soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Want More Bush? Elect McCain - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/18c0a818bffc666a
* US Propaganda Campaign Hypes al Qaeda Role in Iraq - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c1675d6b150b302e
* McClellan Gets Peppered on Iran, Libby - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6eba5ed201aaba97
* Yes, He Would (Krugman) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f67e9f1dfd8070a2
* May 1 Coalition Rally and march - Union Sq NYC 5/1 4pm - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2ef1cf6a06bef17e
* Bolivarian revolution advances with seizure of oil fields - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/10435aa2612001a0
* US Military Secrets for Sale at Afghan Bazaar - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe57c3f9c185ac5c
* Lying and Cheating - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/946d371884a808ac
* Israel Mum on Inquest into Journalist's Murder - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c3b327351232bf65
* The McCain Mutiny - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/0c516ad939cdd147
* Will Democrats Ever Break with Bush? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/77be01120f287930
* Exit Strategy? Bush Promises More Troops for Iraq - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b573b6c9883eb69f
* Thanks, Bush: Drug prices for US elderly up 6% in 2005 - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/54ca6c3e88511f2c
* The Browning of America: Protests Show Immigant Clout - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fb4d83def35cbb0c
* Bush Regime "Secretly Plans Airstrikes" on Iran - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c6e6d021ea2e0733
* Target Iran: US hints at a new battlefront - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/268ddebc451526aa
* Thousands in US Turn Out for Immig Protests - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9e165ef44566e783
* Another New Poll, Another New Low for Bush - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2f138ab39fc105e6
* National immigration marches kick off in Georgia - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ddb70ce6ee43b2ae
* Drug War: Don't Let Congress Poison People - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/464516374e077c54
* Final Call: Why Does the US Govt Hate Cuba? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe6a5d4215e645b2
* House Majority Leader rejects guest worker plan - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/be3b3d70c98c8e78
* Iran, Arab Roles in Peace Talks Urged - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c7685182f07af304
* INDIANA CITY CONSIDERS BUSH IMPEACHMENT - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2971abc818ddba44
* Gitmo Gulag: Tribunal Lawyers Trade Shots - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/72cdb900f8f83ffe
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Want More Bush? Elect McCain
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/18c0a818bffc666a
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Want More Bush? Elect McCain
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Hearst Newspapers via Truthout - Apr 9, 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040906G.shtml
Want More Bush? Elect McCain
By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers
Washington - In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential
nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.
The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican
presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on
television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an
opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.
All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his
image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to
the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's
primaries and caucuses two years hence.
McCain's focus is on Southern states where he will have to show
his dedication to the conservatives who dominate the GOP. He was
scheduled to be the main speaker at the Lincoln Day dinner in
Lakeland, Fla., on Saturday. Later this spring, he will deliver the
commencement address at Liberty University at Lynchburg, Va., the
school founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell.
Falwell has indicated there are still some bridges to mend with
McCain, who had called Falwell "an agent of intolerance" in his
first bid for the presidency in 2000.
Although Falwell has not endorsed McCain, he has said that the
senator "could be the GOP's best hope" if Sen. Hillary Clinton is
nominated to head the Democratic ticket in 2008.
Falwell also says McCain is in the process of "healing the
breach with evangelical groups."
Asked to explain his change of attitude toward the evangelist
on "Meet the Press" Sunday, McCain said: "I believe that the
Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party.
One reason (that) is so is because they're so active and their
followers are. And I believe they have a right to be part of our
party."
McCain also has gone out of his way to cozy up to President
Bush after their bitter rift in the 2000 presidential campaign.
McCain has said he does not look back in anger at old political
battles. That's wise - he's going to need Bush's backing in a
presidential bid.
McCain also has taken other stands that should put him in good
with Southern conservatives. Hailing from a military family - his
father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy - he is a strong
supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and believes the
number of US troops there should be beefed up.
He is against abortion rights and gun-control laws and believes
students should be taught the religion-oriented "intelligent
design" theory of creation as well as the theory of scientific
evolution.
His painful experience as a POW during the Vietnam War led him
to buck the White House on the question of using torture to
interrogate detainees and prisoners of war. Despite White House
opposition, he triumphed with a 90-9 Senate vote on his
anti-torture amendment to the defense appropriations bill.
Well, almost.
In signing the bill, the president issued a statement that
under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, he did
not have to abide by the anti-torture amendment. This is a dubious
claim of presidential power that should be challenged.
McCain's political record is not entirely pristine. He was a
member of the so-called Keating Five - five senators linked to
Charles Keating in the savings and loan scandals in 1991. But a
special investigator found that McCain had not been substantially
involved in influence peddling but criticized him and three others
for "questionable conduct."
That searing experience may explain why McCain has been an avid
advocate of campaign finance reform.
With his "hail fellow well met" persona and tendency to jaw
with the media and pundits in the back of the campaign bus, he has
created the impression in some quarters that he is a "moderate."
Forget it. His voting record speaks for itself.
McCain is working hard to prove his staunch conservative
credentials as he woos the far right in his party.
If he wins the presidency, the country can expect a
continuation of Bush's aggressive foreign policy and ultra-right
domestic programs.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRApwyAJ9waga3Xqkwpdm/P76dlDw4VzmSqACff6bM
5jVUlrgq+Vd9QxwTVz6ao3M=
=Ivsa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US Propaganda Campaign Hypes al Qaeda Role in Iraq
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c1675d6b150b302e
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
US Propaganda Campaign Hypes al Qaeda Role in Iraq
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Washington Post via Truthout - 10 April 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006J.shtml
Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi
Jordanian painted as foreign threat to Iraq's stability.
By Thomas E. Ricks
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to
magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to
internal military documents and officers familiar with the program.
The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military
intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance
and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization
responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The documents state that the U.S. campaign aims to turn Iraqis
against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their
perceived dislike of foreigners. U.S. authorities claim some
success with that effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents
have attacked Zarqawi loyalists.
For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using
Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's
role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S.
Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda
campaign.
Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may
have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has
included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet
postings and at least one leak to an American journalist. Although
Zarqawi and other foreign insurgents in Iraq have conducted deadly
bombing attacks, they remain "a very small part of the actual
numbers," Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence
officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq
intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told
an Army meeting at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last summer.
In a transcript of the meeting, Harvey said, "Our own focus on
Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will - made him more
important than he really is, in some ways."
"The long-term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists,
but these former regime types and their friends," said Harvey, who
did not return phone calls seeking comment on his remarks.
There has been a running argument among specialists in Iraq
about how much significance to assign to Zarqawi, who spent seven
years in prison in Jordan for attempting to overthrow the
government there. After his release he spent time in Pakistan and
Afghanistan before moving his base of operations to Iraq. He has
been sentenced to death in absentia for planning the 2002
assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. U.S.
authorities have said he is responsible for dozens of deaths in
Iraq and have placed a $25 million bounty on his head.
Recently there have been unconfirmed reports of a possible rift
between Zarqawi and the parent al-Qaeda organization that may have
resulted in his being demoted or cut loose. Last week, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that it was unclear what was
happening between Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. "It may be that he's not
being fired at all, but that he is being focused on the military
side of the al-Qaeda effort and he's being asked to leave more of a
political side possibly to others, because of some disagreements
within al-Qaeda," he said.
The military's propaganda program largely has been aimed at
Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One
briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq,
prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander
in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets
of the American side of the war.
That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not
specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the
effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there
were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views
of the war. One slide in the same briefing, for example, noted that
a "selective leak" about Zarqawi was made to Dexter Filkins, a New
York Times reporter based in Baghdad. Filkins's resulting article,
about a letter supposedly written by Zarqawi and boasting of
suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the Times front page on Feb. 9,
2004.
Leaks to reporters from U.S. officials in Iraq are common, but
official evidence of a propaganda operation using an American
reporter is rare.
Filkins, reached by e-mail, said that he was not told at the
time that there was a psychological operations campaign aimed at
Zarqawi, but said he assumed that the military was releasing the
letter "because it had decided it was in its best interest to have
it publicized." No special conditions were placed upon him in being
briefed on its contents, he said. He said he was skeptical about
the document's authenticity then, and remains so now, and so at the
time tried to confirm its authenticity with officials outside the
U.S. military.
"There was no attempt to manipulate the press," Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman when the propaganda
campaign began in 2004, said in an interview Friday. "We trusted
Dexter to write an accurate story, and we gave him a good scoop."
Another briefing slide states that after U.S. commanders
ordered that the atrocities of Saddam Hussein's government be
publicized, U.S. psychological operations soldiers produced a video
disc that not only was widely disseminated inside Iraq, but also
was "seen on Fox News."
U.S. military policy is not to aim psychological operations at
Americans, said Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the
U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003. "It is ingrained in
U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it," said
Treadwell. He said he left Iraq before the Zarqawi program began
but was later told about it.
"When we provided stuff, it was all in Arabic," and aimed at
the Iraqi and Arab media, said another military officer familiar
with the program, who spoke on background because he is not
supposed to speak to reporters.
But this officer said that the Zarqawi campaign "probably
raised his profile in the American press's view."
With satellite television, e-mail and the Internet, it is
impossible to prevent some carryover from propaganda campaigns
overseas into the U.S. media, said Treadwell, who is now director
of a new project at the U.S. Special Operations Command that
focuses on "trans-regional" media issues. Such carryover is "not
blowback, it's bleed-over," he said. "There's always going to be a
certain amount of bleed-over with the global information
environment."
The Zarqawi program was not related to another effort, led by
the Lincoln Group, a U.S. consulting firm, to place pro-U.S.
articles in Iraq newspapers, according to the officer familiar with
the program who spoke on background.
It is difficult to determine how much has been spent on the
Zarqawi campaign, which began two years ago and is believed to be
ongoing. U.S. propaganda efforts in Iraq in 2004 cost $24 million,
but that included extensive building of offices and residences for
troops involved, as well as radio broadcasts and distribution of
thousands of leaflets with Zarqawi's face on them, said the officer
speaking on background.
The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal
military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia
response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed
three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference
to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily
to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and
"PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work.
One internal briefing, produced by the U.S. military
headquarters in Ira?, said that Kimmitt had concluded that, "The
Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign
to date."
Kimmitt is now the senior planner on the staff of the Central
Command that directs operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle
East.
In 2003 and 2004, he coordinated public affairs, information
operations and psychological operations in Iraq - though he said in
an interview the internal briefing must be mistaken because he did
not actually run the psychological operations and could not speak
for them.
Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to
raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the
Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."
A goal of the campaign was to drive a wedge into the insurgency
by emphasizing Zarqawi's terrorist acts and foreign origin, said
officers familiar with the program.
"Through aggressive Strategic Communications, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi now represents: Terrorism in Iraq/Foreign Fighters in
Iraq/Suffering of Iraqi People (Infrastructure Attacks)/Denial of
Iraqi Aspirations," the same briefing asserts.
Officials said one indication that the campaign worked is that
over the past several months, there have been reports that Iraqi
tribal insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists, especially in
the culturally conservative province of Anbar. "What we're finding
is indeed the people of al-Anbar - Fallujah and Ramadi,
specifically - have decided to turn against terrorists and foreign
fighters," Maj. Gen Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman in
Baghdad, said in February.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRArKDAKCLMv4JQWiPm2xIyQCkMxHE2zONRACgn7j+
EIRsFY/lCxJwgc9u5e+4mz0=
=RZGl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: McClellan Gets Peppered on Iran, Libby
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6eba5ed201aaba97
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
McClellan Gets Peppered on Iran, Libby
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
TPM Muckraker via Truthout - 10 April 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006B.shtml
McClellan Gets Peppered On Iran, Libby, Et Al.
By Josh Marshall
In this morning's White House press 'gaggle', Helen Thomas got
things started with a simple question. "Is the U.S. going to attack
Iran?"
Transcript:
Question: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?
Scott McClellan: It is now your turn.
Question: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?
Scott McClellan: Helen, we're pursing a diplomatic solution by
working with the international community. I assume you're referring
to some of the media reports. Some of the media reports I've seen,
which are based on anonymous outside advisors and former officials,
appear to me to be based on people that do not know the
administration's thinking. I think it is a lot of wild speculation.
We are working with the international community, particularly the
EU-3, to pursue a diplomatic solution to a serious and growing
concern.
Question: Does the President think that the American people
would accept any kind of an attack on Iran?
Scott McClellan: Now you're engaging in the wild speculation I
just talked about. Look, those who are seeking to draw broad
conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are
misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's
thinking. The international community is united in its concern
about the regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and that's
why we are working with the international community to prevent that
from happening. And we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic
way.
Question: Would the President consult with Congress before -
Scott McClellan: Helen, I'm not going to engage in all this
wild speculation. No President takes options off the table, but our
focus is on working with the international community to find a
diplomatic solution.
Question: Scott, what does that mean, "normal military
contingency planning"?
Scott McClellan: Well, if you want to talk to the Pentagon, you
can talk to them about it further. I'm not going to get into
discussing it further.
Question: So you're basically just not denying that there's
military planning relating to Iran?
Scott McClellan: This is hyped up reporting based on anonymous
sources and a lot of wild speculation.
Question: Well, why is it so wild -
Scott McClellan: Our focus is very clear. We are working with
the international community to find a diplomatic solution.
Question: But you also have left open the other possibility of
military action.
Scott McClellan: I told you where our focus is, and I told you-
Question: I know where your focus is.
Scott McClellan: - that no President takes options off the
table. But our focus is on finding a diplomatic solution.
Question: But why would you even attack Iran?
Scott McClellan: How many more times I can tell you I'm not
going to engage in all that wild speculation, Helen.
Question: Exactly when does it start? (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: We've said multiple times - we've said
multiple times that Iran is not Iraq.
Question: Do you have a reaction to Senator Specter's request
that the President and Vice President speak more fully about their
role in declassifying the NIE prior to July 18th?
Scott McClellan: Well, there is an ongoing legal proceeding and
investigation. We want to make sure that we don't do anything to
jeopardize due process and a fair hearing. And that is why we have
had a policy in place, going back to, I believe, the October time
period of 2003, saying that we are not going to comment on it while
it is ongoing.
Question: There are anonymous sources that have confirmed the
President did declassify prior to July 18th. Can you go on the
record to confirm that?
Scott McClellan: I assume you're referring to articles like The
New York Times article today. I've made it clear I cannot get into
commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding. I read that article,
like you all did, with interest. I think it talked about how a
significant portion of the National Intelligence Estimate was
declassified on July 18th, 2003, and how it went through a
declassification process. But I know it referenced a separate
effort. I can't get into commenting on that issue because you can't
separate that from the ongoing legal proceeding. I made clear the
other day that the President has the authority to declassify
information as he chooses, and I would reiterate that.
Question: Is there something the President can say -
Scott McClellan: And by the way, I did look back further, not
only on my comments from July 18th, but I looked back at additional
information over the last couple of days, and I will leave it where
it was on July 18th, 2003. What I told you then was based on what I
knew at the time. But I would discourage you from assuming that it
has to be an either-or situation. I know some of the reports did
make that assumption. In this article, one example kind of dispels
people from looking at it in that way.
Question: Is there something more the President could say that
would not be dealing with the Libby matter, but the war is
certainly much bigger than the fate of Lewis Libby - is there
something more that he could say that might answer some of the
concerns people have about what he declassified or did not
declassify?
Scott McClellan: Well, I talked about it. I mean, I talked
about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate
and how that was in the public interest. Because if you remember at
the time, there were a lot of questions being raised about the
intelligence, and the President felt it was important for the
American people to see what the executive branch was basing our
public statements on before the war. The National Intelligence
Estimate is the collective judgment of the intelligence community.
It served as the underlying basis for how we viewed the regime's
weapons program.
Now, an independent commission looked at all these issues and
found out that the intelligence was wrong, and that's why we've
taken steps to implement a bunch of reform. But at the time there
were those who were making these wild accusations that we were
misusing, or misrepresenting the intelligence. That's why it was in
the public interest to declassify that information, because it
provided important historical information. There is nothing in that
National Intelligence Estimate that would compromise national
security, that was released - there's nothing in there that was
released that would. And that's why it went through the
declassification process and it was - and a significant portion of
that National Intelligence Estimate was made available to the
public through you all.
Question: It did say it was dubious, what you were putting out.
Scott McClellan: I'd go back and look at the National
Intelligence Estimate. Helen, what we're talking about - what we're
talking about is the underlying intelligence. You're talking about
one specific part, and that's why we put it all out there for the
public to look at. So let's remember what the issue here - is here.
That's not what the issue was.
Question: Does the President support the immigration compromise
that is taking shape in the Senate?
Scott McClellan: Immigration compromise that was taking - I
thought we talked about that last week. I talked about it on
Friday. Where were you?
Question: Not here.
Scott McClellan: The President talked about it in the radio
address, too.
Question: Right. He blamed Harry Reid for the failure -
Scott McClellan: - what he did. The Minority Leader did block
comprehensive immigration reform from moving forward. He used
blocking tactics.
Question: Right, so does he think that the Republicans have no
role in stopping this legislation that they supported?
Scott McClellan: It was the Minority Leader who used blocking
tactics to stop it from moving forward. I think that's very clear
to everyone. There was a bipartisan agreement to move forward on
comprehensive immigration reform. We supported the efforts of
Senator Frist, Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez and other senators -
Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, others - who came together in a
bipartisan way to find a way to move comprehensive immigration
reform forward, and we strongly supported those efforts.
I know there are a lot of demonstrations going on today calling
for comprehensive immigration reform. They might want to focus
their efforts on the Senate Minority Leader. He is the one who is
standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform moving
forward. And I talked about it Friday, so I would encourage you to
look back at what I said. He prevented voices from being heard and
amendments from being considered. That is at the foundation of the
Senate.
Question: What's your take on these demonstrations? Do you
think these demonstrations are helpful, or do you find them -
Scott McClellan: I think it's one of the remarkable things
about our country, that people can peacefully demonstrate and
express their views.
Question: Scott, while stressing diplomacy in Iran, you do have
a National Security Strategy which calls Iran the greatest threat
that the United States faces.
Scott McClellan: I think it says, one of the greatest
challenges.
Question: Right. In that context, isn't it natural -
Scott McClellan: There are a number of threats that we're
dealing with.
Question: In that context, isn't it natural, or doesn't the
President expect there to be the normal military contingency
planning that you're talking about? I mean, don't you expect that
kind of -
Scott McClellan: I think I referenced normal military
contingency planning in my comments. But this is about the regime's
behavior. And the international community is working together, in a
united way, to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapons
capability. That's where the focus is, and we are doing it in a
diplomatic way.
Question: But don't you also expect the Defense Department to
be - the kind of attacks that would be necessary for an -
Scott McClellan: You're trying to get me to jump into all this
wild speculation from some of the stories that came over the
weekend.
Question: It isn't wild.
Scott McClellan: Sure it is. It's not based on knowledge of the
administration's thinking. That's why it's wild speculation. It's
based - I saw one story that had numerous anonymous former
officials and outside advisors being quoted in the story. How they
possibly could understand what the administration's thinking is, is
beyond me.
Question: You might talk to people in the Pentagon.
Question: Scott, you're familiar with what the administration
is thinking -
Scott McClellan: Absolutely. The administration is thinking
that's important to work with the international community to find a
diplomatic solution.
Question: But are nuclear strikes on the table? You're familiar
with the -
Scott McClellan: I answered that - I answered that in my
remarks.
Question: Yes or no?
Scott McClellan: I answered that in my remarks. I won't - I'm
not going to comment further about it. It's just engaging in kind
of wild speculation to get into commenting further about it.
Question: Two questions. In his comments today, is the
President planning - in his global war on terror comments - to
address even broadly his power to declassify the NIE?
Scott McClellan: I think that his remarks are going to remain
focused on Iraq.
Question: Is there any plan for him to address this issue in
any way, however broadly -
Scott McClellan: He's taking questions. I don't know - I don't
know if he'll be asked about it, so I don't want to rule things
out.
Question: Okay. Secondly, you said that the immigration -
Scott McClellan: He has - I mean, he has addressed it through
me on Friday, too, and again this morning.
Question: But there have been calls for him to address it
through himself. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: Wait you're talking about two different
things. You're talking about the National Intelligence Estimate -
that's one thing, and the declassification of it. The legal
proceeding is a different issue, so -
Question: He won't comment on the legal proceeding, so -
Scott McClellan: I've expressed our policy and view on that.
Question: Right. Okay, question number two, you said that the
immigration rallies are a beautiful sign of America's ability to
protest and speak up.
Question: "Remarkable."
Question: "Remarkable," thank you. I wasn't - it was a rough
- -
Scott McClellan: If you want to use "beautiful," I won't
dispute it. (Laughter.)
Question: Is the President at all concerned that the show of
force further undermines the possibility of some sort of compromise
when the Hill comes back -
Scott McClellan: I'm sorry, the show of force?
Question: The outpouring by - at these rallies.
Scott McClellan: It's a peaceful demonstration. I don't know
what - show of force.
Question: The demos.
Question: The demonstrations - the size and the passion that's
demonstrated there is further making the compromise difficult on
the Hill?
Scott McClellan: Well, I think that there are a lot of members
on both sides of the aisle that want to find a way to move forward
on comprehensive reform. It begins with securing our borders. And
that's why we need to continue to take steps to strengthen our
borders. But it's also important to have a temporary worker program
as a part of that, because that helps to strengthen our borders, as
the President has talked about repeatedly.
The President believes to fix our immigration system, you have
to do it in a rational and comprehensive way. And there are many
members in Congress that share that view. And so we want to
continue working with them to move it forward. I think there's
still a strong commitment by leaders in the Senate to move forward.
They're on recess right now, so they're out for the next two weeks.
Unfortunately, you have the leader of the Democrats in the Senate
standing in the way of comprehensive reform moving forward.
Question: Well, are you encouraging these demonstrations?
Scott McClellan: I think people have the right to peacefully
express their views. What we're focused on is moving ahead with
Congress on compressive immigration reform. It is an important
issue, and it is a high priority.
Question: Let me ask you one more thing. The Post here says
that you've settled on the idea of sending up several hundred NATO
advisors to help the AU -
Scott McClellan: I don't think there's anything to add to what
the President has said recently on that issue. If there is, I'll
come back to it later. But I don't think there's anything to add
beyond what the President has already said. He's talked about this
very subject on a number of occasions - on a number of occasions,
and I'm not going to jump ahead of where it is in the process in
terms of discussions.
Bill. Let me go to Bill. John, you've already - have you had
one?
Question: No, I haven't.
Scott McClellan: Okay, John. Then Bill. Then I've got to go.
Question: Thank you, Scott. The week before Pearl Harbor, the
Chicago Tribune reported that the U.S. had a plan to send an
expeditionary force to Europe, even though we weren't at war. Plans
about the U.S. sending troops overseas as a contingency are very
old and have been out there. Are you going to release any of the
background on the plan and just point out that this is a
contingency plan?
Scott McClellan: Military - I don't tend to get into talking
about military plans. I'll leave that to the Pentagon.
Go ahead, Bill.
Question: Two-parter. What about the notion that the failure of
the immigration bill would allow Democrats to associate Republicans
with the House bill that only talks about stronger enforcement of
the borders and, therefore, that would hurt them in the midterms?
Scott McClellan: I'll leave the political analysis to others.
The President is strongly committed to comprehensive immigration
reform and continuing to work with those that want to move forward
on it. And that's what - that's where our focus is.
Question: Well, let me try you one more time on political
analysis. My second question is, all the talk of impeachment and
censure, does that hurt Democrats and Republicans -
Scott McClellan: We talked about that recently. I'll be glad to
talk to you about it further if you want. I need to go right now,
but I'll be glad to talk to you about it further if you want.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAgcOAJwP0HDFd/BE/23G6rSn7ZZd5Zb8wwCdF6Wz
c3X+O7TARvo8pn+RRO8k78Y=
=rGkX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Yes, He Would (Krugman)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f67e9f1dfd8070a2
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Yes, He Would (Krugman)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The New York Times - Apr 10, 2006
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html
Yes He Would
by Paul Krugman
"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for
President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard
questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many
people just didn't want to believe that an American president would
deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that
Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come
from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu
Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that
administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to
desirable regime change in Iran - and that they refuse to rule out the use
of tactical nuclear weapons.
"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible.
Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however,
discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived
and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.
As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence
that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in.
First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with
Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York
Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting
on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that
conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq
even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.
Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he
was presenting for war - a case that depended crucially on visions of
mushroom clouds - rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State
of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as
clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet
Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned
that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.
Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat
and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he
deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so.
According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in the
summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely
damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing
dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.
Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think
that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean
it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his
own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.
As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the
same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United
States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in
the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same
nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls
that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames
it for attacks on U.S. troops."
Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose
presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that
he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.
And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest
that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November,
acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power.
This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political
analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head
off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change
the domestic political dynamics.
Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of
recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war,
why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAk/SAJ4uVAWkB4FCNSAfead5vfS198LBmACfXfkT
rLXTMxpW6ANTTFx56SAR8d4=
=2k7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: May 1 Coalition Rally and march - Union Sq NYC 5/1 4pm
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2ef1cf6a06bef17e
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
May 1 Coalition Rally and march - Union Sq NYC 5/1 4pm
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Troops Out Now Coalition - Apr 9, 2006
New York City May 1 Coalition calls for rally and march
http://www.troopsoutnow.org/endorsemay1.shtml
Union Square
May 1, 2006 - 4:00 pm
No School - No Work - No Shopping - No Selling
(New York) More than 50 representatives of 22 different immigrant,
labor, community, and progressive organizations met today in response
to a national call issued by the March 25th Coalition against HR4437
in Los Angeles. The meeting, held in Teamster Local 808 in Long Island
City, Queens, and hosted by Chris Silvera, President of Local 808 and
President of the National Teamsters Black Caucus, began with a national
teleconference with organizers in more than a dozen cities across the U.S.
The points of unity raised by the national organizers included:
1) Immediate and unconditional legalization of all persons.
2) No border walls.
3) No criminalization of any process or individuals.
4) Protect workers rights, civil rights, and civil liberties.
The NYC May 1 Coalition, formed to respond to the national call, is
organizing the May 1 action in New York City, which include a rally in
Union Square in Manhattan. Organizers are calling for students to walk
out of class and for workers to take the day off to participate in the
national boycott.
How you can help:
Endorse May 1 in NYC
Volunteer
List your local activity
http://www.troopsoutnow.org/endorsemay1.shtml
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAuXDAJ98nsO7dbp/73NCf+N0KI6YHJGpCACgv/Xe
9aGQFd50tPmXT1En4X7FIPo=
=q76I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bolivarian revolution advances with seizure of oil fields
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/10435aa2612001a0
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bolivarian revolution advances with seizure of oil fields
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Workers World - Apr 13, 2006 issue
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/venezuela-0413/
Bolivarian revolution advances with seizure of oil fields
By Deirdre Griswold
What happens in a real revolution? Nothing could be simpler: power
and property are taken away from the privileged few in order to
distribute to the people the wealth the exploiters once hogged.
Venezuela has once again confirmed that it is on the road of
revolution. It has moved to gain more control over oil, its most
precious resource. It calls its revolution Bolivarian after the
Great Liberator, Simón Bolívar, in order to stress that necessary
social change requires the liberation of the country and the
region from foreign domination.
Near the end of March, the National Assembly passed a law that
gives the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela or PDVSA, at
least a 60 percent stake in projects where foreign oil companies
once got the lion's share of the profits. The law applies to 32
oil fields that are pumping about one-fifth of the country's
production.
Foreign oil companies will still be making money in Venezuela --
just not as much as before. Sixteen companies, including Royal Dutch
Shell, the Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF, Brazil's Petrobras
and China National Petroleum agreed to the new contracts. Italy's Eni
and France's Total, however, refused to go along with the new terms.
For the first time ever, the government then seized their oil
fields, putting them under PDVSA's management.
"These two companies are refusing to abide by our laws," said
Energy Minister Rafael Ramírez in a press conference in Caracas on
April 3. "They won't accept state control over our resources, and
they won't accept the taxes and royalty rates."
The U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil, on the other hand, got around the
problem by selling off its stake in the 15,000-barrel-a-day
Quiamare-La Ceiba field to a Spanish company rather than resist
the new law. One reason it didn't want to jeopardize its relations
with the government is that it still holds a 42 percent stake in a
much larger heavy-oil project at Cerro Negro, which is not
affected by the new law.
These three oil companies are among the six largest in the world.
What does the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez want
to do with the money?
It is moving to transform Venezuela by lifting up the poor
majority who in the past got virtually nothing from the country's
oil riches. The state's enhanced revenue will go to the many
social projects it has launched in recent years, with a priority
on literacy and general education; medical clinics for the poor,
many staffed by Cuban doctors; subsidized food in poor
communities; new housing and land reform.
President Chávez recently announced that 150,000 new houses for
the poor will be built by the end of the year. The mayor of
Greater Caracas, Juan Barreto, has announced that to alleviate the
housing problem and combat high rents, the government expects to
expropriate about 400 apartment buildings in the city. To be
seized, a building must be at least 10 years old and the owner
must have collected at least five times the building's value in
rents.
Venezuela has also been helping poor people in other countries who
have been hit by the worldwide increase in the price of heating
oil. Many cities in the U.S. itself have now signed on to receive
Venezuelan oil at a low cost--just at a time when the U.S.
government has cut heating subsidies for the poor.
One of Venezuela's major goals is the regional integration of
Latin America as a giant economic bloc with its own powerful
banks, telecommunications and developed infrastructure. All this
has been impos sible ever since the Monroe Doc trine of 1823
declared all of Latin America to be under the domination of the
United States.
Washington's reaction to the ongoing revolution in Venezuela is
deepening hostility--which should come as no surprise, considering
the terrible war the Bush admin istration has launched in the
Middle East, for no other reason than to control that oil-rich
region. Venezuela has what some consider to be the largest
recoverable oil reserves in the world.
The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper from the Hampton Roads area where
the U.S. Navy has an enormous base, reported on March 28 that:
"The Navy will send an aircraft carrier strike group, with four
ships, a 60-plane air wing and 6,500 sailors, to Caribbean and
South American waters for a major training exercise, it was
announced Monday.
"Some defense analysts suggested that the unusual two-month-long
deployment, set to begin in early April, could be interpreted as a
show of force by anti-American governments in Venezuela and Cuba.
"`The presence of a U.S. carrier task force in the Caribbean will
definitely be interpreted as some sort of signal by the
governments of Cuba and Venezuela,' said Loren Thompson of the
Lexington Institute, a pro-defense think-tank in Washington.
"`If I was sitting in the Venezuela capital looking at this
American task force, the message I would be getting is America
still is not so distracted by Iraq that it is unable to enforce
its interests in the Caribbean,' Thompson said."
The Venezuelan government is taking the threat seriously and has
recently purchased military aircraft and small arms from Russia.
It has gained enormous prestige in the region through its
progressive policies and the masses of people at home are solidly
behind the revolution, as shown in every election for the last
seven years.
But the leaders, many of whom, like Chávez, come from the
military, know that to defend themselves against imperialism the
Venezuelan people need more than good will.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAqBcAJ9yJ7BtUyPiGUKcL/DdCnoPh9hSpwCgmKml
2mF1iEhx0MoB18uhcSdhH9o=
=Mypc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US Military Secrets for Sale at Afghan Bazaar
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe57c3f9c185ac5c
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:58 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
US Military Secrets for Sale at Afghan Bazaar
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Los Angeles Times via Truthout - Apr 10. 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006E.shtml
US Military Secrets for Sale at Afghan Bazaar
By Paul Watson
Bagram, Afghanistan - No more than 200 yards from the main gate
of the sprawling U.S. base here, stolen computer drives containing
classified military assessments of enemy targets, names of corrupt
Afghan officials and descriptions of American defenses are on sale
in the local bazaar.
Shop owners at the bazaar say Afghan cleaners, garbage
collectors and other workers from the base arrive each day offering
purloined goods, including knives, watches, refrigerators, packets
of Viagra and flash memory drives taken from military laptops. The
drives, smaller than a pack of chewing gum, are sold as used
equipment.
The thefts of computer drives have the potential to expose
military secrets as well as Social Security numbers and other
identifying information of military personnel.
A reporter recently obtained several drives at the bazaar that
contained documents marked "Secret." The contents included
documents that were potentially embarrassing to Pakistan, a U.S.
ally, presentations that named suspected militants targeted for
"kill or capture" and discussions of U.S. efforts to "remove" or
"marginalize" Afghan government officials whom the military
considered "problem makers."
The drives also included deployment rosters and other documents
that identified nearly 700 U.S. service members and their Social
Security numbers, information that identity thieves could use to
open credit card accounts in soldiers' names.
After choosing the name of an army captain at random, a
reporter using the Internet was able to obtain detailed information
on the woman, including her home address in Maryland and the
license plate numbers of her 2003 Jeep Liberty sport utility
vehicle and 1998 Harley Davidson XL883 Hugger motorcycle.
Troops serving overseas would be particularly vulnerable to
attempts at identity theft because keeping track of their bank and
credit records is difficult, said Jay Foley, co-executive director
of the Identity Theft Resource Center in San Diego.
"It's absolutely absurd that this is happening in any way,
shape or form," Foley said. "There's absolutely no reason for
anyone in the military to have that kind of information on a flash
drive and then have it out of their possession."
A flash drive also contained a classified briefing about the
capabilities and limitations of a "man portable counter-mortar
radar" used to find the source of guerrilla mortar rounds. A map
pinpoints the U.S. camps and bases in Iraq where the sophisticated
radar was deployed in March 2004.
Lt. Mike Cody, a spokesman for the U.S. forces here, declined
to comment on the computer drives or their content.
"We do not discuss issues that involve or could affect
operational security," he said.
Workers are supposed to be frisked as they leave the base, but
they have various ways of deceiving guards, such as hiding computer
drives behind photo IDs that they wear in holders around their
necks, shop owners said. Others claim that U.S. soldiers illegally
sell military property and help move it off the base, saying they
need the money to pay bills back home.
Bagram base, the U.S. military's largest in Afghanistan and a
hub for classified military activity, has suffered security lapses
before, including an escape from a detention center where hundreds
of Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects have been held and interrogated.
Last July, four Al Qaeda members, including the group's
commander in Southeast Asia, Omar Faruq, escaped from Bagram by
picking the lock on their cell. They then walked off the base,
ditched their prison uniforms and fled through a muddy vineyard.
The men later boasted of their escape on a video and have not
been captured. The military said it had tightened security at
Bagram after the breakout.
One of the computer drives stolen from Bagram contained a
series of slides prepared for a January 2005 briefing of American
military officials that identified several Afghan governors and
police chiefs as "problem makers" involved in kidnappings, the
opium trade and attacks on allied troops with improvised bombs.
The chart showed the U.S. military's preferred methods of
dealing with the men: "remove from office; if unable marginalize."
A chart dated Jan. 2, 2005, listed five Afghans as "Tier One
Warlords." It identified Afghanistan's former defense minister
Mohammed Qassim Fahim, current military chief of staff Abdul Rashid
Dostum and counter-narcotics chief Gen. Mohammed Daoud as being
involved in the narcotics trade. All three have denied committing
crimes.
Another slide presentation identified 12 governors, police
chiefs and lower-ranking officials that the U.S. military wanted
removed from office. The men were involved in activities including
drug trafficking, recruiting of Taliban fighters and active support
for Taliban commanders, according to the presentation, which also
named the military's preferred replacements.
The briefing said that efforts against Afghan officials were
coordinated with U.S. special operations teams and must be approved
by top commanders as well as military lawyers who apply unspecified
criteria set by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
The military also weighs any ties that any official has to
President Hamid Karzai and members of his Cabinet or warlords, as
well as the risk of destabilization when deciding which officials
should be removed, the presentation said.
One of the men on the military's removal list, Sher Mohammed
Akhundzada, was replaced in December as governor of Helmand
province in southern Afghanistan. After removing him from the
governor's office, Karzai appointed Akhundzada to Afghanistan's
Senate. The U.S. military believed the governor, who was caught
with almost 20,000 pounds of opium in his office last summer, to be
a heroin trafficker.
The provincial police chief in Helmand, Abdul Rahman Jan, whom
U.S. forces suspect of providing security for narcotics shipments,
kept his job.
Though U.S. officials continue to praise Pakistan as a loyal
ally in the war on terrorism, several documents on the flash drives
show the military has struggled to break militant command and
supply lines traced to Pakistan. Some of the documents also accused
Pakistan's security forces of helping militants launch cross-border
attacks on U.S. and allied forces.
Militant attacks on U.S. and allied forces have escalated
sharply over the last half year, and once-rare suicide bombings are
now frequent, especially in southern Afghan provinces close to
infiltration routes from Pakistan.
A document dated Oct. 11, 2004, said at least two of the
Taliban's top five leaders were believed to be in Pakistan. That
country's government and military repeatedly have denied that
leaders of militants fighting U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan
operate from bases in Pakistan.
The Taliban leaders in Pakistan were identified as Mullah
Akhtar Osmani, described as a "major Taliban facilitator for
southern Afghanistan" and a "rear commander from Quetta" in
southwest Pakistan, and Mullah Obaidullah, said to be "responsible
for planning operations in Kandahar."
At the time, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, his
second-in-command Mullah Berader, and three other top Taliban
commanders were all suspected of being in southern or central
Afghanistan, according to the military briefing.
Another document said the Taliban and an allied militant group
were working with Arab Al Qaeda members in Pakistan to plan and
launch attacks in Afghanistan. A map presented at a "targeting
meeting" for U.S. military commanders here on Jan. 27, 2005,
identified the Pakistani cities of Peshawar and Quetta as planning
and staging areas for terrorists heading to Afghanistan.
One of the terrorism groups is identified by the single name
"Zawahiri," apparently a reference to Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin
Laden's deputy and chief strategist in Al Qaeda. The document said
his attacks had been launched from a region south of Miram Shah,
administrative capital of Pakistan's unruly North Waziristan tribal
region.
In January, a CIA missile strike targeted Zawahiri in a village
more than 100 miles to the northeast, but he was not among the 18
killed, who included women and children.
Other documents on the computer drives listed senior Taliban
commanders and "facilitators" living in Pakistan. The Pakistani
government strenuously denies allegations by the Afghan government
that it is harboring Taliban and other guerrilla fighters.
An August 2004 computer slide presentation marked "Secret"
outlined "obstacles to success" along the border and accused
Pakistan of making "false and inaccurate reports of border
incidents." It also complained of political and military inertia in
Pakistan.
Half a year later, other documents indicated that little
progress had been made. A classified document from early 2005
listing "Target Objectives" said U.S. forces must "interdict the
supply of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) from Pakistan" and
"interdict infiltration routes from Pakistan."
A special operations task force map highlighting militants'
infiltration routes from Pakistan in early 2005 included this
comment from a U.S. military commander: "Pakistani border forces
[should] cease assisting cross border insurgent activities."
[Special correspondent Wesal Zaman in Kabul contributed to this
report.]
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAglxAJ43SceReFKQdD47/xD6gP45Ndd+KQCeOI1s
E+DOEMi/88HbxaDlwhWNLYU=
=KQhS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lying and Cheating
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/946d371884a808ac
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Lying and Cheating
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Huffington Post - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/lying-and-cheating_b_18828.html
Lying and Cheating
by Jane Smiley
It seems evident that Bush and Cheney lied and cheated so that they could
attack Iraq. It seems that we can agree that Abramoff and DeLay controlled
Congress through a mixture of bribes, lies, and cheats. Almost everyone
agrees that Enron was busy cheating and defrauding the State of California
in the 2001 energy crisis (and lying about it, and my electric bill shows
that I am still paying costs that Enron cheated me out of). Bush, who has
had close ties to both Enron and Abramoff, has repeatedly lied about them.
And, of course, the seminal example--many would say, and I am one of them,
that the 2000 election was stolen by means of an elaborate cheat in Florida
in the run-up to the election, followed by another cheat when members of the
Supreme Court with open conflicts of interest stepped in to stop a recount
that could have easily gone to Al Gore. Lots of lying, lots of cheating by
the Republicans, and now their defense has shifted to two old stand-bys:
that everyone does it, and/or it's necessary to lie and cheat to one's own
people when the enemy is so dangerous (though Bush's and Cheney's actions
don't clearly show who the dangerous enemy is--the terrorists? the
Democrats? the citizenry?)
My grandmother once caught me cheating at cards. She said, "Cheaters never
prosper". She didn't say that she was angry with me, or that I should be
ashamed of myself, or I that I had sinned. Rather, she pointed out something
that is objectively true about cheating, and so while the pundits debate
about whether a consistent pattern of unrepentent lying and cheating is okay
or not in the abstract, I think we should also notice where the lying and
cheating has gotten this country. Yes, the Republicans have been caught and
held to a (minimally) higher ethical standard, and yes, they clearly resent
it. But what is the real price to be paid for a pattern of consistent lying?
It is this: we are in deep trouble in Iraq, and with regard to the economy,
and with regard to climate change, not because the Republicans have been
caught by their fellow citizens, but because they have been caught by
reality. Bush and Cheney can lie about Iraq day after day and week after
week, and none of their lying changes the fact the the war has been a
disaster, for the Iraqis, for the US Army, for the middle east, and for this
nation. The same is true for the economy (though we might dodge that
bullet), and the same is true for climate change. Bush and Cheney have lied
and cheated about the science of climate change, and the climate has
changed, anyway.
Anyone with common sense has to wonder about these people. Read my lips:
there is a practical cost to lying and cheating and it is that liars and
cheaters become deluded about what is really taking place and then are
handicapped in their response to events. The Iraq war is not a disaster IN
ADDITION to the fact that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice lied about
it and cheated to get us into it, it is a disaster BECAUSE they lied about
it and cheated to get us into it. Rumsfeld cheated by thinking he could go
to war on the cheap because he had never been to war and didn't understand
war. Rice cheated by using PR that she knew to be untrue, and now no one
will ever believe her again. Even if she herself doesn't know it, she has
become simply a laughingstock. It doesn't matter what she does now--her job
is to have authority, and she surrendered it with that mushroom cloud
remark. Bush and Cheney, it would seem, have lied and cheated every time
they have opened their mouths, and everything that they have declared to be
true has been shown to be untrue almost as soon as, if not before, they have
said it. By pursuing policies and then lying about how the policies are
working and then continuing to pursue them, they have actively created and
accelerated the tragedy of Iraq, the potential tragedy of an economic
collapse, and the tragedy of climate change.
The Republicans have endangered our democracy and our security by lying and
cheating. Even if they had fooled us completely and never been caught or
exposed, the illusions they created by lying and cheating would still be
merely illusions, and would still cause havoc and destruction. Of course, we
can and do feel insulted by their lying and cheating, since they have
repeatedly transgressed basic morality, but over and above the insults are
the injuries that they have caused. Pointless deaths, dismemberments,
blindings, woundings, orphanings, widowings. Parents bereft of their
children. Homelessness. Impoverishment. Infrastructure destruction.
Sectarian hatred and violence. Scandalous waste of money and resources.
Profoundly corrupt government in both Washington and Baghdad. Crippling of
our army. The list, of course, goes on. The reason we expect our leaders to
be straight with us is not only because we can handle the truth, but also
because they can't handle the lies.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycYiz2i76ou9wQRAqIEAKCF6CkEoqwOZUyJH4H0gjnj0TNV9ACeJdLd
xFYikgSy4rBc9VV9Udtb1kQ=
=sHF/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Israel Mum on Inquest into Journalist's Murder
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c3b327351232bf65
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Israel Mum on Inquest into Journalist's Murder
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Snowmail (Channel 4 news, UK) - Apr 10, 2006
Tom Hurndall inquest
An inquest jury today decided that the British peace activist Tom Hurndall
was intentionally killed by an Israeli soldier. They also criticised the
Israeli government and military for not taking part in the inquest process.
The coroner is writing to the authorities here to see if any further legal
action can be brought. An extradition is what campaigners would like. The
Israeli soldier who shot Tom Hurdall while he was acting as a human shield
to protect a group of children in the Gaza Strip is in prison - convicted of
manslaughter after a long campaign for justice in the face of initial
Israeli denials.
Given their refusal to take part in the inquest it is no surprise that the
Israeli government will not speak about this case to us, and nor will anyone
in the British government.
Read more:
http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=635092
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycWiz2i76ou9wQRAvumAKCuWw/SJRNTdGjc/Rt2IRYcwae2UwCfZnhy
Znhug3XmK2RTpqS9+zULqT4=
=Nu/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The McCain Mutiny
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/0c516ad939cdd147
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The McCain Mutiny
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Washington Post - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/10/BL2006041000314_pf.html
The McCain Mutiny
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
John McCain was expecting journalists to start slapping him around, and he
hasn't been disappointed.
As he gears up for a likely presidential campaign, the Arizona senator knows
that reporters and columnists -- whom he jokingly described last year as "my
base" -- have to prove their independence this time around. Media folks
spent so much time riding on McCain's bus and listening to his rolling press
conferences in the 2000 campaign that they were often mocked for swooning
over the candidate.
A spate of critical columns, some of them by disaffected liberals who were
once honorary McCainiacs, seemed to culminate last weekend on "Meet the
Press" when Tim Russert asked:
"Are you concerned that people are going to say, 'I see, John McCain tried
"Straight Talk Express," it didn't work in 2000, so now in 2008 he's going
to become a conventional, typical politician, reaching out to people that he
called agents of intolerance, voting for tax cuts he opposed, to make
himself more appealing to the hard-core Republican base'?"
McCain said he fights for what he believes in and defended his rapprochement
with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, whom he had branded an "agent of intolerance"
six years ago.
As a cultural watershed, though, nothing compares with Jon Stewart asking
McCain last week on the "Daily Show": "Are you freaking out on us?... You're
killing me. I feel it's a condoning of Falwell's crazy-making."
The reasons for the chilling of the climate go beyond a desire by
journalists to prove they aren't in the senator's pocket. The press has a
weakness for mavericks, and McCain is running as more of a regular
Republican this time, embracing President Bush on most issues, making amends
with the religious right, and voting to make permanent the tax cuts he once
derided as excessive.
"When loving McCain was a way of expressing a negative opinion about the
Republican Party, they were all for him," says Mike Murphy, a top McCain
adviser in 2000. "Now that McCain is a strong potential candidate, some
fickle liberal hearts are not fluttering as much."
McCain's apparent flip-flops are fair game, of course, but some of the
liberal sniping at the senator seems based on ideology. McCain has always
been a conservative, pro-life, pro-military Republican who took more
moderate positions on a few key issues. Now he is suddenly being outed as...
a conservative Republican.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "It's time for some straight talk
about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than
you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be."
Arianna Huffington, the author and blogger, says she "admired" and "loved"
McCain. But, she writes, "watching a true American hero hang a For Sale sign
on his principles is a profoundly sad thing."
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne: "If McCain spends the next two years
obviously positioning himself to win Republican primary votes, he will start
to look like just another politician. Once lost, a maverick's image is hard
to earn back."
American Prospect's Mark Schmitt writes that people should "have no
illusions: McCain is a very conservative Republican who has now embarked on
the project of reaffirming his position as the rightful heir to Barry
Goldwater's politics as well as his Senate seat."
Why are liberals suddenly more exercised about McCain? In 2000, he was a
colorful underdog running against the party establishment's candidate. He
was funny, told great stories, admitted mistakes and enjoyed dining with
reporters. He was endlessly available for television interviews. He
championed what seemed like a quixotic crusade for campaign finance reform.
He was a certified war hero as a former prisoner at the Hanoi Hilton. He was
unfairly slimed in the South Carolina primary. And, in the view of the
press, he had little chance of winning.
This time around, McCain is arguably the front-runner for the GOP
nomination. If he runs, he could well win the White House, shutting out the
Democrats for the third straight election. And that is rallying the pundits
of the left.
Mark Salter, McCain's administrative assistant, says the senator "is not
unhappy with the press coverage he's receiving." Of course, it is far better
for him to be put through the media meat grinder now, in early 2006, than
when voters are paying attention. And getting banged around by liberal
columnists hardly hurts him on the right.
Still, the skeptics are right on one point: McCain's crossover appeal is
built on the idea that he speaks his mind without political calculation. If
he loses his media "base," that may be a sign that he has returned to the
ranks of political mortals.
Bob Woodward must be accustomed to criticism by now. But rarely does the
Washington Post sleuth react as strongly as he did to a recent slam by David
Corn, the Nation's Washington bureau chief.
Corn took on Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" as a "tilted" narrative,
citing his reporting on a January 2003 meeting on Iraq between President
Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a recently disclosed memo, a
Blair aide wrote that the date for war "was now penciled in for 10 March,"
even as diplomatic efforts continued at the United Nations, and that Bush
had spoken of creating a pretext to justify the war.
But the book, Corn wrote, contained "a less-than-full but Bush-positive
account of the event. This goes to show that Woodward is only as good as his
sources and that those insiders are not always so good when it comes to
disclosing the real story."
In a lengthy letter, which Corn posted on his Web site, Woodward wrote that
he was "genuinely shocked" by Corn's analysis. "The column is thoroughly
dishonest and represents another low for journalism. Apparently facts don't
matter to you if you think you can score a point."
Anyone reading the book would already know of the president's war plans
before getting to the Bush-Blair meeting on Page 297, Woodward argued. For
example, he cites a passage in which Bush told then-National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Probably going to have to, we're going to have to
go to war"; another that says Vice President Cheney "had come to realize
that the president had made his decision"; and one that says Bush, Cheney
and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar
and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that Bush had decided on war.
"You really ought to be embarrassed," Woodward wrote Corn, adding: "You owe
me but more importantly your readers an apology."
In response, Corn says: "Bob Woodward has a point. I should have mentioned
that in 'Plan of Attack' he had reported that Bush had already decided to go
to war before meeting with Blair on January 31, 2003. That's an important
element of the book." But after quarreling with some of Woodward's points,
Corn maintains that "the limitations of his methodology -- and that of all
source-based reporting (which I and every other journalist practice) -- were
revealed."
The Cincinnati Enquirer's "Grandma in Iraq" blog is literally true in that
Suzanne Fournier is a grandmother.
But she is also a spokeswoman for the U.S. military. Which may explain why
the blog is relentlessly upbeat about what a great job American soldiers are
doing.
Enquirer Editor Tom Callinan told Editor & Publisher that he had to change
the description of Fournier: "She never hid the fact that she worked for
them. But we did not put a disclaimer at the top, we had overlooked that. We
have now corrected it."
Fournier wrote on the blog that she never tried to hide her affiliation but
"wanted to share my experiences because I am in a unique position of being
able to travel to nine of the southern provinces with my job as a
communicator."
This NYT headline--" McCain Emphasizing His Conservative Bona
Fides"--underscores the point of my lead.
Coincidence ? This WashPost piece--"The Bush administration is studying
options for military strikes against Iran"--appears on the same day that
Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker that the administration is
considering tactical nuclear strikes against underground Iranian facilities.
Does somebody want this out?
Having blown the lid off an alleged extortion attempt by the New York Post's
Jared Paul Stern, the Daily News now aims at Richard Johnson, the editor of
Page Six.
"Johnson was feted at a bachelor party last month that cost in excess of
$50,000 hosted by soft-core porn king Joe Francis at his palatial estate in
Punta Mita, on Mexico's glorious Pacific coast. More than 2,000 miles from
New York, the resort area boasts 343 days of 80-degree sunshine.
"Francis, 32, producer of the topless 'Girls Gone Wild' spring-break video
series, flew the party from New York on his private jet. Francis appears
regularly in the column, almost always in a positive way."
A New York Times piece keeps the Bush leak story going:
"President Bush's apparent order authorizing a senior White House official
to reveal to a reporter previously classified intelligence about Saddam
Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already
being discredited by several other officials in the administration,
interviews and documents from the time show.
"A review of the records and interviews conducted during and after the
crucial period in June and July of 2003 also show that what the aide, I.
Lewis Libby Jr., said he was authorized to portray as a 'key judgment' by
intelligence officers had in fact been given much less prominence in the
most important assessment of Iraq's weapons capability....
"Even as some officials, including Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state,
started to reveal deep doubts that Mr. Hussein had sought uranium to
reconstitute his nuclear program, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were
seeking to disseminate information suggesting that they had acted on
credible intelligence, while not discussing their actions with other top
aides."
This issue is huge in the blogosphere. First the conservative view, starting
with Bill Kristol, who wants more backbone from the White House:
"News from the prosecution of Scooter Libby put the debate over the
justification for the Iraq war back on the front pages. The president,
through Vice President Dick Cheney, apparently authorized Libby to share
with reporters key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on
Iraq--evidence that disproved accusations from Joseph Wilson and others that
Bush had manipulated or distorted the judgments of the intelligence
community.
"There was nothing unlawful or improper about what Libby claims the
president did. News reports, however, darkly implied that Bush had been
caught doing something disreputable; Democrats accused the president of
duplicity, hypocrisy, and possible illegality; and the White House went into
its characteristic defensive crouch: 'We're not commenting on an ongoing
legal proceeding,' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said....
"The administration's timidity in taking on its critics, openly and
publicly, is self-defeating. It's awfully hard to win a political struggle
without fighting."
John Hinderaker sees a media double standard:
"In the summer of 2003, as noted above, the administration was besieged with
leaks from liberals in the CIA and elsewhere, as well as op-eds by the likes
of Joe Wilson, that misrepresented the state of the intelligence prior to
the Iraq war. In order to deal with these false claims, the administration
declassified the 2002 intelligence estimate. (It didn't help; the estimate
remains a closely guarded secret among most MSM types.) The 'leak' that
you're reading about in headlines was simply the permission given to Scooter
Libby to describe the contents of the consensus intelligence estimate a few
days before it was officially declassified [I think it would be more
accurate to say, before it was made public]. So in the MSM, the liberals'
false leaks are noble, while the administration's declassification of the
report that shows them to be false, in response, is a scandal!"
The whole thing is a stitch, says Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush:
"It's quite humorous reading various criticisms by Democrats lambasting
President Bush over this so-called leak, considering when classified
information that did have a direct impact on national security was leaked.
Were the Democrats outraged when the details of the NSA terrorist
surveillance program was leaked and reported by The New York Times.... Nope.
"Just another case of Democrats trying to make a mountain out of a
molehill."
Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, says the legalistic debate is the wrong
one:
"The question before the House, as it were, is not a legal one, it seems to
me. The question is an ethical one. The president cannot, technically
speaking, 'leak' classified information for the simple reason that if the
declassify it, it's no longer 'classified,' and therefore becomes not a
'leak but a 'disclosure.' As a debater's point, this is pretty damn
airtight. But it's also a little disturbing.
"Let's say a president has a political beef against a covert CIA agent. And
let's say he outs that agent for political purposes. I'm not saying we have
hard evidence this has happened in the Plame case - we don't at all - but
let's posit such a hypothetical case. Legally, the president's in the clear.
Constitutionally, he's in the clear. But ethically: surely not. In fact,
ethically, it seems to me, he would be acting in a way that could well lead
to Congressional censure or even impeachment. You don't treat spies' cover
as tools for your Beltway push-back.
"That's not what we know in this case. In this case, we're merely talking
about the following set of circumstances. A president is challenged in his
public account of pre-war intelligence. The president authorizes a selective
leak of classified information to rebut the challenge. He selects only those
parts of the classified information that supports his case, and omits the
rest that actually show parts of the government disputing his case. He
authorizes the veep to authorize Libby to give the selected information to a
pliant reporter for the New York Times. Meanwhile, his public statements
reiterate an abhorrence of all unauthorized disclosure of classified
information."
Dick Polman has a good line:
"Remember back in 1998 when Bill Clinton was parsing the word 'is'? It's
much the same thing today, except this time it's about what the meaning of
the word 'leak' is."
State of the Day fast-forwards to the ultimate resolution:
"The next move is all Cheney's. He is next in line to take the fall. After
yesterday's revelation, the only way to get the president off the hook is
for Cheney to say he lied to Libby about having presidential authority. Of
course, this is a lie. As I said, the president is part of the game, but
protecting the president is what these people are all about. Cheney will
take a buckshot to protect the president. Cheney will say he acted alone. He
will claim he had the power to unilaterally declassify intelligence (as he
hinted to on Fox during his Whittington confessional). He will claim the
president knew nothing and all the talk of the president being a part of
this affair will be moot. This also insulates Bush from the firestorm
surrounding his own words regarding finding and firing the leaker. He did
not lie to the American people because, thanks to the vice president, he can
still claim ignorance. End result--and this was their backup plan all along
if the political heat got too hot--Cheney steps down, taking the final
presidential-protecting blow."
Wow, that was fast!
The Boston Globe says the Dems are looking good in '06:
"The Iraq war, gas prices, scandals, and now simple ineffectiveness -- most
recently the failure to reach an immigration deal and budget accord -- have
put the Republican Party in serious danger of losing its majority status in
the House of Representatives this year and ending the one-party rule
President Bush has enjoyed for most of his presidency, according to
independent pollsters and officials in both parties."
The "evidence": an AP poll saying voters prefer a Democratic House, 49-33.
I'm very wary of such polls, as regular readers know, but that is a striking
margin.
© 2006 Washington Post
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAnI9AJ9vRAXdJDDjoIEmO0LjDOLEiz2Z4ACfYG+z
Oe0mMfTuk0+oiFrTXeIWcms=
=Cp2O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Will Democrats Ever Break with Bush?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/77be01120f287930
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Will Democrats Ever Break with Bush?
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Nation - Apr 9, 2006
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=76072
When Will Democrats Break With Bush?
In light of the news that President Bush authorized a top Administration
aide to use previously classified information as part of an orchestrated
political attack on a prominent critic of the Administration, a radio host
asked me over the weekend: "What will it take to get Republicans to break
with Bush? How bad will things have to get before they realize that he's a
disaster for the country?"
I answered that, in small but significant ways, Republicans have been
breaking with Bush for some time now. When the President travels to states
around the country to pump up support for his war, he often does so without
the accompaniment of GOP members of Congress who find that they are
otherwise engaged on the days that the Commander in Chief drops by their
hometowns. While most leading Republicans refuse to admit as much publicly,
they are putting more and more distance between themselves and a President
whose approval rating has dropped to Nixon-in-Watergate depths.
When Congress voted recently on whether to extend the Patriot Act, some of
the loudest "no" votes came from conservative Republicans such as Don Young
of Alaska and Butch Otter of Idaho, who argued with Democratic US Senator
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin that the legislation was an assault on basic
liberties and Constitutional standards. As but a handful of Senate Democrats
and key House Democrats such as Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel were lining up with the
Bush Administration to curtail civil liberties, Texas Republican Ron Paul,
perhaps the most consistent critic of the Patriot Act in the House,
complained that "one prominent Democrat opined on national television that
'most of the 170-page Patriot Act is fine,' but that it needs some fine
tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on
the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put
on hold for a decade. His party's proposal, however, was to reauthorize the
Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on
constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party
and its claim to stand for civil liberties."
Perhaps even more significant than GOP opposition to the Patriot Act is the
opposition from some of the most conservative Republicans in the
House--including Paul, Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, and
John Duncan of Tennessee--to the war in Iraq. These Republicans, among
others, are now among the most ardent and articulate Congressional critics
of the Administration's policies in the Middle East.
Last week, Paul, Jones and a moderate Republican, Wayne Gilchrest of
Maryland, joined with three Democrats--Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Ike
Skelton of Missouri and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts-in a push to get the
House to hold a daylong debate on the war, declaring that: "Americans
deserve an open and honest debate about the future of US policy in Iraq by
their Representatives in Congress." While the debate demand of these
Republicans stalwarts was stymied by their party leadership in the House, it
is notable that House Republican leaders chose not to block a March 16
amendment by US Representative Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California,
which put the House on record as opposing the construction of permanent US
bases in Iraq. The decision not to fight Lee's amendment, which passed by an
overwhelming voice vote, was a tacit acknowledgment by GOP leaders of the
reality, pointed up in a recent University of Maryland Program on
International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll, that 60 percent of Republican
voters oppose a permanent US presence in that country.
Indeed, while a predictable 80 percent of Democrats support moves to begin
withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, according to the PIPA poll, a rather more
remarkable 52 percent of Republicans now want Washington to begin bringing
the troops home.
Although their President and Vice President and a few key Congressional
leaders may still be clinging to neoconservative fantasies, Republicans who
actually care about their country-as well as Republicans who care about the
political viability of their party at a time when a new Associated
Press/Ipsos poll finds that Americans would prefer a Democrat-led House by
the widest margin in recent history, 49 percent to 33 percent-are indeed
beginning to make meaningful breaks with Bush.
So the question of the moment is not "What will it take to get Republicans
to break with Bush?" The question is: "What will it take to get
Congressional Democrats to break with Bush?"
Despite mounting evidence not just of the President's unpopularity but of
his reckless disregard for the law-which was again confirmed by last week's
news of former Cheney chief of staff I. "Scooter" Libby's testimony that
Bush authorized distribution of previously classified data as part of a
concerted effort to undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joe
Wilson, who had revealed that the "case" for going to war in Iraq was based
on false premises-most Congressional Democrats continue to resist calls to
hold the President accountable.
An American Research Group poll conducted in March found that 70 percent of
Democrats, 42 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans surveyed
favor censuring Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United
States without obtaining court orders. Yet Feingold's motion to censure Bush
has drawn just two Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate, Barbara Boxer of
California and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
The same American Research Group poll found that 61 percent of Democrats, 47
percent of independents and 18 percent of Republicans are supportive of
moves to impeach Bush. Yet Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat
on the House Judiciary Committee, has attracted just 33 co-sponsors for his
resolution calling for the creation of "a select committee to investigate
the administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization,
manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture,
retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds
for possible impeachment." Most Democratic members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, along with Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, have
signed on. But House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and others in leadership
positions remain aggressively critical of the initiative.
Where, at the very least, is the united Democratic support for
Representative Maurice Hinchey's call for the expansion of Special Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into White House leaks-which produced
the indictment of Libby and last week's revelation about the role of the
President and Vice President-to examine the motivations of all of those
involved in the White House's political assault on Joe Wilson? Hinchey, a
New York Democrat, has been on the case since last summer, when he got
thirty-nine other House members to sign a letter he wrote to Fitzgerald
calling for the expanded investigation. As Hinchey says, "Justice will not
be served until all of these matters are fully addressed in the courts and
in the Congress."
Hinchey's right. But the fundamental truth of American politics remains that
justice will only be served when the opposition party moves, as a united
force encouraged and supported by its leadership in the House and Senate, to
demand accountability from this Administration. For most Democrats, that
will demand something they have not yet been willing to make: a break from
Bush. And Democrats had better be quick about making that break, unless they
want their Republicans colleagues to beat them to the punch.
Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAlvqAJ41+Sa6CILv2vQGnqcNlZT4CFVviQCfdabp
Gv8cRCcpvpwY5afvFhMcD5Y=
=aymg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Exit Strategy? Bush Promises More Troops for Iraq
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b573b6c9883eb69f
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Exit Strategy? Bush Promises More Troops for Iraq
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Radio Havana Cuba Viewpoint - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.radiohc.cu
Exit Strategy?
Bush Promises More Troops for Iraq
In contrast to some optimistic media speculations about the false
interest of the American government to reduce their troops in Iraq,
the president of the nation, George W. Bush, affirmed that if the
commanders of the occupying forces ask for reinforcements, he would
authorize them.
Thus, previous declarations of the occupants of the White House were
overturned in the sense that in view of the creation of "democratic
bases" in Iraq parting from legislative elections, then it was already
possible to think about some reduction of the occupying army in the
Arab country.
In fact, there is no democracy in Iraq; not even under the
controversial patterns of representative democracy, or plans for the
return of part of the American military contingent in the country from
the Persian Gulf.
There is constant confusion in the White House and the Pentagon given
the continuous action of the resistance and the contradictions between
the political and ethnic forces which accepted to go to the
legislative elections, designed by the occupants.
The atmosphere of uncertainty at the heart of the power in Washington
is revealed when reviewing the paradoxical arguments to justify the
invasion against Iraq.
First they said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then
that President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of
September 11th, 2001.
Since none of the abovementioned assertions were proven, recently
spokesmen of the Bush government had to resort to a third explanation,
as aberrant as the others, because it alludes to the exercise of the
right of legitimate defense.
As nobody believes in the misconception of a supposed invasion plan
organized by Hussein against the United States, the US government sank
into a ridiculous situation once again.
The evidences of Bush's authorizing the leak of intelligence reports
on Iraq to fight critics against his militaristic policy are not
positive for the White House either.
The aforementioned contradicts the declarations of one of the most
influential figures of the White House, Lewis Libby, close
collaborator of the nation's Vice-President, Richard Cheney.
In accordance with the documents presented in the process against
Libby, the leaks were authorized to respond to an article of former
ambassador Joseph Wilson, in which he expressed doubts on Bush's
justifications to wage an invasion against Iraq.
In view of such cynicism and lack of credibility in the present
American administration, one of the reasons for Bush's plummeting
popularity, this a very worrying factor given the next legislative
elections.
Figures don't help him either since 2,300 casualties in the
battlefield, 17,000 wounded, 80,000 Iraqi civilians massacred by
increasing violence and the expenditure of 250 billion dollars to
guarantee the weapons sent to the Arab country, do not go along with
the euphoria Bush seems to have when referring to the events in the
Persian Gulf. The situation is serious and it will not be so easy for
Bush to continually increase his forces in Iraq as he has just
promised.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycWiz2i76ou9wQRAtUGAKC7u2Yi96v8CwUkh43NEo7PIcoixwCfZr5c
8d1BhOTtD+Ns2LCt2rYfdI0=
=hR/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thanks, Bush: Drug prices for US elderly up 6% in 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/54ca6c3e88511f2c
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks, Bush: Drug prices for US elderly up 6% in 2005
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Apr 10, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=uri%3a2006-04-10T141052Z_01_N07290830_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRUGS-PRICES.xml
Drug prices for US elderly up 6 pct in 2005: study
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. prices for brand name prescription medications
used most by older patients rose an average 6 percent in 2005, outpacing
inflation for the sixth year in a row, according to a report released on
Monday.
In fact, the price drug makers charge wholesalers and other purchases for
branded drugs has risen 40 percent since 1999, compared with inflation,
which grew 17 percent, AARP researchers found. In 2005, inflation was 3.4
percent.
The nation's largest consumer group for the elderly reviewed 193 medications
mostly for arthritis pain, osteoporosis, heart disease, high blood pressure,
and other ailments that affect older Americans.
"Brand name drugs have become substantially less affordable for consumers at
the same time they are becoming ever more essential to good medical care,"
said John Rother, AARP's director of policy and strategy.
Rother said the higher costs can be expected to trickle down to consumers.
"These prices are reflected both in higher premiums for drug coverage as
well as in higher out of pocket costs at the pharmacy counter," he said.
An average, older American taking four drugs would have probably paid an
extra $189.72 last year, AARP estimated.
The rate of increase was slightly lower in 2005 than in previous years,
according to the review.
Among the 24 most used medicines, AstraZeneca Plc's heart drug Toprol XL saw
the highest increase of 11.1 percent, while Bristol-Myers Squibb's
blood-thinner Plavix saw the smallest increase at 2.9 percent.
A separate review of 75 generic drugs found little price change in 2005. Six
medicines, or about 8 percent, cost more while just one drug dropped in
price.
© Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAmjlAKCFYDWIKmij54zaTdHIm5GpYk3ReACdFl3j
ForZkcY2ZIYysLxOlDDZWIU=
=P2ty
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Browning of America: Protests Show Immigant Clout
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fb4d83def35cbb0c
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Browning of America: Protests Show Immigant Clout
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Apr 10, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=uri%3a2006-04-10T141257Z_01_N09310898_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IMMIGRATION.xml
Protests in US highlight immigrant clout
By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some call it "the browning of America." Others see it
as an economic necessity. Hispanics have become the largest minority group
in the United States and the target of anger in a national debate over
immigration.
The country built and populated by immigrants is wrestling with ways to
tighten border controls and weighing the future of an estimated 11 million,
mostly Mexican, illegal immigrants.
Fresh protests on behalf of the immigrants are planned for Monday in 60
cities nationwide. Immigrant organizations are calling for a general strike
on May 1 to show what would happen in the United States without immigrants,
legal and illegal.
Last month, more than a million immigrants took to the streets, angry at a
bill passed by the House of Representatives to make illegal immigrants
felons and to build a 698-mile wall along parts of the Mexican border.
The huge scale of those protests -- including at least 500,000 people in Los
Angeles -- was a departure from the past when fear of being deported made
illegal immigrants reluctant to engage in public activism.
"What we are seeing in the streets is a naked assertion of power," Mark
Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington,
said. "This isn't really about immigration -- it's about power."
Immigrant activists prefer to call it strength in numbers -- and the numbers
have been rising. So has the use of Spanish, which has become an unofficial
second language, found on government forms and the menus of automatic teller
machines.
Hispanics, who numbered around 37 million in 2001, overtook blacks as the
biggest minority group that year, according to the Census Bureau. The latest
figures estimate 40 million Hispanics are living in the United States.
By 2050, according to Census Bureau projections, there will be more than 100
million people of Hispanic origin in the country, almost a quarter of the
population.
"Most immigration opponents are loath to admit it, at least publicly, but
they are worried that the huge influx of Hispanics will somehow change
America for the worse," said immigration expert Linda Chavez, who heads the
Center for Equal Opportunity near Washington. "But those fears are
unfounded. Some may talk about the browning of America, but immigrants are a
net positive."
BIFURCATED SOCIETY?
U.S. history has been marked by divisive arguments over immigration at
regular intervals. Anti-immigrant sentiment ran so high in the late 19th
century that the government banned immigration from China, arguing that
Chinese people were incapable of assimilating into American culture.
Some of those views are echoed in today's debate.
On Friday, the Senate failed to agree on a bill that would pave the way
toward citizenship for 7 million illegal immigrants and introduce a
guest-worker program to meet the U.S. demand for unskilled and low-skilled
workers.
Many of the arguments in favor of tighter border controls and punishment for
illegal immigrants are rooted in a belief that Latin Americans in general
and Mexicans in particular are unwilling to assimilate.
"That ... could change America into a culturally bifurcated Anglo-Hispanic
society with two national languages," Harvard professor Samuel Huntington
says in his book on America's national identity, "Who Are We?"
The last big national immigration debate took place in 1986. It featured
many of the same disagreements as today, and resulted in amnesty for 3
million people, mostly Mexicans, who had crossed the border illegally.
To throttle future illegal immigration, the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act stipulated stiff sanctions for employers who hired illegal
immigrants. The provision was widely ignored. Along the 2,000-mile border
with Mexico, capitalist market rules trumped border controls. Illegal
crossings rose sharply.
Roughly half of Mexico's population lives on less than $5 a day, according
to government figures. In the United States, the federal minimum wage is
$5.15 an hour.
"Migration is a question of supply and demand," said Jorge Bustamante of the
Northern Frontier College in Tijuana. "Demand in the U.S. for Mexican labor
has been growing. The money is better on the other (American) side. That's
the main factor."
In March, protesters waving flags from Mexico and other Latin American
countries stirred angry reactions from Americans who saw the display as
evidence of disdain for American values and loyalty to countries.
Organizers of Monday's protests seem determined to avoid a repetition.
"Leave the flags of your countries at home," said messages on
Spanish-language radio over the weekend. "Wave the flag of the country by
which you want to be accepted."
© Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAshrAJ9PJ48qQXZvxguZkFc3tJx3upjUTgCfaTNT
20XC6icoyixPwQJgEDKz1IU=
=8ovw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bush Regime "Secretly Plans Airstrikes" on Iran
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c6e6d021ea2e0733
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bush Regime "Secretly Plans Airstrikes" on Iran
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Independent - Apr 10, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article356679.ece
Bush administration 'secretly plans air strikes'
as it seeks regime change in Iran
By Raymond Whitaker
The Bush administration has sent undercover forces into Iran, and has
stepped up secret planning for a possible major air attack on the country,
according to the renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
While publicly advocating diplomacy to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear
weapon, Hersh reports in the next issue of The New Yorker magazine that
"there is a growing conviction among members of the United States military,
and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in
the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change".
One former senior intelligence official is quoted as saying that Mr Bush and
others in the White House have come to view Iran's president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, as a potential "Adolf Hitler". According to a senior Pentagon
adviser on the "war on terror", "this White House believes that the only way
to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that
means war". The danger, he adds, is that "it also reinforces the belief
inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear
capability".
One option under consideration, Mr Hersh reports, involves the possible use
of a B61 nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb against Iran's main centrifuge plant,
at Natanz. Last week the Federation of American Scientists alleged that a
weapons test to be carried out in the Nevada desert in June was designed to
simulate the effects of just such a bomb. Conventional explosives would be
used, it said, for "a low-yield nuclear weapon ground shock simulation
against an underground target".
The US Defence Threat Reduction Agency told The Independent on Sunday that
the test, codenamed "Divine Strake", was intended "to assess the capability
of computer codes" to predict the effects of the explosion. The experiment
aimed to improve "warfighters' confidence in their ability to plan to defeat
hardened and deeply buried targets". It did not refer to tactical nuclear
weapons like the B61.
According to Mr Hersh, some officials are shocked at what they describe as
"operational" planning which goes far beyond the usual work on hypothetical
scenarios. One former defence official is quoted as saying the planning was
based on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate
the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the
government".
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already
under way, Mr Hersh reports, including "simulated nuclear-weapons delivery
missions" by US navy aircraft operating from carriers. Undercover units are
also said to be working with ethnic minorities in Iran, including the Kurds,
Baluchis and Azeris. While one goal was to have "eyes on the ground", the
broader aim was to "encourage ethnic tensions" and undermine the regime.
Britain and other European states support the need for a military option to
deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, The New Yorker article says, but
want nothing to do with regime change. "The Brits think this is a very bad
idea, but they're really worried we're going to do it," Flynt Leverett, a
former member of the US National Security Council, is quoted as saying.
Critics of military action against Iran point out that it would convulse
world oil markets and could lead to retaliation in Iraq. Mr Hersh says he
was told by a Pentagon adviser that the southern half of Iraq, where
Britain's 8,000 troops are based, would "light up like a candle" in the wake
of any strike on Iran, while a general said that, despite the British
presence, "the Iranians could take Basra with 10 mullahs and a sound truck".
The greatest disquiet within the military is said to be over the possibility
of using nuclear weapons against Iran. Some planners argue that it would be
impossible to be certain that underground facilities such as those at Natanz
had been completely destroyed unless a nuclear "bunker-buster" was used. Mr
Hersh says he was told by a former senior intelligence official that some
officers had talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear
option from the war plans failed.
The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could
provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens
throughout the world. "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack
Iran?" he asks.
Mr Hersh reports that the White House refused to comment on military
planning, but insisted, as did the Pentagon, that a diplomatic solution was
being sought with Iran. The CIA said there were "inaccuracies" in his
account, but would not specify them.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAu5HAJ9ybfqabgU+jzDyUDPaojh/woB4QgCdH7WQ
R/X9VVV72tbAclbLgEYNROA=
=vqCY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Target Iran: US hints at a new battlefront
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/268ddebc451526aa
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Target Iran: US hints at a new battlefront
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Independent - Apr 10, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article356854.ece
Target Iran: US hints at a new battlefront
Tensions are rising over Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons programme
as the Pentagon considers its military options
by Anne Penketh
They are the human shields. Every time there is the sound of sabre-rattling
from the West over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, the
protesters are back in the picture.
Some have been deployed in a human chain outside sensitive sites in remote
areas of Iran. Others rally outside the embassies of the United States and
Britain in Tehran.
In the West, public opinion is hardening against the prospect of a
nuclear-armed Islamic republic. Inside Iran, the public has been galvanised
by its leaders into mobilising in support of the country's nuclear
programme.
The Iranian demonstrators are likely to be needed again in the light of a
shock report by the authoritative journalist Seymour Hersh that the Bush
administration is considering possible strikes by tactical "bunker-buster''
nuclear missiles able to destroy facilities deep underground.
According to his article in The New Yorker, the plans aimed at engineering
regime change in Tehran have split the Pentagon top brass to such an extent
that some officers have threatened to resign their posts.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday dismissed the claim of a
nuclear strike being used to prevent Iran from obtaining its own atomic
weapon as "completely nuts". The Iranians described the article as the part
of the "psychological war" launched by the US to frighten Tehran into
abandoning what it believes is its treaty right to develop nuclear
technology.
But President George Bush has been careful to keep the military option on
the table throughout the stand-off with Iran over its nuclear programme,
which intensified last June with the election of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad.
Mr Ahmadinejad, a former member of the fanatical Revolutionary Guards, set
alarm bells ringing throughout the West - and even in his own country - by
threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".
Even though it is the country's spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who calls the shots in Iran, according to The New Yorker, it is Mr
Bush's deep distrust of Mr Ahmadinejad that has strengthened his
determination to confront Iran.
But time is running out. Diplomatic moves are at a standstill because of the
reluctance from Russia and China to impose sanctions against Iran, which has
important support from developing countries where nuclear power is seen as a
legitimate right.
In the West, arms control experts - as well as European governments - are
convinced that Iran wants to pursue uranium enrichment at its underground
facility at Natanz with the intention of keeping open the option of building
a bomb. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant
and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian
reactor requires 2 to 3 per cent uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90
per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium.
The Iranians will have mastered the technology that can allow its
centrifuges to enrich uranium without exploding or breaking down in a matter
of months, according to Western experts. When that happens, the world will
be hurtling towards a nuclear nightmare. Israel's arch foe will have
obtained a powerful tool with which to threaten its neighbours.
Estimates vary as to how long it would take Iran to reach the break-out
capability. The generally cautious director general of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, who is to visit Iran this
week, believes that it could take up to two years for Natanz to be up and
running. At that point, he says, an Iranian nuclear bomb could be "a few
months away".
The estimate of the Egyptian IAEA chief echoes Israeli thinking. United
States estimates range from five to 10 years for weapons-grade fuel to be
successfully manufactured.
According to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies,
with 1,000 working centrifuges at Natanz, it would take just over two years
to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb - without the IAEA
safeguards which are currently in place. With 3,000 centrifuges, the number
Iran has told the Europeans it wants to install at Natanz, it would take 271
days to produce the same amount of weapons-grade fuel. According to one
expert, such a fuel cycle would be a clear indication that the Iranians are
bent on building a bomb.
There are two ways of making a nuclear bomb: a relatively simple way which
results in a plutonium bomb and a harder way using enriched uranium. But
whichever route is followed, step one in making the fuel for a nuclear bomb
- - or a civilian reactor - is to mine uranium.
In step two, the uranium ore is ground into a powder and reconstituted into
a solid known as yellowcake, which is radioactive. Step three involves the
conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas.
In step four, the gas is fed into centrifuges, measuring one and a half
metres tall, where the uranium enrichment takes place. This process
increases the percentage of uranium-235 to the levels needed to be used as
fuel in a civilian reactor, or a weapon, by separating the uranium isotopes
in the rapidly spinning rotor tubes.
But there are well known problems with gas centrifuges. If they do not
operate in a vacuum, rust and corrosion sets in. The spinning at enormous
speeds can cause uncontrollable vibrations which can send shrapnel flying
and cause explosions. The Iranians lost one third of their centrifuges when
they agreed to halt uranium enrichment in November 2003 under an agreement
with the European Union. That agreement was shattered last January when Iran
reopened Natanz, where it tested an array of 20 centrifuges in vacuum
conditions.
The method involving plutonium has a clear advantage because it needs much
smaller quantities - 4kg rather than the 25kg of enriched uranium required
to produce a bomb. Plutonium does not exist in a natural state, and is the
product of reprocessed spent reactor fuel, after yellowcake has been reduced
to uranium metal.
The extraction of plutonium is a serious engineering challenge as spent fuel
is highly radioactive and toxic, and a very dangerous process.
The main worry for the West is that Iran has dabbled in all aspects of the
nuclear fuel cycle, on both the enriched uranium route and the plutonium
route.
It has a uranium mine, it has a conversion facility just outside the city of
Isfahan, which was reopened last summer in violation of its agreement with
the European Union, and it has the Natanz enrichment plant.
Although work has been suspended at Arak, 150 miles south of Tehran, Iran is
in the early stages of constructing a heavy water plant that is to supply a
research reactor which could eventually produce enough weapons-grade
plutonium for one or two weapons per year.
Although nuclear experts say that the international community has been
distracted by the crisis triggered over Iran's uranium enrichment programme,
the plutonium experiments have the potential for creating a far more
worrying situation. "With uranium, it's much easier to put in safeguards to
monitor the atmosphere and instruments," said Paul Ingram, a senior analyst
with the British American Security Information Council, which specialises in
nuclear issues.
Nuclear reprocessing is more difficult for inspectors to verify, in terms of
possible diversion for military purposes. And reprocessing can take place in
a very small area. "It could be done in a plant the size of a house, in the
middle of a mountain," if Iran decided to carry on with a clandestine
programme, Mr Ingram said. "If the Iranians succeed in producing a
heavy-water plant plus a reactor at Arak, then we are in a very difficult
situation."
The Russians are helping Iran build a "safe" light-water reactor at Bushehr
in the south of the country. Under an agreement with the Russians, the fuel
rods for the reactor, which has not yet come on stream, are to come from
Russia and will be sent back there for reprocessing to avoid any possible
diversion.
The main nuclear powers, including Britain, followed the reprocessing route
to build their modern arsenal. The US, in the early days, experimented with
the fuel cycle of both enriched uranium and plutonium: the bomb that
flattened Hiroshima in August 1945 was a uranium bomb, while the bomb that
blasted Nagasaki three days later was plutonium.
Iraq went down the centrifuge route, although after 10 years of efforts,
Saddam Hussein had still not produced a weapon when the UN inspectors
belatedly discovered, and dismantled, its clandestine programme in the
1990s.
Pakistan also took the enrichment route, most probably because the father of
the Muslim world's atom bomb, AQ Khan, worked in the 1970s for a Dutch
uranium enrichment plant, Urenco, which supplied European reactors. He used
a centrifuge design stolen from Urenco to build facilities in Pakistan for
weapons-grade uranium.
So why did Iran decide to put its major effort into travelling along the
bumpy road towards uranium enrichment?
In fact the Iranians were following both routes from the beginning. They
bought their first nuclear reactor from the US, during the rule of the Shah.
But the breakthrough came in the 1980s when Iran bought a blueprint for a P1
centrifuge from the AQ Khan network, which operated like a nuclear
supermarket.
United Nations inspectors with the IAEA are still trying to unravel the
history of Iran's nuclear know-how and have not proved without a doubt that
the Iranians are working on a bomb.
Iran is meanwhile being asked by the UN Security Council to suspend all
uranium enrichment work. Tehran has refused.
In the next few weeks, the West will have to decide what carrot, or what
stick, to use next.
"In terms of strategy, the West needs to think more clearly about the need
to work with the Iranians and the IAEA to keep the inspectors inside Iran.
The key to all this is to ensure the IAEA is on the ground and with the
Iranians co-operating," said Mr Ingram.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAib4AJ9N1HgdYP4qAPrQ57umlyNqVYfdwwCeI2MW
+lMlOyyCpyDMka57or5SfZ4=
=a+Ze
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thousands in US Turn Out for Immig Protests
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9e165ef44566e783
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thousands in US Turn Out for Immig Protests
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AP via MSNBC.com - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12250356/from/RSS/
Thousands turn out for immigration protests
Demonstrations taking place across the country for a second day
ATLANTA - Thousands of demonstrators wearing white T-shirts and waving signs
and American flags filled the streets of an immigrant neighborhood Monday
for the first of dozens of marches planned in a national day of action
billed as a campaign for immigrants dignity.
The two-mile Atlanta march was in support of immigrant rights nationally as
well as in protest of state legislation awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdues
signature. If signed, it would require that adults seeking many
state-administered benefits prove they are in the country legally.
Carlos Carrera, a construction worker from Mexico, held a large banner that
read: We are not criminals. Give us a chance for a better life. Story
continues below ? advertisement
We would like them to let us work with dignity. We want to progress along
with this country, Carrera said. He said he had been in the United States
for 20 years.
In Pittsburgh, a smaller group marched to Sen. Arlen Specters office.
We all know pay is not the same everywhere and lot of people wont work for
the minimum here, so if they wont take the job, whats the problem? said
47-year-old Jose Salazar.
Rallying momentum
Mondays demonstrations followed a day of rallies in 10 states that drew an
estimated 350,000 to 500,000 in Dallas alone.
In Salt Lake City, 20,000 turned out on Sunday, far more than expected,
police said, and 50,000 rallied in San Diego. Other demonstrations were held
in Minnesota, New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Alabama, Oregon and Idaho.
With an overhaul of immigration law stalled in Congress, demonstrators urged
lawmakers to help an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants settle legally
in the United States.
If we dont protest theyll never hear us, said Oscar Cruz, 23, a
construction worker who marched in San Diego. Cruz, who came illegally to
the U.S. in 2003, said he had feared a crackdown but felt emboldened by the
large marches across the country in recent weeks.
In Birmingham, Ala., demonstrators marched along the same streets where
civil rights activists clashed with police in the 1960s and rallied at a
park where a statue of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stands as a reminder
of the fight for equal rights and the violence that once plagued the city.
Weve got to get back in touch with the civil rights movement, because
thats what this is about, said the Rev. Lawton Higgs, a United Methodist
minister and activist.
The rallies also drew counter-demonstrators.
In Salt Lake City, Jerry Owens, 59, a Navy veteran from Midway wearing a
blue Minuteman T-shirt and camouflage pants, held a yellow Dont Tread on
Me flag.
I think its real sad because these people are really saying its OK to be
illegal aliens, Owens said. What Americans are saying is Yes, come here.
But come here legally. And I think thats the big problem.
Long-term preparations
Many groups had been preparing to rally since December, when the House
passed a bill to build more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, make it a
crime to help undocumented immigrants and make it a felony to be in the
country illegally. It is now a civil violation.
Since then, local and regional protests, supported by popular
Spanish-language disc jockeys, quickly merged into national plans after
hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in dozens of cities last month,
culminating March 25 with a 500,000-strong rally in Los Angeles.
This is a force, an energy here, said Amir Krummell, a U.S. citizen born
in Panama, who marched to Dallas city hall on Sunday. All around him in the
wave of protesters could be heard shouts of Si Se Puede!, Spanish for
Yes, we can!
© 2006 The Associated Press.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAu0YAJ9iVtJm00sOHeyQbR55wqjb/00wXwCgth+R
c8Qbsn5MrX7nOUDr2ImhZtI=
=KYAL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another New Poll, Another New Low for Bush
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2f138ab39fc105e6
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Another New Poll, Another New Low for Bush
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
Another New Poll, Another New Low for Bush Support
Washington, Apr 10 (Prensa Latina) Popular support for President
George W. Bush established a new record low Monday in an ABC and
Washington Post poll showing only 38 percent approve his policy.
Sixty percent of those polled said Bush is not doing his work in the
federal administration well and that the war in Iraq was not worth it.
Another survey, sponsored by Ipsos, showed approval of the president´s
performance among Republicans fell from 82 percent in February to 74
percent in April.
The number of US citizens satisfied with the way Bush handles foreign
policy and terrorism decreased to 43 percent, according to the
sources.
/ccs/iom/jvj
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycWiz2i76ou9wQRArY+AJ0cJw0WIdUBnGbx2J9Xu3kOXOZgnwCcDGz4
6lA+pGsYuCCAyXthoeL7TOc=
=8xDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: National immigration marches kick off in Georgia
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ddb70ce6ee43b2ae
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
National immigration marches kick off in Georgia
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
DNN - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/immigration/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
National immigration marches kick off in Georgia
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Thousands of marchers in white T-shirts filled the
streets of an Atlanta neighborhood, one of dozens of nationwide immigration
rights protests kicking off Monday.
Demonstrators in nearly 70 U.S. cities will be voicing support for an
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
On what is dubbed a "national day of action for immigration justice,"
Atlanta's was one of 30 marches in the South alone as focus on the
immigration issue turned from Congress to the streets.
Other large protests are planned in New York, Philadelphia, Indianapolis,
Seattle, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.
They follow similar rallies Sunday in Dallas, Texas; St. Paul, Minnesota;
Des Moines, Iowa; Long Island, New York; and Goshen, Indiana. (Watch
opposing protesters chant at each other at an Indiana march -- 1:00)
The two-mile Atlanta march was in support of immigrant rights nationally as
well as in protest of state legislation awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue's
signature, The Associated Press reported. If signed, it would require that
adults seeking many state-administered benefits prove they are in the
country legally, according to AP.
Carlos Carrera, a construction worker from Mexico, held a large banner that
read: "We are not criminals. Give us a chance for a better life," AP
reported.
In Manhattan -- where three rallies are set Monday -- demonstrators expect
to cross the Brooklyn Bridge and march through Chinatown and Greenwich
Village before converging on City Hall Park.
Last week's Senate legislation was hailed as a breakthrough before the
compromise drafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel
Martinez of Florida failed to gain enough support in a vote. (Full story)
On Sunday, lawmakers traded blame for the impasse, but they agreed on one
thing: The result may be no legislation at all.
"I hope it's savable," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts. "I hope
politics doesn't get in the way."
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said he is optimistic but added, "I'm
always optimistic."
Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told "Fox News Sunday"
that "there's a real risk of significant political fallout here."
Both parties are looking to win over Latinos -- the nation's fastest-growing
- -- voting bloc in this year's midterm elections. Divisions within GOP
Republicans are divided over two of the Senate bill's provisions -- a
guest-worker program for noncitizens and a process allowing illegal
immigrants to pursue legal status to stay in the country and obtain
citizenship.
Some Republicans fear provisions helping illegal immigrants could damage the
party's image as being tough on national security issues.
While some GOP Senate leaders have expressed support for provisions allowing
illegal immigrants to stay in the country and obtain citizenship -- an idea
espoused by President Bush -- others flatly reject it.
"A temporary-worker program that might be useful to supply labor needs in
our country, when they exist, should be exactly that -- temporary -- so that
when the work is not available for them, you haven't turned them into
permanent legal residents and thereby created a situation where you have
foreign workers here but no job for them," said Sen. John Kyl, R-Arizona.
Democrats largely support laying out an avenue to citizenship. House bill
focuses solely on security
But even if the Senate manages to pass a bill after a two-week recess for
Easter, another uphill battle would follow: having to merge it with the bill
passed by the House.
The House immigration legislation -- which has drawn fierce opposition from
- -- Latino groups calls for building a 700-mile-long security fence on the
- -- U.S.-Mexico
border and for making illegal immigration a felony.
A joint committee of members of the House and Senate would have to hammer
out a compromise.
"I think we can resolve the differences, and we can have a strong
immigration-reform bill," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said
Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
But Boehner offered no indication how such a solution would be possible.
"I'm for securing the borders and enforcing the laws," he said. "Until we do
that, if you try to create a guest-worker program, all you're doing is
inviting more illegal immigration."
Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee, also indicated he would not support such legislation now.
"In 18 months or two years, we can go back and address that issue," King
told "Fox News Sunday."
"But first we have to secure the borders. Otherwise we're just going to be
taking a bad situation and compound it."
But Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, cast that position as unfair and
impractical. "We do need reinforcement, but we also need compassion. We need
a comprehensive bill, one that takes into account that there are 11 million
undocumented workers currently in the United States," Gutierrez told NBC's
"Meet the Press."
"The only sane, sensible, compassionate thing to do is to integrate them
fully into the fabric of our society. ... And they're necessary to the
economic well-being of our country. So let's include them."
CNN's Allan Chernoff contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 CNN.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAjdgAKCTmmpeDr3QWF6410kNYwqQzRTYsQCZAX3Q
/UpfQZsiJdm5I0n3BIqhn+k=
=K8op
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Drug War: Don't Let Congress Poison People
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/464516374e077c54
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Drug War: Don't Let Congress Poison People
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Waldo - Apr 10, 2006
COLOMBIA PEACE PROJECT
Dear Friends,
The aerial spraying of herbicides on the fields and forests of Colombia,
in an ill-conceived effort to limit coca production, is bad enough. Now
the House of Representatives has passed a bill which would make the
situation even worse. We need to convince the Senate to reject it.
Since the Senate is in recess for the next two weeks, this is a good
time to write letters to their district offices. Here are the addresses
of the California senators:
Senator Diane Feinstein
11111 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Senator Barbara Boxer
312 N. Spring St., Suite 1748
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The following information comes from the Drug Policy Alliance.(DPA) For
further information about that organization, check their web site at
<www.drugpolicy.org>. The web site has a link to send an e-mail to the
senators. But a letter is much more effective.
Don't Let Congress Poison People
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Congress is considering a drug war idea so bad that even Drug Czar John
Walters is against it. The House has authorized, and the Senate is
considering, a proposal to revive research on the use of toxic,
mold-like fungi called mycoherbicides to kill drug crops in other
countries.
Mycoherbicides have already been extensively studied over the last
thirty years - and the results make it clear that they are not an option
for controlling crops of coca or opium poppies. They attack
indiscriminately, destroying fruit and vegetable crops, causing open
sores in reptiles and other animals, and sickening humans as well. The
toxins mycoherbicides produce contaminate soil for years, so that
nothing can grow where they have been. Mycoherbicides are so destructive
that governments have even stockpiled them as weapons!
Incredibly, the proposal now before Congress advocates using
mycoherbicides in "field studies" in countries such as Colombia and
Afghanistan - something the world would certainly see as an act of
biological warfare.
Office of National Drug Control Policy head John Walters spoke out
against further mycoherbicide research last year, but this terrible
proposal is now part of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act. We need to make
sure the Senate removes the mycoherbicide research language from the
bill before it passes! Let your Senators know that renewed mycoherbicide
research is both unnecessary and dangerous!
For more information on mycoherbicides, read the new report commissioned
by DPA, "Repeating Mistakes of the Past: Another Mycoherbicide Research
Bill" (There's a link to this report on the Drug Policy Alliance web
site.)
Here's a sample letter:
Dear Senator:
As you may know, the House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 2829,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006,
and the Senate will soon be drafting its own version of the bill. I
urge you to reject the House version in its current form.
I request that you reject the bill because contained within the House
version of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act is language requiring ONDCP to
initiate research into the use of mycoherbicides against drug crops in
foreign countries. Mycoherbicides are mold-like fungi that attack
plants and other life forms, including mammals.
Mycoherbicides have been shown to be harmful to the workers who handled
them; toxic to non-target crops, such as food, flower, and licit drug
crops; persistent in the environment for months or years; and
ineffective against resistant coca strains.
Fungi are living organisms that can mutate and attack crops other than
those which they are intended to attack.
The bottom line is that the U.S. government should not support the use
of a product on our neighbors which it would not use domestically. I
strongly urge you to reject any language which allows the use of this
extremely dangerous substance in foreign countries.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycaiz2i76ou9wQRAvReAJ98OThkYzljUfRN3z/e2FAst1CMIACgi1jL
fo8VpkQV7MoVjxeQ25XnXBg=
=pkrv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Final Call: Why Does the US Govt Hate Cuba?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe6a5d4215e645b2
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Final Call: Why Does the US Govt Hate Cuba?
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Walter Lippmann (cubanews)
The Final Call - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2547.shtml
Why does the U.S. government hate Cuba?
By Dr. Ridgely Muhammad
The United States has an embargo against the import of anything from
Cuba (especially her ideas). The government will not allow American
citizens to buy anything from Cuba and bring it back to America.
Under the Helms-Burton Act, America revoked the licenses of ships to
dock at American ports if those ships dared to transport goods to
Cuba from another country. America has also ignored the 2004 UN
resolution that demanded the lifting of the embargo against Cuba.
Only after Hurricane Michelle devastated Cuba in 2001 did America
even allow Cuba to purchase food and medicine from America. Cuba has
imported food grains, but no medicine because she does not trust the
American pharmaceutical industry.
Before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, Cuba offered to send
1,100 doctors who spoke English to help the hurricane victims.
America rejected the offer. Why?
America reluctantly returned 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez to Cuba in
June 2000, claiming that America wanted him to have a better life in
America. Elian's mother died at sea while she and other relatives
were trying to reach America in a small aluminum boat in November
1999. Elian's father stayed in Cuba and wanted his son to return and
Elian wanted to return to his father. America would give the world
the impression that the Cuban government has her people under house
arrest and is denying her citizens the right to flee "tyranny" and
escape to freedom in South Florida.
From March 19-28, I was a part of a delegation that visited Cuba with
the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. We saw that the blockade
against Cuba had reduced the levels of consumption of luxury items in
Cuba. However, Cuba had developed over 71,000 doctors. These doctors
are paid very low wages compared to doctors in America. Therefore,
the doctors in Cuba should be the first Cubans to flee Cuba if given
the chance, so they could make big bucks in America, if money and
luxury are what they want.
If America felt that her system was better than Cuba's, she should be
glad to allow the Cuban doctors to taste the "freedom and prosperity"
of America. Instead, Fidel Castro offered the doctors and America
refused. Hmmmmmm? Could it be that America knows that the Cuban
doctors would have a better chance to convert the victims of Katrina
to the Cuban way, rather than America convert the doctors from Cuba
to the American way?
After America rejected the offer of Cuba to send doctors to aid the
victims of Katrina, a massive earthquake struck Pakistan. Cuba sent
these same doctors, called her "Medical Brigade," to attend to over
100,000 extremely injured victims of that earthquake. Those doctors
and technicians did not seek political asylum in Pakistan. They came
back to Cuba after doing their humanitarian work. We met some of them
on our tour and they shared their experiences of working alongside
Turkish and American doctors in the mountains of Pakistan. Why did
these doctors come back to Cuba? Why do the Cubans love their
country?
During our visit, we saw a country of civilized, well-fed,
well-mannered and happy citizens. Citizens receive free education
from kindergarten through graduate school and a base quantity of
staple food items. Cuba is reaching out to Black farmers in America
to purchase food products to supplement what Cuba grows at home.
Gasoline costs $0.80 per gallon.
The constitution guarantees the right to medical care and citizens
receive free medical care including major surgery, eye surgery and
dental surgery. Cuba has one doctor for every 156 of her citizens.
According to the 1990 Census, there was only one doctor for every
1,449 Black people in America and only one doctor for every 415 White
people in America. So the Cuban people have better access to medical
care than do the American people, Black or White.
The life expectancy in Cuba was 45 years before the Revolution in
1959. Now her life expectancy is 77.8 years. She has eliminated
measles and tetanus. Her infant mortality rate is between 5 and 6
percent. She has polyclinics available in every municipality and
convenient to even the most remote mountainous area of the country.
Cuba not only has 71,000 doctors to serve her population of 12.2
million people, she is sending doctors around the world in 120
countries. She has deployed 28,200 medical doctors and technicians
throughout the world and has set up medical schools in four
countries. She has 3,000 foreign students on full scholarship in her
medical schools, 82 of them are Blacks from America. This number is
far short of the 500 full scholarships that Cuba has offered to Black
high school graduates who want to become doctors to service their
people back in America.
The entire continent of Africa only has 50,000 doctors, so Cuba has
developed a strategy to set up 11 medical schools in Africa that
should produce 20,000 students per year for the next 10 years, which
should bring the total number of doctors to 250,000 in 10 years.
Under "Operation Miracle," Cuban doctors have performed 250,000
operations to return sight to the blind. Eye surgery is free. She has
established ophthalmology centers in Bolivia and Venezuela. Cuba's
goal is to cure most of the estimated 5 million blind people in South
America. Cuba has even offered free eye surgery to 100,000 American
citizens. We wonder if the American government will deny her citizens
a chance to be given back their sight free of charge.
Why does the American government hate Cuba? Cuba allows her citizens
to practice whatever religion they choose. According to the head of
religious affairs in Cuba, some people even practice more than one
religion. We even attended a Christian Sunday church service on the
morning of Mar. 2.
Housing is free to every citizen. Farmers can own their own land.
However, the farmers have learned to work together in production,
credit and marketing cooperatives. There is no unemployment in Cuba,
because either you have a job or you are in school.
In Cuba, everyone is their brother's keeper. There is no person who
is alone, lost or isolated. In the time of a natural disaster or the
threat of invasion, everyone is prepared to act immediately to save
the lives of Cuba's citizens or protect them against aggression. Even
the farmers keep in reserve a certain number of meat animals in case
the city dwellers need to flee and retreat to the countryside for a
period of time.
Why does the American government hate Cuba? Cuba is educating the
ignorant, healing the sick and opening the eyes of the blind. Cuba's
governing philosophy is what she calls "The Cult of Human Rights." It
now seems that America does not want such a philosophy to spread to
other countries. If Cuba were to be allowed to influence other
governments, then these countries would be obligated to see to the
needs of their citizens instead of pandering to the bloodsuckers of
the poor, i.e. the international bankers, transnational corporations
and the "merchants of death" that run pharmaceutical-biotech-agribusiness
cartels.
Related articles:
Cuban 'bomber' seeking U.S. asylum was on CIA payroll (FCN, 05-24-2005)
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2009.shtml
Bush's new 'axis of evil'-Castro and Chavez (FCN, 04-12-2005)
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1913.shtml
Campaign to free Cuban Five seeks mainstream spotlight (FCN, 03-13-2004)
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1332.shtml
Black journalists get close-up view of Cuba (FCN, 06-11-2002)
http://www.finalcall.com/international/cuba06-11-2002.htm
Pope to U.S.: Lift Cuban embargo (FCN, 02-03-1998)
http://www.finalcall.com/international/cuba2-3-98.html
C Copyright 2006 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycaiz2i76ou9wQRAjpKAJ40x/B2B2XunHtwwELuwr1BKwavBQCghPSZ
J9Kq99TzMlL58VclusXYhTQ=
=2ojD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: House Majority Leader rejects guest worker plan
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/be3b3d70c98c8e78
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
House Majority Leader rejects guest worker plan
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Apr 9, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=uri%3a2006-04-09T202901Z_01_N09132285_RTRIDST_0_CONGRESS-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-1.XML
US Republican leader rejects guest worker plan
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Majority
Leader John Boehner on Sunday rejected efforts to establish a guest worker
program for millions of illegal immigrants, despite calls from President
George W. Bush to do so.
Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said he supported a bill already passed by the
House that focuses on tightening the nation's borders but does not include a
temporary worker program.
"You can't begin to talk about a guest worker bill until you secure the
borders," he said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Otherwise, he said, "We're going to have an endless parade of illegal
immigrants here in our country."
Boehner's position pits him directly against Bush, who on Saturday blamed
Senate Democrats for blocking a bipartisan Senate plan that created a guest
worker plan and provided a path to citizenship for millions of illegal
immigrants.
Attempts to pass the bipartisan bill foundered on Friday as senators
bickered over the number of possible amendments, with Democrats citing
worries that Republicans were trying to water down the legislation.
The House bill, passed last December, is much tougher and defines the
roughly 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States as felons.
Boehner stopped short of saying congressional efforts to reform immigration
had failed, calling on the Senate to pass a bill when lawmakers return from
recess in two weeks.
"ENORMOUS PROBLEM"
If senators pass a bill, lawmakers from both sides of Congress would have to
work out their differences for a final bill. Boehner said that was possible.
Still, he said, allowing illegal immigrants to stay and work "sounds too
much like amnesty for most Americans."
The issue has divided conservatives, some of whom are anxious to court the
Hispanic vote and support Bush. Others worry that allowing in undocumented
immigrants, mostly from Mexico, could harm their election efforts.
"Everybody agrees there's an enormous problem, everybody agrees with the
border security lines and there's general agreement that we have to craft a
compromise," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a
Pennsylvania Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace.
But California Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, speaking on CBS's Face the
Nation, said that any bill involving an amnesty would not pass the House.
Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Democratic Caucus
Immigration Task Force, said any bill must deal with the illegal immigrants
already here because the U.S. economy can't afford to send them home.
Too many do tough agricultural and other essential work, he told NBC's Meet
the Press.
"The only sane, sensible, compassionate thing to do is to integrate them
fully into the fabric of our society," Gutierrez said.
Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Texas Republican, said most conservatives would
eventually accept integration.
"A lot of us want to support a guest-worker plan down the road, but first
and foremost, we have to secure the border," he told NBC.
© Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAt4CAJ44pOulZ0hkNlaLRbOPUx2K9Diy/ACgiK4t
BPSfLQYQI18J4Spcd6+TmFo=
=mDEk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Iran, Arab Roles in Peace Talks Urged
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c7685182f07af304
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Iran, Arab Roles in Peace Talks Urged
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
InterPress Service - April 10, 2006
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32837
Iran, Arab Roles in Peace Talks Urged
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Apr 10 (IPS) - Foreign policy circles in Washington, including
some figures considered close to the George W. Bush administration, have
begun talking privately and in off-the-record meetings about the need to
give both Iran and Iraq's Arab neighbours key roles in peace negotiations,
according to Middle East experts.
This new support for Iranian-Arab participation in negotiations on Iraq
parallels the position reportedly taken privately by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay
Khalilzad.
Steven A. Cook, a Middle East specialist and fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, told IPS that some foreign policy specialists "close to
the administration" have been saying in private conversations that the
United States will need to bring Iran and the Arab states into Iraqi peace
negotiations.
Another Middle East expert at a Washington think tank, who asked not to be
identified, said that arguments for involving the Iranians and Arabs in an
Iraqi peace process have been heard with much greater frequency and urgency
in recent weeks in closed, off-the-record meetings.
The expert said advocates of that option are arguing that, given the
influence of these neighbouring states on the Shiite and Sunni
political-military forces in Iraq, "You have to have something like a
'contact group' involving regional states to maximise leverage on the Iraqi
parties."
The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called in a New York
Times op-ed piece on Apr. 5 for a "Dayton Accords-like summit meeting" (a
reference to the 1995 peace conference ending the Bosnian War) with U.S.
allies and the Arab League to reach a "political agreement" on Iraq. Kerry
did not mention Iran.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to Pres. Jimmy Carter
(1977-1981), is the most prominent foreign policy figure to call publicly
for a regional peace process. On the Lehrer News Hour Mar. 20, Brzezinski
suggested getting the Iraqis to convene a "conference of ...Muslim
neighbours, who are interested in continued stability in Iraq and in helping
to prevent a civil war from exploding."
In a speech at a Democratic Party think tank, the Centre for American
Progress, on Mar. 16, Brzezinski said the stabilisation of Iraq is in Iran's
interest.
Brzezinski confirmed in an e-mail that there have also been private
discussions about his proposal, but declined to be more specific.
Growing support in foreign policy circles for active Iranian and Arab roles
in peace negotiations has been prompted by the dramatic escalation of
sectarian violence in Iraq last month. That was a signal to many that the
U.S. policy of pressing militant Shiite leaders to be compromising toward
the Sunnis was failing to slow Iraq's descent into civil war between Sunni
and Shiite paramilitary forces
In the wake of worsening sectarian violence, Ambassador Khalilzad has also
become more anxious about the U.S. failure to include Iranian and Arab
participation in Iraqi talks on a settlement. In a Mar. 20 article in Time
magazine, Aparisim Ghosh wrote that those who know Khalilzad "say he is
aware he may be powerless to stop Iraq's unraveling".
Ghosh quoted a recent visitor to Khalilzad as saying the ambassador had
complained that he "needs more help from Washington to apply international
pressure on Iraq's warring parties".
The "international pressure" which Khalilzad mentioned could only refer to
pressure by Iran on Iraq's militant Shiite leaders and by neighbouring Arab
states on the Sunni insurgents.
Khalilzad's apparent belief that the Iranians might be willing to help
pressure the Shiite parties on a settlement is supported by the observations
of former NSC official Kenneth Pollock on Iran's policy in Iraq after the
U.S. invasion in 2003. Pollack testified before the House Armed Service
Committee last year that Iran told the militant Shiite parties that had been
trained in Iran and strongly opposed the U.S. occupation to cooperate with
U.S. authorities in establishing an interim government.
Pollock told the committee that Iran was motivated by the desire to avoid
"civil war and chaos", which he called "their greatest fear and first
priority".
Opponents of U.S.-Iranian talks, including National Security Adviser Stephen
J. Hadley and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, have tried to block the
active involvement of the Iranians in negotiations on a settlement in Iraq.
That issue may still be unresolved as Washington and Tehran continue to
negotiate proposals on the details of the talks.
Khalilzad's desire for the participation of Iraq's Arab neighbours in such
negotiations is also rejected by those who still see Iraq as an experiment
in bringing democracy to the Arab world. In an article just published in The
New Republic online, the Council on Foreign Relations' Cook argues that the
Arab states have no interest in helping the United States succeed in
creating an Arab democratic state in Iraq.
Whatever their views about democratic institutions, however, Iraq's Arab
neighbours are far more concerned about the potentially destabilising
impacts of Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq on their own societies, and the
likelihood that it would allow al Qaeda to consolidate its bases in Iraq for
training Arab jihadis for later return to their home countries.
According to an Associated Press report on Wednesday, the intelligence
chiefs of six Arab states -- Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates -- and Turkey have held a series of meetings in
recent weeks to discuss plans for dealing with the impacts on the region of
worsening Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia in particular fears that unchecked sectarian violence in Iraq
will negatively affect its own Shiite minority. The Arab states also fear
that it will contribute to the destabilisation of Lebanon, which has its own
longstanding Sunni-Shiite conflict.
Apart from worries about civil war in Iraq, the Arab states argue that the
current U.S. policy in Iraq of excluding the Arab states from negotiations
is playing into Iran's hands.
At the Arab League Summit in Khartoum late last month, Arab League chief Amr
Moussa said, "Any solution for the Iraqi problem cannot be reached without
Arabs, and Arab participation." Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit
agreed. "There should be an Arab role" in the diplomatic efforts to
stabilise the country, he said.
Despite their fear of an overweening Iranian influence in Iraq, however,
there is no evidence that Iraq's Arab neighbours hope for a Sunni overthrow
of the Shi'ite-Kurdish-dominated government through force. Instead their aim
appears to be the protection of the rights of the minority Sunni population.
In an interview with U.S. public television's Charlie Rose in mid-February,
Saudi Ambassador to the United States Turki al-Faisal defined the two most
basic interest of Iraqi Sunnis as "an equal share in the resources of Iraq,
mainly oil" and being "safe from retribution" from Shiite militias. That was
a formulation with which Ambassador Khalilzad would not disagree.
Last November, the Arab League sought to help Sunni and Shiite parties begin
a process of reaching a political accommodation by sponsoring the Cairo
Conference of Iraqi parties. At that meeting, which excluded representatives
of the Sunni insurgents, Arab League diplomats succeeded in brokering an
agreement between Sunni and Shiite representatives on a set of compromise
principles.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His
latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in
Vietnam", was published in June 2005.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycZiz2i76ou9wQRAjZmAJwIepLAHEIIQhwOiy1J6355yMjFAwCgsl5Y
orrXWX25cnQYpQdkGyup+Qo=
=SLu2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: INDIANA CITY CONSIDERS BUSH IMPEACHMENT
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/2971abc818ddba44
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 8:59 pm
From: usenet@mantra.comk935f and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
In article <cYE_f.3979$XI6.446@trnddc05>,
"effty" <gospameffty@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:443a6039_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > Now Indiana will be attacked instead of Iran -- I guess it was just too
> > close alphabetically.
>
> By that logic Bush should be giving Indiana nuclear weapons. It is much
> closer in spelling to India, afterall.
>
> ~e.
Bharat (aka India) can use all the nukes it can get to
counter the threat from ChiComs and terrorist Pakistan, but
do you really think that the US Congresscritters will let
Bush assist Bharat in that respect?
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> > www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) posted:
> >
> >> Ind. city considers Bush impeachment
> >>
> >> Associated Press
> >> indystar.com
> >> Monday, April 10, 2006
> >>
> >> Lake Station, Ind. - Officials in this northwestern
> >> Indiana city of about 14,000 have agreed to discuss a
> >> resolution urging Congress to impeach President Bush.
> >>
> >> The Lake Station City Council will consider a resolution
> >> April 13 at the request of resident Brian Cretton.
> >> Cretton attended Thursday's council meeting and read a
> >> prepared statement asking officials to place impeachment
> >> on their agenda.
> >>
> >> Cretton said the president had misled the country about
> >> Iraq, allowed illegal spying on Americans and violated
> >> international torture treaties.
> >>
> >> People in the audience laughed and applauded when Mayor
> >> Shirley Wadding said to "add impeaching Bush" to the
> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> Council President Keith Soderquist said the request was
> >> unique.
> >>
> >> "We've never been given anything like this before," he
> >> said.
> >>
> >> More at:
> >>
> http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060410/LOCAL/604100411/-
> 1/RSS
> >>
> >> Jai Maharaj
> >> http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
> >> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> >> Om Shanti
> >>
> >> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> >> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
> >>
> >> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> >> http://www.hindu.org
> >> http://www.hindunet.org
> >>
> >> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> >> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
> >>
> >> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> >> educational
> >> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may
> >> not
> >> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of
> >> the
> >> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> >> fair use of copyrighted works.
> >> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> >> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> >> current
> >> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> >> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> >> are
> >> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
> >> article.
> >>
> >> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> >> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> >> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> >> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> >> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is
> >> believed
> >> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> >> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> >> Title
> >> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> >> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
> >> included
> >> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> >> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
> >> information
> >> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> >> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> >> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> >> copyright owner.
> >
> >
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gitmo Gulag: Tribunal Lawyers Trade Shots
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/72cdb900f8f83ffe
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 9:00 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gitmo Gulag: Tribunal Lawyers Trade Shots
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Walter Lippmann
The Wall Street Journal - April 10, 2006
Tribunal Lawyers Trade Shots
Guantanamo Commissions Are Plagued by Legal Infighting
By JESS BRAVIN
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror
attacks, President Bush conceived of military commissions as a way to
provide swift and severe punishment to foreign terrorists.
But last week's proceedings here, four years after the first
prisoners arrived, showed the commissions mired in legal infighting.
At the same time, defense attorneys have waged a concerted assault on
the system's legitimacy, ranging from the heavily secured hearing
room here to the Supreme Court.
"You don't have to go to London to attend a theatrical production.
We had that right here," chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Moe Davis,
said about defense tactics.
Col. Davis said critics of the process made "ethical allegations the
way Saddam Hussein lobbed Scud missiles" -- an apparent reference to,
among other things, claims by Clive Stafford Smith, a British
attorney for defendant Binyam Mohamed, that Col. Davis improperly
read privileged correspondence between him and his client. "If you
can't beat the facts, you can't defeat the process, you attack the
participants," Col. Davis said.
He then listed anti-American comments, pulled from Web sites, that he
said were made by Mr. Stafford Smith, who obtained U.S. citizenship
"because that was the only way he could keep his wife from being
deported."
Mr. Stafford Smith, who was educated in the U.S. and spent decades
there fighting the death penalty, called Col. Davis's comments
"pathetic." "When people at Guantanamo say that we are the enemy,
they really don't understand what America is all about," Mr. Stafford
Smith said.
Ten Guantanamo detainees captured after the U.S. invasion to topple
the Taliban stand accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism and, in
some cases, of attacking civilians or soldiers. They are represented
by both U.S. military attorneys and lawyers from universities,
left-leaning activist groups and some major law firms.
Federal courts have enjoined commission proceedings against some
defendants, and the legality of the system is under review by the
Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in June. In pretrial
hearings last week, attorneys for three defendants disputed Mr.
Bush's Nov. 13, 2001, military order stating that commission
defendants had no rights other than those he gave them and denying
the prisoners access to state, federal, foreign or international
courts.
Conflicting visions of the law came into focus at Wednesday's hearing
for Omar Khadr, a Canadian teenager accused of throwing a grenade
that killed a U.S. soldier. A defense lawyer argued that the
commission should follow traditional legal practice, and a military
prosecutor responded by trying to introduce a video he said showed
the defendant taking part in a firefight, rendering him a military
combatant for whom such conventional rules didn't apply.
Muneer Ahmad, an American University law professor helping to
represent Mr. Khadr, invoked familiar legal doctrines to argue that
regardless of President Bush's order, the government was bound to
afford his client the protections of the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process clause.
In parallel litigation involving Mr. Khadr's detention as an "enemy
combatant" -- although not the specific war-crimes charges before the
commission -- U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green found that a 2004
Supreme Court opinion extended the Due Process clause to Guantanamo.
Mr. Ahmad said under normal legal practice, when a higher court has
decided an issue involving the same parties and facts, the loser may
not reargue the matter. Thus, he contended, the military commission
was bound to grant those protections to Mr. Khadr.
The trial prosecutor, a Marine major whose name can't be disclosed
under Pentagon rules, hadn't cited Judge Green's opinion in his
brief. The prosecutor said he ignored the ruling because he
considered it wrong and expected it to be overruled in the
government's pending appeal.
"Alien enemy combatants have no rights under the Constitution," the
prosecutor said, and tried to get the presiding officer, Marine Col.
Robert Chester, to watch a video described as showing Mr. Khadr
committing "law of war violations." Col. Chester declined to watch
the video, saying it was irrelevant to the legal question at hand. He
put off a ruling.
On Friday, Army Maj. Thomas Fleener, appointed to represent accused
al Qaeda propagandist Ali Hamza Ahmed Suleiman al-Bahlul, invoked
federal and international court decisions to attack a rule of the
military commissions: that defendants must have a military lawyer,
whether they want one or not. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
his aides, who approved the requirement, "messed this thing up," Maj.
Fleener said.
Mr. Bahlul, a Yemeni, has said he is a member of al Qaeda and
demanded the right to represent himself or employ a Yemeni attorney
rather than a U.S. military officer, whom he considers an enemy. Maj.
Fleener cited the Supreme Court's 1975 ruling that defendants had a
right to decline counsel and said the late Slobodan Milosevic, facing
genocide and other charges, was allowed to represent himself before
the United Nations war-crimes tribunal.
Maj. Fleener said the military prosecutors agreed with his position.
But the head of the commission system, retired Army Maj. Gen. John
Altenburg, has denied such requests, he said. In 2005, Gen. Altenburg
found self-representation "impracticable," because Guantanamo
prisoners lack security clearances needed to review evidence, rarely
have legal training and may not have a good command of English.
***
The Wall Street Journal - April 9, 2006
May It Please the Court
by Jess Bravin
The Pentagon's chief prosecutor in Guantanamo Bay apologized for
upbraiding Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, admitting he had
misunderstood what the justice said last month at oral arguments over
the legality of the Bush administration's military tribunals for
suspected foreign terrorists.
Air Force Col. Moe Davis told a press briefing Tuesday that at the
Supreme Court arguments, "Justice Breyer said, in talking about the
current conflict, 'this is not a war, at least not an ordinary war'"
- - and thus, one might infer, military commissions operating outside
of constitutional rules are illegal. Col. Davis proceeded to read a
dictionary definition of war and observed, "the day after Justice
Breyer said 'this is not a war,' headlines read 'Afghanistan Fighting
Deadliest in Months."
But a transcript of the oral arguments showed that Justice Breyer had
been summarizing the arguments made by lawyers opposing the military
commissions, and then asked the government's attorney to respond.
Justice Antonin Scalia added that he too was "interested in your
answer."
At his Friday press briefing, Col. Davis said, "I didn't rate a seat
at the oral argument, so I wasn't there to watch it. I heard snippets
on the news and read a news account" that didn't make clear how
Justice Breyer prefaced his question. "It was my fault for not fully
exploring the full context of his statement, so in that regard I
apologize to him and anyone else that it was inaccurate."
Ten Guantanamo prisoners currently are charged with war crimes, and
Col. Davis said that perhaps 75 of the 490 men held here may
ultimately face similar prosecutions, depending on how the Supreme
Court rules. A decision is expected in June.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOycaiz2i76ou9wQRAmc/AJ4xSrO91gXSsnGMiDNaVuUzhM0+nQCeMGJD
Y2/xdHhzGNNSv7TvE9gMLGo=
=kpT0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.
To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
