the left and the right--all have confidence in him."

Eight months after stepping into the the country's top law enforcement job, Sarkozy has become the man to watch in French politics. "Sarko," as he's popularly known, makes headlines almost daily with a whirlwind of activity, from fighting crime and terrorism to defusing labor crises and overseeing disaster relief in flood-stricken areas. His approval rating stands at 61%, on a par with Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin's and a few points above President Jacques Chirac's. Sarkozy brushes off questions about his political ambitions. "I'm only doing my job," he says.

Make no mistake, though: The Interior Minister has his eye on the 2007 presidential race. He is honing a new style of politicking that could give him an edge over potential rivals. Although he belongs to Chirac's center-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Sarkozy is styling himself as an independent pragmatist who shuns ideology and behind-the-scenes dealmaking. Last fall, for instance, he helped head off a nationwide truckers' strike by threatening to revoke the strikers' drivers' licenses--an unusually hardball tactic in strike-prone France.

Indeed, for many of his 26 years in politics, Sarkozy has battled criticism that he is too zealous and hard-edged. Yet those traits are assets in his new crime-fighting role. Plus Sarkozy offers a Clintonesque personal touch that's unusual in French politics, holding emotional private meetings with crime victims and spending holidays hanging around police stations. "He speaks a new kind of political language--more direct, with a strong emotional dimension," says Francois Miquet-Marty, director of political studies for the Louis Harris polling group in France.

It's a vernacular voters understand-- even if Sarkozy hails from the ritzy Paris suburb of Neuilly and hobnobs with the likes of Bernard Arnault, the French luxury tycoon. Polls show two-thirds of the population backing Sarkozy's policies. His trump card is public fear over crime, a key issue in last year's general elections. Already, he has pushed through legislation to hire thousands more police officers while stepping up raids on suspected terrorist groups. He also shut down a refugee center near Calais that had been a longtime magnet for illegal immigrants hoping to slip across the English Channel.

Yet this son of a Hungarian refugee has distanced himself from the xenophobic positions of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Far Right leader who made immigration and crime the centerpieces of his presidential race last year. Sarkozy has promised to streamline procedures for legalizing the status of immigrants already in France. He also has cultivated ties with the country's large but politically neglected Muslim minority. "His predecessors never made such an effort to reach out to us," says Fouad Alaoui, Secretary General of the Union of Islamic Organizations in France.

Sarkozy's path to the presidency will be paved with obstacles, of course. He has already ignited controversy with his proposed revision of the criminal code. Human-rights and church groups have raised objections to tougher penalties on loitering and squatting as well as limits on some forms of public speech, such as cursing at policemen. And while Chirac is expected to retire in 2007, his pal Alain Juppe is mulling his own presidential bid. The former Prime Minister and current UMP leader displays none of Sarkozy's populist flair. But, says a longtime rightist politico: "He's just waiting for Sarko's first mistake."

In the meantime, Sarkozy has plenty to keep him busy. He's trying to defuse a political separatist movement on the island of Corsica and investigating an oil spill off the coast of Spain that has soiled some of France's Atlantic Coast. With Sarko on the track, France's next presidential campaign could be a heckuva race.

By Carol Matlack in Paris
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_0 5/b3818174.htm" title="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_0 5/b3818174.htm" target="_blank"http://www.businessweek.com/m... BusinessWeek

By John Chuckman
(YellowTimes.org) – There are a few special moments now and then in world affairs that lift your spirit.

One of these came with the fall of Romania's Ceausescu, former chum of Richard Nixon, known appropriately to his own countrymen as "the Dracula." His fall was, for me, the most poignant symbol of totalitarianism's collapse in Eastern Europe. When Romanian revolutionaries waved their national flag with its center torn out, I made a small copy and posted it on my office bulletin board.

Another such moment came with a speech at the United Nations just over a year ago by France's Dominique de Villepin. Behind the scenes, the U.S. had been using powerful, dirty tactics to exert pressure on every member of the Security Council to approve and legitimize its threatened invasion of Iraq -- a loan forgiven here, another called there, a project promised, a project withdrawn, and the Secretary General's office bugged. It did not seem possible the pressure could be resisted. But M. de Villepin spoke eloquently for the great majority of the world's people opposed to an illegal war. So when Bush started blowing up civilians in Baghdad, he was uncomfortably alone (Tony Blair counting for little either at home or abroad), and his acts were seen for what they were, a violent tantrum by America's neocons, serving no worthy purpose and loaded with unpredictable consequences.

Now we have the Spanish election and newly-elected Prime Minister Zapatero's words about the Iraq invasion, words like "lies" and "stupid" that are inspiring for their honesty and directness.

Truth in world affairs is rare, and Zapatero's comes after three solid years of numbing, depressingly-obvious dishonesty from Bush.

Zapatero has made the very reasonable demand, if Spanish troops are to remain in Iraq, that the United Nations must assume responsibility there. This is not only reasonable, it would serve the best interests of all involved in the mess the United States has made of the country -- all, that is, but the madmen who created the mess.

Those Americans now busy building heated, Olympic-sized swimming pools with the proceeds of new defense contracts and their political allies of convenience, evangelical illiterates who hold that a fifteen-billion year old universe was created six thousand years ago -- two pillars of Bush support -- will now start their voodoo imprecations about Spain's giving in to terror. Democratic nominee Kerry, almost pathetically, has joined the mumbo- jumbo, asking Spain's new government "to reconsider [its] decision [to withdraw troops] to send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror."

Nothing could be less accurate or demonstrate more backward logic. The appalling act of terror in Madrid rather has focused Spain on the simple, irreducible truth that the key place to fight terror is in your own country and in its policies towards the world. It has brought Spain's people back to where they were before the previous government betrayed their interests to Bush.

What do I mean by "in your own country"? Few Americans recall that the nineteen men responsible for 9/11 entered their country on American visas. Little stealth was involved. A twentieth man with a visa was stopped by a single alert INS man suspicious of his frightening manner.

Americans forget that their 30-billion-dollar-a-year- plus intelligence apparatus failed to detect what these men were up to, even though there was some awareness of their presence. The failure is thrown into strong relief by the discovery that a large group of Israeli spies in the United States were on to the nineteen conspirators, and these Israeli spies should themselves have aroused American interest.

Americans seem unaware that such simple measures as reinforced cockpit doors and/or upgraded security inspections at airports would have made 9/11 impossible. Saying this is not hindsight on my part. After years of new threats from Western Asia and after America's hurling a whole fleet of cruise missiles at Afghanistan, these changes were modest precautions advocated at the time.

A quibbling, petty Republican Congress bears no small responsibility for the terrorists' success on 9/11.
No, for America's right wing, a pound of cure always is worth more than an ounce of prevention, especially where the cure involves blowing people up abroad.

Chests swelled like bull walruses in mating season, they relish a demonstration of America's capacity for destruction, and, when you combine that with an exciting new opportunity for local defense contractors, it makes an irresistible legislative package. I recall a comedy skit by the late John Candy with Toronto's Second City before his success in films in which he and another comedian played backwoods types watching explosions and exchanging comments like, "That blowed up real good! Yeah, real good!" The skit brutally sums up the response to 9/11.

You don't learn a lot by blowing people up. After killing thousands of people and destroying the livelihoods of millions of others, what has Bush learned about the perpetrators of 9/11? Not much. To this day, there is no proof that bin Laden was even involved in 9/11. His guilt has been assumed and repeated, over and over, in the American press to the point where it is taken for granted by the public. I don't deny the possibility or even the likelihood; I just remind readers that we genuinely do not know more than we did two years on.

As for Saddam Hussein's dealings with 9/11 terrorists, we know to a certainty he never had any. His secular outlook on the world was utterly incompatible with religious fundamentalists like bin Laden. They hated each other, just as the Muslim clerics of Iran's revolution and the secular Shah hated each other. Bush and his grotesque band of armchair killers know this as well as I do, yet they have lied countless times suggesting otherwise.

So I am heartened by Zapatero's step onto the world scene speaking the truth. I know the silk-suited Christian warriors in the White House will do everything they can to discredit him because his words starkly reveal the nakedness of their emperor. He can be sure the CIA will pour resources into Spain's opposition party. No niceties about democracy will hold them back, any more than they did in Haiti.

As for the man who would be emperor, voters in the great American democracy get the splendid choice between Bush and a more polite "me, too."

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1824" title="http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1824" target="_blank"http://www.yellowtimes.org/ar... YellowTimes

Independent Expert Tells Commission That Extreme Poverty Negates All Rights
29 March 2004

The Independent Expert on extreme poverty told the Commission on Human Rights this morning that such poverty amounted to an absolute denial of human rights wherever it occurred.

The Expert, Anne-Marie Lizin, presenting a final report on the topic, said her principal recommendations were as follows: the recognition of the indisputable responsibility of the State on the territory of which the extremely poor populations lived; the need for a programme of "good laws", including a system of social security which would insure health, employment and retirement risks; a restructuring of States aimed at good governance; a guaranteed minimum income; access for all to education and health; a reinforcement of the role and power of women; micro-credit; and a listening policy with regard to poorer populations.

Ms. Lizin's remarks came as discussion began on the subject of economic, social and cultural rights. Earlier in the morning general debate was completed under the Commission's agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, annually the Commission's most contentious topic of discussion.

Charging that abuses were occurring in numerous countries, forty-two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spoke. In addition to raising charges against specific countries, NGOs remarked on a series of trends and themes. The General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists said the development of religious extremism and intolerance in many parts of the world was alarming. International Save the Children Alliance said education was a priority, especially for girls. The Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization said that among the major impediments to the effective enjoyment of human rights was indiscriminate violence unleashed against innocent civilians by non-State actors.

More http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane... UN Press Release

The US government says it hopes to give Haiti a "secure tomorrow." But what about the day after that?

By Avi Steinberg

If Haiti's democracy has been placed in the grasping hands of these freedom fighters, then the vision of US-backed stability comes into sharper focus. Stability here appears to be synonymous with suppression of dissent and, in this case, suppression of Aristide's Lavalas Family party. This party, which still commands the loyalty of millions of Haiti's poor and disenfranchised, has been excluded from the rising thugocracy; there appears to be evidence that members of the party are in hiding, fearing for their lives. Regardless of the problems of Aristide's leadership, the Lavalas party continues to represent the hopes for democracy and empowerment of Haiti's impoverished majority. The US-backed government's attack on this party is an attack on the electorate. This is stability through tyranny.

Read the entire article http://africana.com/articles/... Africana

I'm sure everyone has read this but considering the date it was written August 4, 2002 and recent events concerning the Bush administration and Clarke I thought a repost was in order.

Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late. The saga of a lost chance
By Michael Elliott

Sunday, Aug. 04, 2002
Sometimes history is made by the force of arms on battlefields, sometimes by the fall of an exhausted empire. But often when historians set about figuring why a nation took one course rather than another, they are most interested in who said what to whom at a meeting far from the public eye whose true significance may have been missed even by those who took part in it.

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead-he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Cotinue reading the very lengthy but obviously well researched article. Clarke's words were the same back then as they are now. The Bush team ignored him as they are trying to get everyone to do now.
George Bush 'strong on terror'? If he and Ms. Rice had listened to the man who had been doing this job under several presidents including Bush's own father, 9/11 might well have been prevented.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0 " title="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0 " target="_blank"http://www.time.com/time/nati...,8599,333835,00.html Time

By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - French voters delivered a stinging defeat to President Jacques Chirac's government and its program of painful economic reforms in regional elections Sunday that turned into a national vote of censure, exit polls showed.

The stunning rebuke, with victories by the opposition left in many regions, will increase pressure on Chirac to reshuffle his conservative government, and perhaps even ditch his prime minister, the unpopular Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Exit polls showed the opposition left getting nearly half of the votes, compared with about 37 percent for the right. Turnout was high, with approximately two-thirds of the country's nearly 42 million voters casting ballots, exit polls showed.

Raffarin acknowledged the defeat but said reforms are inevitable.

"Reforms must continue simply because they are necessary," the somber-looking prime minister said.

For him, the defeat was personal. One of at least eight regions that exit polls estimated were lost by the government included Poitou-Charentes in western France, once Raffarin's fiefdom. The right suffered another high-profile defeat in the central Auvergne region, where former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing was washed away by the wave of wins for the left that swept much of France.

The midterm bruising, Chirac's first national test since he and his party swept presidential and legislative elections in 2002, could make it difficult for the government to pursue its promised but unpopular economic reforms.

They include trimming spending on the heavily indebted health system. Chirac's European Union (news - web sites) partners want his government to rein in France's budget deficit to within EU limits. But French voters showed they are having trouble stomaching the bitter pill of cuts to public services and slimmed down pensions.

The leader of the triumphant Socialists, Francois Hollande, said a mere ministerial shuffle would not be enough to assuage voters, "no matter how big it is." Instead, he said the government must keep its hands off France's treasured public sector.

Former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius called the results "very, very spectacular."

"They represent an extremely strong sanction with regard to the president's politics and the current government," he said.

Nearly 10 percent unemployment and the stagnant economy fueled voter discontent. Although voters Sunday were choosing regional councils that handle transport, school-building and other local issues, many cast their ballots to show disapproval of the government in Paris.

"I feel like France's public sector is being sabotaged," said Elsa Quinette, a theater worker who voted for the left at a polling station in Paris' Montmartre district. "What the government is doing is so serious, I just had to speak out."

For the opposition left, the vote was a triumph, marking its comeback from the political wilderness after Chirac's victories two years ago.

"Two years ago, the left was censured in a historic fashion. Today, we've been censured in the same way," said Social Affairs Minister Francois Fillon.

Fillon acknowledged that a government shake-up may now be needed. Chirac must "take a new political situation into consideration," he said.

But Fillon also said reforms must continue. "Clearly today, we have a problem with the people," he said. But "the consequence must not be immobility and the halting of reforms."

By rejuvenating the left, the vote could weaken Chirac's prospects of winning a third presidential term in 2007 should he chose to run again. At the least, the left's new strength in the regions provides platforms from which to mount presidential and legislative campaigns in 2007.

"For two years, the president has not responded to French people's expectations," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former Socialist finance minister, told France-3 television. "From that point of view, it's his failure."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/200 40328/ap_on_re_eu/france_ elections" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/200 40328/ap_on_re_eu/france_ elections" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday shut down a weekly newspaper run by followers of a hardline Shiite Muslim cleric, saying its articles were increasing the threat of violence against occupation forces.

Hours after the closure of Al-Hawza, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully in front of the newspaper's offices, decrying what they called a crackdown on freedom of expression.

Dozens of U.S. soldiers arrived at the Al-Hawza newspaper offices Sunday morning and closed its doors with chains and locks, sheik Abdel-Hadi Darraja said in front of the one-story house.

Darraja is a representative of al-Sadr, who lives in the southern holy city of Najaf and has been an outspoken critic of the U.S.-led occupation, but has not called for armed attacks.

A coalition letter in Arabic, signed by top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and handed to employees at the newspaper, said the paper's articles "form a serious threat of violence against coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who cooperate with coalition authorities in rebuilding Iraq."

The paper will close for 60 days, the statement said.

A coalition spokesman confirmed the 60-day closure, saying several articles "were designed to incite violence against coalition forces and incite instability" in Iraq.

The spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said any violation of the closure could lead to the imprisonment of newspaper employees for up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000.

On Feb. 26, an article in Al-Hawza claimed that a suicide bombing two weeks earlier that targeted the mostly Shiite town of Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, was a rocket "fired by an (American) Apache helicopter and not a car bomb." The attack killed 53 people.

In the same edition an article was titled "Bremer follows the steps of Saddam," and criticized coalition work in Iraq.

"This is what happens when an Iraqi journalist expresses his opinion," said the white-turbaned Darraja.

"What is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath," said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was ousted a year ago.

In July, the coalition announced the closure of a Baghdad newspaper and the arrest of its office manager. The statement said Al-Mustaqila, which means "The Independent" in Arabic, published an article on July 13 calling for "death to all spies and those who cooperate with the U.S." It said killing them was a religious duty.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/200 40328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq _newspaper_closed" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/200 40328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq _newspaper_closed" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Jacques Vergès (born March 5, 1925) is a French lawyer noted for defending unpopular figures.

Throughout his career as an attorney, Vergès has primarily taken political cases, and his clients have included both left and right-wing terrorists. He defended the nazi criminal Klaus Barbie (1987), Ilich Ramirez Sanchez a.k.a. Carlos the Jackal (1994), the Kekal faction (1995), the Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy (1996) and Slobodan Milosevic (2002).

Born in Thailand and brought up on the Réunion island, he is the son of Raymond Vergès, a French diplomat, and a Vietnamese woman. He joined the Communist party on Reunion and in 1942 he became part of the Free French Forces under Charles de Gaulle. After the war, while his brother Paul was imprisoned for murdering a political rival to their father, Jacques went to the Sorbonne to study law. In 1949 he became president of the AEC (Association for Colonial Students), where he met and befriended Pol Pot. In 1950 at the request of his Communist mentors he went to Prague to lead a youth organization for four years.

Returning to France he became a attorney and took controversial cases. During the struggle in Algiers he defended many accused of terrorism. He also left the French Communist Party following their political move towards the Fourth Republic.

Vergès became a nationally-known figure following his defense of Djamila Bouhired on terrorism charges. She was condemned to death but freed following public pressure and married Vergès. Vergès himself was sentenced to sixty days in 1960 and lost his license to officially practice law for "anti-state activities".

Just out of prison he used his publicity tactics to defend the Jeanson network. It was during a ferocious cross examination that Paul Teitgen, commander of the Algerian police, publicly admitted to the use of torture.

Following Algiers, Vergès moved onto Israel - he saw Israel as a base for neo-imperialism in the Middle East and when the wave of PFLP hijackings started in 1968 Vergès often appeared in court to defend them. Then from 1970-78 he disappeared from public view without explanation. He returned with the same anti-France and anti-Israel agenda as before, defending any terrorists with a political cause, almost all of whom were found guilty. As well as attacking governments, in 1999 Vergès sued Amnesty International on behalf of the government of Togo.

Recently, after the US-led occupation forces invaded Iraq (March 2003), Vergès was asked to represent Tareq Aziz in court. On December 13, 2003, the United States arrested Saddam Hussein (Iraq's President since 1979). Jacques Vergès also offered to defend Saddam if he was asked to. "If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding". As of March 27, 2004, M Vergès has been confirmed to defend Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Verges" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Verges" target="_blank"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Wikipedia

Israeli Prosecutors Recommend Charging Sharon

By Corinne Heller
JERUSALEM (Reuters - 27 March) - Israel's chief prosecutor has drafted an indictment against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a long-running corruption scandal that could drive him from office, Israel's Channel 2 television said on Saturday.

The report said State Attorney Edna Arbel plans to submit the charge sheet within days to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who will make the final decision on whether to put the 76-year-old leader on trial.

Channel 2 said it could take Mazuz months to decide whether to accept Arbel's recommendations, adding to a cloud of political uncertainty that has enveloped Sharon.

A spokesman for the Justice Ministry, which represents both the state attorney and the attorney general, declined to comment on the report.

Sharon's office also had no comment and Israel Radio quoted sources in the prime minister's office as saying Sharon would only comment when Mazuz finally decided about the indictment.

Arbel's draft concluded there were sufficient grounds to charge Sharon with bribery in connection with a real estate deal involving his son, Gilad, and land developer David Appel, a stalwart of the prime minister's right-wing Likud party, the report said.

The latest development catches Sharon during a stormy time while he tries to win support from the United States and from his own cabinet for his plan unilaterally to evacuate Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and some in the West Bank.

There was no immediate indication whether the reported draft indictment would delay Sharon's planned trip to Washington on April 14 to meet President Bush regarding his disengagement plan.

Palestinians fear an Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip would mask an attempt by Sharon to annex settlement blocs in the West Bank, denying them the viable state they seek.

Prosecutors allege Appel hired Gilad Sharon in 1999 and paid him large sums to persuade his father, then foreign minister, to promote real estate deals including a Greek island resort that was never built.

Sharon has in the past denied any wrongdoing. Appel, who was charged in January with trying to bribe Sharon in the 1990s, also denies the allegations against him. Appel's indictment did not cite any evidence Sharon knowingly accepted money to grant political favors.

COALITION MEMBERS CALL FOR SHARON'S SUSPENSION

Some ministers from the centrist Shinui party, his largest coalition partner, have called on Sharon to suspend himself if the Attorney General decides to indict him, Israeli media reported after the Channel 2 report.

Sharon has said he has no intention of resigning over the allegations. In 1993, Israel's high court ordered Aryeh Deri, leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, to resign from the cabinet over corruption charges. He was sent to prison in 1999.

Legal experts are divided over whether under law, Sharon would be forced to resign if indicted.

"Sharon must suspend himself -- it is inconceivable for a prime minister to have an indictment against him," said Menachem Klein, a political analyst at Israeli's Bar Ilan University.

Sharon has faced a public backlash over the past months over allegations of corruption and misconduct regarding multiple scandals. Israeli police are currently conducting investigations of the cases and Sharon denies involvement in all of them.

One case alleges that Sharon's sons, Gilad and Omri, used a $1.5 million loan from a South African businessman as collateral to repay alleged illicit contributions to Sharon's campaign. Foreign funding of political campaigns is illegal in Israel.


Israel's Sharon Under Pressure to Quit if Indicted

By Jeffrey Heller
JERUSALEM (Reuters - 28 March) - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came under pressure from within his Cabinet on Sunday to quit if Israel's attorney general adopts reported recommendations to indict him in a long-running corruption scandal.

Israel's Channel 2 television said on Saturday that State Attorney Edna Arbel planned to submit a draft indictment within days to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who will make the final decision on whether to put Sharon on trial.

"Under such circumstances, the prime minister should resign," said Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky of the Shinui party, Sharon's main partner in the governing coalition.

Uzi Landau, a minister without portfolio and member of Sharon's right-wing Likud Party, said the 76-year-old leader should at least suspend himself if charges are filed.

The Justice Ministry declined comment. A lawyer for Sharon, who has denied any wrongdoing, called the leak politically motivated.

The report plunged Sharon deeper into trouble two weeks before a visit to Washington, where he hopes to win President Bush's backing for his plan unilaterally to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza and some in the West Bank.

The case centers on payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars that an Israeli land developer and Likud stalwart made to Sharon's son Gilad, whom he hired in the late 1990s as an adviser on a never-completed project to build a Greek resort.

Sharon was foreign minister at the time, and suspicions focus on whether he tried to help win Greek government approval for the enterprise, promoted by the Likud kingmaker, David Appel, now on trial on related bribery charges.

PUBLIC PRESSURE

"Sharon must suspend himself -- it is inconceivable for a prime minister to have an indictment against him," said Menachem Klein, a political analyst at Israel's Bar Ilan University.

A source in the Justice Ministry said that under Israeli law Sharon would not have to resign if charged. But recent opinion polls have shown he would be under huge public pressure to quit.

Several media reports said Arbel would submit her recommendations to the attorney general on Sunday or Monday and Mazuz would take up to a month to decide whether to bring charges.

In such legal limbo, it would be a politically weakened Sharon pressing Bush on April 14 to sign off on his disengagement plan.

Sharon has proposed to pull hard-to-defend Israeli settlers and troops out of the Gaza Strip as part of a plan to impose a separation on the Palestinians on Israel's terms if the moribund "road map" to a negotiated peace, promoted by Washington, fails.

The Palestinians say that in reality, Sharon aims to annex large Jewish settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.

At the same time Sharon, a long-time champion of settlement building on occupied land, is also facing opposition to any withdrawal from ultranationalist parties in his coalition.

Sharon has been pushed from office before. As defense minister during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, he bowed to a public outcry and quit after an inquiry found him indirectly responsible for the massacre by Lebanese militiamen of Palestinian refugees in two Beirut camps surrounded by Israeli forces. In the latest bloodshed, Israeli forces killed a suspected militant during an attempt to detain him near the West Bank town of Hebron, military sources said.

By NANCY BENAC
Associated Press Writer

Last update: 28 March 2004

WASHINGTON -- Richard Clarke, the man who threw elbows and banged heads together to get things done under four American presidents, is the last person friends and colleagues expected to go public.

For decades he was the ultimate inside operator, the person who knew how to tackle the toughest national security problems and overcome bureaucratic inertia with behind-the-scenes guts, arrogance, smarts and hard work.

But writing a book and testifying to an official commission with scathing tales of miscalculations, failures and infighting at the highest levels of government? No way.

"This really isn't Dick," said Steven Simon, who worked with Clarke both at the White House and at the State Department. "It strikes me as a pretty clear indicator of the magnitude of his outrage."

Clarke, who left the Bush administration in early 2003, has become in the past week one of the most talked-about figures in America. In a string of public appearances and a new book that was an instant publishing phenomenon, he has forcefully criticized the Bush administration as a failure in the fight against terrorism that went on a tangent to attack Iraq when it should have been focused on al-Qaida.

The intensity of the Republican campaign to discredit him as a disgruntled partisan who is out to sell books is a testament to how seriously the White House views his criticism.

On Friday, top Republicans in Congress sought to declassify 2-year-old testimony by Clarke, suggesting he may have lied in his criticism of Bush.

Roger Cressey, a business partner who also worked with Clarke in government, said Clarke had expected to be attacked, but "even he is rather surprised at the ferociousness and vindictiveness of it."

When administration officials questioned his claims last week that Bush was fixated on Iraq the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clarke countered that he had four witnesses to such a conversation and derided national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Bush for "having a memory lapse, a senior moment."

"This is the president in a very intimidating way, finger in my face, saying 'I want a paper on Iraq and this attack,"' Clarke said.

Over four administrations and three decades in government, Clarke became known as "a very hard-driving, arrogant, not especially pleasant or polite fellow who manages to get an extremely impressive amount of work done," according to Gideon Rose, who worked under him on President Clinton's National Security Council. "He throws his elbows around the bureaucracy in the service of getting things done."

Leslie Gelb, who hired Clarke for his first State Department job in 1979, said Clarke "has annoyed and angered everybody he's worked with for 30 years. ... But everybody wanted him around because he could actually get the job done."

Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the complaints about Clarke kept rolling in: that he was riding roughshod, he didn't tell me, he didn't pay attention to me. The result: "Every boss would nod in agreement and keep him on the job."

Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, told the Sept. 11 commission that several of his colleagues wanted Clarke fired.

Berger kept him on, explaining, "I wanted a pile driver."

Clarke, 53, did get swatted at in 1992 when the State Department's inspector general concluded that he had looked the other way as Israel resold Patriot missile technology to China.

Inspector General Sherman M. Funk recommended that Clarke be disciplined, but higher-ups rejected the idea. Clarke disputed the charges, claiming the alleged violations by Israel were "specious on their face," but he soon transferred to the White House.

There, he served three presidents: Bush, Clinton and Bush. In spring of 2001, Clarke's frustration with the current Bush administration's low-key approach to terrorism and al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden boiled over, and he decided to leave his job as the White House terrorism chief for a new government position targeting cyberterror. He and Rice agreed that he would leave Oct. 1, the start of the next budget year.

In his book, Clarke recalls telling Rice and her deputy, "Maybe I'm becoming like Captain Ahab with bin Laden as the white whale. Maybe you need someone less obsessive about it."

He hoped his real message got through: "You obviously do not think that terrorism is as important as I do since you are taking months to do anything, so get somebody else to do it who can be happy working at your pace."

Clarke, who left government service 13 months ago, now has his own consulting firm on homeland and cybersecurity.

He is known for coming down hard on those who let him down, but associates say he also has a pleasant side.

"When you get him one-on-one in a room, he's very personable and has a great sense of humor," said Keith Schwalm, a former Secret Service agent who worked with Clarke at the White House and now is vice president of his consulting company . "He likes to drop little hidden jokes all the time. If you don't have his sense of humor, you won't get 'em, and he'll laugh under his breath."

Clarke, who is single, is known as a voracious reader, from science fiction to history to the latest tutorial on al-Qaida, and as someone who enjoys relaxing with friends over dinner. The native New Englander loves seafood, follows the Boston Red Sox and the Washington Capitals, enjoys jazz and has a room in his Sears catalogue home packed with duck decoys and prints. He describes himself as a political independent registered as a Republican.

Despite Clarke's bulldog reputation, "he is a normal person," Simon said. "He likes to go on nice vacations. He likes good wine. He is your fairly typical cultivated upper-middle-class Washingtonian with cultivated upper-middle-class tastes."

Even his small talk, though, shows intensity and focus.

"Small talk for him is telling you about his cell phone and its capabilities," says Gelb. "He's all business. That's his life."

Clarke: At a glance

NAME: Richard A. Clarke.

BORN: 1951.

HOMETOWN: Dorchester, Mass.

EDUCATION: Boston Latin School; University of Pennsylvania, bachelor of arts degree, 1972; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduate degree, 1978.

EXPERIENCE: Nuclear weapons and European security analyst, office of the Secretary of Defense, 1973-1977; senior analyst, Pacific Sierra Research Corp., 1978-1979; senior analyst, State Department, 1979-1985; deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence, 1985-1989; assistant secretary of state for politico-military affairs, 1989-1992; special assistant to the president, National Security Council, 1992-1998; national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counterterror, 1998-2001; special adviser to the president for cyberspace security, 2001-2003. Currently chairman of Good Harbor Consulting.

FAMILY: Single.

QUOTE: "To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness." -- speaking to the families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks at a hearing of the independent commission investigating the attacks.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/New s/Politics/Headlines/03Le gislatureNPOL03032804.htm" title="http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/New s/Politics/Headlines/03Le gislatureNPOL03032804.htm" target="_blank"http://www.news-journalonline... news-journal online

NEWSWEEK GENext POLL: 12 Percent Favor Ralph Nader Over Bush and Kerry
Tuesday March 23, 11:27 am ET
Support for Kerry Drops, But Still Leads Bush
Racial Stereotypes, Violence Most Offensive in Media; Just 17 Percent Say Nudity, 15 Percent Say Sexual Imagery Offensive
By Jonathan Darman Newsweek Web Exclusive

NEW YORK, March 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Ralph Nader may have been abandoned by some of his celebrity backers, railed against in Democratic Party circles and skewered on late night TV, but the consumer advocate still packs a powerful punch with young voters. According to the latest Newsweek and Newsweek.com GENext poll, the feisty Nader, widely blamed for Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 election, drew twice the support among voters aged 18-29 as he did in a comparable poll of all registered voters. The groundswell of youth support could mean good news for Nader, and perhaps more significantly, for President George W. Bush.

At face value, Bush's performance with the under-30 set is hardly anything to write home about. His support among young voters has remained steady in the past month -- 38 percent of 18-29 year olds said they would likely vote for him in a hypothetical election, compared with 41 percent of young voters who supported the president a month ago, an insignificant change within the margin of error. But while Bush's youth numbers still lag behind his performance with voters of all ages (46 percent), the president can perhaps find something to smile about in the GENext numbers of his rival, Sen. John Kerry. While the 47 percent of young voters who say they favor Kerry still gives the Massachusetts senator a nine-point lead over the president, Kerry's support has dropped significantly from the 56 percent who said they would vote for him just one month ago.

More
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040323/nytu110 _1.html" title="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040323/nytu110 _1.html" target="_blank"http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0... Yahoo

Just more proof that we are are slowly losing our freedom. Big brother will soon know all and see all.
This is outrageous! I put a in a friend's zip who lives in Louisiana and sure enough personal information of those in that area and their campaign contributions popped up for any prying eyes to see.
http://www.fundrace.org" title="http://www.fundrace.org" target="_blank"http://www.fundrace.org Fundrace

Thanks to Question http://www.tblog.com/template... for this.

Eoin Murray
25 - 3 - 2004

The assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has caused convulsive outrage among Gaza’s Palestinian people. From its epicentre, a young Irish human rights activist balances vivid reportage and cool reflection.

As light fades over Gaza city a cool calm sets in. Daylight ends abruptly each evening around 6pm. Within a few hours, as every night, the F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopter gunships can be heard operating overhead.

Gunfire and explosions are heard sporadically in the distance. I wake each morning to a cacophonic trio: the call to prayer, a nearby cock crowing loud and shrill, and hovering helicopters. Monday morning, 4am, is no exception.

Except that, this morning, I decide to go for a walk around my safe suburban neighbourhood. After about an hour, the sky shakes with a series of three loud explosions. Then gunfire punctures the air. A huge roar sears the sky. I see the traces of fighter jets, but no sign of helicopters or the jets themselves.

Further gunshots deter me from walking too far towards the chaos. As I walk back to my apartment, taxis are ferrying women and children away from the source of the noise. Some of the women are crying. People are coming onto their balconies, some also crying.

Unusually for them, the security guards on my street are awake and pacing the road. The sound of ambulances pierces the early dawn and UN vans charge towards the scene of the attack. Soon, the mosque loudhailers join the nightmarish orchestra of gunfire, sirens, and people shouting and screaming.

I return to my apartment and quickly switch on the BBC. News has already come through of the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the 67-year old spiritual leader of the radical Palestinian movement Hamas. This, clearly, is big.

I stay at home, getting ready to go to work and watching the breaking news. By 7am I receive official security advice from UN staff telling me to stay at home all day.

I do so. It is a day of stench, gunfire and boredom. And noise – what sounds like a day-long Arabic version of a huge rugby crowd in Lansdowne Road stadium in my hometown of Dublin, Ireland, at the pushover when thousands of throaty voices urge the scrum onwards: “heave, heave”.

Soon, the smell of burning tires infiltrates every pore, every ream of space. To the south, in the direction of the Khan Younis refugee camp, the sky suffocates with a heavy black cloud moving slowly north. The mosques quieten down for the funeral, as does the sporadic gunfire. But both start up again during the afternoon.

The attack on Monday 22 March was superbly executed, but what of the strategy behind it? How intelligent are the Israeli military and political leaders who planned the operation, signed the papers, pressed the button? Perhaps Israeli strategy should not be criticised for its failure to see the consequences of its actions. Rather, does it not see all too clearly the ultimate outcome of moves such as this?

If Ariel Sharon’s plan to withdraw from Gaza is successful in its own terms, he will have left the Palestinian Authority with a poisoned chalice: an area too small and isolated from the outside world to be economically viable. The main leader of what is effectively the primary charitable organisation of Gaza is now dead. Services met by Hamas, such as the provision of water and food, will be disorganised if not in disarray.

Not everybody in Gaza supports Hamas, just as not everybody in Ireland supported the IRA. But when the imagined community of “we”, “the people”, “the nation” is under attack from external forces then that collective will unite under a single banner. The binding of imagination is tightened and the community closes in on itself.

The assassination has unquestionably rid the world of a deadly overlord of terrorism. But if terrorism undermines the rule of law to spread fear amongst the populace, then what was the nature of this attack? We in Ireland know all too well about the cycle of violence. I certainly remember the chilling advertisement which showed a boy seeing his father killed. The Cat Stevens soundtrack sang: “my boy is just like me, he has grown up just like me.”

An attack like this breeds terror and terrorists.

Savagery begets only savagery.

If the cycle of violence is not broken, we all will fall down.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-97- 1805.jsp" title="http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-97- 1805.jsp" target="_blank"http://www.opendemocracy.net/... openDemocracy

by Robert Fisk
March 26, 2004

We live, as the Arabs say, in interesting times. Today, our Prime Minister flies to Libya to pay homage at the court of Gaddafi. The man blamed for blasting two airliners - one American, one French - out of the sky, for sending weapons to the IRA, for invading Chad, killing a young British policewoman, murdering political opponents at home and abroad, who has himself been bombed by both the United States and Egypt, is to play host to our dear Prime Minister. Gaddafi of the Green Book meets Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. I cannot wait.

Is it only the Arabs, I wonder, who have been asking the obvious question: how desperate can Mr Blair be to toady up to Gaddafi? Not that the Arabs dislike Gaddafi. They have a sneaking admiration for the man who walks out of the Arab League because it is irrelevant, who makes fun of his fellow Arab leaders for their pomposity, who survives all America's attempts to get rid of him - the 1985 US air raids were also intended to assassinate the Great Leader but killed his adopted daughter instead - even if he did once deport half the Palestinian refugees in Libya and told them to walk back to Palestine.

Like Saddam, Gaddafi has even unburdened himself of a work of literature - old monsters, it seems, tend to write epics in their dotage - which is called Escape to Hell and Other Stories. It should be essential reading on Air Blair today. I would certainly recommend a browse through the chapter entitled "Is Communism Truly Dead?" which suggests that a number of extraordinary events may occur now that the Soviet Union has collapsed.

These include the possibility that "some people in the Christian world might become aware of the fact that Christ's crucifying himself for their sakes is a historical falsehood", a German "Fourth Reich" lording it over Britain and America, and Israelis distributed throughout the Arab world, "putting their expertise at the service of the Arabs, because this will be one million times better than their staying in Palestine..." Reflecting on Death, he asks if the Grim Reaper is male or female - Gaddafi seems to favour the latter. But then, would we expect anything else from the man who surrounds himself with a bevy of heavily armed female commandos as his "security team"?

Indeed, I recall an Arab summit in Cairo a few years ago at which - after arriving in a golden robe escorted by his gun-toting women - Gaddafi greeted President Mubarak and promptly pretended to confuse a public lavatory with the door of the conference chamber. I shall always remember Mubarak's thin, suffering smile. Lord Blair of Kut, sitting perhaps in Gaddafi's famous tent, will be able to practice that same thin smile today.

At least he won't have to suffer the embarrassment of Tito's old head of protocol who told me how Gaddafi once arrived in Belgrade with a plane load of camels for his fresh milk and a white charger upon which he intended to ride in triumph to the non-aligned summit in the Yugoslav capital. This is the same man who supported a bi-national state for Palestinians and Israelis called Isratine. No wonder Jack Straw now calls Gaddafi "statesman".

Of course, it's not difficult to see what lies behind today's charade. Having taken his country to war on a cocktail of lies and distortion, Lord Blair must commit yet another fraud by claiming that the "defanging" of Libya is a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq - and thus justifies the whole disastrous occupation of Mesopotamia. I don't blame him for trying. Anyone with the conscience which our PM should be suffering is bound to search for a get-out. What does amaze me is his choice of fall-guy: one of the weirdest, battiest, funniest, deadliest Arab dictators of them all.

Nor does the narrative of history make our Prime Minister's voyage to the Orient any saner. First of all, he sends our soldiers into Iraq because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which no longer exist; then he pays a social call on Libya because Gaddafi really has had weapons of mass destruction all along. Or has he?

For one of the strangest elements to the Libyan saga is the newness of all those centrifuges and nuclear gizmos which the UN, the Brits and the Americans have been "finding" in Gaddafistan. Were they really there for decades? When did Gaddafi decide to install them? And how come the US intelligence service - which could identify non-existent railroad chemical weapons labs in Iraq - failed to pick up the radiation from Gaddafi's supposed nuclear programme? It was a humble Independent reader - thank you, Willy McCourt of Manchester - who pointed out to me that Libya has a population of only six million; "imagine Ireland having a nuclear programme and nobody knowing about it," he wrote. Quite so.

Now here's another intriguing question. If we can find out when Gaddafi purchased all this stuff, can we also be told when he decided to abandon it? A week later? A year? Or did he decide to give it up before he bought it? In other words, is there some connivance here, some complicity between a man who is tired of his international isolation and another man who is tired of being told - all too truthfully - that he took his country to war on a lie.

It's a good sell, claiming that Gaddafi is giving up his nuclear ambitions because he learned the lesson of Saddam. But Gaddafi was in no danger of being invaded. After the conquest of Iraq, the US administration was blathering on about Syria and Iran, not Libya. Indeed, on the basis that Gaddafi might have had nuclear weapons, he would have been - like the Dear Leader in North Korea - as safe as houses.

It would be nice to have another Downing Street "dossier" on all this. And perhaps Gaddafi - whom our Prime Minister may discover has a disturbing habit of sometimes telling the truth - will enlighten us. I'm sure our civil servants have already written the narrative for him, but our favourite colonel has another disturbing habit which our Prime Minister should be made aware of: he often fails to keep to the text. A worrying example of this came last month when the Libyan prime minister, Shokri Ghanem, blandly announced on the BBC that Libya had not accepted responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. Whoops!

Of course, some subjects just won't get a mention when the two great statesmen of East and West sit down in Tripoli. They will not, for example, talk about the US government's 1991 white paper on Libya which blames Gaddafi for not just Lockerbie but the sabotage of UTA Flight 772 over Chad in 1989, the attack on a Greek cruise ship by gunmen based in Libya the same year, the hijacking of the yacht Silco and the abduction of its crew of eight for four years in Libya. Nor will they chat about the secretive Mathaba, which was used to train foreigners in "subversive activities".

There certainly won't be any time wasted in discussing the 1979 public hanging of dissident university students in Benghazi's main square. Nor, I guess, on the fate of the Libyan human rights defender Mansour al-Kikhiya, who "disappeared" while attending a Cairo human rights meeting in 1993 after complaining about Gaddafi's execution of political opponents.

So maybe the two Great Leaders will hit it off. Both, after all, take themselves immensely seriously. As a Libyan opposition group pointed out a decade ago, Gaddafi "would have us believe he is at the vanguard of every human development that has emerged during his lifetime. It is not sufficient for him that he is an absolute ruler with unchecked powers..."

Barring the usual electricity cuts, no one in Baghdad will be watching today's rickety epic with more enthusiasm than I. Whoops! Productions presents Escape to Hell. It promises to be as much fun as Iraq.

http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm" title="http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm" target="_blank"http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm ZNET

By Eric Boehlert

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.

Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, is a 10-year U.S. citizen who has passed a polygraph examination conducted by FBI investigators. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish and worked part-time for the FBI, making $32 an hour for six months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001. She was assigned to the FBI's investigation into Sept. 11 attacks and other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, where she translated reams of documents seized by agents who, for the previous year, had been rounding up suspected terrorists.

She says those tapes, often connected to terrorism, money laundering or other criminal activity, provide evidence that should have made apparent that an al- Qaida plot was in the works. Edmonds cannot talk in detail about the tapes publicly because she's been under a Justice Department gag order since 2002.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."

Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

Edmonds first made headlines in 2002 when she blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department, which was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as investigators clamored for original terrorist-related information, often in Arabic. Edmonds made several reports of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the FBI translations unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9/11 period to ensure the agency would get more funds for its next annual budget. As a result of her reports, Edmonds says she was harassed at the FBI. She was fired in March 2002.

Litigation followed, and in October 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the Edmonds case, taking the extraordinary step of invoking the rarely used state secrets privilege in order "to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." Ashcroft's move was made at the request of Mueller.

During a 2002 segment on "60 Minutes" exploring Edmonds' initial charges of FBI internal abuses, Sen. Grassley was asked if Edmonds is credible. "She's credible and the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story," he said.

The Inspector General's office then launched an investigation into Edmonds' charges and told her to expect a finding in the fall of 2002. The report has yet to be released. Edmonds suspects if it is ever publicly released Ashcroft will demand that it be immediately classified. "They're pushing everything under the blanket of secrecy," she says.

That's why she felt it was so important to appear before the 9/11 commission: "It's the only hope I have left to get this issue added to the public domain."

Via email but can be found at http://www.salon.com Salon

In attacking John Kerry's anti-war record, his opponents are rewriting US history - and all to justify the Iraq invasion

Robert Buzzanco
Saturday March 27, 2004
The Guardian

Now that John Kerry has secured the Democratic nomination for president, recent attacks on his anti-war activities in the Vietnam era are sure to intensify. His political opponents - Vietnamese emigres and pro-war veterans - have been attacking the former national spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), painting him as an extremist, weak on issues of national security, or even disloyal.
This is more than an assault on Kerry's politics, it is part of a larger, and sustained effort by conservatives to revise the Vietnam war into a righteous cause that was not lost on the battlefield but undermined at home. In trying to make Americans forget how unpopular and divisive the war was, these people are trying to make it easier to justify interventions in Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela or elsewhere.

In truth, however, Kerry's views on the war reflected the mindset of a large majority of Americans and, crucially, were widely shared within the military establishment. Indeed, military leaders were never optimistic about their prospects in Vietnam, were realistic about the problems there, and often openly opposed the war. That same dynamic is at play today: a significant number of high-ranking US military officials warned against war in Iraq and have continued to criticise the Bush administration's efforts there, putting the president in the anomalous position of offering pro-military rhetoric while ignoring the counsel of his armed forces.

In the Vietnam era, tens of thousands of soldiers and veterans publicly opposed the war. But it was not just the "grunts" who spoke out and demanded an end to the conflict. Military officers, both in the Pentagon and holding commands inside Vietnam, likewise admitted and confronted the US failures. As various US administrations began to escalate the war and commit forces to the defence of the country they created in southern Vietnam, military scepticism was common.

The most respected and influential military leaders of the time - including Generals Matthew Ridgway, the US commander in the Korean war; James Gavin, a hero of D-Day; Maxwell Taylor, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff; Harold K Johnson, the army's chief of staff; and Earle Wheeler, Taylor's successor as head of the JCS - opposed the Vietnam war.

Kerry's actions and words fell clearly within the established spectrum of military thought, and such dissent within the armed forces has also been evident with regard to Iraq. Many influential officers warned against intervention prior to the US invasion last spring. General Anthony Zinni, who also served as a special envoy to the Middle East, wondered "what planet they live on" when hawks demanded intervention despite world and Arab dissent.

Wesley Clark, a former Nato commander, was able to channel his warnings to expect "a quick war, then lots of trouble" into a serious candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president. Clark especially feared the "long-term risk from a devastating defeat of Saddam that is extremely dangerous - a deepening of the Arab sense of humiliation across the region. They will view the American and allied victory as a reimposition of colonialism." And he added: "Another danger is that Iraq could become a battleground of fundamentalists. There is little our American soldiers can do to prevent this - it will depend on establishing quickly an effective Iraqi government."

The army chief of staff, Eric Shinseki, earned Donald Rumsfeld's wrath when he publicly rebuked the defence secretary's estimation of troop strength - observing, correctly as it turned out, that a quarter-million or so troops would be needed. In late May last year, after Bush claimed the successful end to operations, Marine General David McKiernan countered that "the war has not ended", and that continuing guerrilla attacks by, apparently, Saddam loyalists "are not criminal activities, they are combat activities".

So, to attack Kerry today for the most noble act of his political life - opposing the Vietnam war - is self-serving and hypocritical, and part of a larger agenda to use Vietnam to justify further interventions. Indeed, Kerry's vote in favour of war in Iraq is far more troubling, indicating that he had not learned many of the lessons of the Vietnam era.

Still, we would do well to recall his words as he spoke before congress during the 1971 VVAW demonstration, when he and his fellow soldiers and veterans pledged to "search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, and to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last 10 years or more".

The more that soldiers and veterans, like Kerry, are attacked and the Vietnam war mythologised, the more likely it is that we will fail to understand the meaning and impact of the current war in Iraq. If that happens, just as we utter "Vietnam" today with such pain and anguish, future generations will talk about "Iraq" with the same feelings.

·Robert Buzzanco is associate professor of History at the University of Houston and author of Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era, and Vietnam and the Transformation of American Life

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/commen t/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/commen t/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/use...,14259,1179306,00.html Guardian

10:24 PM EST,March 26, 2004
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON -- Condoleezza Rice says the Bush administration has a good story to tell about fighting terrorism and she's pouring it out in television appearances, interviews and newspaper articles. The one place she won't talk is in public, under oath, before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That is blossoming into a public relations nightmare.

The White House finds itself in the awkward position of trying to explain why Rice, the national security adviser to President Bush, can talk at length to reporters but not at the commission's televised hearings because of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.


"This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. "There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press."

Instead of testifying publicly, Rice is requesting a private meeting with the commission -- her second such session -- to discuss what the White House says are mischaracterizations of her statements.

"I don't know necessarily what the difference is" between a private interview and public testimony, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said. "She's going to tell it exactly how it happened," he said.

Rice's selective silence denied the administration a chance to answer charges at the hearing by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who accuses Bush of squandering opportunities to undermine the terrorist group al-Qaida and politicizing the fight against terrorism.

Clarke's charges strike at the heart of Bush's re-election campaign, raising questions about credibility, trust and Bush's strongest issue in the polls, the war against terrorism.

"In many ways, having a guy like Clarke do this now is the White House's worst nightmare," said Norm Ornstein, political analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Clarke's charges stole the momentum from the Bush campaign's effort to put Democratic rival John Kerry on the defensive with ads suggesting he was weak on national security and the economy.


Respected on national security issues, Clarke held posts at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Trying to damage Clarke's credibility "is risky, first of all, because I think he's tough to pull down," Ornstein said.

Rice will try to gain ground in the public relations struggle Sunday by appearing on CBS' "60 Minutes," the same program Clarke used a week earlier to level his charges and promote his new book, "Against All Enemies." Bush's allies in Congress also sought to declassify two-year-old testimony by Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted Bush's handling of the war on terror.

Legal scholars say the White House has a difficult case on its hands as it tries to defend Rice's silence.

"When courts see them coming they lock their doors and run for cover, admonishing the political branches to work out their own difficulties," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who served as a constitutional specialist in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "It really is a political question the judicial branch feels totally at a loss to resolve."

Princeton University politics professor Keith Whittington said administrations run the risk of looking bad when they invoke executive privilege.

"It's hard to explain this kind of concern to the public, given that there's a strong need for accountability for those in office ... some transparency about what's happening in the White House," said Whittington, a specialist in constitutional issues.

Some Republicans lamented the White House's refusal to put Rice under oath.

"Personally I think her voice is so good, so powerful ... it would be to the administration's benefit" if she testified publicly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican named by Bush to lead the commission, said, "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."

But White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said that in order for presidents to receive the most candid advice from their staffs, "it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the commission."


It's only a lie if it's done under oath..mon dieu!


http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/a ts-ap_top12mar26" title="http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/a ts-ap_top12mar26" target="_blank"http://www.ctnow.com/news/cus...,1,4061246.story?coll=hc-headlines-n ewsat3

27 Mar 2004 02:09 GMT DJ
Republicans seek to declassify Clarke testimony

WASHINGTON (AP)--Leading congressional Republicans announced plans Friday to seek declassification of 2-year-old testimony from Richard Clarke, hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms of the Bush administration's terrorism policies with flattering statements he made as a White House aide.

It wasn't clear how aggressively Republicans would pursue the matter, first suggested this week by House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor. This is a joke right? George Bush has shown himself to be the master of changing one's story and he's the President. What makes Mr. Clarke so important or worrisome to the Republican party? Could it be he's telling the truth and too many people are actually listening?

The Tennessee Republican and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want Clarke's July 2002 testimony before the joint House and Senate intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks available publicly.

Frist said Clarke, appearing before the joint committee then as a White House counterterrorism adviser, was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and told the committee the White House had actively sought to address the al-Qaida threat.

Republicans hope to compare those words to Clarke's testimony this week before a separate bipartisan commission investigating the attacks. "Your government failed you," Clarke told the presidentially appointed panel and an audience of victims' families.

He didn't respond to multiple telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Friday.

The declassification requests marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book, "Against All Enemies," as well as in interviews and this week's sworn testimony.

The allegations against Clarke could linger for weeks as the declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most protected are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence.

Goss said he feels an obligation to make sure Congress' 810-page report, released publicly in 2003, isn't "contaminated by this new revelation" from Clarke.

Frist made clear Friday that he isn't accusing Clarke of perjury. Goss said he is reviewing testimony and other documents and plans to request the declassification - a sometimes lengthy process - in case a need for public hearings or other disclosure arises.

"We have to dig through this," Goss said, "not only for the continued accuracy and utility of the joint 9-11 report, but now we have this further question: Does this change things, or is it part of a book-selling tour?"

Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that in his testimony two years ago, Clarke depicted the Bush administration as far more active in grappling with the threat of al-Qaida than his testimony on Wednesday outlined. Another congressional source, however, played down the differences.

It wasn't clear whether he also testified two years ago - as he did this week - that some senior administration officials almost immediately called for strikes against Iraq in response to the Sept. 11 strikes.


Former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., who worked with Goss on the inquiry, supported the declassification of Clarke's testimony in its entirety and suggested the administration open the door even wider to include documents - including Clarke's January 2002 al-Qaida plan - that could help resolve issues in dispute.

"To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week," Graham said.

California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed, including 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers - an item of dispute with the Bush administration.

"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.

In his testimony this week, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time Bush took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center, a bombing in an underground parking garage in 1993 that killed six people.

Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday. "With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.

Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing." Please! Do they actually believe people are so gullible? Are WMD not serious? Are the lives of those that died and continue to in Iraq not a serious issue? Anyone believing the hypocrisy that's being served up by these people deserves what they get.


http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032702090 018&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032702090 018&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... Dow Jones Newswires

27 Mar 2004 03:35 GMT DJ

UNITED NATIONS (AP)--The U.S. government-sanctioned organization that oversees the Internet's key "telephone book" defended its work Friday as diplomats and computer companies considered a greater role for the U.N.

Paul Twomey, the chief executive of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, said the organization is already trying to modernize and allow participation from other countries.

ICANN critics have complained that the organization is slow in making decisions and too close to the U.S. government, which funded the Net's early development through the 70s and 80s.

"We're looking at opening regional offices, internationalizing, hoping to address these issues," Twomey said on the sidelines of the U.N. meeting.

About 200 diplomats, activists and companies like Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) and Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) met this week to discuss whether the U.N. should help oversee security, copyright law, technical standards and business disputes involving the Internet.

ICANN's authority, granted by the U.S. government in 1998, formally covers the Internet addressing system but extends to related trademark disputes and security of the Net's core directories.

ICANN chooses the organizations and companies that operate the directories for the various domain name suffixes such as ".com" and ".fr." Those directories help guide Web browsers to the correct sites and e-mail to the correct inboxes.


Because it reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce, some countries are nervous that in a worst-case scenario, the U.S. could force ICANN and its contractors to disrupt Internet traffic to entire countries by deleting them from central computers - like ripping out pages of a telephone directory.

But Twomey said the U.S. government has taken a hands-off approach. Recall the UN bugging here.
He also said ICANN was working hard to recruit a more international board.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032703350 005&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032703350 005&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... Dow Jones Newswires

By BERT WILKINSON, Associated Press Writer

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - The 15-nation Caribbean Community withheld recognition Friday from Haiti's U.S.-backed interim government amid continuing concerns over the departure of ousted leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide, senior Caribbean officials said.

The move came a day after the leaders demanded that the U.N. General Assembly investigate Aristide's claims he was abducted at gunpoint by U.S. agents when he left Feb. 29 as rebels threatened to attack Haiti's capital.

"We can't determine this issue at this meeting," Trinidad Prime Minister Patrick Manning said as he left a summit meeting of Caribbean leaders. He added that discussions were "quite tense" and that a final determination would be put off until leaders discuss the issue again at a summit in July in Grenada.

He gave no further details, but other Caribbean leaders said their minds were made up that Haiti's new U.S.-backed government would not get official recognition from the Caribbean Community for now.

One, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they could not recognize Haiti's government because it was installed by what he said was an insurrection.

More
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=4&u=/ap/200 40327/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/c aribbean_summit" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=4&u=/ap/200 40327/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/c aribbean_summit" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... Yahoo

Saddam Hussein was finally betrayed by a relative who was one of his closest bodyguards, a BBC programme reveals.
Panorama reports that after eight months on the run, the hiding place of the ousted Iraqi leader was given away by an aide known as "the fat man".

The programme, to be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, says Mohammed Ibrahim Omar al-Musslit gave away the secret after being arrested and interrogated.

Saddam Hussein was captured on 13 December near his home town of Tikrit.

Mr Musslit was a loyal lieutenant of Saddam Hussein. He was one of the people who accompanied the Iraqi leader as he fled Baghdad in a white Oldsmobile, as US troops entered the city on 9 April 2003.

But Panorama will reveal that he was quickly broken by interrogators after being captured in Baghdad, and led American troops to his boss just hours after being arrested in December.

No reward?

After his arrest, Mr Musslit was flown to Tikrit where he was interrogated. He was then made to point out the remote farm where Saddam Hussein was hiding

The 600 American soldiers there found nothing in the farm buildings, but discovered Saddam Hussein hiding in an underground passage.

But because he did not willingly offer the information, the man who led the Americans to Saddam Hussein's secret bunker near his home town of Tikrit will not benefit from the $25m reward that was on offer.

A senior US commander, Major General Ray Odierno, denied the source had been tortured but told the programme that he was "a shady character", adding that he believed "the US treasury gets to keep the money."

To this day the US will not reveal the identity of the man who led them to Saddam Hussein.

Key figure

Colonel James Hickey, of the 4th Infantry Division, the unit that captured him in "Operation Red Dawn" would only say that he was "a middle aged man who went pear shaped."

However, people close to Saddam Hussein confirmed to Panorama reporter Jane Corbin that it was Mr Musslit who betrayed the former Iraqi president.

Mr Musslit was a key figure in Saddam Hussein's security organisation and had been in the Fedayeen.

By the end, Mr Musslit was believed to be the only man who knew of Saddam Hussein's full movements.

Panorama: Saddam on the run will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 28 March 2004 at 2215 BST

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panora ma/3572659.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panora ma/3572659.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pr... BBC

Literacy and democracy are thriving in an unlikely place.

By John Thorne | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

TINDOUF, ALGERIA – A dozen women recline on the steps of the main girls' school in the Saharawi refugee camps, their pastel robes like blots of water-color on the whitewashed cement. When the door opens and the headmistress emerges, the women suddenly leap up and crowd around her, clamoring. They are mothers seeking places for their daughters in the already-crowded school.
The Saharawi women are among the most liberated of the Muslim world, and their status is characteristic of the well- organized, egalitarian society that has developed in the refugee camps over the past three decades. For all their bleakness, the Saharawi camps boast a representative government, a 95 percent literacy rate, and a constitution that enshrines religious tolerance and gender equality.

The Saharawis are the Arab nomads of Western Sahara, bound together by their Yemeni ancestry and their dialect, Hassaniya, which remains close to classical Arabic. For centuries, they roamed the territory with their camels and goats, sometimes trading with Spanish colonizers, and became known as "blue men" for the indigo robes they wear.

Continue Reading
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0326/p04s01-wome .html" title="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0326/p04s01-wome .html" target="_blank"http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... CSM

Homogenized America

America becomes more and more frightening everyday. American democracy is becoming a joke. Of course, if the following causes you to say, 'praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' you will disagree with me.
Let's read a few skims from today's news and talk.

Simon Cowell says he did not intend to make an obscene gesture on national television Wednesday night, when he leaned his head against his middle finger. The gesture, negatively interpreted by some viewers, prompted complaints to the FCC. "Sometimes I lean on my index finger. Sometimes a different finger. Sometimes two at the same time, or, God help me, even the whole hand. http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...§ion=news

The St. Paul, Minn., YMCA's decision to rent to Planned Parenthood was seen as a bad decision by some who said the YMCA's Christian foundation is inconsistent with Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion mission. http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewC...

The girl at the center of the Pledge of Allegiance case was not allowed in the courtroom Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from her father's challenge to the words "under God." "It seems to me, that your daughter is the one that bears the blame for this. She's going to face the public outcry, the public outrage," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told atheist Michael Newdow. "My daughter's going to be able to walk around and say that `my father helped uphold the Constitution of the United States,'" Newdown responded.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-sco tus/2004/mar/25/032503237 .html" title="http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-sco tus/2004/mar/25/032503237 .html" target="_blank"http://www.lasvegassun.com/su...

Medical research is poised to make a quantum leap that will benefit sufferers from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and other diseases. But George W. Bush's religious convictions stand in its way.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/ 25/stem_cells/index_np.html" title="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/ 25/stem_cells/index_np.html" target="_blank"http://www.salon.com/tech/fea...

A North Carolina congressman is calling on the state's schools superintendent to remove a book from elementary schools that promotes homosexual "marriage." The book, "King and King," an illustrated children's book by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland which has been available in some North Carolina elementary schools, presents two men marrying each other as a valid lifestyle choice.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=Culturearchive20 0403CUL20040325b.html" title="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=Culturearchive20 0403CUL20040325b.html" target="_blank"http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewC...

I had 7 pages of headlines and these were just a few on the first page, meaning I didn't have to scour the web for them.

The direction America is headed is appalling and would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. What's it all about?

It's about 'sex' baby! It's about 'religion'! It's about creating a 'clean, pasturized' America! It's about exaggerated puritanical thinking. It's a civil liberties catastrophe. It's the stuff science fiction has been portraying for years that's fast becoming reality in today's America.

Those that would create a state fit to stand before God obviously have misread their bible. It's not possible and neither is it godly.
I've been a Christian most of my life and God has never forced me to serve him neither does he want enforced servitude. He allows me, and even gave me the right of free will and the ability to reason.

I have made many wrong decisions in my life and generally paid heavily for them. But, isn't this what life is about? Before the obtuse throw their nonsensical questions at me; of course, laws are needed to protect us from our most base side of human nature. In my freedom I am not allowd to infringe on the rights of others.

Freedom of religion also gives one freedom from religion. My religious beliefs may tell me homosexuality is wrong, or the pledge of allegiance should ring out with 'under God'. But, what of those that have no religion? In a democracy are they forced to abide by my moral standards and faith? Should they be?

Because you are older and have learned that some things just don't pay do you take away the rights of the young to their own experience even when you know their decision may bring them great pain or even death?

Perhaps you would assign a keeper to your child or partner to insure their/your good name or honor is not destroyed by their lack of wisdom or high morals.

Perhaps we should bring out the old chastity belt while we're at it. That should take care of a lot of problems. It would certainly cut down on abortions.

In fact, I'm thinking a new ammendment to the constituion banning alcohol might be in order. It didn't work before but with the technology available today I'm sure we can soon convert, assimilate, or jail those that are not with us.
Let's also do cigarettes while we're at it. And since obesity is such a killer and ends up costing the taxpayer so much money let's triple tax sweets and fat. Gluttony is a sin after all.

If this seems a bit absurd to you, it should. But, it's the direction the religious right is taking America. Those that refuse to see, in spite of the preponderance of evidence, are doomed and only have themselves to blame when the 'sin police' come to take them away. Of course, you who are without sin have nothing to worry about and are free to cast the first stone. Dianne Maire

26 Mar 2004 05:32 GMT

(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE)
By Matthew Kaminski

AMIENS, France -- In this industrial city, schoolboys call Gilles de Robien, a widely admired former mayor, Gilou. Two years ago, Mr. de Robien left Amiens to run France's transport ministry. He introduced measures that dramatically reduced road fatalities and earned him national acclaim. Ahead of the elections for local government this month, Mr. de Robien even offered his Picardie region a taste of celebrity, drafting a former Miss France, Elodie Gossuin, onto his party list for the local council.

Gilou was a shoe-in. Even his opponents thought so. But voters had other ideas last Sunday. Picardie handed a little-known Socialist, Claude Gewerc, a surprisingly high 27.4%. The Communists won 10.9%, their best showing in France, giving the left the edge heading into this Sunday's run-off. Highlighting the region's penchant for voting toward the extreme, the xenophobic National Front (FN) matched its national best here too, winning 23%.

"We got a real knock on the head," says Brigitte Foure, who took over the mayor's job when Mr. de Robien went to Paris. The ruling right-wing coalition would need to steal votes from the National Front to build on its 32.2%, no easy feat. If even the popular Mr. de Robien can't keep the conservatives' 18-year hold on Picardie, Jacques Chirac and his allies are in for a long night Sunday, and beyond.

In the first round nationally, French voters slighted popular regional figures to send a blistering message to Paris. The French Socialists and their allies won 40% against 34% for the ruling parties, a possibly fatal blow for Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. Corruption scandals, weak growth and high unemployment, and unpopular reforms of pensions and education have soured the French public on Mr. Chirac. In short, the message was: "We're fed up," says the FN's leader in Picardie, Michel Guiniot.

Voters can be fickle. Mr. Chirac won re-election in a landslide in 2002. Last year the French president broke Charles de Gaulle's popularity records in opinion polls taken during the Iraq debate. Now Mr. Chirac is "lonely" -- as a big profile in Le Monde put it -- and his prime minister looks more like a sacrificial lamb every day. "We got the message" the first time around, Mr. Raffarin insisted this week. If voters don't change their minds Sunday, the prime minister will likely get a more emphatic message that could bring him an early retirement from national politics.

A cabinet reshuffle would help alleviate the sting for the French conservatives. And no matter what the final voting tally Sunday, Mr. Chirac is not himself in danger. In highly centralized France, the power of the 26 regional councils is limited; his prime minister is expendable; and the "real" elections for national posts are three years away.

It would be comforting, even for Mr. Chirac and his followers, were the protest vote strictly and only against the government's recent record. Comforting, for that would imply that a change of faces and that tinkering with policy would assuage voter dissatisfaction. On the right and left, though, some politicians take away a different message. Although France is a modern, industrialized democracy, it is finding it difficult to adjust to a changing world. The French people cling to a popular mythology about the state and its role in safeguarding their way of life circa 1970 -- with full employment, early retirement, long holidays.

Globalization has been an unpleasant surprise. Living standards are falling and unemployment stays stubbornly high. Only the myth of the French model lives on, unquestioned by the leading parties, who differ mainly about what, if any, tinkering might be needed. The less, the better. And so we have a French political paradox: The voters are irate about everything, and want to change as little as possible. No one seems perturbed by the contradiction.

North of bustling Paris, Picardie is littered with abandoned textile mills -- velour was invented and perfected here -- and metal-works plants. Blue-collar workers make up nearly half the workforce, the highest proportion anywhere in France. The 1.8 million people of Picardie are also among the least well-paid and worst educated. Unemployment is 11%, a hair above the national average.

In this setting, the far-right National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen steadily built on gains in the past two decades. Mr. Guiniot, a portly 49-year-old, plays to his electorate's concerns. He hits out, first off, at job insecurity and companies fleeing high-cost France. He wants to close borders and leave the EU, and for good measure keep out immigrants. But the Arab isn't the biggest bogeyman anymore for the FN, here or nationwide. The rhetoric is mostly about the perils of globalization, and it wins votes.

Mr. Guiniot says his party agrees with the Socialists and Communists about the "causes" of France's economic malaise. All are against the "ultra-liberal" Chirac government, he says, but the Socialists are too pro-European for his taste. Not so, says a local Socialist leaflet produced this week that takes aim directly at the rising National Front (FN). "Everyone knows that the FN are racists and xenophobes," it reads, "they're also ultra-liberal." Liberal is a dirty word in France. The Socialist leaflets imply the left is battling for the far-right's voters, at least in Amiens. That makes logical sense, but leaves leaders of both parties looking deeply uncomfortable.

"People here fear the future; globalization scares them," says Ms. Foure, the mayor who's running alongside Mr. de Robien. If the region shows the perils of the politics of globalization, its economy isn't only a tale of economic woe. While many local plants have closed or moved out, big multinationals have moved in, thanks to globalization. Procter & Gamble and Goodyear are among Picardie's biggest employers. In Amiens, low wages and close proximity to Paris helped create 2,000 jobs in "call centers" -- a la Bangalore, only in French -- opened by Coca-Cola, among others. Ms. Foure says Picardie, a region deeply scarred by both the wars of the last century, must learn to see the bright side of change.

But the right-wing coalition's economic program doesn't sound all that different from the FN's or the Socialists', pushing subsidies and bail-outs for struggling local companies. So what's the difference between the right and left in France? "For the FN and the extreme left, it's always the others -- capitalism, America, globalization, the Arabs -- who are the cause of all our problems," she says. "It's not only stupid -- it's immoral."

More in the middle, both Socialist and Chirac party leaders admit the pension, hospitals and schools must be modernized. The majority of Frenchmen concur, say polls. But no one wants the changes to affect him personally. Bernard Kouchner, the humanitarian activist and a Socialist politician, says the French "don't want to be confronted in their selfishness." The Socialists, happy with their gains this month, are putting off a clash over their program for the 2007 elections. A reformist wing, inspired by Tony Blair, hasn't dared force a showdown with the party's traditionalists. And it's not far from clear who would win.

The right isn't any clearer about its future. A front-page commentary in the pro-government Le Figaro asked whether the Raffarin cabinet was too liberal -- or not liberal enough. Some are calling for faster reforms to yield results in time for 2007. But the whispers are that Mr. Chirac will slow down the already slow reforms on offer. No politician likes to be unpopular. In this regard, at least, France is just like every other country.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032605320 006&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032605320 006&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... DJN

Father and daughter march into the hall, arm-in-arm, with matching, melon-slice smiles. The warm-up - "Chattanooga Choo-Choo" and French popular tunes from the 1930s - gives way to portentous Wagnerian chants, dramatic light effects and to the rhythmic baying of the frontistes.

"Le-Pen-Le-Pen-Le-Pen-Le- Pen." Everyone says that Marine Le Pen is a dead ringer for Jean-Marie, her dear old dad. Her estranged mother, Pierrette, calls her youngest daughter "le clone". There is a clear family resemblance: the jutting chin, the pompous stiff-legged walk, the wrestler's physique.

As they stand together on stage, there is also something softer, less vulgar, less brutal, about Marine, 34. With her long, loose, blonde hair, her rumpled, charcoal suit and her pink T-shirt, she might be a young businesswoman or a teacher. Imagine the actor, Stephen Fry, in drag.

This is the last big, far-right rally before the first round of the French regional elections tomorrow - Marine Le Pen's first solo flight in politics. She is the standard-bearer for the National Front - papa's party and the Le Pen family business - in the greater Paris area, the Ile-de-France, which is not the most fertile ground for Lepennism.

It is her first big, political trial: the test of whether she can emerge as a new force within the party, and eventually, its leader: someone who can give the NF a life after Jean-Marie, and a more moderate and modern image.

Fascism with a pretty face? Nationwide, everything looks good for the NF, two years after Jean-Marie Le Pen shocked France and the world by reaching the second round of the presidential elections (only to be steam-rollered 82 to 18 per cent by Jacques Chirac and a wave of national revulsion in the second round).

True, M. Le Pen managed to get himself kicked off the ballot paper in the Marseilles-Nice area last month after he failed to prove that he had any local connections. The old immigrant-baiter was declared an illegal immigrant in his own country.

Nonetheless, the final opinion polls put the nationwide score of the NF tomorrow at around 14 to 16 per cent. The NF usually out-polls the polls by two or three points. The anti-immigrant, anti-European, anti-American party will not win any regional governments in the second round next Sunday but it will probably do well enough to hand serial victories to the left and humiliate the centre-right President, M. Chirac, and his Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Everything favours a big far right (and significant far left) headline score tomorrow: economic downturn; the Islamist terrorist threat to Europe; renewed talk of corruption within M. Chirac's party; opposition to the modest economic and social reforms attempted by M. Raffarin; low turnout through indifference towards politics and especially regional politics.

Above all, M. Raffarin - who presented himself as a man of "La France d'en bas", the little people - has failed to reverse the growing conviction of a swath of the working and lower middle classes that France is run by, and for, a narrow, Parisian elite.

In the long term, the result which may matter most is Marine Le Pen's in the Ile-de-France. For years now, haters of Le Pen Snr (and 77 to 85 per cent of French people regularly say that they cannot stand him) have clung to one unalterable statistic: M. Le Pen's age. He is 76 in June. He will be 78 at the next presidential election (a little old, even for the gerontocratic politics of France).

Continue Reading
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=503109" title="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=503109" target="_blank"http://news.independent.co.uk... Independent

Bush is floundering over his re-election strategy, but laying into John Kerry will turn off voters, argues Bob Mulholland

Thursday March 25, 2004

When an incumbent president is thrashing in the air spouting outlandish attacks against his opponent (like a man caught in quicksand), it means he is in a panic.
When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984 he acted presidential and stayed above the political fray of campaigning as long as possible. It worked!

President Clinton did the same in 1996. In fact, the joke in political circles then was that Vice President Al Gore would announce for president (for the 2000 race) before President Clinton announced for re-election. Clinton was re-elected by a big margin.

Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton used what is called the rose garden strategy: be presidential and make a lot of announcements in the White House rose garden. This is a proven method of appealing to the independent voters who tend not to be fans of the rugby type of politics.

Democratic president Jimmy Carter used a Rose Garden strategy in 1980 when Democratic senator Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in the primaries. With the hostages in Iran, it did get Carter the nomination again, but the chaos of 1980 (Iran, Afghanistan, oil embargo, high interest rates, etc.) unravelled the Carter presidency and Reagan was elected.

A similar situation happened to Bush Sr in 1992, but the trouble then was only domestic (after the successful Gulf war) - a bad economy and the additional challenge of millionaire independent candidate Ross Perot, who spent millions of dollars, mostly attacking Bush Sr for having big deficits.

Bush Jr is much more partisan and more of a divider than his dad, making this election more like Jimmy Carter's situation than his dad's - trouble on two fronts.

To many Americans, on international affairs Bush looks like a liar. To others, he's just incompetent. He or his team have told many long-time allies it's "my way or drop dead" or called them "Old Europe." He has also provided false information to most of our allies, as well as to the American people. Many Americans watch all this in disbelief.

Continue Reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/commen t/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/commen t/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/use...,14259,1177723,00.html Guardian

We must not accept our leaders' illegal occupation of a sovereign state

Professor Richard Overy

The Guardian (UK) - Saturday, March 20, 2004:
Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario. American and British troops battle their way into Iraqi territory, sprayed with anthrax shells and gas bombs. In Cyprus and Tel Aviv rockets explode, loaded with biological agents. After a bitter struggle, coalition forces seize control of the country. They find concealed rocket silos with missiles primed for attacks on distant European targets; plans are found for rocket attacks on London. At other sites they find an advanced nuclear bomb project and barrels full of chemical weapons. They flush out an al-Qaida stronghold where they find the battle plan of world terrorism. Saddam and Bin Laden were, after all, in cahoots.

A year ago this was the fanciful vision that pushed Blair to side with Bush and go to war in Iraq. They braced their troops and populations for the worst, and the more gullible believed them (I talked to Londoners planning their evacuation route from the capital). The rest of us saw the arguments for the claptrap they were. The reality from March 20 last year to March 20 this year has been grotesquely different. Two of the world's most sophisticated armed forces brushed aside a tinpot army of soldiers without boots, smashed Iraq's cities to pieces, killed thousands of civilians and captured Iraq's oil more or less intact. There were, as any intelligent observer could have told them, no WMD, no centre of world terrorism, no aggressive intent.

In the past 12 months, deserters from the Bush/Blair cause have revealed piecemeal the reality. War was planned long in advance against a soft Arab target that nobody much liked. The intelligence services knew that they were being asked to endorse fairy tales. The attorney general has come clean on how he was forced to turn an illegal war into a lawful war of defence against the Iraqi threat. The duplicity was systematic, and remains so. Blair has no regrets. He bays defiant nonsense about the terrible menace that has been removed, and the greater terrorist menace still at large. Not once has he expressed regret for what a dozen years of sanctions and war inflicted on the Iraqi people. Enough that his cause is just.

There is no pleasure in saying, a year on, that we told you so. Invasion invited worldwide hostility, divided (and still divides) Europe, weakened the UN and, above all, provoked precisely the confrontation with terror that the war was supposed to alleviate. I have been told to stop carping and let the British and Americans get on with the job of ruling Iraq now they are there. But this is tantamount to endorsing the war. Why are the US and Britain there, in illegal occupation of a sovereign state? Why should we accept this reality and knuckle down to Blair's call to arms? Today's demonstration is a reminder that what was a war of unprovoked aggression a year ago has not been changed by victory.

I have had many arguments, too, about the vexed question of oil. The view that oil is some kind of Marxist red herring is widespread. But in this case there can be no other conclusion. Oil installations and oil lines were captured and guarded first; the oil ministry was protected while priceless art treasures were being ransacked. The second largest oil reserves are now safe once again for the wider world market and the global oil companies. Popular ignorance about the nature of oil politics has played into coalition hands, just as popular indifference to the use of major US companies in rebuilding what the US armed forces knocked down has deflected debate from issues that should shock international opinion.

The most familiar argument in favour of the war, repeated mantra-like in all circles, is that a much-hated dictator has been overthrown. This week's opinion poll purports to show how grateful the Iraqis now are for their liberation. No one would wish Saddam Hussein back. The problem is that the reason for going to war was quite different. If unseating tyrants was the priority, Saddam should have been unseated long ago. War in 2003 was about protecting British and American interests, not liberating Iraq, a posture of self-interest rather than magnanimity. This was the same motive for declaring war on Hitler in 1939. It was not dictators that the west could not stomach, but the threat to their interests and way of life (again).

In this sense, the analogy drawn last year that Saddam had to be confronted like Hitler was truer than might have been supposed. Parliament was bamboozled into accepting that Saddam posed an immediate threat to Britain. There were honourable motives for declaring war on Hitler, as there are for unseating Saddam, but that is not what, a year ago, we were offered. Liberation was the means to dress war up as legitimate. So much so that there must be a large number in Britain and the US who think that unseating Saddam really was the reason that war began.

One more battery turns on the anti-war lobby: look at Madrid, look at the daily attacks in Iraq or Israel. Blair was right. Terrorism is the chief threat we face, and the war against terror must unite us all. This has little to do with Iraq. Attacks against the occupiers were provoked by war. Attacks in Israel are part of a different struggle for Palestinian liberation. The assault in Madrid is part of a longer confrontation between militant Islam and western cultural and economic imperialism. Lumping them all together as evidence that a war against terror is the primary object of our foreign policy is nonsense.

"Terror" is not an organisation or a single force. It is related to a variety of political confrontations, each of which has to be understood in its own terms. "Terror" cannot be fought as if it were a war against a hidden, global and undifferentiated enemy. The threat, such as it is, has been exacerbated by the arrogant display of naked power shown by the US, Britain and its motley coalition. But the real changes to "our way of life" are the consequence of the panicky western response to terrorism, which has eroded civil liberties and the rule of law and threatens to smother us with a security net that will undermine the so-called "democratic" values that the west is pledged to preserve. This is an unnecessary price to pay, but we will all see the surveillance state grow unless democratic non-compliance reasserts itself.

What, then, are the alternatives? Could anything different have been done? Should something different be done now? Of course. War should have been avoided and other ways explored to get Iraq to re-enter the world economy, and to feed and supply its population properly. The west could show that it is serious about tackling the question of a Palestinian state, instead of using it as a figleaf to clothe its ambitions in the region. Blair could show that he values a commitment to a common European defence and foreign policy, which might have avoided war altogether.

Today we could confront terrorism differently. It is a profound irony that Blair has helped to defuse the Ulster crisis and reduce terrorism by the very means that he has abandoned in his crusading zeal against the world enemy. Terrorists do not blow people up just because they are nihilistic thugs. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face of the massive power and cultural expansion of the west; it is about real issues for those who perpetrate its acts of violence. Palestinians die because they want to free Palestine. Understanding those issues on their own terms and adjusting our politics in order to do so does not mean that we endorse violence.

Last year Blair told the British people: "Let history be my judge." The history of the past year has been damning, but there is an opportunity for the people to judge as well. The same message that the Spanish people sent to José Aznar can also be sent to Bush and Blair. It will not solve the world's problems, but it might make the world a safer place.

*· Richard Overy is professor of modern history at King's College London, and author of The Dictators, to be published by Penguin in June

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1173989,00.html Guardian

WhiteHouse® is a corporation that its goal is : better life for everyone.

You don't like life conditions in your country? You live in a totalitarian regime? You would like to have a democratic regime.

Don't worry! We are here to help.

It's absolutely free*!

We have the resources to change things in your country. And we bring democracy** to your home.

But, wait, there is more!

In addition to the basic package (regime change, democracy, rebuilding your country), we provide a gift also absolutely free: WhiteHouse® provides also a president*** (or a king or a government or a council) brand new, carefully checked, tested and verified at our labs, here in the US.

So, don't wait! Call now: 1-800-555-BUSH

See our review:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and right now, our newest project is Haiti.

Continue http://www.rundom.com/slim/ar... Slim Blog via http://mohsan.typepad.com Je Blog

German police have raided the homes of more than 300 people suspected of posting neo-Nazi music files on the internet.
Police say they have seized thousands of compact discs and hundreds of computers in their nationwide raids.

Federal Crime Office President Joerg Ziercke warned neo-Nazis used skinhead music to reach out to young people.

"Young people are being targeted and brought into the world of anti-Semitism and hatred of foreigners," he said.

"Inciting racial hatred is more than just a petty crime."

Explicit lyrics

Police sources said the raids were part of their ongoing investigations into 342 people suspected of posting songs by skinhead bands on music swap sites.

Some of these songs contain explicit lyrics inciting people to attack Jews and immigrants.

Publishing Nazi slogans and materials are crimes punishable by imprisonment under German law.

The recent raids follow a similar operation by German police against neo-Nazi group Combat 18.

The group, which takes its name from the position in the alphabet of Adolf Hitler's initials, has been blamed for carrying out or motivating racist attacks.

Police believe they foiled a bomb plot against a Munich Jewish centre during a visit by German President Johannes Rau in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe /3565511.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe /3565511.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/f... BBC

Published: 2004/03/24 17:50:20 GMT

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – It is, according to one UN official, the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world right now. Some 810,000 African tribes- people in the Darfur region of western Sudan have fled their homes. They're trying to escape what may be a campaign of ethnic cleansing by Arab militias, which are apparently backed by Sudan's government. They're struggling through blazing days and frigid nights in hilly terrain at the edge of the Sahara.
Yet, even as Darfur's warring parties agreed this week to start peace talks, it's not clear how the international community can respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The issue is particularly poignant, observers say, because the 10th anniversary of Rwanda's genocide - and the world's weak response to it - is just two weeks away.

At least three dilemmas complicate the global reaction to Darfur, experts say.

First: Access by aid workers. Not only is Darfur still a war zone, but bandits abound, making aid-worker safety a big concern. Furthermore, Sudan's government - for apparent political reasons - is reluctant to let in aid workers. Officials recently took three weeks, for instance, to grant approval for a set of United Nations satellite phones to be taken to the region.

Second: How much aid to provide. If Darfur's displaced legions get too many blankets or medicine kits they're often targeted by Arab militias, who kill and rape as they steal the goods. Some wanderers have refused aid rather than risk attack. But without enough water, food, and supplies, many may perish.

Third: Peace talks in Sudan's other war - a 20-year conflict between north and south - are gaining momentum. President Bush this week again urged the government to accept a deal. But observers worry the US may give Sudan's leaders a pass on Darfur to ensure that a north-south deal is struck.

Continue Reading http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... CSM

I don't think anyone doubts there will be a successful attack on France at some point in the future just as there will inevitably be in the UK. Due to attacks in the past both countries are better equipped and prepared for the fight against terror than the US. But, persistant determination will eventually bring destruction.
I cannot help but say a word to those who have longed for, in writing, on certain blogs to see the French pay for their lack of support for George Bush and Co..I hope it brings you great satisfaction when you read of the deaths. Draw close to your televison screens for a better view of friends and family members who remain. You will be as guilty in heart as the bombers themselves. Don't bother with sympathic pretense. I know you and your hate. Dianne

By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - A railroad worker found a bomb with seven detonators buried in the bed of a commuter line between France and Switzerland on Wednesday, touching off a massive inspection of the French railroad network.

It was the second bomb found in just over a month on a railroad track in France. Bomb disposal experts neutralized the device, which was half-buried under a track in the village of Montieramey, on a train line heading from Paris to Basel, Switzerland, about 105 miles southeast of Paris.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bomb, which was discovered shortly after noon. The train line extends from Paris to Basel, Switzerland.

France has been on a higher terror alert since the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, Spain, that killed 190 people. Those bombings prompted the tightening of security on train lines around the world, including in France, Greece and Poland.

In the United States, Amtrak has increased police patrols and intensified electronic surveillance of bridges and tunnels. Major cities, including New York and Washington, have also boosted security on their subway systems.

Suspicion for the Spain attacks has focused on an alleged Morocco-based terrorist cell believed linked to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida network and on al-Qaida itself.

Gen. Patrick Hughes, the top intelligence official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said that if the bomb found Wednesday in France "was an al-Qaida-sponsored effort, one should expect to find other devices or to be struck in more than one way."

France's Interior Ministry said the bomb did not resemble one found in February on a railroad track near Limoges in central France, located with clues from a previously unknown group calling itself AZF. The group claimed to have planted nine bombs along the country's rail network and has threatened to explode them unless it is paid millions of dollars.

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said there were "a certain number of elements" that lead officials to believe the two cases may not be the same. A ministry official said it was not immediately clear whether the device found Wednesday was capable of exploding.

Police, terrorism experts and intelligence officials held a crisis meeting at the Interior Ministry. The state-run train authority said it would undertake a massive new inspection, starting with tracks carrying passengers and hazardous freight.

The bomb, which was being examined at a police laboratory, was in a clear plastic box measuring about 8 inches by 8 inches. The box contained nitrate fuel and a flat battery linked to seven detonators and a handmade timing device, the ministry said.

About 10,000 maintenance workers inspected thousands of miles of track after the government publicized the first set of threats early this month.

AZF's threats appeared in at least three letters sent to the offices of Sarkozy and President Jacques Chirac on Dec. 10, Feb. 13 and Feb. 17. The letters, demanding $5.2 million, threatened railway targets.

Information from the group led to the Feb. 21 recovery of a sophisticated explosive device buried in tracks near Limoges in central France.

Tests showed that the Limoges bomb was powerful enough to rupture the track, the government said then. It was made from a mixture of diesel fuel and nitrates and had a sophisticated detonator, judicial officials said.

AZF is not the only previously unknown group issuing threats to France.

Last week, two newspapers received letters addressed to Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and signed by the "Servants of Allah the Powerful and Wise." That group also was not previously known to French intelligence officials.

The letters threatened possible terror attacks against France and French interests to punish the country for banning Islamic headscarves in public schools beginning next school year.

French embassies in Muslim countries around the world received the same letters, officials said Tuesday.

Sarkozy has said the letters do not resemble typical messages by Islamic extremist groups.

The device found Wednesday was near the town of Troyes — where Raffarin made a scheduled campaign stop hours later in advance of Sunday's regional elections. Raffarin — who traveled by plane as is his habit — called for calm.

Raffarin tipped to go after
Socialists, far-right triumph

PARIS, March 22 (AFP) - As campaigning opened Monday for round two of France's regional elections, President Jacques Chirac's centre-right government faced an uphill struggle to overturn a first-round drubbing at the hands of a newly-confident Socialist party (PS).

With nearly all votes counted in the 22 regions of metropolitan France, official results showed that the PS with its Communist and Green party allies had reached 40 percent of the ballot, six points ahead of the governing coalition led by Chirac's Union for a Popular Movement (UMP).

The far-right took 16.24 percent of the vote - nearly all of it for the National Front (FN) of 75 year-old veteran Jean-Marie Le Pen - a near-record performance that confirmed the party's steady entrenchment as France's third political force.

With the FN qualifying for next Sunday's second round in at least 17 regions, the odds were stacked heavily against the UMP because in a three-way contest the right-wing vote will be split. Pollsters predicted the PS re-capturing several of the 14 regions that the centre-right now holds.

The elections for France's regional assemblies - as well as for half the membership of council's in the country's 100 departments, or counties - are being seen as a key midterm test for the government of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin whose mandate lasts till 2007.

The first round result appeared to indicate widespread discontent with the government, which is lumbered with high unemployment, a flagging economy and a national mood of pessimism made more severe by anxieties over Islamic-inspired terrorism.

A series of state sector protests - by among others teachers, doctors, lawyers, performing artists and most recently scientific researchers - has also sapped support among an electorate that remains deeply committed to the notion of public service.

Press comment Monday universally interpreted the result as a punishment vote against the centre-right, with some papers betting on an early resignation for Raffarin as Chirac's fall-guy in the debacle.

"As prime minister he is a man condemned, just as Edith Cresson was in 1992," said the left-wing Liberation newspaper, referring to the resignation of France's first woman prime minister after a disastrous showing for the Socialists in regional elections that year.

"The size of the punishment vote will require someone to carry the can after the second round to give the impression that the head of state has understood the message of the voters," it said.

The PS, which was trounced at elections in 2002, saw Sunday's results as a sign of hope after a long period of internal disarray, and a vote of confidence in its much-criticised leader Francois Hollande. Former prime minister Laurent Fabius said it was the "start of a springtime for the left."

The FN narrowly missed the record 16.86 percent it won in the first round of the 2002 presidential race, when Le Pen famously beat the Socialist Lionel Jospin into second place. However it was the best ever score for the far-right in a non-presidential election, and disproved the theory that the FN only performs effectively as a vehicle for its leader.

"Quietly, without fuss and nearly everywhere the FN has managed to reach to within a few tenths of a percentage point the score of Jean-Marie Le Pen at the presidentials. It is a remarkable consolidation of its influence," said the conservative daily Le Figaro.

The FN was widely seen as being helped by the national debate over the Islamic headscarf, the recent conviction for illegal party funding of Chirac's aide Alain Juppe, as well as by the March 11 Madrid bombings.

To get through for next Sunday's run-off parties had to win ten percent of the first round vote. The PS and the UMP will now enter alliances with smaller parties of left and right that failed to qualify in order to maximise their performance in round two.

The New Terrorist Threat
Radical groups know our vulnerabilities. Here's how to fight back
By RICHARD A. CLARKE

Monday, Mar. 22, 2004
As millions mourned in the streets of Madrid, counterterrorism officials around the world struggled to analyze the implications of the attacks for their own cities. None of the lessons are comforting. If the assaults were not by al-Qaeda, it means that other groups think they have to mount an attack that slaughters hundreds of innocents to get attention. If those responsible for the outrage in Madrid were not Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers, others have learned that such attacks are not very difficult to stage. Equally troublesome, however, is the possibility that 3/11 was an al-Qaeda — related attack; that would be another indication that President George W. Bush's claim to have crushed bin Laden's network is false.

Most modern nations, including the U.S., have had some form of indigenous terrorist group. But now security officials are concerned that the calculations of these often unknown groups have changed. They may think they must create mass casualties or risk being ignored by the media. The Internet is replete with recipes for potent bombs whose ingredients are easily procured in hardware stores. Worse concoctions — from plastic high explosives to radioactive material — are available on the international gray and black markets.

Madrid joins the list of cities — including Moscow, Paris and Tokyo — whose subways and trains have been turned into scenes of carnage. For transportation-security officials in Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia, there will be many sleepless nights ahead. In New York City, with more than 4 million rail and subway commuters daily, security has become an obsession. Although city officials have stepped up police patrols and introduced closed-circuit cameras in stations, they believe they cannot frisk rail commuters in the way that federal authorities screen air travelers.

U.S. security experts noted an inventive variation in the Madrid bombings. Rather than employing a large truck bomb, against which some defensive techniques work, the attackers used small charges in backpacks. Palestinian terrorists using satchels on Israeli buses have killed dozens of passengers. But in Madrid, the bombers caused some 200 deaths and more than 1,500 other casualties with just 10 bags. The terrorists achieved the effect of a large-scale attack with a hand-carried weapon that easily avoids detection.

The dirty little secret among security experts is that our society and economy are fragile. Shopping malls, casinos, theme parks and stadiums share a vulnerability to the sort of attacks seen in Madrid. In all these places, as with train stations, tens of thousands of people push through essentially unguarded portals in short periods of time. Since 9/11, owners of these facilities have feared that a few such attacks, indeed even just one, would keep customers away long enough to bring bankruptcy. The financial cost of adequately protecting the thousands of such venues, assuming that was feasible, would put a large dent in profits or tax revenues. The effects of such attacks on the U.S. economy could be devastating. For bin Laden, who has called upon his followers to destroy the American economy, such considerations surely fit with the goal of sweeping away the superpower to make way for a global theocracy.

Analysts call the calculations inherent in the Madrid attacks an "offense preference equation." Defense against such attacks is so disproportionately difficult that even setting up costly protection does not assure success. The attacker has the advantage. In such circumstances, security officials cannot just play defense. They must not wait to pick the terrorist out of the crowd at Grand Central Terminal in the minutes before he sets the timer. Terrorist cells must be infiltrated overseas. Terrorists have to be picked up at the border or found among the hundreds of millions of people on our streets.

Unfortunately, the CIA and the FBI have found al-Qaeda a hard target to infiltrate. Worse, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused in an internal Pentagon memo, radicals who hate America are being turned out faster than we can arrest or kill them. Whatever we do to the original members of al-Qaeda, a new generation of terrorists similar to them is growing. So, in addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us. If we do not focus on the reasons for terrorism as well as the terrorists, the body searches we accept at airports may be only the beginning of life in the new fortress America.

Richard A. Clarke is a former presidential adviser and author of the forthcoming book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terrorism

From the Mar. 22, 2004 issue of TIME magazine

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" title="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" target="_blank"http://www.time.com/time/maga...,9171,1101040322-600916,0 0.html Time

An old article from 2002 worth another view.

On October 1, Dubya's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, delivered a speech at the exclusive Waldorf Astoria in New York. Members of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research were in attendance. The Manhattan Institute is a CIA-sponsored far right "think tank" (founded in 1978 by William Casey, who subsequently became Reagan's CIA director). The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as "welfare reform" (dismantling social programs), "faith-based initiatives" (blurring the distinction between church and state), and "education reform" (destroying public education).

It is curious Rice would deliver a speech before the Manhattan Institute, considering the organization's close relationship with Charles Murray, a far right ideologue who wrote The Bell Curve in 1984, a book that essentially argues black people are genetically and intellectually inferior to white people.

Rice's speech consisted of a series of generalities related to various aspects of the Dubya Doctrine. These sorely need translation and clarification. What follows is a series of quotes lifted from Rice's speech, followed by commentary.

Continue reading http://www.counterpunch.org/n... CounterPunch

I'm not much for re-inventing the wheel and because so many are better equipped to write than I am I contribute little in the way of personal thought on this blog. Forgive the grammatical errors and runon sentences. I will write as I think. There will be many winding roads.

Shock was what I felt when I heard the news of Yassin's assasination. I felt and feel a terrible sense of foreboding. To many in westernized societies Yassin was seen as an evil man. To the Arab world he was a spiritual leader and now has become martyrized. Their cries of 'he did not die in vain' foretell of new disciples wrapped with bombs.

Arabs denounce Yassin assassination

The killing has sparked outrage in the Arab world. Syria, Israel's sworn enemy, denounced what it called a "vile crime" and a "flagrant violation of international law." At the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmuk near Damascus, hundreds rallied to condemn Israel. Meanwhile around 6,000 Jordanians demonstrated in their capital Amman to call for the closure of the Israeli embassy. The march was spearheaded by Islamist groups demanding all relations with the Jewish state be severed.

Earlier, several thousand Palestinians rallied in Jordan's refugee camps. Lebanon's large Palestinian community vented its feelings in refugee camps in the north of the country. Shops and schools closed as residents set tyres ablaze and vowed revenge. President Emile Lahoud said Israel's action was a crime which would fail to destroy the Palestinian cause. Condemnations have also flooded in from countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and the Gulf states.

I am never for the use of terror. I know it's realities all too well. I know what it's like to be followed by Klansmen, harrassed by redneck policemen, have shotguns pointed at me while driving down the road, be fired from every job and finally to lose my children.
The reality of a life in prison and a sense of right and wrong are the only things that stopped me from retaliating with my own brand of terror. It was my only recourse outside of legal means. I opted for the law knowing I had little chance of winning considering the people I was fighting. My day in court was short and I lost. If I had followed through on illegal ways I had available to me and there were many I may have gotten away with it and kept my children. I not only lost my children I was run out of town, as they say, by threats to my life. My crime: being a white woman, living in the heart of KKK country, dating a black man.
Many would say, 'why not give up the man?' Two reasons: my sense of justice and it would not have made a difference..I was already branded.
I say all this to emphasize my knowledge of terror and perhaps why it is seen as a useful and for some the only tool that seems to work.

Yassin was a frightening man to me because his words carried weight and it was easy to see he was not a twig to be bent. He seemed to be always at peace although his words were anything but. I will contrast him with Osama as many are frightened by him and what he may do next. Osama is only a man who managed to carry out an attack on America. He may be a symbol for some but has no emotional following. Even if he is killed it will not have the effect that the killing of Yassin has had. This is of course, only my opinion but I believe it is valid. Osama's leadership is militaristic not spiritual.

The value of the spiritual cannot be ignored. One's connection with God is the ultimate experience. In the hands of radicals be they Yassin or George Bush religious experience is the essence of crusades or holy war. Those that ignore this are either ignorant, careless, stubborn, or so sure and eager to win the battle they view the loss of life as collateral damage i.e. the end justifies the means.

Arial Sharon does not want peace with the Palestinians. Arafat does not want peace with the Israelis. George Bush believes the Israelis are God's chosen and although he has to pretend he cares about the Palestinian people he does not. Condoleezza Rice has obviously forgotten the struggle of her people in the US.
She is a hypocrite with the love of money and fame as her gods. She should do the world a favor and slither back into her oil well. While other countries around the world condemned Sharon's vigilante killing of this man, regardless of their personal viewpoint of him, all we get from Ms. Rice is "I would say that Hamas is a terrorist organization and everyone needs to be calm." The end justifies the means. Vigilante law is now the rule of law just as it was and is in Iraq. The precedent has been set by the mightiest and who can or will resist?

Terrorist will resist and they will resist in the only way that works for them. It will be horrible and wrong but this will not stop them. They believe their cause is just and are willing to die for it. I was not willing to die for my children but could just have easily become the very thing I was fighting against and gained some measure of satisfaction of justice being served. As it is I have left this in God's hands.
I recall a case some years ago in Louisiana concerning a man abducting a young boy. While the criminal was in the hands of the law, the father wanting to revenge his son shot and killed him. He took the law into his own hands. Many make that decision daily. Sharon did this in his dealing with Yassim. I think Sharon cares more for his cause than he does his people. Perhaps if Sharon had to shop in the markets, ride the bus to work like the ordinary people he would not be so quick to use vigilante tactics in fighting terrorism.

Killing outside of the law is wrong no matter who does it. If our leaders are not accountable who is? There are no exuses. Once you begin to make excuses for crime you beome the criminal.

Is the law for all people? Is there a time when any are above the law? Who makes this decision and under what directive? Yassin was a man said to responsible for the deaths of many Israelis by the influence of his words.
He should have been brought to justice under the law.

This is, of course, reflection on the morality of Sharon's actions. On the other hand, it was also a politically stupid act. Yassin wanted to be martyred. Many would say, great! he got his wish. But, he said himself, "when a Hamas leader is killed ten will rise up in his place." I believe him.

Larry Daughtrey

The ayatollahs are loose at the state Capitol.

Tennessee faces some fairly serious problems these days. Its basic health-care system is teetering on the brink. Jobs are flowing overseas. Education funding is strained. The state's finances are better, but its revenue structure is still patched, not fixed. Uncertainties surround a new state lottery and the difficulties it will create.

But on some days, the aura surrounding the legislature resembles that of a backwoods tent revival of some fundamentalist denomination. At least they aren't fondling snakes. Yet.

The Senate debates, quite seriously, amending the state constitution to reduce the basic privacy rights of citizens in the name of prohibiting abortion. The abortion opponents had rather quit than accept exceptions for abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother. They absolutely reject an exception for the ''health'' of the mother, arguing that ''liberals'' in Tennessee's notoriously liberal court system would equate mental health with physical health.

In an obscure House subcommittee, voices are raised and fingers shaken in an angry debate over making more illegal something that is already illegal, marriages between same-sex couples. The goal is to deprive a minority of citizens the right to sign a civil contract based on where they sleep at night.

After more than 200 years, some people still don't get it, a bedrock principle of both the state and federal constitutions, not to mention the Bible: Thou shalt not insert religious dogma into government.

On a political level, the Democratic majority in the legislature sees the maneuvering as foreplay for a nasty election season, since the noise is coming from the Republicans. The Democrats believe the GOP wants to wage a cultural war, cornering incumbents into record votes on hot-button issues that may be hard to explain in sound bites.

The Democrats are partly right. This is going to be a close election, and it is conceivable that both houses of the legislature could fall into Republican hands.

In the longer view, we may be witnessing a profound change in the Republican Party, which has a proud and unique history in Tennessee.

Tennessee is not like other Southern states, where the surge of the GOP in the past three decades is closely tied to race. Here, the Republican roots go back to the Civil War, where the eastern third of the state vehemently opposed the dissolution of the Union, if not slavery itself.

The hallmark of Tennessee Republicanism has been moderation. Instead of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmand and Jesse Helms clones, it has put moderates like Howard Baker, Lamar Alexander and Bill Frist on the national stage.

At the General Assembly, Republicans have been known for working on a bipartisan basis, partly out of necessity.

Some of the change clearly stems from the acidic debate over a state income tax in Don Sundquist's last term. Some Republican income tax supporters, like Zane Whitson of Erwin, were beaten in the primaries. Others, like Steve McDaniel of Parkers Crossroads, were turned out of leadership positions.

This session has brought a rash of retirement announcements from Republican moderates, including Sen. Ben Atchley, the GOP leader in the Senate who is a master of the middle ground. In the House, figures like Joe Kent of Memphis, Bobby Woods of Chattanooga and H. E. Bittle of Knoxville also are retiring.

Moderates are now an endangered species in the Republican Party in the legislature.

At the start of this year's session, House Republicans issued a series of position papers on their agenda, most of them bland. They wanted independent audits of state agencies, popular election of several high state officials, more openness in legislative procedures, reasonable goals that would enjoy wide public support. All those have faded into the background.

Another unspoken agenda has emerged, highlighted by the most visible issues of abortion and gay marriage. The new breed of Republican is, of course, vehemently anti-tax. They want to deprive new immigrants of the ability to drive on the way to cut their suburban lawns. They are disdainful of public education, seeking ways to dilute teacher requirements and open schools to religious influence.

It's an agenda of exclusion, designed to appeal to a narrow base, a far step from the party that once talked of itself as the ''big tent.''

The last time the Republicans had complete control of the Capitol was in the years after the Civil War. The governor was a dour old tyrant named Parson Brownlow, who impeached a judge who disagreed with him, plunged the state into a disastrous debt and threatened to seize the diminished property of Democrats.

''Teach them,'' he thundered about the majority of citizens who had sided with the Confederacy, ''that treason is a crime against law and liberty, and that they who are guilty of it have forfeited all claims to protection and all rights of citizenship.''

It has taken Tennessee Republicans more than a century to recover from the legacy of Brownlow and his ilk. At a time when the party seems on the verge of stepping forward, it is also stepping backward.

http://tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/da ughtrey/index.shtml" title="http://tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/da ughtrey/index.shtml" target="_blank"http://tennessean.com/opinion... Tennessean

Clarke wasn't the first or only one to tell this story. But, I guess for the delusional it doesn't really matter.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" title="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" target="_blank"http://politics.guardian.co.u...,12956,929464,00.html Old article from April 2003 - Blair 'dissuaded Bush from attack after 9/11'

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/surfdomarchives/00211 5.php" title="http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/surfdomarchives/00211 5.php" target="_blank"http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/... "They were gambling nothing would happen"

http://www.misunderestimated.net" title="http://www.misunderestimated.net" target="_blank"http://www.misunderestimated.... Another Macromedia Flash movie by Team Politrix

Katrin Bennhold/IHT
Monday, March 22, 2004

PARIS French voters sent a warning to President Jacques Chirac and his center-right government in the first round of regional elections on Sunday, giving a clear lead to the Socialist-led opposition, according to results released Monday by the Interior Ministry.Against a backdrop of high unemployment, a ballooning budget deficit and recent terrorist threats, Chirac's Union for a Popular Movement party and its ally, the Union for French Democracy, saw their share in the nation-wide vote reduced to 34 percent, from 36 percent in the last regional elections in 1998.

The opposition Socialist, Communist and Green parties scored an unexpected triumph, with a combined 40 percent, about 6 points above their 1998 result. Another beneficiary was the far-right, which won just over 16 percent of the vote, nearly all of it going to the National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen. The party made it through to next Sunday's second round of voting in at least 17 out of France's 22 metropolitan regions.

It was the first opportunity for France's 41 million voters to express their discontent through the ballot box since Chirac's party, known as the UMP, won a majority in Parliament in June 2002. The two-round contest for regional councils in mainland France traditionally attracts little interest, but its timing this year - squarely between two national elections - turned the vote into a midterm referendum on the national government.

While Chirac's majority in the National Assembly is safe for another three years, a confirmation of Sunday's outcome in the final round could not only cost the Union for a Popular Movement several of the 14 regions it governs. It could also cost a number of senior ministers their job and prompt the government to water down planned changes, political analysts said. "This is more than a regional election; it has become a vote of confidence for the government," said Dominique Moïsi, a senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations, calling the result on Sunday a "clear defeat" for Chirac's party.

Moïsi said a cabinet reshuffle appeared certain, and that the only question was whether Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin would survive.

In a televised address to the nation Sunday night, the prime minister struck a conciliatory tone. "I have listened to the French men and women region by region," he said. "We will make the necessary decisions for our future and for the future of our country." While Raffarin has repeatedly sought to play down the national flavor the elections have taken on, calling for "local consequences for local elections and national consequences for national elections," his advisers acknowledge that with a total of 19 ministers running, the national dimension could not be ignored.

For their part, Socialist politicians did not shy away from national interpretations of the results. "This was a punishment vote that tells the government that it can't continue like this," Hollande said on a televised election panel.

Seven in 10 voters planned to use the elections to express their frustration with the government, according to a Sofres opinion survey last week. One was Marie-Claire Favre, a 36-year-old librarian and mother of two, who went out in the rain to vote for the incumbent Socialist candidate. A lifelong supporter of the right, Favre said she had never before voted for the left. "It's not even that I think the left will be that much better, but Chirac and his lot have just not delivered and I want to make a point," she said.

Unemployment tops the list of voters' concerns in all opinion surveys by wide margins, and government efforts to combat it were judged "inefficient" by almost 90 percent of respondents to a Sofres survey this month. At 9.6 percent, the jobless toll is well above the European Union's average of 8 percent.

Lackluster economic growth has also eroded tax receipts, leaving the government with a budget deficit of E63.4 billion, nearly $78 billion, or 4.1 percent of the gross domestic product, and little room to appease voters. Following cuts in unemployment and pension benefits, health care could be next.

But France's malaise extends beyond economic concerns. A growing disillusionment with politics has taken hold as mainstream parties are no longer perceived to produce new ideas.

Two-thirds of French voters said they had no interest in these elections, while 48 percent said they did not see any difference between the main political blocks in the center, Chirac's party and the Socialists, according to a Louis Harris survey this month. The main beneficiary has been the National Front, whose anti-immigration oratory has played both on people's unease about EU enlargement and on a resurgent fear of Islamist terrorism. It traumatized the French political elite when Le Pen ousted the Socialist contender from the 2002 presidential race and faced off against Chirac in the second round. That day, April 21, has been stored in collective French memory as emblematic of the growing apathy among voters. Le Pen congratulated his party on what he said was a positive outcome and claimed it "can very well" increase its score even further in the second round of voting on Sunday.

http://www.iht.com/articles/511352.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/511352.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/5... IHT

"The war against terror has not ended and will continue day after day, everywhere. ... This is a difficult struggle that all the countries of the enlightened world must participate in. It is the natural right of the Jewish people, like that of all nations in the world that love life, to hunt down those who rise to destroy it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"The operation attests to complete lunacy. The decision came from the gut and not from the head." - Avshalom Vilan, a lawmaker from Israel's Yahad Party.

"This is one of the biggest crimes that the Israeli government has committed." - Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia.

Yasser Arafat "is like a man who was hit on the head because they killed Yassin and now they could kill him. He feels his turn is next and he is sad and worried." - an aide to Arafat, describing the Palestinian leader's reaction.

"Yassin is a man in a nation, and a nation in a man. And the retaliation of this nation will be of the size of this man. ... You will see deeds not words." - Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi.

"The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime." - Hamas statement.

"We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"What peace process, when the situation is on fire? Nobody would have imagined that matters would go this far. ... Its repercussions are unknown." - President Hosni Mubarak, on how the assassination would affect the Israel-Palestinian peace process.

"We are annoyed and pained by what happened despite our arduous and persistent efforts with all sides, including the Israeli government, to refrain from its policy of military escalation." - King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Israel has the right to protect itself against terrorist attacks, but "is not, however, entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings." Yassin's assassination "has inflamed the situation ... Violence is no substitute for the political negotiations which are necessary for a just and lasting settlement." - European Union foreign ministers' statement.

"We tell fighters in Palestine, especially Hamas and Jihad, that your real enemy is the tyrant of the age, America, because Sheikh Yassin was killed by American money, weapons and political and media support," - Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades

"I do condemn the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin and the others who died with him. Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution." - Kofi Annan

"Sheikh Yassin’s death will inflame Palestinians far beyond the bounds of Hamas alone and will, inevitably, encourage militants to set out to kill Israeli civilians in response.
There is no way the Israeli government and military cannot be aware of this." - EJJP (European Jews for a Just Peace)

"The assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, with its concomitant careless killing of passers-by, is a mad provocative act by a government which lost all restraint. It is the act of a pyromaniac fireman whose method of putting out the fire of terrorism is to pour barrels of gasoline upon it, an act which might cost the life of dozens or hundreds of Israeli citizens in the near future." - Gush Shalom

22 March 2004 – United Nations officials today strongly condemned Israel's killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin in a move which also resulted in the deaths of eight others, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that intensified clashes could ensue.

Mr. Annan "is concerned that such an action would lead to further bloodshed and death and acts of revenge and retaliation," a UN spokesman said in a statement.

"He reiterates that extrajudicial killings are against international law and calls on the Government of Israel to immediately end this practice," spokesman Fred Eckhard added. "The only way to halt an escalation in the violence is for the parties to work towards a viable negotiating process aimed at a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement."

Speaking directly to the press earlier this morning, Mr. Annan said, "I do condemn the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin and the others who died with him. Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution."

He also appealed to "all in the region to remain calm and avoid any further escalation in tensions."

With the diplomatic Quartet of the UN, European Union, Russian Federation and United States meeting today in Cairo, the Secretary-General said the assassination "has complicated issues." He added that he spoke this morning to his envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, who is in Egypt with the other representatives, and they were assessing the impact of the latest actions.

"As I have indicated earlier, it doesn't really facilitate the task of peacemakers," Mr. Annan said.

Mr. Roed-Larsen himself also issued a statement strongly condemning Israel's action. "In addition to the killing of so many, the assassination of Ahmad Yassin threatens the tenuous steps currently underway to revive the peace process," he said.

"Only a viable peace process can bring about a halt to violence," stressed Mr. Roed-Larsen, the UN's Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.

Also reacting to the latest developments, the Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, expressed deep concern over Israel's continued use of assassination in the occupied Palestinian territory. In a statement issued in Geneva, Mr. Ramcharan said that while there is no doubt that Israel has a right to defend itself, this must be done within the rule of law.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10155&Cr=middl e&Cr1=east" title="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10155&Cr=middl e&Cr1=east" target="_blank"http://www.un.org/apps/news/s... UN News Centre

TEHRAN (Mehr News Agency) Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraqs interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing
long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq.

A reliable source from the Iraqi Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that U.S. forces, with the help of British forces stationed in southern Iraq, had made extensive efforts to conceal their actions.

He added that the cargo was unloaded during the night as attention was still focused on the aftermath of the deadly bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraqs interim constitution.

The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s.

He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraqs WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons, although international inspectors had announced Saddam Husseins
Baath regime had destroyed all its WMD.

The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight.

Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades, he said.

This action comes as certain U.S. and Western officials have been pointing out the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and the issue of Saddams trial begins to take center stage.

In addition, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has emphasized that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued false reports on Iraq leading to the U.S. attack.

http://www.tehrantimes.com" title="http://www.tehrantimes.com" target="_blank"http://www.tehrantimes.com Tehran Times

Macromedia Flash by Eric Blumenthal. Turn up your sound, view and pass it on.

http://www.politrix.org/modules.php?name=News&file=articl e&sid=648" title="http://www.politrix.org/modules.php?name=News&file=articl e&sid=648" target="_blank"http://www.politrix.org/modul... Politrix

By Bob Fitrakis
Senior Editor, The Free Press

March 19, 2004—The subject line on Tuesday’s email read: “Another mysterious accident solves a Bush problem. Athan Gibbs dead, Diebold lives.” The attached news story briefly described the untimely Friday, March 12, death of perhaps America’s most influential advocate of a verified voting paper trail in the era of touch screen computer voting.

Gibbs, an accountant for more than 30 years and the inventor of the TruVote system, died when his vehicle collided with an 18-wheeled truck which rolled his Chevy Blazer several times and forced it over the highway retaining wall where it came to rest on its roof.

Coincidence theorists will simply dismiss the death of Gibbs as a tragic accident..

Gibbs’ death bears heightened scrutiny because of the way he lived his life after the 2000 Florida election debacle. I interviewed Athan Gibbs in January of this year. “I’ve been an accountant, an auditor, for more than 30 years. Electronic voting machines that don’t supply a paper trail go against every principle of accounting and auditing that’s being taught in American business schools,” he insisted.

“These machines are set up to provide paper trails. No business in America would buy a machine that didn’t provide a paper trail to audit and verify its transaction. Now, they want the people to purchase machines that you can’t audit? It’s absurd.”

Gibbs was in Columbus, Ohio, proudly displaying his TruVote machine that offered a “VVPAT, that’s a voter verified paper audit trail” he noted.

Gibbs also suggested that I look into the “people behind the other machines.” He offered that “Diebold and ES&S are real interesting and all Republicans. If you’re an investigative reporter go ahead and investigate. You’ll find some interesting material.”

Gibbs’ TruVote machine is a marvel. After voters touch the screen, a paper ballot prints out under plexiglass and once the voter compares it to his actual vote and approves it, the ballot drops into a lockbox and is issued a numbered receipt. The voter’s receipt allows the tracking of his particular vote to make sure that it was transferred from the polling place to the election tabulation center.

My encounter with Gibbs led to a cover story in the Columbus Free Press March-April issue, entitled, “Diebold, electronic voting and the vast right-wing conspiracy.” The thesis I advanced in the Free Press article is that some of the same right-wing individuals who backed the CIA’s covert actions and overthrowing of democratic elections in the Third World in the 1980s are now involved in privatized touch screen voting. Additionally I co-wrote an article with Harvey Wasserman that was posted at MotherJones.com on March 5. Both articles outlined ties between far right elements of the Republican Party and Diebold and ES&S, which count the majority of the nation’s electronic votes.

As I wrote in the Free Press article, “Proponents of a paper trail were emboldened when Athan Gibbs, president and CEO of TruVote International, demonstrated a voting machine at a vendor’s fair in Columbus that provides two separate voting receipts.”

In an interview on WVKO radio, Gibbs calmly and methodically explained the dangers of “black box” touch screen voting. “It absolutely makes no sense to buy electronic voting machines that can’t produce a paper trail. Inevitably, computers mess up. How are you going to have a recount, or correct malfunctions without a paper trail?

Now, the man asking the obvious question, and demonstrating an obvious tangible solution is dead in another tragic accident, a week after both articles were in circulation.

When I called TruVote International to verify Gibbs’ death, I reached Chief Financial Officer Adrenne Brandon who assured me “We’re going on in his memory. We’re going to make this happen.”

Every American concerned with democracy should pledge to make this happen. To beat back the rush for state governments to purchase privatized, partisan and unreliable electronic voting machines without verified paper trails.

Gibbs’ last words to me were “How do you explain what happened to Senator Max Cleland in Georgia. How do you explain that? The Maryland study and the Johns Hopkins scientists have warned us against ‘blind faith voting.’ These systems can be hacked into. They found patches in Georgia and the people servicing the machine had entered the machines during the voting process. How can we the people accept this? No more blind faith voting.”

http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/031904Fitraki s/031904fitrakis.html" title="http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/031904Fitraki s/031904fitrakis.html" target="_blank"http://onlinejournal.com/evot... Online Journal

Paul Krugman
March 21, 2004

'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on anything you were aiding terrorists.

Now we know that he meant just that.

A year ago, President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will — and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction — damaged our credibility. They imagine that only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland — which has roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq — had this to say: "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

This is the context for last weekend's election upset in Spain, where the Aznar government had taken the country into Iraq against the wishes of 90 percent of the public. Spanish voters weren't intimidated by the terrorist bombings — they turned on a ruling party they didn't trust. When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the contrary and used its control over state television and radio both to push its false accusation and to play down antigovernment protests, it reminded people of the broader lies about the war.

By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr. Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge terrorist attack within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."

So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists.

Notice, by the way, that Spain's prime minister-elect insists that he intends to fight terrorism. He has even said that his country's forces could remain in Iraq if they were placed under U.N. control. So if the Bush administration were really concerned about maintaining a united front against terrorism, all it would have to do is drop its my-way-or-the-highway approach. But it won't.

For these denunciations of Spain, while counterproductive when viewed as foreign policy, serve a crucial domestic purpose: they help re-establish the political climate the Bush administration prefers, in which anyone who opposes any administration policy can be accused of undermining the fight against terrorism.

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing John Kerry of, among other things, opposing increases in combat pay because he voted against an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. Those who have followed this issue were astonished at the ad's sheer up-is-down-ism.

In fact, the Bush administration has done the very thing it falsely accuses Mr. Kerry of doing: it has tried repeatedly to slash combat pay and military benefits, provoking angry articles in The Army Times with headlines like "An Act of 'Betrayal.' " Oh, and Mr. Kerry wasn't trying to block funds for Iraq — he was trying to force the administration, which had concealed the cost of the occupation until its tax cut was passed, to roll back part of the tax cut to cover the expense.

But the bigger point is this: in the Bush vision, it was never legitimate to challenge any piece of the administration's policy on Iraq. Before the war, it was your patriotic duty to trust the president's assertions about the case for war. Once we went in and those assertions proved utterly false, it became your patriotic duty to support the troops — a phrase that, to the administration, always means supporting the president. At no point has it been legitimate to hold Mr. Bush accountable. And that's the way he wants it.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/insight/article/0 " title="http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/insight/article/0 " target="_blank"http://www.dailycamera.com/bd...,1713,BDC_2494_2744088,00 .html Daily Camera

March 20, 2004 06:52 PM EST

WASHINGTON - Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.

He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.

"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.

CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."

Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.

"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.

CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.

"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."

Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.

"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."

Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid =320040602_5308_lead_stor y" title="http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid =320040602_5308_lead_stor y" target="_blank"http://start.earthlink.net/ne... Earthlink

War by Numbers
by Christine Pelisek

BLOOD AND GUTS

As of March 11, U.S. service members killed in Iraq: 556

Number of those killed in hostile action: 380

Number killed since May 1, when President Bush declared major combat operations over: 416

Total U.S. fatalities since December 13, 2003, the day Saddam Hussein was captured: 113

Number of deaths reported by the British military: 59

By Spain: 10

By Bulgaria: 5

By Thailand: 2

By Poland: 2

By Denmark: 1

By Ukraine: 1

By Estonia: 1

U.S. service members injured in Iraq: 2,777

Number of those with non-hostile injuries: 424

Daily attacks against U.S. troops: 25

Number of U.S soldiers who die every month: 30 to 50

U.S soldiers injured every month: 250 to 300

Soldiers from L.A. County killed during the Iraq war: 5

As of February 29, U.S. soldiers who have been evacuated to Army medical treatment facilities: 9,988

Number of those wounded in action: 930

Percentage with gunshot wounds: 16

Number of non-battle injuries: 3,212

Number with bone or brain injuries, surgeries, heart illness and mental problems: 5,846

Number evacuated because of loss of hands, feet, arms or legs: 70

Number of soldiers in Iraq who are without body armor and are forced to used “Vietnam-era flak jackets” that provide insufficient protection from shrapnel and bullets: 30,000

Iraqi soldiers killed during an April 5, 2003 blitz into Baghdad: 2,000 to 3,000

Iraqi civilian deaths as of March 3: 8,437

Iraqi civilians killed in Baghdad during the first month of war: 778

Violent deaths recorded at Baghdad city morgue in April, 2003: 1,214

In September, 2003: 362

Iraqi civilian deaths before Bush declared an end to major hostilities: 3,420

Civilian casualties from air strikes and ground battles in March and April 2003, according to hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and al- Nasiriya: 2,279, of which 678 were fatalities

Civilians killed in ground battles in al-Nasiriya from March 20 to April 5, 2003: 405, including 169 children

Iraqi soldiers who died in ground battles in al-Nasiriya from March 20 to April 5, 2003: 35

U.S. Marines who died in ground battles in al-Nasiriya from March 20 to April 5, 2003: 18

Civilians who died on April 7, 2003, in an attack that targeted Saddam Hussein on the basis of a satellite-phone intercept: 18

Cluster munitions — large weapons that open in midair and scatter widely smaller submunitions in the dozens or hundreds — used by U.S. forces in the three weeks of major combat in March and April 2003: 10,782

Civilians killed or wounded by cluster munitions in that period: 1,000

On March 31, civilians killed by U.S. cluster munition attacks in Hilla: 33

Number injured: 109

Iraqi civilians killed by a truck bomb outside Iskandariyah police station on February 10: 55

Iraqi civilians killed by a suicide truck bomb at the gateway to Saddam’s former Republican Palace on January 18: 30

Iraqi civilians killed by a suicide car bomb at Baghdad airport on February 11: 47

Iraqi civilians killed or wounded February 1 when two suicide bombers blew themselves up in Arbil: 265

Civilian deaths in Baghdad, between May 1 and September 30, 2003, that Human Rights Watch says merit an investigation: 94

As of March 8, U.S. troops taken to Germany to be treated for mental health problems: 1,000

U.S. soldiers who committed suicide in 2003: 21

Rate of suicides per 100,000 troops on the ground: 15.8

Percentage higher than Army average: 20

Psychiatrists stationed in Iraq: 110

Psychologists: 120

Social workers: 130

Journalists worldwide killed doing their jobs in 2003: 36

Killed in Iraq: 13

Killed by U.S. fire: 4

DOLLARS AND NONSENSE

Amount President Bush requested to spend on defense for the budget year beginning October 1 that did not include money for the major
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: $402 billion

Amount the U.S. military gave the Kawwaz family as “an expression of sympathy” after accidentally opening fire and killing Adil abd al Karim al Kawwaz and three of his children as they drove home from their in-laws’ house in Baghdad on August 7,2003: $11,000

In the first seven months of U.S. occupation in Iraq, the amount the U.S. military’s public affairs office paid out in compensation for a variety of offenses committed by American troops: $901,545

Cost to occupy Iraq through 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office: up to $200 billion

Amount the Bush administration gave to Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil giant formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, to provide for American troops in Iraq and Kuwait: $2.7 billion

Amount the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that KBR tried to overcharge the government: $37 million

Troops KBR told the military it planned to feed at one site: 4,800

Number that Pentagon auditors found that KBR’s subcontract called for feeding at that site: 3,600

Amount Pentagon auditors found KBR attempted to overcharge: $6.4 million

Amount KBR asked the military for to feed troops at a site labeled C-3: $43.3 million

Amount auditors found would have covered the cost: $12.8 million

Amount an audit accused KBR of overcharging for gasoline delivered to serve the civilian market in Iraq last year: $61 million

How long it took the government to approve a six-month extension of a $587-million contract to Halliburton, according to the Government Accounting Office: 10 minutes

Donations that Parsons Brinkerhoff construction company, one of two firms picked to share a $43.4 million contract to help manage reconstruction of Iraq’s electricity grid, gave various Republican party committees in the past five years: $90,000

Amount donated to Democratic groups: $8,500

Donations construction giant Fluor Corp., which recently was awarded a $500 million contract to design and build electricity facilities with AMEC, gave various Republican party committees in the past five years: $48,000

Amount that went to similar Democratic groups: $4,500

Monthly amount the Pentagon is paying the Iraqi political organization led by Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi interim government who has close ties to the Bush administration, for “intelligence collection”: $340,000

Amount Pentagon gave to Nour USA, whose president is A. Houda Farouki, a friend of Ahmad Chalabi, to outfit the new Iraqi military, then canceled after two losing bidders complained that the decision-making process was confusing and contradictory: $327 million

The value of the contract that URS Group Inc., which is partly owned by Richard C. Blum, the husband of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, received to help manage reconstruction of Iraq’s transportation, communications, security, education and health infrastructure: $27.7 million

Amount in donations engineering firm CH2M Hill, which recently was awarded a $28.5 million contract with the California construction firm Parsons Corp., gave various Republican committees over the past five years: $69,000

Amount that went to similar Democratic groups: $34,000

Date the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority is scheduled to hand sovereignty over to an interim Iraqi government: June 30

Diplomats who will remain in Iraq after June 30 to help manage $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds: 3,000 to 5,000

How much the U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base inflated budget proposals at the Pentagon’s request last year:
$20 million

Amount the Pentagon is contributing to help a production of Macbeth tour U.S. military bases: $1 million

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/17/features-pe lisek.php" title="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/17/features-pe lisek.php" target="_blank"http://www.laweekly.com/ink/0... LA Weekly

Recent events in Spain have focused attention on Irish policy in the Iraqi war, as anti-war protesters prepare to demonstrate in Dublin on Saturday, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.

The terror attacks in Spain and the possibility that they could be repeated in other countries, including Ireland, have brought the issue of Irish policy on the Iraqi conflict back into the spotlight.

As with Irish policy on other issues, it is not easy to say precisely where the Government stood. Ireland did not participate in the war and no Irish troops were sent to the conflict zone but there seems to be a public perception that we did, in fact, take part.

This derives from the provision of overflight and landing facilities to US military aircraft. That issue became the focus of the Irish anti-war campaign and remains at the core of all objections to Government policy.

"The Irish Government's policy was to assist the American war effort by giving them the very important facility of Shannon Airport," says the Green Party TD, Mr John Gormley, one of the more vociferous opponents of the Iraq War.

"We alone of the neutral states assisted the American war effort. Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden: none of them assisted in any way, it would be totally incompatible with the concept of neutrality."

The response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, is to point out that other EU neutrals, Sweden, Finland and Austria, are in a different
geographical and strategic location. "With its very extensive airspace, Ireland lies on the direct flight path between North America and Europe and the Middle East," he told the Dáil. "Sweden and Finland are remote from such flight paths and Austria is easily circumnavigated."

Mr Cowen also insists there were "long-standing arrangements" for the provision of overflight and landing facilities to US military aircraft, going back 50 years. "To withhold them now is to redefine, not maintain, the established policy position in this area," he said. Identical
facilities were provided to the US and its allies during the Kosovo conflict, "despite the absence of explicit UN authorisation".

Mr Gormley scoffs at this: "The Government had to come up with some excuse, saying this is nothing new, we have always given the Americans the use of
Shannon, e.g., during the Vietnam War. If it was done, it was done secretly, I doubt if anyone knew it. It was not public policy to help combatants during a war." Diplomatic sources point out that US troops travelling to Vietnam would have tended to travel in a different direction from America's west coast and not via Shannon.

Ireland's relationship with the US is the reason most often given for providing overflight and transit facilities. Indeed, one senior Irish diplomat is quoted as saying privately that withdrawing permission to use Shannon Airport would be "tantamount to declaring war on the US".

Diplomatic sources point out that Ireland relies heavily on inward investment by US corporations. "If you openly came out against the US, you would damage that access to Corporate America."

There were other reasons for preserving the feel-good factor with the US. Washington had long been a key player in the Northern Ireland peace process. Irish beef exports received favourable treatment over Britain during the foot-and-mouth crisis and Ireland had enjoyed special status, in effect, in the provision of immigrant visas. Ireland's standing with the White House was reflected in the fact that there were only two occasions in the year when the President went to Capitol Hill, home of the Congress. One was the State of the Union address and the other was the Speaker's Lunch to mark St Patrick's Day.

But all this was missing the point, according to the Labour MEP, Mr Proinsias De Rossa. "If we were talking about a run-of-the-mill issue, which didn't involve a fundamental shift in how the world was governed, one could make those sort of arguments, but the Bush administration was tearing up the understanding we have had up to now that the more powerful elements in the world need to work together within the UN."

He added that the Government, "seemed incapable of conceiving of a different kind of relationship with the US, mediated through the European Union". But the war would not be a decisive election issue here as it had been in Spain: "They have soldiers on the spot."

Last year the Government permitted 3,691 military aircraft to overfly Ireland. This represents a 50 per cent increase on the 2002 figure of 2,460. The Government permitted 612 civilian aircraft containing munitions to land at Shannon Airport in 2003.

The vast majority of munitions are understood to be the personal arms of US troops. Clearance was given to a further 270 civilian aircraft carrying munitions to over-fly Irish airspace.

In 2002, the Government allowed just one civilian aircraft land at Shannon with arms, while clearances were given to just 30 civilian aircraft with arms to overfly Irish airspace. A total of 125,855 US troops passed through Shannon Airport last year. This earned an estimated *15 million for Aer Rianta.

A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said overflight and landing facilities were still in place: "We don't give out any details of which countries use them but requests continue to be received and, subject to meeting the conditions, permission is still being granted."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/200 4/0318/2984532931HM4DEAGL AN.html" title="http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/200 4/0318/2984532931HM4DEAGL AN.html" target="_blank"http://www.ireland.com/newspa... The Irish Times

In late November 2001, the Northern Alliance supported by US bombing raids took the hill town of Kunduz in Northern Afghanistan. Eight thousand or more men "had been trapped inside the city in the last days of the siege, roughly half of whom were Pakistanis. Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and various Arab mercenaries accounted for the rest." (Seymour M. Hersh, The Getaway, The New Yorker, 21 January 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/... )

Also among these fighters were several senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers, who had been sent to the war theater by the Pakistani’s military.

The presence of high-ranking Pakistani military and intelligence advisers in the ranks of the Taliban/ Al Qaeda forces was known and approved by the Washington.

Moreover, Pakistan’s military intelligence, the ISI, which was overseeing the operation, had a close and longstanding working relationship with the CIA; since the 1980s it has channeled support to a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban, acting on behalf of its US counterpart. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , 2002. Ch. 2, 3 and 4. http://globalresearch.ca/glob... )

According to Seymour M. Hersh:
"President Bush said, ‘We're smoking them out. They're running, and now we're going to bring them to justice.’" (Ibid)

In fact, most of them were never brought to justice, nor were they detained or interrogated. On the orders of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, they were flown to safety:

"The Administration ordered the US Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan" (Ibid)

"Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds-and perhaps thousands-of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. 'Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf,' an American intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift 'made sense at the time,' the C.I.A. analyst said. 'Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership'-who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, 'Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table' in future political negotiations. 'We were supposed to have access to them,' he said, but 'it didn't happen,' and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence.

According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that "there were guys- intelligence agents and underground guys-who needed to get out." (ibid)

In other words, the official story was: "we were tricked into it" by the Pakistani ISI.

Out of some 8000 or more men, 3300 surrendered to the Northern Alliance, leaving between 4000 and 5000 men "unaccounted for". According to Hersh’s investigation, based on Indian intelligence sources, at least 4000 men including two Pakistani Army generals were evacuated. (Ibid)

US officials admitted, however, that

"what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus." (quoted in Hersh op cit)

An Indian Press report confirms that those evacuated courtesy of Uncle Sam were not the moderate elements of the Taliban, but rather the "hard-core Taliban" and Al Qaeda fighters. (Times of India, 24 January 2002).

Continue Reading http://globalresearch.ca/arti... Global Research

Anti-war activists were taking to the streets in cities around the world overnight to mark the first anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, but organisers were not counting on the massive turnout seen at pre-war rallies.

The biggest crowds in Europe were expected in Britain, Spain and Italy, whose governments backed US President George W Bush's call to war to oust Saddam Hussein despite massive public opposition.

In London, two anti-war demonstrators climbed to the top of London's landmark Big Ben clock tower on Saturday as opponents of the the US-anglo invasion of Iraq prepared to march from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square at noon to demand an end to the occupation.

The Stop the War Coalition, which helped bring more than one million people into the streets of London in February 2003 to denounce the Iraq war, said tens of thousands of people were expected to join Saturday's march.

British news channel Sky showed pictures of two men, perched at the level of the clock more than 45 metres from the ground. They were roped together and appeared to have climbing equipment.

In Spain, thousands of people, with the horrors of last week's Madrid train bombings fresh in their minds, were expected to join anti-war marches.

The attacks by suspected Islamic extremists killed 202 people and led to the downfall of Spain's pro-US government in elections three days later and rocked the US-led coalition in Iraq.

Spaniards have urged by 60 political groups to turn out en masse for today's protest.

The Iraq war was opposed by the overwhelming majority of Spaniards and the incoming Socialist government has vowed to pull the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq by June unless the occupation comes under United Nations leadership.

Protest rallies were also scheduled in Italy, where a majority of people favour withdrawing Italian troops from Iraq at the end of June, and in France, Germany and the United States.

Italian left-wing political parties, unions and non-governmental organisations have called for a large protest in Rome against the staunchly pro-US foreign policy of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

In France, like Germany an early opponent of the Iraq war, anti-war rallies were planned in several cities, including Paris, Marseille, Lyon and Toulouse.

In the United States, protest organisers said they hoped their ranks might be swelled in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings.

Bush meanwhile renewed his defence of the Iraq war, insisting in his weekly radio address that it had removed a major cause of instability in the Middle East.

He also said Iraq was now an example to the region after the ouster of Saddam last April.

Bush ordered the air strikes on one of Saddam's Baghdad palaces on March 20 last year that unleashed the invasion. Saddam was detained in December.

In Tokyo, organisers claimed 30,000 people had turned out to call for peace in Iraq and the immediate withdrawal of US and Japanese troops.

Despite stiff public opposition, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was one of the first leaders to publicly back Bush after the Iraq war started. Japan is in the process of sending around 550 troops to southern Iraq to help with reconstruction.

Hundreds of people also rallied in Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir and in Bangladesh to demand foreign troops withdraw from Iraq.

In Dhaka, about 100 activists staged rallies in which they shouted out slogans against the "repression" of Iraq and demanded the Bangladeshi government not hold talks with US Ambassador Harry Thomas.

The demonstration was tiny compared with the thousands who took to the streets in the first days of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

In the Philippines, riot police Saturday used water cannons to disperse about 100 demonstrators who tried to march on the US embassy in Manila to protest the Iraq war.

The Philippines has deployed 96 soldiers, police and aid workers to help coalition forces in Iraq and has rejected calls to withdraw them despite fears that this may expose the country to terror attacks.

In Iraq itself the anniversary passed almost unnoticed as attacks on civilians and troops continued amid official warnings of more "bad days to come".

Iraqi people for the most part ignored the date and said they were more likely to gather next month on the anniversary of Saddam's fall.

"We would probably celebrate on April 9 because on that day, we got rid of Saddam and his evil regime, but we will not celebrate the launch of a war that has left us with nothing so far," said former government employee Adnan Saad.

"We are happy that Saddam is gone, but what have we got instead? I am unemployed and I stopped sending my five children to school mainly because of the catastrophic security situation," he said.

The anniversary comes after a week of heavy violence, including a suicide bombing and rocket strikes on hotels in the capital, and other attacks on US troops, police and civilians, including journalists.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/10 79789939845.html" title="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/10 79789939845.html" target="_blank"http://www.smh.com.au/article... SMH

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s assertions about the threat posed by Iraq. Prior to the war in Iraq, the President and his advisors repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that jeopardized the security of the United States. The failure to discover these weapons after the war has led to questions about whether the President and his advisors were candid in describing Iraq’s threat.

The Iraq on the Record report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Findings

Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the
statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials.
Ten of the statements were simply false.

Timing of the Statements. The statements began at least a year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” The Administration’s misleading statements continued through January 22, 2004, when Vice President Cheney insisted: “there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” Most of the misleading statements about Iraq — 161 statements — were made prior to the start of the war. But 76 misleading statements were made by the five Administration officials after the start of the war to justify the decision to go to war.

The 30-day period with the greatest number of misleading statements was the period before the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Congress voted on the measure on October 10 and October 11, 2002. From September 8 through October 8, 2002, the five officials made 64 misleading statements in 16 public
appearances. A large number of misleading statements were also made during the two months before the war began. Between January 19 and March 19, 2003, the
five officials made 48 misleading statements in 26 public appearances.

Topics of the Statements. The 237 misleading statements can be divided into four categories. The five officials made 11 statements that claimed that Iraq
posed an urgent threat; 81 statements that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear activities; 84 statements that overstated Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities;
and 61 statements that misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.
Statements by President Bush. Between September 12, 2002, and July 17, 2003, President Bush made 55 misleading statements about the threat posed by
Iraq in 27 separate public appearances. On October 7, 2002, three days before the.....

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/i raq_on_the_record/" title="http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/i raq_on_the_record/" target="_blank"http://www.house.gov/reform/m... Download PDF to finish reading.

March 20, 2004

The invasion of Iraq, which began one year ago today, was "organised with lies", says the new Spanish Prime Minister. Does anyone doubt this any more?

And yet these proven lies are still dominant in Australia. Day after day, their perpetrators seek to obfuscate and justify an unprovoked, illegal attack that killed up to 55,000 people, including at least 10,000 civilians; that every month causes the death and injury of 1000 children from exploding cluster bombs; that has so saturated Iraqi towns and cities with uranium that American and British soldiers are warned not to go where Iraqi children play, for fear of contamination.

Set that carnage against the Madrid atrocity. Terrible though that act of terrorism was, it was small compared with the terrorism of the American-led "coalition". Yes, terrorism. How strange it reads when it describes the actions of "our" governments. So saturated are we in the West in the devilry of Third World tyrants (most of them the products of Western imperialism) that we have lost all sense of the enormous crime committed in our name.

This is not rhetoric. In 1946, the judges who tried the German leadership at Nuremberg called the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country "the supreme international war crime". That principle guided more than half a century of international law, until Bush and Blair and Howard tore it up, covering their actions with a litany of lies.

On February 4 last year, in a speech lasting less than an hour, John Howard referred more than 30 times to the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. He offered authoritative detail: that Iraq's "arsenal of chemical and biological weapons (was) intact" and was a "massive program". All of this was false.

Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts and a personal friend of George Bush snr, told me: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."

Set that truth against the present carnage in Iraq, and set it against the wilful destruction that preceded it, which was barely reported in Australia.

The UN's two senior officials in Iraq in the 1990s, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, both assistant secretaries-general of the UN, have described in detail a "genocidal embargo" imposed by America under a UN flag of convenience, aided and abetted by Australia.

"Almost a million Iraqis died as a direct result," Halliday told me, "including at least half a million children. The UNICEF studies are on the record. It was US policy to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, such as the water supply, which killed thousands of infants. By the time Bush invaded, a once prosperous country was a stricken nation."

In fact, UN records show that up to July 2002, more than $US5 billion worth of humanitarian aid, approved by the UN Security Council and paid for by Iraq, was blocked by the US.

How many Australians are aware of this and Australia's complicity? Howard sent RAN ships to police what in reality was a medieval-style siege? Who dared listen to Halliday and other distinguished witnesses that it was this terrible siege that reinforced Saddam's rule and prevented the Iraqi people from getting rid of him?

All this has been suppressed in Australia while the latest lies are channelled and amplified by journalists. I am not referring to the usual far-right windbags but those broadcasters who believe sincerely they are being objective; by constantly framing the national debate in the terms and cliches of mendacious power, they collude with it, censoring by omission.

Do they ever consider that the very notion of a "war on terror" is absurd when the power in Washington claiming to combat terror has run an empire of terror: Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and now Haiti, again? By comparison al-Qaeda is a lethal flea. The true danger is where a rampant superpower will strike next: watch out Korea, Syria, Iran, even China.

As the prisoners begin to struggle home from the American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the scale of the crime is emerging. We now know that the British military command virtually refused to send troops to Iraq until Blair gave them a guarantee they would not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Blair's guarantee was worthless. And that frightens the British establishment, and the Australian establishment, too.

Unlike the US, Britain and Australia are signatories to the ICC. The times are changing; Washington-manipulated show trials of Third World dictators are giving way to the promise of universal justice, however tenuous it may seem.

The dock awaits those Westerners who bring terrorism to faraway countries, then watch it blow back in our faces. Like al-Qaeda, they should not be allowed to get away with it.

Journalist John Pilger will be a speaker at a rally in Sydney today to mark the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. A similar rally in Melbourne begins at the State Library at 1 pm.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/19/10 79199419302.html" title="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/19/10 79199419302.html" target="_blank"http://www.theage.com.au/arti... The Age

A three year old boy in his bath examined his testicles and asked, "Mommy, are these my brains?"
Mom said, "Not yet, honey."

By Thomas Oliphant, 3/16/2004

WASHINGTON
IN AN atmosphere of horror and anger, Spanish voters managed to sort through their emotions over the weekend to deliver a surprisingly clear message to their government. Perhaps we should listen in the United States.

Governments that lie and cover up on matters not only central to national security but also to the commitment of armed forces abroad are inviting rejection.

Governments that seek to use events as unspeakable as mass murder for political purposes are doing the same. It was clear something was wrong within hours of last Thursday's bombings in Madrid. Virtually all of the sketchy information being gathered by US officials here and abroad pointed in the direction of Al Qaeda and away from the Basque terrorist group known as ETA.

But all the Spanish government's statements pointed in ETA's direction, and the Bush administration decided to suppress its own knowledge and evidence-based suspicions to the contrary in order to support one of its few unquestioning allies in the occupation of Iraq virtually on the eve of the national elections the bombings were obviously timed to influence.

From the outset, however, clues that led away from ETA and toward Al Qaeda registered with increasing force on Spanish public opinion. The result was revulsion and anger on a scale sufficient to sweep away the preelection polls and predictions. The government fell, and the Bush administration will have difficulty deflecting suspicion that it was complicit in a coverup.

The initial near-insistence by officials of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government that this was Basque and not fanatical Islamist terrorism now appears based less on evidence and more on the fact that such a theory of the crime best fit Aznar's Popular Party election chances.

However, the evidence was flimsy. Not only did the coordinated commuter train bombings not fit ETA's profile; there was a steady stream of information pointing in Al Qaeda's direction. There were repeated denials of complicity by ETA and its above-ground supporters, clashing with the group's consistent pattern in the past of claiming responsibility when it was involved, and there were repeated statements of complicity in domestic and international channels linked to Al Qaeda. As doubts and evidence accumulated, public opinion took an astonishingly rapid turn toward the Socialist candidacy of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero -- not only an opponent a year ago of the US invasion of Iraq but an advocate of the withdrawal of Spain's token 1,300-member force from the US-led coalition.

By the time the voting began on Sunday, authorities could not suppress the fact that five men, one with a clear record of involvement in an Al Qaeda cell long linked to the logistical support of the attacks on the US in 2001, had been detained in the mass killings and that a videotaped confession on Al Qaeda's behalf was in official hands. With the stench of the government's duplicity in the air, the support behind Aznar's designated successor, Mariano Rajoy, collapsed in a heap of public disgust.

The initial handling of the bombings calls into question both the Bush administration's credibility and its judgment. Intelligence sharing between the two governments has been intimate. US officials followed security matters in Spain especially closely because the Al Qaeda cell there was important to 9/11 logistics as well as ongoing planned operations. The idea that the Bush administration was not aware that the five men detained over the weekend had been watched for weeks before the attacks is preposterous.

Nonetheless, officials from Secretary of State Colin Powell on down insisted through the weekend that the evidence was inconclusive -- comments framed to help Aznar's Popular Party survive the election.

Worse, the administration used the Madrid bombings in this country as a fresh justification for its partisan exploitation of terrorism.

The Spanish lesson is that fighting Al Qaeda has clearly been undercut by the preoccupation with Iraq. The picture of Aznar standing in the Azores with Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair just before the war started a year ago is eloquent evidence to the phoniness of the pledge Bush made that the role of the United Nations in the war and its aftermath would have to be central. The Spanish lesson is that it had better be by June 30 or the Spaniards are gone.

The most important lesson, however, is that in a time of national shock only truth is acceptable. Bush might want to remember that before he makes his next use of 9/11 imagery in his campaign commercials or digs his hole deeper with more manufactured descriptions of the "threat" Iraq posed a year ago that required a near-unilateral invasion and occupation in haste.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_ opinion/oped/articles/200 4/03/16/spains_vote_again st_mendacity/" title="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_ opinion/oped/articles/200 4/03/16/spains_vote_again st_mendacity/" target="_blank"http://www.boston.com/news/gl... Boston.com

I'm watching this one but am skeptical considering the date i.e. 30 years after the collapse of the French colonial empire in Africa culminating in the bloody Algerian war in the 1960's. I would suspect the French people and government in particular realized at last that imperialism is a concept of the past. Dianne

Rwanda points finger at France
16/03/2004 11:42 - (SA)

Paris - President Paul Kagame of Rwanda accused the French on Tuesday of "directly" taking part in the 1994 genocide in his country by supplying arms and giving orders to those who massacred up to one million people.

"They supplied weapons, they gave orders and instructions to the perpetrators of genocide," he told the French state-owned RFI radio.

"The French were there when the genocide took place. They trained those who carried it out. They had positions of command in the armed forces who committed the genocide," he said.

"They also directly participated in operations by putting up road blocks to identify people by ethnic origin, punishing the Tutsis and supporting the Hutus," he said.

Responsible

Kagame was speaking a week after Le Monde newspaper reported that a French police investigation had found him personally responsible for the assassination of his predecessor Juvenal Habyarimana, whose death in a rocket attack on his aeroplane in April 1994 triggered the Rwanda massacres.

"It is time for France to look at its own responsibilities rather than creating diversions," Kagame said.

"In 91 or 92 I was in Paris at the invitation of the authorities and an official said to me, 'If you do not stop the war, by the time you arrive in Kigali you will all be dead'. I never forgot those words, which are proof of the involvement of the French government, or of certain elements," he said.

"Are these elements who were involved in the genocide above the law? Are the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court just for Third World countries?" he asked.

Kagame, an ethnic Tutsi, was leading a rebellion by his Rwanda Patriotic Front when Habyarimana, a Hutu, was killed on April 6 1994.

The next day, Hutu extremist militias and the Rwandan army, which at the time was controlled by Hutus, launched a 100-day massacre of at least 800 000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus.

The Rwandan government has strongly denied the allegation in the French police report that Kagame, who led his mainly Tutsi rebels to seize Kigali and put an end to the massacres in July 1994, was the "decision-maker" behind the missile attack.

France, which was Habyarimana's main international backer, was accused of doing nothing to stop - if not actually colluding in - the massacres. It denies the charge.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0" title="http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0" target="_blank"http://www.news24.com/News24/...,,2-11-1447_1498820,00.html News24

Weak On Terror
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 16, 2004

My most immediate priority," Spain's new leader, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, declared yesterday, "will be to fight terrorism." But he and the voters who gave his party a stunning upset victory last Sunday don't believe the war in Iraq is part of that fight. And the Spanish public was also outraged by what it perceived as the Aznar government's attempt to spin last week's terrorist attack for political purposes.

The Bush administration, which baffled the world when it used an attack by Islamic fundamentalists to justify the overthrow of a brutal but secular regime, and which has been utterly ruthless in its political exploitation of 9/11, must be very, very afraid.

Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.

After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.

This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.

It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.

But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.

Some of the administration's actions have been so strange that those who reported them were initially accused of being nutty conspiracy theorists. For example, what are we to make of the post-9/11 Saudi airlift? Just days after the attack, at a time when private air travel was banned, the administration gave special clearance to flights that gathered up Saudi nationals, including a number of members of the bin Laden family, who were in the U.S. at the time. These Saudis were then allowed to leave the country, after at best cursory interviews with the F.B.I.

And the administration is still covering up for Pakistan, whose government recently made the absurd claim that large-scale shipments of nuclear technology and material to rogue states — including North Korea, according to a new C.I.A. report — were the work of one man, who was promptly pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. Mr. Bush has allowed this farce to go unquestioned.

Bottom Line (emphasis mine)

So when the Bush campaign boasts of the president's record in fighting terrorism and accuses John Kerry of being weak on the issue, when Republican congressmen suggest that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for Osama, remember this: the administration's actual record is one of indulgence toward regimes that are strongly implicated in terrorism, and of focusing on actual terrorist threats only when forced to by events.

Thank you Mr. Krugman!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16 KRUG.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16 KRUG.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... NY Times

On December 21 1941, terrorist collaborators with the Nazis in Croatia massacred 470 Serb inhabitants of the village of Prkos. The Serb poet Stevan Raickovic wrote this epitaph for a monument in their memory.

I'm posting this in recognition of all those who have died around the world at the hand of terrorism in all it's forms, then and now.

Amidst the war we never touched a gun
But we all fell by the executioner's hand.
Once we were living people, women, children,
Now we're nothing, neither dust nor shade.
And none of us will ever come again.
We lie here in the night of no return.
Appearing only now and then in Prkos
Transmuted into dew or grass.

By David Ray

Growing up in Portland, Oregon, my kids spent rainy afternoons playing at Burger King. For $1 they could climb around in a plastic "fun house," all soft padding and colored balls of spongy foam, disinfected with the same stuff BK uses to clean its "kitchen." Immunized against risk, I could relax while my kids burned off their chicken nuggets.

We Americans are obsessed with safety. We put locks on kitchen cabinets to save our kids from taking shots of Mr. Clean, buckle them into elaborately padded car seats and instruct them not to talk to strangers. If my kids were invited to a play date across the street, I'd call the parents and (jokingly, except not) ask if they happened to keep an AK-47 in the house. Our cardinal rule: no guns! Not even the sort that squirted water, on pain of confiscation of dessert forever.

I thought I had their safety assured—until we moved to the south of France. That summer I signed up my 6- and 8-year-olds for a week of day camp at the Ecole des Champs, imagining them learning to play tennis, milk a cow and float on their backs. Never having been to camp myself, I was eager to hear all about it when I picked them up each day. Basket weaving? That sounds fun. Swimming lessons? Excellent. Tir a la carbine? I beg your pardon?

As I looked in my rearview mirror, my jaw dropped. Shiny medals hung from their necks. Prizes, they exclaimed, and proudly showed me the holes in their paper targets—real holes made by real bullets fired from real rifles. "They told me to aim high and prepare for the kick," said my daughter insouciantly. Where were the permission slips to sign before my kids locked and loaded?

Naturally, my wife and I were horrified. I flashed a help e-mail to a friend who hunts geese in Maine. His reply was a bit blase, I thought; he mentioned the benefits of learning how to handle a gun properly and suggested the kids could shoot the wild boar tearing up my lawn. When we moved back to the United States, he added, they could defend themselves against people driving cars with bumper stickers reading nuke their a—, take their gas.

Over time I've come to accept that the French have a different concept of risk. In fact, living in France is like taking a life membership in Outward Bound. Only the French allow a 20-centimeter barrier on a cliff in the Alps to protect my Renault from tumbling over the edge in freezing rain—on roads so narrow cars often click side mirrors while passing. Yes, Americans may be vaunted bungee jumpers. But in France, if you swim beyond the barriers that keep boats away at the beach, no lifeguard is going to blow his whistle or paddle out on a surfboard to rescue you.

Recently I took my kids to Parc Aventure, a climbing park in Valberg, a skiing village in the French Alps. After three minutes of instruction, they were in a fir tree 12 meters up, clipping into the "safety" wires and swinging from tree to tree. There were no nets to catch them, no happy-faced instructor to teach them to climb rope ladders. Standing in the ferns below, I longed for the soft, colored pads of Burger King. But when they finally descended, I looked at them differently. They seemed more prepared for the America I read about in grade-school history books: the one with a great wilderness to be explored by the likes of Lewis and Clark or Daniel Boone. And yet it was France that taught them how to fire rifles, eat raw meat (or at least steak tartare) and confront dizzying heights in gigantic trees. Odd. Weren't we ridiculing French cowardice just a year ago?

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

IFJ Accuses US Authorities of Attempting to “Control and Intimidate” the Media in Iraq

The International Federation of Journalists today accused the US authorities in Iraq of attempting to “control and intimidate” the media, following the recent detention of several Korean journalists by the US forces in Baghdad.

On 6 March, the US military in Iraq detained three Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) journalists for close to four hours on suspicion of carrying explosives. The journalists were all handcuffed and held in custody based on “internal regulations”, despite the fact that the Korean Embassy in Iraq had confirmed their identifications and had called for their immediate release.

“Such actions are absolutely unacceptable,” said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. “It is very difficult not to interpret this as a direct attempt to intimidate the media.”
After finding that there were no traces of explosives in their luggage and finally acknowledging that they were bona fide reporters covering the ongoing reconstruction process in Iraq, the journalists were eventually released.

The IFJ is supporting its affiliate, the Journalists Association of Korea, which is calling on the US military in Iraq and the US administration to apologise and to make public “internal regulations” on the basis of which the US military authorities detained the journalists.
“These regulations are used to control journalists, but journalists are ignorant of what they are and how they are applied,” said White.

This latest incident comes as the right of all journalists to enter Iraq to cover all sides of the story without the need for a licence, specific permission or accreditation by the US authorities has been restricted. At the beginning of March, US forces announced that all journalists currently in or arriving to Iraq must register with and obtain a press card from them.

As part of an international campaign, the IFJ has declared April 8th – the anniversary of the attack by United States military on a Baghdad hotel filled with foreign journalists in which two were killed – a day of mourning and protest over the killings of journalists during the Iraq war and the “abject failure” of the Pentagon to carry out adequate investigations and to publish the findings.

“The detention of our Korean colleagues, like other incidents in recent months, confirms our feeling that the US military operate with a sense of impunity when it comes to dealing with journalists,” said White. “They act like all journalists are potentially hostile and that puts all reporters and media staff at risk.”

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Index=2330&Language=E N" title="http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Index=2330&Language=E N" target="_blank"http://www.ifj.org/default.as... IFJ

This is a great day for Democracy! The sadness is, it took the deaths of 200 and possibly more Spanish citizens for this day to happen.

Yesterday Spain voted for truth and justice in government. They sent a message to those that would be leaders, 'you are here to serve us and not yourselves.'

In spite of the PP bringing Spain 8 straight years of economic growth, cutting unemployment in half, and making Spain a founding member of the single
currency euro, the people have voted for democracy rather than the bottom line. Amazing!
The Spanish have decided, in spite of most being in favor of the PP, that the Socialist are to be given a chance if only in protest.

The Iraq war has made none of us any safer and the recent attack in Spain proves this. The war was a grievous move of terror on the Iraqi people and
distortion of truth to America and the rest of the
world. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. Soldiers, and humanitarian workers have died.
The war on Iraq only served to take the spotlight off Al Qaida and now 200 Spanish citizens have died.

This small country has shown great courage and selflessness. They have voted against a party that has done good things for them in terms of prosperity.

Today is a great day for Democracy! The world weeps with you Spain. But, many of us congratulate you today. While mourning your dead you took action against the very ones who played a part in the crime.

See where your state ranks.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by just 21,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, compared with a downwardly revised gain of 97,000 in January. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent.

The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939.

The state figures below are for January and were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 10. Numbers for February are due March 31.

See where your state ranks - http://money.cnn.com/pf/featu... CNN Money

By Rosa Prince and Gary Jones

A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its full horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to degrade Muslim inmates.

Jamal al-Harith, 37, who arrived home three days ago after two years of confinement, is the first detainee to lift the lid on the US regime in Cuba's Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta.

The father-of-three, from Manchester, told how he was assaulted with fists, feet and batons after refusing a mystery injection.

He said detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a time in hand and leg cuffs with metal links which cut into the skin.

Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements - giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose around the American base.

He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on them.

Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make them confess to acts they had never committed. Even petty breaches of rules brought severe punishment.

Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more drastic than required, claimed Jamal.

A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates malnourished.

But Jamal's most shocking disclosure centred on the use of vice girls to torment the most religiously devout detainees.

Read More http://www.truthout.org/docs_... Truthout

FBI Want Consumers To Pay the Cost

By Dan Eggen and Jonathan Krim

The Justice Department wants to significantly expand the government's ability to monitor online traffic, proposing that providers of high-speed Internet service should be forced to grant easier access for FBI wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, according to documents and government officials.

A petition filed this week with the Federal Communications Commission also suggests that consumers should be required to foot the bill.

Law enforcement agencies have been increasingly concerned that fast-growing telephone service over the Internet could be a way for terrorists and criminals to evade surveillance. But the petition also moves beyond Internet telephony, leading several technology experts and privacy advocates yesterday to warn that many types of online communication, including instant messages and visits to Web sites, could be covered.

The proposal by the Justice Department, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration could require extensive retooling of existing broadband networks and could impose significant costs, the experts said. Privacy advocates also argue that there are not enough safeguards to prevent the government from intercepting data from innocent users

Read More http://www.washingtonpost.com... Washington Post

Viewer Warning: Extreme Language

http://www.illwillpress.com/sml.html" title="http://www.illwillpress.com/sml.html" target="_blank"http://www.illwillpress.com/s... Neurotically Yours - We Proudly Propagandize Star-Schmucks Coffee

Some say Bush's team has moved too slowly and has failed to address economic concerns.

By Mark Z. Barabak and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — As President Bush steps up his reelection bid, key Republican officials and strategists are expressing concern about his campaign, saying the White House took too long to engage in the race and lacks a clear strategy for addressing voters' economic worries.

While most Republicans remain confident that Bush will win a second term, there is a growing sense within the party that the battle with Sen. John F. Kerry is likely to be closer and harder-fought that many thought just a few weeks ago.

"People are anxious," said David Carney, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire and White House political director for Bush's father. "There's a lot of fretting going on out there."

Much of the hand-wringing stems from recent polls that showed Bush trailing Kerry nationwide. Most Republicans see that as the inevitable result of steady pounding from Democrats who have been campaigning — and bashing the president — for well over a year.

On Thursday, the Bush campaign rolled out two new television ads in response, including a 30-second spot that criticized the presumed Democratic nominee by name for the first time. "John Kerry," the ad says. "Wrong on taxes, wrong on defense."

But not everyone blames Bush's problems solely on his political foes.

"No jobs are being created. They did not find weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, said Eddie Mahe Jr., a veteran GOP strategist. "That provided the constant stream of attacks a level of credibility and legitimacy they otherwise might not have."

Read More http://www.latimes.com/news/p...,1,7430989.story?coll=la-politics-po inters latimes

"It Has To Be Al Qaeda"

By Brian Braiker

Excerpts

ETA seems to be distancing itself from these bombings.

I just heard that they have disclaimed it. Can you believe them? I tend to believe it. The main source of the news seems to be the Spanish government.

Which has a complicated relationship with the ETA.

They are obviously the people who must know the most about this. But the Spanish government does have a vested interest in the ETA [having done this], and not Al Qaeda, because of the elections this Sunday. If the ETA did this, it favors the [incumbent] government because they have been the toughest [on them]. Their main opponents, the socialists, got into a government of coalition with a Catalan independence group whose leader did the incredibly naïve thing of getting together with ETA leadership in January; they were just blasted by that. If ETA [is guilty of this], it looks like those socialists are, by logic of contamination, aligned with ETA, whereas [Prime Minister] Aznar can say, “We are the only ones who oppose anything having to do with terrorism.” In the post-9/11 global terrorism discourse, this really works very well for the governing party.

And if Al Qaeda is responsible?

If it is Al Qaeda, it is a totally different story. More than 90 percent of the Spaniards were opposed to the war on Iraq. Still, Aznar, who had a political upper hand and absolute majority, just went with Bush. He didn’t care about public opinion. This will be a reminder to all of those 90 percent who didn’t want [war in] Iraq who will say, “Look, here is one more offshoot of that war that we didn’t have to fight.” So that would be negative for the government in this election.

Read More http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... MSNBC

By Lucy Sherriff
12/03/2004

The European Commission is investing €50m in cleaning up the Net with a three-year programme, Safer Internet Plus.

Its main aim is to improve the protection of children and minors, but it will also cover a broader range of areas of illegal and harmful content and conduct of concern are covered, including racism and violence.

"Children should have the right to use the internet freely to chat, to learn or to play games," said Erkki Liikanen, the EC’s enterprise and information society commissioner. "But to move freely online, children must be protected from the risk of being exploited by adults."

Parents are largely ignorant about their children’s online (and probably real-world) habits: an EU survey last year found that 14 per cent of kids in Northern Europe have gone to real world meetings with people they have chatted to on the Net, and nearly half have been asked to go to such meetings. Only four per cent of parents think their children have done so.

The programme has four elements: Firstly, the EC wants to establish hotlines for the public to report illegal Net content. A tip-off to such a hotline led to the breakup of a global child porn ring in October last year.

It will encourage self regulation to deal with unwanted and harmful content (including spam), and fund and support the development of content rating and filtering, benchmarking filtering software and services.

It will also try to raise awareness among parents and teachers of the tools available to protect children online.

The programme will cover mobile and broadband content, online games, peer-to-peer file transfer, and all forms of real-time communications such as chat rooms and instant messages

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36219.html" title="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36219.html" target="_blank"http://www.theregister.co.uk/... The Register

I thought I would post a few facts for the benefit of those who write me in ignorance of France not having to worry about Al Qaeda i.e. "French appeasement goes a long way and Al Qaeda is only attacking US allies."
Perhaps this will make you feel better. I'm sure you will celebrate the day France is attacked from within. Dianne

ASSESSMENT
Attacks during the past seven months against the Germans in Tunisia; French in Pakistan and Yemen and Australians in Indonesia have illustrated al-Qaeda’s current primary focus on targeting the major allies of the United States (US) in its campaign in Afghanistan. While there have been attacks against US forces in Kuwait and the Philippines, it is our opinion that the current primary focus is US allies. On 9 Oct. 2002, Ayman al-Zawahiri said in a newly released video, “We have sent some messages to the allies of American so that they may stop their involvement in its Crusade.

The mujahideen youth have issued messages to Germany and another one to France. So if this is not enough, then we are prepared to increase it by the help of Allah.” This current focus does not, however, alleviate the threat against US interests either within US borders or abroad.

It is our strong opinion that long-term pre-9-11 plans for another major attack designed to match or supersede the 9-11 attack will be executed when al-Qaeda believes it is most advantageous to do so. An assessment on the most likely window for such an attack within the continental US (CONUS) is included at the end of this report.
Without addressing threats to US targets, we believe there exists a significant threat of additional attacks against the oil industry as well as US allies. Specifically:

1) Tankers transiting oil shipping lanes, particularly the Arabian Gulf and Horn of Africa areas, are under a high risk of attack.
The threat from al-Qaeda is not limited to shipping lanes but also includes ports, loading/off-loading facilities and even support infrastructure located inland. This is emphasized in the 13 Oct. 2002 statement from al-Qaeda’s Political Bureau which said, “The operation of attacking the French oil tanker is not merely an attack against a tanker - it is an attack against international oil transport lines and all its various connotations.”

2) German, French and Australian interests both within and outside their geographical borders will remain threatened.

ATTACKS AGAINST US ALLIES

France

- On 8 May 2002, a car bomb in Karachi, Pakistan detonated next to a bus carrying French naval engineers. Fifteen people were killed, including 11 of the French engineers.
Al-Qaeda is suspected of being involved in the attack.

- On 6 Oct. 2002, a boat packed with explosives rammed into the French-owned tanker Limburg as it headed into the port of Ash Shihr at Mukallah, Yemen to bring on more oil.
The crew abandoned ship at 1200 local time [0900 GMT] when they were unable to put out the ensuing fire after the blast. The ship is managed by the French Ship Management company and owned by Euronav.
France Ship Managing Director Peter Raes: "A junior
officer saw a craft approaching the Limburg. He was of the opinion that we touched that craft and then there was an explosion." Raes went on to say that the ship, which was built in 2000, is a double-hulled tanker that was barely moving at the time of the explosion.
He said the blast/impact penetrated through both hulls and 7-8 meters into the cargo hold filled with crude oil. One member of the crew was killed. The ship lost 90,000 gallons of oil after the blast. According to a 10 Oct. 2002 report in Asharq al-Awsat, the newspaper received a statement from the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army claiming responsibility for the attack.
On 14 Oct. 2002, a 4-page Arabic statement from Osama bin Laden dated 12 Oct. began circulating in jihadi circles. In the statement, bin Laden refers to the 8 Oct. attack on US Marines in Kuwait and the attack on the Limburg. He says, "We congratulate our Islamic nation for heroic and brave jihadi operations that were undertaken by its justified mujahideen sons in Yemen against the crusader oil tanker and in Kuwait against the invading forces and the American occupation. By hitting the oil tanker in Yemen, the mujahideen hit the secret line, the provision line and the feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader's nation. They reminded the enemies of the heaviness of the blood bill and the enormity of losses, that they will pay a high price for the continuation of their aggression on our nation and their plunder of our good and our wealth.

STATEMENT FROM AL-QAEDA’S POLITICAL BUREAU – DRAFT ENGLISH
(dated 13 Oct. 2002, released in wide circulation on 15 Oct.)
Translated by Aimee Ibrahim
“Statement from the al-Qaeda organization regarding the explosion of the Christian oil tanker in Yemen”
After the United States and its Christian allies had assumed that they had suppressed the hazard of the mujahideen and secured their strategic, military and commercial interests in the region and deluded themselves and their people domestically, and the world,
internationally; and after giving deception and treachery to the regime in Yemen and everything was done to catch, pursue and detain the Muslim mujahid youth in Yemen; and we have experienced the passage of a complete full year since the Christian world war against the jihad of the mujahideen throughout the world, and the passage of two full years since the attack on the American destroyer, the USS Cole, in the Yemeni port of
Aden.
At this time, and in Yemen specifically, close to where the destroyer exploded at Aden and at a close distance to Bab al-Mandab which is of strategic importance, the
mujahideen attacked anew at a strategic Christian target. Attacking a commercial target of this size, at this time, under these circumstances, and in this way has more significance and meaning. For it means:

1) All the military, security and political, etc. efforts that America and its allies have done to protect their strategic interests in this area have been futile.

2) The mujahideen by the grace of God, no longer have restraints on action and are
capable of surprising their enemy and [carrying out] attacks that are decisive, lethal and
strategic and in the appropriate time and place they determine.
If al-Qaeda were the entity that carried out that attack or if it were another of the
mujahideen bases that adhere to the same ideology, thought and methodology, both
assumptions are disfavorable with respect to the Americans and their Christian allies.
Because, the assumption that al-Qaeda is the one that carried out the attacks means, first,
that al-Qaeda remains strong, and is able to attack in the same place in which it attacked
before, [translation uncertain: and all the international horrors the Americans are known for in what they call their "war on terrorism" and their unusual successes in "uprooting terrorism, its leaders, its bases and its roots" is merely (propaganda) and their deceptive
words will go up in the first cloud of smoke rising from the ship.]
And if it were mujahideen other than al-Qaeda that carried out the attack, then the situation is graver because that simply means that the Qaeda that is led by Sheikh Osama bin Laden is only one base of the many bases that are prevalent in this Ummah. So America and its Christian allies should strongly heed this.
So that we don't grant a complimentary security consultation to the enemy, we won't specify which assumption is the correct one, but we leave [the enemy] to drown in all the assumptions and possibilities that have arisen in the two years without arriving at
anything in the case of the attack against the destroyer, the USS Cole.

3) Likewise, the operation revealed the true danger the mujahideen pose to the strategic, commercial and military interests of the enemy.
If a boat that didn't cost US$1,000 previously managed to ruin a destroyer worth over US$1 billion, and its symbolic value cannot be measured, and a similar boat managed to devastate an oil tanker of that magnitude, so imagine the extent of the danger that threatens the West’s commercial lifeline which is petrol. This region sits on the largest [oil] reserves, owns the largest quantities and contains [the industry’s] most important
passages and lanes.

The operation of attacking the French oil tanker is not merely an attack against a tanker -
it is an attack against international oil transport lines and all its various connotations.

4) And beyond the security, military and commercial significance, the attack carried a strong political message to the alliance of Washington and its enemies in their war against the Islamic nation - that they will never be far away from the hand of God's retaliation through the mujahideen.
[Additional text praises Yemenis for their bravery and courage.]
[Signed]
Political Bureau of the Organization of al-Qaeda al-Jihad
Sunday 6 Sha`ban 1423h
13 October 2002

[image]DianneMaire_599047 422.jpg[/image]
Hard hats worn by Israeli-Arab builders of the Knesset's new wing marked with a red “X” -- to aid security snipers. ADL criticizes move; speaker Rivlin orders practice stopped.
Boaz Gaon

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin has instructed that the practice of marking the hard hats of Arab-Israeli laborers at the Knesset be stopped.

Earlier, Maariv reported tha the white hard hats worn by Israeli-Arab construction workers building the new wing of the Knesset have been spray-painted with a red “X”. The Security Department instructed that their helmets be marked so that it would be easier to distinguish them from other, foreign workers and keep a constant watch on their movements. The instructions were issued even though many of the workers were cleared by the General Security Service within the last month. In a story scheduled for the Hebrew magazine section of Friday’s Maariv, the X is explained as a target for security snipers posted on the Knesset balcony, in the event of a riot or attack.

“We aren’t saying that there is no need for checking us”, admitted Muhammad Hussein from Shaab. “But why do be need to be singled out as Arabs? What is the red spray paint on our heads for? As much as I want to work, this hurts”.

The distinctions between workers at the construction site aroused harsh reactions. “I think this is a shameful disgrace for the Knesset”, MK Issam Mahoul (Hadash-Ta’al) told Maariv. “This is exactly the kind of thing that creates people like Eliran Golan [who was arrested last week for bombing Mahoul's car]. I have no problem with security needs but this kind of marking is insufferable. If it isn’t removed, I will insist that it be replaced with a yellow patch”.

MK Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash-Ta’al) announced that he would raise the subject during a meeting of the Knesset Presidium today. “This is reminiscent of darker times and places in history. It doesn’t make sense that in the Knesset, the symbol of Israeli sovereignty, Israeli citizens are singled out because of their origin". MK Ahmed Tibi (Hadash-Ta’al) broached the subject with Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud), who was surprised and promised to respond. “Someone has made a terrible mistake and tarnished the Knesset’s name”, said Tibi.

The Israel Office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has also harshly criticized the practice, issuing the following statement: "While it is understandable that all workers at sensitive sites such as the Knesset have full and thorough security checks, it is both discriminatory and insensitive to visibly mark certain individuals based on race, religion or nationality, regardless of security concerns"

The ADL, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

A Knesset spokesman responded that the marking was required for security reasons and would be removed when security approval is received for each individual worker.

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&ar ticleID=4287" title="http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&ar ticleID=4287" target="_blank"http://www.maarivintl.com/ind... Maariv

Nicholas D. Kristof

NEW YORK A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is smuggled into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some 500,000 people are killed, and the United States suffers $1 trillion in direct economic damage.

That scenario, cited in a report last year from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, could be a glimpse of our future. We urgently need to control nuclear materials to forestall that threat, but in this war on proliferation, we're now slipping backward. President George W. Bush (after ignoring the issue before the Sept. 11 attacks) now forcefully says the right things - but still doesn't do enough.

"We're losing the war on proliferation," Andrew Krepinevich Jr., a military expert and executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said bluntly.

Until recently, nuclear trends looked encouraging. President John F. Kennedy and others in the early 1960s expected dozens of countries to develop atomic weapons quickly, but in fact controls largely worked. Even now, only eight nations definitely possess nuclear weapons.

And there's more good news. While I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, at least Saddam Hussein won't be making warheads soon. Likewise, partly thanks to Bush's saber-rattling, Libya is abandoning its weapons program.

But all in all, the risks of a nuclear Sept. 11 are increasing. "I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15 or 20 years," said Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, "first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear weapon."

One of America's biggest setbacks is in North Korea. Thanks to the ineptitude of hard-liners in Bush's administration, and their refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations, North Korea is going all-out to make warheads. It may have just made six new nuclear weapons. Then there's Iran, which has sought nuclear weapons since the days of the shah, and whose nuclear program seems to have public support. "I'm not sure there is a way to get an Iranian government to give it up," a senior American official said.

Read More http://www.iht.com/articles/5... IHT

Belgium's long-awaited trial of Dutroux is just one example of a larger pedophilia problem, from Portugal to Czech Republic.

By Peter Ford

PARIS – As the trial of alleged pedophile and murderer Marc Dutroux stretches into its second week, attention has focused on the Belgian's claim that he was merely one cog in a network of highly placed child molesters who have been protected by a police cover-up.
It is an allegation that echoes loudly in a number of other European countries, where investigators have recently turned up evidence that pedophilia is a wider and deeper problem than the authorities have been willing to admit.

In Portugal, 10 people, including a former cabinet minister and a former ambassador, are awaiting trial on pedophilia charges linked to a children's home scandal that appears to have been swept under the carpet for decades.

In the Czech Republic, a recent report by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) revealed that children as young as 6 are openly selling sexual services to tourists who pick them up at shopping malls and gas stations near the German border.

And 10 days ago, police across northern Europe launched dawn raids on nearly 50 homes and businesses, smashing a number of Internet child pornography networks that had escaped similar operations in 2002 and 2003.

"You can't say that when you dismantle one or two or three rings the problem ceases to exist," says Evangelos Stergioulis, a spokesman for Europol, the European Union agency coordinating the fight against international crime. "Our investigations will never end. One case will lead to another."

The Dutroux case dragged on for eight years before coming to trial, and "the inefficiency of the police went beyond normal stupidity," says Anne-Marie Lizin, a Belgian senator. The investigators' blunders - including a search of the house where Dutroux had entombed two young girls in a cellar without finding them - have fed widespread suspicions in Belgium of a deliberate cover-up.

Read More http://www.csmonitor.com/2004...
CSM

By Alex Lefebvre

In the run-up to the first round of France’s regional elections on March 21, researchers are protesting the funding policies of the government of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin by resigning their administrative positions en masse. They are opposing government under-funding of scientific and academic research.

On March 9, some 800 section heads and 600 other principal investigators in research teams throughout France assembled in Paris and voted overwhelmingly to resign their administrative positions. These included researchers from highly prestigious institutions such as the Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS—National Center for Scientific Research), the Pasteur Institute, and the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm—National Insitute for Health and Medical Research). The daily Le Monde reported that only about ten researchers voted against the action.

These resignations, although not directly affecting current lab work, will largely halt the organizational work of research teams—the ordering of new equipment, the search for new funding, the attainment of travel grants, etc.

Protesting researchers, organized in collectives such as “Sauvons la Recherche” (Let’s Save Research), have also called for an “Estates-General” of researchers to be convened independently of the government in order to plan future research programs and funding requests.

Their petitions have received 64,000 signatures by researchers and students and 161,217 from concerned citizens. The daily La Croix found that over 80 percent of those polled supported the researchers. Even amongst Raffarin’s own electorate of “conservative voters,” support for the researchers was around 75 percent.

Read More http://www.wsws.org/articles/... WSWS

By Galen Leonhardy
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Many people say we should remain at war to finish the task, that we need to "fix Iraq" before we leave because we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to establish a foundation for democracy. Respectfully, it needs to be said that the rhetoric of not withdrawing to fix something we broke denies the reality that the oppressed people of Iraq can think for themselves. It's an idea rooted in paternalism, the same sort of thinking that supported Apartheid in South Africa.

This war has no benefit for the majority. Those who have profited include companies with excellent political access such as Halliburton, General Electric, Westinghouse, Fox Entertainment, and others.

To those who say we are at war to support our own interests, shouldn't those interests be a more stable Middle East and, thus, lower oil prices? What do we say to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and the partners of those people who have died for "our interests" while oil prices continue to rise? What are we doing for oil, for our interests? What would you say if you knew your neighbor's sister would die because you drove your car today? What if there was a 50% chance your son, neighbor, or grandchild would die because you drove your car too much? What if there was a 10% chance? A 1% chance? Whose interests are we supporting for the sake of higher oil prices?

To those who see this war in terms of maintaining a way of life, we aren't just talking about abstractions. We're talking about our friends and family.

For the sake of those we love, there are protests coming up, protests against those who govern without considering our real interests. On March 20th, men, women, and children will come together in cities across the nation and around the world to protest the war in Iraq. It is time for change. That process of change should be peaceful and democratic. It should include the cessation of all support for acts of imperialism. That means working against the war. It is time to protest. Of course, that could simply be a concern for human life getting in the way of more appealing ideas, ideas passed on through the media to those who spend quality time in front of their TV sets.

Whether you believe that the American military should remain in Iraq or not, attending the protests makes sense. It sends a message. It tells those in power that we are watching. It shows the possibility of dissent. March to see that the protesters act responsibly. March to support democracy. Protect our right to march, a right too easily taken from us by the police who are called to support, often with violence and terror, the authority of those who govern.

It is time to protect our interests. Get off the couch, walk, and talk to support sanity. All we have to do is get out of our cars and walk to send a message to the oil industry. Start the protest at home by turning off the TV. If we aren't watching, the entertainment industry can't make money at the expense of our loved ones who die in combat. It is time to talk. To stop this war we must talk. Talk makes democracy work. Talk moves people to vote. Talk moves people to act.

It is a time for fixing what's broken. It is sane to protest war. If the rhetoric of "we need to fix Iraq" is appealing, then it is strangely appealing because it supports a broken concept. It is sane to protest a violation of life. And if killing is not to be considered insane, then at the very least it is problematic to assume that the people of Iraq are any less capable than the American military of supporting their own interests.

I will march in Chicago on March 20th for the sake of my mom, Lucille, whose youngest son, Duncan, is soon to be sent to Iraq. I will march for daughters, sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, lovers, and for those who would not be killed if my humble act could have some significance. On March 20th, there will be thousands with me. We will gather in cities and towns all over the world. We will unite. We will use our bodies to support our interests. We will act with reason and compassion. We will start to fix what's broken.

I invite you to join me.

[Galen Leonhardy is a college instructor at Black Hawk College in Moline, IL and a Marine Corps veteran (Lebanese Peacekeeping Forces 1983).]

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1810&mode=thread& order=0" title="http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1810&mode=thread& order=0" target="_blank"http://www.yellowtimes.org/ar... YellowTimes

By Tom Heneghan

PARIS (Reuters) - French schools should show films like "Schindler's List", "Sophie's Choice" or "The Pianist" to combat a dramatic rise in racism and anti-Semitism among pupils, Education Minister Luc Ferry says.

Novels, documentary films and visits to former Nazi concentration camps would also help invigorate civics classes meant to teach tolerance and understanding, he said while presenting a new guide to materials against racial hatred.

Ferry said on Wednesday serious problems with racism and anti-semitism were limited to about five percent of schools in France, but the problem overall had grown rapidly in the past three years.

"For the first time since World War Two, anti-Semitism is now more widespread than racism that is not directed against Jews," he told journalists. "We cannot act as if this didn't exist, we cannot not respond to it."

The guide is part of efforts in France and other European countries to deal with resurging anti-Semitism linked to recent Middle East tensions. European Commission President Romano Prodi supports these but has disputed charges that anti-Jewish violence in Europe is now as bad as it was in the 1930s.

Ferry said popular films depicting the Nazi persecution and slaughter of Jews during World War Two could add a powerful message to the usual civics lessons based on textbooks.

"When you see a film like 'Schindler's List', 'The Pianist' or 'Shoah', you understand the reality of racism and anti-Semitism more than if you're asked to read the 1948 (United Nations) Declaration of Human Rights," he said.

WORDS THAT HAVE KILLED

Apart from a list of recommended films, the guide included a new glossary of civics terms written by leading intellectuals and a selection of legal and historical documents, essays, poems and songs meant to combat racism and teach tolerance.

Ferry said France had about 10 violent anti-Semitic acts and about 60 verbal threats annually against Jews in the 1990s.

In 2000, these shot up to 119 attacks and 624 threats. The highpoint was reached two years later with 193 attacks and 731 threats against Jews. Racist violence not directed against Jews rose by 205 percent in 2002, he added.

Ferry clearly blamed tensions between Muslim and Jewish pupils for the rising number of attacks: "If we have such a rise in anti-Semitism in France, it's because some children identify with the Palestinian cause and others with Israel."

Preventing classes from dividing up along religious lines was the reason for France's new law banning religious emblems in state schools, he added.

Illustrating the problem schools faced, Ferry said a teacher once told him she had asked 13-year-old pupils to write down what they did and didn't like and got one response saying: "I like football, I don't like Jews."

Youths these days used insults like "dirty Jew" or "dirty wog" as easily as people used to "idiot" or "fool", he said.

"Words have become as light as feathers," he said. "The idea of this guide it to give back weight to these words, to make pupils understand that these insults have killed."

Among the films the guide recommended were the slave ship drama "Amistad", Charlie Chaplin's Hitler farce "The Great Dictator" and the movie of "The Diary of Anne Frank."

To understand how people can be different, its suggestions included "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial", "Romeo and Juliet" and the New York gang war musical "West Side Story."

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=473282§ion=news" title="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=473282§ion=news" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.co.uk/news... Reuters

Hubert Humphrey used to say, "If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote Democratic."

Which Party in the White House Means Good Times for Investors?
By Hal R. Varian

Does the stock market do better when a Republican is president or when a Democrat is?

The answer is: It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats.

This perhaps surprising finding is examined by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, in an article titled "Political Cycles and the Stock Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return - the difference between a broad index of stock prices (similar to the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference.

This nine-percentage-point excess can be broken down further into an average 5.3 percent higher real return for the stock market and a 3.7 percent lower return for Treasury bills under Democratic administrations.

This finding raises three other questions. First, is this just some data anomaly resulting from selective choice of sample or quirks of the analysis?

Second, if the effect is real, why don't investors take advantage of the predictable higher returns and buy stocks before elections that Democrats are likely to win, in that way pushing stock prices up and lowering returns? The third, and perhaps the most provocative, question: What is the economic rationale for the difference in returns?

Most Democratic administrations clearly had higher-than-average excess returns, with Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term (1937-41) being the only significant exception. Republicans have been associated with lower-than-average returns, with the only significant exception being Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term (1953-57).

The difference in returns persists even if one looks at subsamples. For example, if you break the sample in two at 1963, the Republicans still come out with lower returns in both periods.

What would cause such a large difference? One possibility is that Wall Street investors expect the Democrats to be bad for the market and sell their stocks before elections that the Democratic candidate is likely to win. Then, when the Democrats do not prove as bad as expected, stock prices rise again.

The authors, though, find that the data do not support this theory - stock prices generally do not tend to decline before elections that Democrats win.

But this finding itself raises another puzzle. If returns are so much higher for Democratic presidents than Republican ones, shouldn't we see investors rushing to the market when a Democratic victory looks likely?

We don't see that happen, either. "In sum,'' the authors write, "the market seems to react very little, if at all, to presidential election news."

Here's another theory. Economic policies under Democratic administrations may tend to be more volatile than those under Republicans - so investors demand higher returns to compensate them for the extra risk. A clever idea, but it is also contradicted by the evidence. If anything, the volatility of stock market returns is slightly higher under Republicans than under Democrats.

One interesting finding is that although both large and small companies do better under Democratic administrations, small companies do especially well, while larger ones do only a little better. The return on the smallest 10 percent of traded companies is 21 percent higher during Democratic administrations, while the return on the largest 10 percent is only 7.7 percent greater. What accounts for this difference?

We don't know.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a spurious correlation. As econometricians say, "If you torture the data hard enough, it will confess to anything." People have been looking for economic predictors of stock market behavior for decades, so it's not surprising that every now and then we find some correlations.

Still, presidents like to think - or at least claim - that they influence economic activity. So a finding that the party occupying the White House has an impact on stock market performance should mean something.

With respect to the questions asked above, Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov can give a firm answer only to the first: Stock market excess returns have definitely been higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

They also show that some tempting possible answers to the question of why investors don't take advantage of this difference do not work.

They do not try to answer the last question, but they conjecture that the fiscal and regulatory priorities of presidents offer a possible explanation.

Most provocatively, they suggest that the causality might go the other way, with market returns driving presidential elections. Perhaps voters feel wealthier when stock prices are high and then vote Republican; when stock prices are low, they vote for Democrats.

The Santa-Clara/Valkanov finding offers an attractive area of research for both economists and political scientists. But even if scholars eventually come up with a satisfying explanation, we are still left with the financial side of the puzzle: For at least 72 years, the stock market did far better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. How can it be that investors have failed to take advantage of this seemingly predictable pattern?

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov wrote the first draft of their paper in 1999, and they admit that they could have profited handsomely by selling stocks after the 2000 election. Alas, like most investors, they didn't sell at the most opportune time. Even finance professors sometimes misjudge the market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/business/2 0scene.html?ex=1069995600&en=e0d 6f62320b9e262&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/business/2 0scene.html?ex=1069995600&en=e0d 6f62320b9e262&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... NY Times

In a world where not a day passes that we don't hear the word terrorist, it's important I believe, to attempt understanding the very thing that frightens us all no matter what part of the world we live in.
I may fear these people but I don't hate them. I hate the acts they commit but no more than the acts carried out by 'civilised societies' under sanction of the international community. Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism.
Is not the threat of starvation terrorism? Is not the holding back of vital necessities to maintain a healthy life terrorism?
We live in a world that steals from the poor to make life more comfortable for the rich. Is this not terrorism at it's most exquisite?
Our protocols are skewed, coercive and terrorist by nature. But, we are civilised and not at all like those 'terrorist.'
We don't turn ourselves into walking bombs. We slowly starve men, women and children to death. We condemn people to live in the streets even when there is no work to be found. We allow diseases long eradicated in most societies to ravage and kill. We countenance malevolent leaders when they serve our purpose. We aid them in the destruction of their own people.
Are any of us innocent? Our methods may be more subtle but their effects are just as deadly.
We are wealthy, greedy, and void of compassion. For those of us who believe in God these words are relevant...
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. Dianne

Listen

with the night falling we are saying thank you
we are stopping on the bridge to bow from the railings
we are running out of glass rooms
with our mouths full of food to look at the sky
and say thank you
we are standing by the water looking out
in different directions

back from a series of hospitals back from a mugging
after funerals we are saying thank you
after the news of the dead
whether or not we knew them we are saying thank you
in a culture up to its chin in shame
living in the stench it has chosen we are saying thank you

over telephones we are saying thank you
in doorways and in the backs of cars and in elevators
remembering warms and the police at the back door
and the beatings on stairs we are saying thank you

in the banks that use us we are saying thank you
with the crooks in office with the rich and fashionable
unchanged we go on saying thank you thank thank you

with the animals dying around us
our lost feelings we are saying thank you
with the forests falling faster than the minutes
of our lives we are saying thank you
with the words going out like cells of a brain
with the cities growing over us like the earth

we are saying thank you faster and faster
with nobody listening we are saying thank you
we are saying thank you and waving
dark though it is.

-W.S. Merwin

Lisa Hoffman - Scripps Howard News Service

Sleeping bags were a foot too short. Super-rugged laptop computers got so hot troops couldn't touch the keyboards. Indispensable batteries ran out. Armored vehicles tore through their tracks at a rate never seen before.

A year after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, the U.S. military is deep into its time-honored exercise of dissecting what did and didn't work in its prosecution of the war and the counter-insurgency that followed. The findings drive improvements in weapons, vehicles, gear and tactics - and some changes already are underway.

As "lessons learned" reports stack up at the Pentagon, here's a behind-the-scenes look at some of the nitty-gritty of the war from the perspective of those who fought it.

GEAR

Troops uniformly sang the praises of the four-pound ceramic plates in their Kevlar body armor, which casualty experts say saved scores from death. Even so, soldiers are devising their own improvements for the vests, using pieces of the Kevlar blankets that reinforce the inside of vehicles to fashion extra protection for their vulnerable shoulders and sides.

Soldiers took their own measures to rectify another universally noted annoyance by sewing new pockets on their uniform sleeves and pant fronts. The pockets on their camouflage shirts were virtually useless as they were blocked by the thigh holsters and carriers for chemical-biological masks that troops had to wear.

Troops also spent their own money to buy and ship commercial global positioning satellite devices, Motorola hand-held radios, rifle-slings, Coolmax T-shirts and weapon lubricants - all deemed better than what they were issued.

After realizing that the enemy was using garage-door openers and radio-controlled toy car transmitters to detonate roadside bombs, many troops had their families ship them the devices so they could trigger explosives before the bad guys could.

One of the biggest problems was a nearly disastrous shortage of the Army's all-purpose batteries, which power chemical-biological weapon alarms, Javelin missiles, radios, night-vision equipment, portable computers, satellite communications equipment and navigation systems.

When the war started, the Army had only about 100,000 of them in stock. That amounted to only one-third of the 300,000 that U.S. forces used during the first month of the war. Military logistics personnel scoured the world for all they could find, and battery manufacturers kicked into overdrive. The demand was met, but the Army says it came within days of running out, which would have stalled the push into Baghdad and put troops at great risk.

VEHICLES

Forget the whiz-bang, $2 million Stryker combat vehicle, which debuted in Iraq a few months ago. What the troops say they really need are armored Humvees and other everyday vehicles.

Because one of the most perilous places for GIs is on the road in a supply convoy, the troops say the biggest unmet need is for simple "gun trucks." Soldiers say they are sitting ducks in traditional trucks, which have neither armor nor weapons. Some are jerry-rigging machine-gun mounts and other protections on their trucks, but the danger continues.

To protect the trucks, the Army is sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M1 Abrams tanks on the road with convoys. This has triggered repair and supply crises, because neither vehicle was designed for such long, sustained use in an environment as punishing as Iraq.

One particular problem has been keeping the Bradleys fitted with the tracks on which they move. Normally, only about 67,000 Bradley tracks are needed by the Army in a year. But the first year of Iraq combat has required 480,000, a need the Army is trying to meet by working three shifts, seven days a week rebuilding old tracks. A commercial track producer also is on overdrive.

The Bradleys and tanks also proved less than ideal for urban combat, given that their gun barrels could not angle high enough to hit upper floors of Baghdad buildings.

WEAPONS

The most serious lesson the Army learned was that tens of thousands of support and supply soldiers were ill-trained for combat because, in traditional military doctrine, they were expected to stay far from enemy lines.

Overall, soldiers complained most that their M-16 rifles were too bulky, particularly for city combat, but praised their M4 assault rifles. Even more popular were XM107 sniper rifles, which one lessons-learned report dubbed "the most useful piece of equipment for the urban fight." Accurate even at long distances, the .50-caliber gun also cowed the enemy with its ferocious stopping power.

The once-vaunted Apache attack helicopters got bad grades for being too vulnerable to ground fire. The long-controversial Patriot anti-missile system successfully blasted enemy missiles from the sky, but also mistakenly shot down three coalition aircraft. The Global Hawk unmanned spy plane drew plaudits for facilitating the destruction of more than 300 Iraqi tanks.

So spectacular was the accuracy of precision-guided armaments in the war that the Pentagon's bombs were larger than they needed to be. With smaller bombs, collateral damage to people and property would be limited.

OPERATIONS AND TACTICS

Though they played down the problem at the time, Army brass now acknowledges the drive to Baghdad was so speedy that supply operations - because of logistic overloads - couldn't keep up. Spare parts, food, water, fuel and ammunition became so scarce that some troops had to scavenge the Iraqi countryside for provisions and equipment.

Compounding the logistics mess was the inability of the soldiers at the tip of the spear to get quick word to the supply chain about what precisely they needed. Radio communications were spotty, and some spare parts never even made it to where they were needed. An audit by the General Accounting Office estimated that more than $1 billion of supplies were simply lost.

"Friendly fire" was another dire problem, with more than 20 coalition deaths caused by mistaken attacks on U.S. and British aircraft and ground troops. Technical measures for identifying friendly forces failed at the task.

One of the biggest flops was the dropping of leaflets over Iraq in an attempt to convince Iraqi soldiers to surrender and regime leaders to turn themselves in. Millions of the colorful leaflets fluttered down across Iraq, but U.S. units reported that many of the Iraqi troops who got them didn't get the point of the propaganda.

Still, one of the first "kills" of the war came when a box of pamphlets accidentally fell from a U.S. warplane and hit an Iraqi soldier.

http://www.kfty.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=360AB03D- F881-4DA6-8B9E-AED1CD98E4 9E" title="http://www.kfty.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=360AB03D- F881-4DA6-8B9E-AED1CD98E4 9E" target="_blank"http://www.kfty.com/news/nati... KFTY

By Dinah Greek [10-03-2004]

Users of internet file sharing services risk having their homes raided by police after ratification of draconian digital rights management laws by the European Union.
Although the EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive was originally drafted to fight commercial counterfeiters, heavy lobbying from copyright holders resulted in the legislation being widened to include any copyright infringements.

The final wording of the law gives copyright owners sweeping powers which could be used to unleash the police on individuals using peer-to-peer sites.

Under the terms of the legislation movie studios and record companies will be able to gather evidence and prosecute anyone they believe may have infringed their copyright.

They will be able to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property which they believe are being abused or stolen.

Late amendments to the directive state that action should not be taken against individuals who download music "in good faith" for their own use.

But it is left to the copyright holders to decide what can be considered as good faith in music downloading.

Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, warned that the powers given to the industry are too great.

"They want to get the message across that file sharing is illegal, which it is, but is it right to give copyright holders the kind of powers normally held by police for criminal cases?" he said.

Although the directive has removed a broad proposal to slap criminal sanctions on private individuals who swap copyrighted files over the internet, it is being left to individual nations to determine whether to reintroduce criminal penalties.

Member states have to transpose the directive into their national statute books within two years.

The Recording Industry Association of America reported recently that CD shipments to retailers had plunged during 2003 by more than seven per cent.

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1153387" title="http://www.vnunet.com/News/1153387" target="_blank"http://www.vnunet.com/News/11... VNU

Iraq: Analysts Say Borders Are Lines In The Sand That Are Easily Crossed

Iraq's pre-eminent Shi'a cleric issued a religious decree today banning illegal entry into the country.

In the decree, seen by the French news agency AFP, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani says it is illegal to enter Iraq "other than by official border posts." He says it is also illegal "to take part in or profit from money made from smuggling."

Al-Sistani accused the U.S.-led administration in Iraq of failing to properly protect the country's borders following the devastating 2 March bombings in Baghdad and the holy Shi'a city of Karbala.

Following those attacks, the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the coalition would step up its efforts to strengthen the security of Iraq's borders. Speaking one day after the blasts, Bremer said: "We are strengthening border protection to counter [terrorism]. There are 8,000 border police on duty today and more are on the way. We are adding hundreds of vehicles and doubling border police staffing in selected areas. The United States has committed $60 million to support border security."

Bremer said it is "increasingly apparent" that "a large part of terrorism" comes from outside Iraq. The coalition blames foreign militants for this week's bombings, which killed at least 181 people and injured many more. The attacks happened during ceremonies marking Ashura, the highlight of the Shi'a religious calendar.

Controlling the country's borders will be a challenge. Iraq has a 1,500-kilometer land border with Iran, more than 800 kilometers of land border with Saudi Arabia, 600 kilometers with Syria, 350 kilometers with Turkey, and 180 kilometers with Kuwait. Most of Iraq's borders twist through desert or semi-desert regions.

Hiwa Othman is a coordinating editor of the British-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which recently investigated the situation on Iraq's borders. What they discovered, Othman says, is that Iraq's borders are virtually unpatrolled.

Speaking to RFE/RL from Baghdad, Othman says only Kurdish forces in the north are doing an adequate job of policing the border. "Iraq's borders are extremely porous from all sides. The Kurdish side of the border is mountainous and, again, it can be tough to control it, but in the north there are Kurdish forces. The Kurdish forces are indigenous to the area, and they are more equipped and more trained, basically, to keep the borders," he said.

Othman says Iraq's borders with Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are poorly guarded. He says he recently visited Iraq's borders with Kuwait and Syria and was shocked to see how easy it was to cross them.

After the Gulf War in 1991, Othman says Iraq's border with Kuwait was completely sealed. However, the situation radically changed last spring when U.S. troops invaded Iraq from Kuwait. "When the war happened, the U.S. Army opened nine gates in this completely sealed border for its troops to come in," he said. "They sent their troops, and they never bothered to close these gates down. So, these gates are completely open."

More http://www.rferl.org/features... RFE/RL

I'm so happy to see my home state, Louisiana, is getting behind Kerry. You can count on those French folks to know what's right. Laissez les bon temps roule! /Dianne

US Senator John Kerry has captured four more states in the latest contests to choose a Democratic presidential contender to challenge George W Bush.
Mr Kerry won by landslides in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Mr Bush's home state of Texas.

The results put Mr Kerry on the verge of officially securing his party's nomination for the November election.

Mr Kerry won decisively in all four states, including Florida, a key battleground in the November poll.

A strong showing in the south was crucial for Mr Kerry, after former Democratic candidate Al Gore failed to secure a single southern state in the 2000 election.

In the last election, Mr Bush beat Mr Gore by just 537 votes in Florida, awarding Mr Bush the presidency.

Mr Kerry said he expected to secure the party's nomination by winning the next primary in Illinois.

Victory next Tuesday would provide enough delegates to assure Mr Kerry's selection at the Democratic national convention in July.

On Sunday, Mr Kerry criticised Mr Bush for presiding over the loss of three million manufacturing jobs.

"After leaving a four-year trail of broken promises in every region of America, we know that Bush is running from his record because he doesn't have a record to run on," he told supporters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3497190.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3497190.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am... BBC

Not that this means anything. It's too bad the rest of the world can't cast a vote in the upcoming US presidential election. There's no doubt Bush would be going back to Texas. But, as one US citizen let me know quick smart, "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks."
A real Bush statement if I've ever heard one. Dianne

Kerry Reaches Out To World Where Support For Bush Is Ebbing Away

Ewen MacAskill, and Luke Harding in Berlin
Wednesday March 10, 2004

Shortly before Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, flew to Washington for talks with George Bush last month, a journalist asked if he was going to say goodbye to the president ahead of the US elections in November. Mr Schröder's adviser grinned broadly before composing his face into a frown. "I won't speculate on that," he said.
Although Mr Schröder deliberately avoided the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, during his two-day trip to the US, there is little doubt that a Kerry victory would provoke rejoicing inside Germany's government, as it would in many other parts of Europe, as well as Asia, Africa and Latin America.

This week Mr Kerry claimed that foreign leaders had told him they could not publicly offer him their support but added: "You've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy."

Hostility towards a second Bush term is generally assumed to be widespread throughout the world because of the Iraq war, the concept of pre-emptive strikes and bullying of small countries. On issues from the Kyoto agreement and the international criminal court to antipathy towards the UN, President Bush has alienated countries Washington would normally classify as allies.

Distress over Mr Bush's foreign policy is not confined to the world beyond the US. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll yesterday, 57% of Americans want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by the current leader.

Asked how much support Mr Bush had worldwide, Dana Allin, senior fellow for transatlantic affairs at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: "Not a lot. There is a conventional wisdom about US elections for foreign policy: that the incumbent is always preferred because of [established] relations and predictability. This is an election where that pattern is broken. There is a perception, for better or worse, that there has been a departure from the tradition of American foreign policy."

Continue Reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/int...,3604,1165973,00.html Guardian

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL - March 4, 2004
Bob Miller, a registered Republican shocked his fellow song writers at their annual conference this week with his most unexpected political opinions. Miller said, "With the backbone of the Democratic Party, William Jefferson Clinton, out of the way and the Bush Storm Troopers in place, democracy took the day off. Then this war-for-profit crew moved forward with their plans as if world opinions were irrelevant."

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse, as Miller continued, "Now that the moment of glory has passed and the long years of blood, sweat and tears are upon us, they will yet again -- according to plan -- take their spoils and move on, leaving the rest of us to bury the dead and balance the checkbook."

After taking a drink (presumably of water) Miller said, "Think about it... $30 million dollars and instant naturalization given to an Arab who provided the whereabouts of Saddam's sons in order that Bush, Blair and the major armed forces of the world could at least find someone or something, if not WMD."

"I am grateful for the many invitations to join the Democratic Party, but Ill stick it out here. I mean, how could it possibly get any worse than having the second most hated man to live in the last 200 years as your candidate?"

There were no hecklers, but then most everyone appeared speechless except Miller, "I'm not campaigning against a fellow Republican. The truth is; Bush does not represent the Republican Party or any other party for that matter. He represents the Bush dynasty. Is it not bad enough that another four years of his dictatorship will produce yet more unemployed, homeless and demoralized Americans?"

"Can we also risk having to cope with his uncontrollable ego? The leadership of this father and son team can be critiqued using a term that epitomizes their presidencies: Collateral Damage. Clearly, America's integrity and economy fall into this category when they clash with the prosperity of Bush and his accomplices."

http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_04_0304- bobmiller.shtml" title="http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_04_0304- bobmiller.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.send2press.com/PRn...

March 10, 2004 By John Janney

Besides the question of taste, one particularly important issue regarding the Bush campaign's use of imagery from the 9-11 tragedy is the Bush administration's pattern of breaking promises.

For example, the Bush campaign promised they would not use the tragedy of 9-11 for political gain after catching sharp criticisms for raising funds by selling copies of a photograph of President Bush taken just hours after the infamous terrorists' attacks. They unrepentantly reneged, but that is only one small sample of Bush's pattern.

During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush repeatedly expressed revulsion against racial profiling. During his administration, Bush has practiced gross racial and religious profiling to the tune of thousands of individuals detained for the crime of being Muslim or Arab. The Bush regime raided dozens of homes of Muslim activists and shut down the three most successful Muslim charities without any due process of law or a shred of evidence to support any claims of wrong-doing.

During the second presidential debate of 2000, candidate Bush said, "I don't want to federalize the local police forces." During his administration, Bush's creation of the Department of Homeland Security has moved our law enforcement in the very direction he claimed to oppose, and the proposed CLEAR Act, along with other troubling legislation, will move us further in this dangerous direction.

In this same debate, Bush voiced strong opposition to U.S. involvement in nation-building. In his time in office, he has turned U.S. troops into occupying forces of Afghanistan and Iraq with clear nation-building agendas that have failed miserably thus far. His administration's support of the military coup in Venezuela is another embarrassing example.

Bush also stated during this debate that he "wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile." Now we are witnessing Bush's military machine occupying Haiti after supporting a military coup to oust the leftist Aristide.

Bush promised reforms to the American healthcare system, but his rule in Washington has produced over 40 million uninsured Americans who are more afraid of getting sick than getting attacked by terrorists. His insistence that our healthcare system must remain private to maintain quality is a statement against reality and further establishes your life as just another market for corporate exploitation.

To say the administration's predictions on employment and economic growth have come up short would be the understatement of the century. Bush's tax cuts are not helping the economy, and the breadcrumbs he threw to millions of taxpayers have created economic indigestion in the forms of higher energy bills, higher tuition and increasing healthcare costs. Bush's claims of new job creation fail to mention that many of these jobs are created overseas or that the overseas labor market competition is driving the wage level downward as cost of living expenses in America are driven upward.

Bush boasts about passing the No Child Left Behind Act and promised this legislation would bring forth fruits of educational progress. In reality, funding for this initiative has been left behind by his administration and the promised fruits have yet to show any signs of ripening.

Candidate Bush promised to reduce the national debt. As president, Bush has brought the national debt to its highest point in history. He also claimed the ability to bring Democrats and Republicans together, but his shrewd tricks of fraudulently fear mongering politicians into obedience has backfired and created the most politically divided America we have seen in decades.

Bush promises many things and fails to deliver in most cases. In fact, with the exception of big business, anyone to whom Bush promises anything will eventually receive the opposite and feel burned by this hideous process.

Soon, it will be time to thank Bush for his consistent pattern of performance.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1808" title="http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1808" target="_blank"http://www.yellowtimes.org/ar... YellowTimes

I've had to edit and re-post my most recent articles for Mozilla users. I've only had 2 so far and I thank them for letting me know of the problem. The minority matters..love the opportunity to say this. :)
The archived articles I will have to leave as is as there are just too many of them. Oh well, it's just a blog. But, if anyone is interested in a particular article just let me know and I'll fix it.

I can't help myself. I have to say it again and again. All the hoopla over France's racism problem, a country smaller than Texas, can not hope to beat the US record on racist activities. If you don't believe me just read the US News.
This man is obviously one of those radical, religious, nationalist that will be voting for Bush. Be afraid...be very afraid..[i]Dianne[/i]

[b]Muslim Girl Scouts Harassed in Virginia[/b]

WASHINGTON, March 6 /PRNewswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on law enforcement authorities to investigate an incident in which a group of Muslim Girl Scouts in Virginia was allegedly harassed by a man who accused them of waging "violent jihad."

The six Girl Scout Brownies and Juniors were selling cookies outside a Giant grocery store in Herndon, Va., on Saturday when a man began verbally harassing the girls and their two troop leaders, saying "Jesus saves" and trying to get them to take a religious tract with a picture of the burning World Trade Center on the cover. He also referred to what he called the troop's "false lord."

After repeatedly asking the man to stop his harassing behavior, which was frightening the girls, one troop leader told him she would call the police. The man then allegedly said: "You are being a true Muslim, waging violent jihad." Some of the girls, and the troop leader who said she would call the police, were wearing Islamic head scarves, or hijab, along with their Girl Scout uniforms.
Police were called to the scene, but did not take action against the man.


"American Muslim children should be able to take part in public activities without fear of harassment or religious intimidation," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. "We call on local and national law enforcement authorities to look into the case to determine whether this man constitutes a real threat to the Muslim community." The troop leader filed a formal complaint with the Herndon Police Department.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/s tory/PRNEWS/20040306/2004 _03_06_17_4016_1104371" title="http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/s tory/PRNEWS/20040306/2004 _03_06_17_4016_1104371" target="_blank"http://www.globeinvestor.com/... Globe Investor

Anger is growing in the "Ariane", Nice's least attractive suburb. Leïla Shahid, spokeswoman of the Palestinian Authority in France, has been touring France, holding in all major cities conference/debates with Israeli writer Michel Warschawski and French journalist Dominique Vidal. In each case the formula is: one evening conference in a well-known downtown location, and one afternoon one in the high-immigration quarters. For Nice, 3 meetings had been scheduled, 2 in the Ariane, and an evening one at the Mediteranean University Center on the Promenade des Anglais. At the very last moment both the Ariane meetings were cancelled without any explanation to the 12000 residents. "In our entire tour of France, this is the first time something like this happens" says Leïla Shahid, totally baffled.

Where did the orders of cancellation come from? In both cases, it seems nobody knows. Several people in the know said to Libération they were unable to speak out "in fear of reprisals". On that very day, at 5pm, the Ariane's population was invited to debate in the just completed new Django-Reinhardt socio-cultural center. 6 days before, an association well established in the area had applied with the municipal authorities to reserve the center's hall. Their request was turned down. Explanation from Pierre Tramoni, director of the mayor's office (Jacques Peyrat, former Front National member, now with the UMP, is the mayor): "the aim of the center is not to hold meetings of a political nature. Besides it would raise very serious safety/security issues". "Bull!" says someone close to the Prefet, "the Préfecture had it known the police was ready to assure the safety/security of the meeting". As to the purpose of the center, why not have proposed the association another venue? "the only other place would have been the Lino-Ventura theater", answers Pierre Tramoni, "but I'm not sure it is possible to hold there meetings of a political nature either".

The second meeting between Leïla Shahid and the young people of the Ariane was scheduled at the Maurice-jaubert college. "We had prepared this meeting for 2 weeks with our students, and the Academy Inspector had given his ok", says teacher Gérard Chevalier. "Untrue" claims Dominique Maíssa, principal, "I had informed the Academy inspector, who had not made a decision. I realized, 2 days before the arrival of Mrs Shahid, that the school is not the place for a political debate." Did Dominique Maissa really take alone the decision to cancel the meeting? According to our sources, it appears the Leïla Shahid affair was closely monitored by not only the Recteur de l'académie, but by the Minister of Education: "we have been alerted by several organizations, the CRIF among others" [CRIF = council representing jewish institutions in France] explains a spokesman of the Luc Ferry ministry. "Faced with a meeting which appeared very undesirable, we asked the recteur to deal with the issue directly with the college".

Apart from the pressures coming from the ministry (of education), Jean-Marie Carbasse, recteur of the Alpes-Maritimes, also dealt with 2 interventions: the local CRIF (in a "département" counting 40 000 Jews), and Rudy Salles, the powerful UDF député of the Ariane and also president of the France-Israel friendship group at the National Assembly. Asked by the Libération, jean-marie Cabasse denies having intervened in order to cancel the meeting, but admits to have telephoned the principal to "encourage him in this avenue".

For Leïla Shaid, this is all the more regretable since she was coming to the Ariane to bring a peace message, as she has been in all high-immigration towns.
"I always tell the young people they are mistaken in who their real enemy is when they think attacking French Jews, their schools and their synagogs, is a way of supporting the Palestinian cause. To regard French Jews in general as ambassadors of Israel is just as stupid as seeing all French Muslims as Ben Ladens in the waiting."

The consequences are a disaster for the Ariane. Next day, the CRIF of Nice published a communiqué boasting of its victory. A teacher's comment: "when our area is seeing an increasing anti-semite trend, how are our young people going to interpret the intervention of the CRIF to prevent a respected Palestinian figure from coming here?". The consequences didn't take long to manifest themselves. While in the previous weeks, strong reticences against an organized expedition for young people to Auschwitz had at last been overcome (trip financed by the Conseil General and with the CRIF's pedagogic support), parents are now refusing to send their children. In Wednesday Nice-Matin's editorial, Mahjoub Malouane, representing the FCPE of students' parents at Maurice-Jaubert, says: "since the school must stay secular, with no religious or political connotations, we are now opposed to this expedition, just because the CRIF is directly involved in it". Leïla Shahid adds: "the problem is the national policies of the CRIF [presided for the last 3 years by Roger Cukierman] is far too radical".

http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=182209" title="http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=182209" target="_blank"http://www.liberation.com/pag... Liberation (French) Translation by Philippe Maire

Since my tagboard isn't getting any notice and I like it so much..it's kind of like a blog within a blog I decided to find a use for it. If you're interested in picking up a little french check the tagboard everyday. I will add a new word every morning, France time. This will be a useful tool for me as well as anyone else who's interested.
If you speak french please speak to me using french on the tagboard. Please make it short. :) This should be fun. Hope to see you there.

"There is little doubt that U.S. policies on the detention of terrorism suspects—both in Afghanistan and elsewhere—have harmed public opinion of the United States around the world, and have damaged some of its efforts in building a coalition to combat international terrorism."

One concern is that if the U.S. defies international standards of human rights, it loses the little credibility it retains in the world today. Brad Adams, again:

"Abusive governments across the world can now point to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and say, 'If they can abuse human rights and get away with it, why can't we?"

http://motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/0 3/03_513.html" title="http://motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/0 3/03_513.html" target="_blank"http://motherjones.com/news/d... MotherJones

Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars

Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind

Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!

Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism

Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.

Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a time.

Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.

Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism

Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.

Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.

Bush/Cheney '04: Asses of Evil

Bush/Cheney '04: "You're either with us or against us!"

Bush/Cheney '04: Apocalypse Now!

Bush/Cheney '04: Assimilate. Resistance is Futile.

Bush/Cheney '04: Get used to it!

Bush/Cheney '04: In your heart, you know they're technically correct.

Bush/Cheney '04: Less CIA -- More CYA

Bush/Cheney '04: Or else.

Bush/Cheney '04: The economy's stupid!

Bush/Cheney '04: Won't get fooled again!

Bush/Cheney '04: 1984

Bush/Cheney '04:"Because I'm President, that's why!"

Bush/Cheney '04: "The check's in the mail!

Bush/Cheney '04:"I has incumbentory advantitude!"

Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

Bush/Cheney '04: We're gooder!

Bush/Cheney '04: "With a Bush, a Dick and a Colon, everyone gets screwed."

Bush/Cheney '04:"My daughters like me when they're drunk."

Don't think. Vote Bush!

God Save the King!

Let them eat yellowcake! Vote Bush!

Peace & Prosperity Suck -- Big-Time

Reselect Bush/Cheney in '04

Vote for Bush & You Get Dick!

George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency

George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There

George W. Bush: Honest as his day is long

George W. Bush: Leadership without a doubt

George W. Bush: It Takes a Village Idiot.

Reselect Bush/Cheney in '04

[b]Dr Seuss For Modern Times[/b]

The Whos down in Whoville liked people a lot,
But the Grinch in the White House most certainly did not.
He didn't arrive there by the will of the Whos,
But stole the election that he really did lose.
Vowed to "rule from the middle," then installed his regime.
(Did this really happen, or is it just a bad dream?)

He didn't listen to voters, just his friends he was pleasin'
Now, please don't ask why, who knows what's the reason.
It could be his heart wasn't working just right.
It could be, perhaps, that he wasn't too bright.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
Is that both brain and heart were two sizes too small.
In times of great turmoil, this was bad news,
To have a government that ignores its Whos.

But the Whos shrugged their shoulders, went on with their work,
Their duties as citizens so casually did shirk.
They shopped at the mall and watched their T.V.
They drove a gas guzzling big S.U.V.,
Oblivious to what was going on in D.C.,
Ignoring the threats to democracy.

They read the same papers that ran the same leads,
Reporting what only served corporate needs.
(For the policies affecting the lives of all nations
Were made by the giant U.S. Corporations.)
Big business grew fatter, fed by its own greed,
And by people who shopped for the things they didn't need.

But amidst all the apathy came signs of unrest,
The Whos came to see we were fouling our nest.
And the people who cared for the ideals of this nation
Began to discuss and exchange information:
The things they couldn't read, in the corporate-owned news,
Of FTAA meetings and CIA coups,
Of drilling for oil and restricting rights.
They published some books, created Websites,
Began to write letters, and use their e-mail
(Though Homeland Security might send them to jail!)

What began as a whisper soon grew to a roar,
These things going on they could no longer ignore.
They started to rise up and reach out to all
Let their voices be heard, they rose to the call,
To vote, to petition, to gather, dissent,
To question the policies of the "President."

As greed gained in power and power knew no shame
The Whos came together, sang "Not in our name!"
One by one from their sleep and their slumber they woke
The old and the young, all kinds of folk,
The black, brown and white, the gay, bi- and straight,
All united to sing, "Feed our hope, not our hate!
Stop stockpiling weapons and aiming for war!
Stop feeding the rich, start feeding the poor!
Stop storming the deserts to fuel SUV's!
Stop telling us lies on the mainstream T.V.'s!
Stop treating our children as a market to sack!
Stop feeding them Barney, Barbie and Big Mac!
Stop trying to addict them to lifelong consuming,
In a time when severe global warming is looming!
Stop sanctions that are killing the kids in Iraq!
Start dealing with ours that are strung out on crack!"

A mighty sound started to rise and to grow,
"The old way of thinking simply must go!
Enough of God versus Allah, Muslim vs. Jew
With what lies ahead, it simply won't do.
No American dream that cares only for wealth
Ignoring the need for community health.

The rivers and forests are demanding their pay,
If we're to survive, we must walk a new way.
No more excessive and mindless consumption
Let's sharpen our minds and garner our gumption.
For the ideas are simple, but the practice is hard,
And not to be won by a poem on a card.
It needs the ideas and the acts of each Who,
So let's get together and plan what to do!"

And so they all gathered from all 'round the Earth
And from it all came a miraculous birth.
The hearts and the minds of the Whos they did grow,
Three sizes to fit what they felt and they know.
While the Grinches they shrank from their hate and their greed,
Bearing the weight of their every foul deed.

From that day onward the standard of wealth,
Was whatever fed the Whos spiritual health.
They gathered together to revel and feast,
And thanked all who worked to conquer their beast.
For although our story pits Grinches 'gainst Whos,
The true battle lies in what we daily choose.
For inside each Grinch is a tiny small Who,
And inside each Who is a tiny Grinch too.
One thrives on love and one thrives on greed.
Who will win out? It depends who you feed!

Carl Whitmarsh

[b]Are those dirty US fingerprints on Aristide's ouster?[/b]

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

NEW YORK – If the circumstances weren't so calamitous, the US-orchestrated removal of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haiti would be farcical. According to Mr. Aristide, US officials in Port-au-Prince told him that rebels were on the way to the presidential residence and that he and his family were unlikely to survive unless they immediately boarded an American-chartered plane standing by to take them to exile. The US made it clear, he said, that it would provide no protection for him at the official residence, despite the ease with which this could have been arranged.
Indeed, says Aristide's lawyer, the US blocked reinforcement of Aristide's own security detail and refused him entry to the airplane until he signed a letter of resignation.

Then Aristide was denied access to a phone for nearly 24 hours and knew nothing of his destination until he was summarily deposited in the Central African Republic. But this Keystone Kops coup has apparently not worked entirely according to plan: Aristide used a cellphone to notify the world that he was forcibly removed from Haiti. The US dismisses Aristide's charges as ridiculous. Secretary of State Colin Powell's official version of the events is a blanket denial based on the government's word alone. In essence, Washington is telling us not to look back, only forward. This stonewalling brings to mind Groucho Marx's old line, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Continue Reading http://www.csmonitor.com/2004...
CS Monitor

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz saw first hand the risk of the policy that he helped to fashion. Baghdad is starting to resemble Jerusalem with reoccurring bombing on a scale that scatters any myth that Iraq is improving. As the colonial occupation continues, reminders of why the U.S. is garrisoned in the Middle East are becoming all too frequent. Does any public official ever learn or will it take the franchising of the Rashid Hotel on domestic soil to drive the point home?

Normal Americans are subjected to a countless bombardment of rhetoric that the justification for a permanent war on terror is once again proven with each car explosion. Since the dust has settled from the removal of the World Trade Center, the planning for rebuilding on that site proceeds, while little effort is addressed as to the fundamental reasons why the events of 911 became a nightmare. The tragedy did not just befall those who perished, but extends to every citizen who fears for the future of their country and the well being of their families.

Mainstream conservatives have succumbed to a “silence syndrome”. A serious national debate on the merits of a foreign policy that has turned most of the world against our country has never taken place. The enemy from within are protected while any foreigners that objects to imperial invasion are placed in the same lot as suspected terrorists. The price of continued upheaval is never seen as a result of flawed reasoning and failed objectives. All we get is that there is no point in understanding why they hate us, they just want to kill us and destroy our way of life.

If this nonsense really had merit, a mature society should have the courage for concerted self reflection. Despite efforts from those who believe that the conscience of our Republic demands a methodical re-evaluation in the role of international nation building, the cries of defending our national interests is all we get from government officials. The case for concrete benefits for average taxpaying citizens has never been made.

The only justification that comes out of the mouths of establishment supporters is that the administration, (under either party) is under attack and deserves the support of the populace. Are dissenters only talking among themselves or have the vast majority just stopped thinking for themselves? Paranoia is a condition of suspicion, distrust and fear. Should we really be more afraid of future attacks or are our apprehensions far more realistic that further interventionism is the root cause of the turmoil that is of our own making?

Continue reading
http://www.politics.com/archives/2003/11/14/p aranoia_is_home_spun.html" title="http://www.politics.com/archives/2003/11/14/p aranoia_is_home_spun.html" target="_blank"http://www.politics.com/archi... Politics.com

NEW YORK — ''Mister Vice President, you say you support President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, but your own daughter is a lesbian, and if she wanted to marry, what would you say?"

''I'm glad you asked me that, Richard, even though I was asked more or less the same question when I appeared on cable news outlets the other day. As you know, I love my daughter and want her to be happy. This is very tough and I ask that her private life and my own private life be respected."

''Understood, sir. But we are, after all, talking about the private lives of other people. You once said marriage should be left to the states, and now you say you support the president. Isn't there a contradiction here?"

''On the surface, maybe, Richard. But I think everyone knows by now not to take what I say at face value. After all, I said Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, and we now know that it had none whatsoever. I mean, I say what I think I have to say and everyone understands that."

''So you disagree with the president?"

''I don't agree or disagree. When we have our same-sex weekly lunches — no staff, just the two of us — I mostly nod and he mostly smiles and then we have desert. We both understand what's going on. It's about the base. It's about social conservatives. You know, fundamentalist Christians and the like. We're just showing them that we're on their side. We share their values."

''Feel their pain?"

''In a manner of speaking. But — and this is important — we don't really care about this whole issue. It's a non-starter. A no-winner. And it's not going anywhere."

''Really and truly, sir?"

''Look, Schwarzenegger has come out against it. Sort of. He said it would be fine with him if California law was changed to permit same-sex marriage. He's not immensely popular for nothing. He's got his finger on the pulse of the people. Important Republican members of the Congress are also opposed to a constitutional amendment. Orrin Hatch is opposed. Hatch is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This thing is a dead letter."

''So this is just politics at its most cynical?"

''You could call it that. I call it being true to your core principle — getting re-elected. But in truth, no real conservative, and I count myself one, could like this amendment. In the first place, it has the federal government do what the states ought to — and that's no good. But just as important, these gays and lesbians who want to marry are really true conservatives. I mean, you look at some of them — they've been together 30, 40, 50 years. Those are conservative values."

Continue reading http://www.goerie.com/apps/pb... GoErie

Just thought I would spread a little peace.
Don't leave without saying hello on my
tagboard. Leave your url also. :)