America is the rogue nation

By Charlie Reese, AntiWar.Com
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13061

One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

AT&T Billing Site Jokes About Company's Participation in Warrantless Wiretapping

By , bOING bOING
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//89872/

By Cory Doctorow

Reid sez, "I, unfortunately, have an AT&T cell phone. I check my bill every few weeks. Today, I went to log in, and was greeted by a terrific new advertisement for their online billing system. It's as if their marketing department thinks that warrantless wiretapping is funny or something. " Link, Link to screenshot

(Thanks, Reid!)

Cory Doctorow blogs at Boing Boing.

© 2008 bOING bOING All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//89872/

8 year old plays Electric Funeral by Black Sabbath

OMG!!!!

This song was my first intro to metal-meisters Black Sabbath, through my friend Jay's older brother, drummer Carey Wehrer! He used to practice to it. I was not much older than this wee laddy.

Rock on, Les Paul-slinging kid!

Bush Cites Enviro Concerns to Curb Solar Development...While Accelerating Oil Drilling

LAFAYETTE, IN - A few weeks back, I wrote a New York Times magazine article about the populist uprising against unbridled oil and gas drilling in the Mountain West. The article highlighted a major theme in my new book, THE UPRISING. In the article, I discussed how the Bush Bureau of Land Management has thrown the principle of environmental caution overboard by opening up a huge amount of federal land to drilling. So it is with more than a little bit absurd to read this New York Times story today:

"Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states."

Look - I agree that we need to do a better job of measuring environmental impacts of all proposed energy development - whether that development is solar, oil or gas. But what's so incredible about this story is that the BLM is working to curtail solar development in Western states by citing environmental concerns while at the same actively accelerating oil and gas drilling in Western states - drilling that is way, way worse for the environment than solar energy, from both an emissions perspective and a land-use perspective.

This kind of government fealty to the rapacious fossil fuel industry is precisely what the energy-related populist uprising in West is revolting against.

U.S Spy Bill Creates the 'Infrastructure for a Police State'

The delayed vote on the on the illegal wiretapping bill is being touted by some as a chance to wedge the people's voice into the debate by our supposed representatives, who seem hell-bent on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom giants who illegally handed our private information to the NSA. I have my doubts. Campaign contributors come before citizens in our corrupted system - way before. The argument being used is that the corporations were merely responding to a request from the president, as if the chief executive had the power to transcend the law of the land. This defense wasn't allowed at Nuremberg, and shouldn't be allowed here. If it is (and it probably will be), it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Republic.--Pete

The whistleblower at the heart of a lawsuit against AT&T for illegal eavesdropping says Congress is set to stage a 'coup against the Constitution' as it nears passage of a new spying bill. Former AT&T technician Mark Klein provided internal company documents that he claims show that AT&T spied on the internet inside the United States.

read more | digg story

Scalia Used False Information in Gitmo Dissent

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story/89401/

To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely."

The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees. The only one who has undisputedly taken up arms against the United States or its allies, "ISN 220," was released by political officers of the DoD against the recommendations of military officers.

Scalia bolstered his hysterical claim that the Boumediene decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" with stale information that was proven to be false one year ago. Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Center, said, Scalia "was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him."

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the Guantánamo detainees were entitled to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. More than 200 men who have been held for up to six years and have never been charged with a crime, will now have their day in court. Many were snatched from their homes, picked up off the street or in airports, or sold to the U.S. military by warlords for bounty.

Scalia, who sits on the highest court in the land, has acted as a loyal foot soldier for the executive branch of government.

This article first appeared at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/89401/

Man Who Used Stick To Roll Ball Into Hole In Ground Praised For His Courage

June 19, 2008 | | Onion Sports

SAN DIEGO—A man who used several different bent sticks to hit a ball to an area comprised of very short grass surrounding a hole in the ground was praised for his courage Monday after he used a somewhat smaller stick to gently roll the ball into the aforementioned hole in fewer attempts than his competitors.

"What guts, what confidence," ESPN commentator Scott Van Pelt said of the man, who was evidently unable to carry his sticks himself, employing someone else to hold the sticks and manipulate the flag sticking out of the hole in the ground while he rolled the ball into it. "You have to be so brave, so self-assured, so strong mentally to [roll a ball into a hole in the ground]. Amazing."

The man in question apparently hurt his knee during this activity.

Dying Is Hard. Comedy Is Harder.

By JERRY SEINFELD, NYT

THE honest truth is, for a comedian, even death is just a premise to make jokes about. I know this because I was on the phone with George Carlin nine days ago and we were making some death jokes. We were talking about Tim Russert and Bo Diddley and George said: “I feel safe for a while. There will probably be a break before they come after the next one. I always like to fly on an airline right after they’ve had a crash. It improves your odds.”

I called him to compliment him on his most recent special on HBO. Seventy years old and he cranks out another hour of great new stuff. He was in a hotel room in Las Vegas getting ready for his show. He was a monster.

You could certainly say that George downright invented modern American stand-up comedy in many ways. Every comedian does a little George. I couldn’t even count the number of times I’ve been standing around with some comedians and someone talks about some idea for a joke and another comedian would say, “Carlin does it.” I’ve heard it my whole career: “Carlin does it,” “Carlin already did it,” “Carlin did it eight years ago.”

And he didn’t just “do” it. He worked over an idea like a diamond cutter with facets and angles and refractions of light. He made you sorry you ever thought you wanted to be a comedian. He was like a train hobo with a chicken bone. When he was done there was nothing left for anybody.

But his brilliance fathered dozens of great comedians. I personally never cared about “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” or “FM & AM.” To me, everything he did just had this gleaming wonderful precision and originality.

I became obsessed with him in the ’60s. As a kid it seemed like the whole world was funny because of George Carlin. His performing voice, even laced with profanity, always sounded as if he were trying to amuse a child. It was like the naughtiest, most fun grown-up you ever met was reading you a bedtime story.

I know George didn’t believe in heaven or hell. Like death, they were just more comedy premises. And it just makes me even sadder to think that when I reach my own end, whatever tumbling cataclysmic vortex of existence I’m spinning through, in that moment I will still have to think, “Carlin already did it.”

Jerry Seinfeld is a writer and a comedian.

Real Road Rage

June, 24 2008 By Mumia Abu-Jamal

As the price of gasoline soars, Americans are forced to think in ways that they haven't in generations: to drive, or not to drive?

Do they park the car and opt for public transportation?

Or do they try to sell the ole gas guzzler (better known as SUVs) for a tiny foreign import?

For most of the latter 20th century, a car was seen as an American right, more sacred than freedom of the press, for while many may've felt that the functions of a free press was problematic, the freedom to drive (with relatively cheap gas) was part of the national psyche.

For 50 years suburbs sprang up in the hinterlands of major American cities -- white rings around blacker and bleaker urban centers. Those mass migrations were made possible by the car, and affordable gas.

Those days are fast receding into yesteryear as gas prices break records almost daily.

And despite the sound and fury echoing from the nation's Capitol, or various presidential campaigns, the simple truth is that U.S. politicians have little impact on this phenomenon.

That's because oil is an international resource, affected by global economic and political forces beyond American control. It's also true that the toxic tensions released by the Iraq war have destabilized the region so much that a mere rumor can send prices spiking, feeding speculation, which profits from his cycle.

In 2003, before bombing even began over Baghdad, oil was selling at nearly $30 a barrel.

It's now over $135 a barrel.

More than a natural resource, oil has become a financial asset in itself, like stocks, bonds, real estate or gold. And like many assets, as long as it appreciates in value it will attract speculators who trade in oil futures, and in the absence of any real regulation, will push the price as far as the market will bear (and, after all, isn't that what a 'free market' means?).

One industry observer, Daniel Yergin, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted, "People are hedging against a falling dollar by buying oil and that hits the price. The most important thing that could be done would be for the dollar to rebound. And that is nothing you can legislate. " * Moreover, some industry experts have written that speculation hikes prices from 20 to 40%! That means that the price of a barrel of oil is really closer to $54 than $135, and thus that the price per gallon should be closer to $2.70!

So, the next time you coast into a gas station, and your jaw tightens as you notice the latest gas prices, remember why. That price was spiked by the twin forces of the Iraq war, and the government policy of deregulation.

Those who expect politicians to ease this problem are dreaming, as shown by the rejection of a recent bill seeking a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the Senate.

Exxon, for example, made more money in the last several quarters than any corporation in the history of business. Will the politicians who accepted millions from the likes of them choke this golden goose?

I think not.

So, get angry at the goof who just cut you off, or stole your parking space. Get angry at the car full of boys who are banging the bass so loudly the highway is bouncing.

Get angry at everybody, except the system that made this situation inevitable.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an acclaimed American journalist and author who has been writing from Death Row for more than twenty-five years. Mumia was sentenced to death after a trial that was so flagrantly racist that Amnesty International published a detailed report describing how the trial "failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings." Mumia is author of many books, including Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. The USA, forthcoming from City Lights Books.

Note

[*Source: Mouawad, Jad, "Oil Prices Are Up and Politicians Are Angry, Yawn.," New York Times, May 11, 2008, Sun., p.2 (Week in Review section).

---

From:	Z Space - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL:	http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3533

Real Road Rage

June, 24 2008By Mumia Abu-Jamal

Mumia Abu-Jamal's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

As the price of gasoline soars, Americans are forced to think in ways that they haven't in generations: to drive, or not to drive?

Do they park the car and opt for public transportation?

Or do they try to sell the ole gas guzzler (better known as SUVs) for a tiny foreign import?

For most of the latter 20th century, a car was seen as an American right, more sacred than freedom of the press, for while many may've felt that the functions of a free press was problematic, the freedom to drive (with relatively cheap gas) was part of the national psyche.

For 50 years suburbs sprang up in the hinterlands of major American cities -- white rings around blacker and bleaker urban centers. Those mass migrations were made possible by the car, and affordable gas.

Those days are fast receding into yesteryear as gas prices break records almost daily.

And despite the sound and fury echoing from the nation's Capitol, or various presidential campaigns, the simple truth is that U.S. politicians have little impact on this phenomenon.

That's because oil is an international resource, affected by global economic and political forces beyond American control. It's also true that the toxic tensions released by the Iraq war have destabilized the region so much that a mere rumor can send prices spiking, feeding speculation, which profits from his cycle.

In 2003, before bombing even began over Baghdad, oil was selling at nearly $30 a barrel.

It's now over $135 a barrel.

More than a natural resource, oil has become a financial asset in itself, like stocks, bonds, real estate or gold. And like many assets, as long as it appreciates in value it will attract speculators who trade in oil futures, and in the absence of any real regulation, will push the price as far as the market will bear (and, after all, isn't that what a 'free market' means?).

One industry observer, Daniel Yergin, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted, "People are hedging against a falling dollar by buying oil and that hits the price. The most important thing that could be done would be for the dollar to rebound. And that is nothing you can legislate. " * Moreover, some industry experts have written that speculation hikes prices from 20 to 40%! That means that the price of a barrel of oil is really closer to $54 than $135, and thus that the price per gallon should be closer to $2.70!

So, the next time you coast into a gas station, and your jaw tightens as you notice the latest gas prices, remember why. That price was spiked by the twin forces of the Iraq war, and the government policy of deregulation.

Those who expect politicians to ease this problem are dreaming, as shown by the rejection of a recent bill seeking a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the Senate.

Exxon, for example, made more money in the last several quarters than any corporation in the history of business. Will the politicians who accepted millions from the likes of them choke this golden goose?

I think not.

So, get angry at the goof who just cut you off, or stole your parking space. Get angry at the car full of boys who are banging the bass so loudly the highway is bouncing.

Get angry at everybody, except the system that made this situation inevitable.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an acclaimed American journalist and author who has been writing from Death Row for more than twenty-five years. Mumia was sentenced to death after a trial that was so flagrantly racist that Amnesty International published a detailed report describing how the trial "failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings." Mumia is author of many books, including Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. The USA, forthcoming from City Lights Books.

Note

[*Source: Mouawad, Jad, "Oil Prices Are Up and Politicians Are Angry, Yawn.," New York Times, May 11, 2008, Sun., p.2 (Week in Review section).

---

From:	Z Space - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL:	http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3533

BEING DEMONIZED FOR OTHERS' INCOMPETENCE AND CRIME

The mayor and police chief of Washington DC established unconstitutional check points in the city's Trinidad neighborhood which has raised considerable objections from the city council and others who still believe in constitutional government. Chief Lanier gained some of her views on policing while being trained by Israeli apartheid operatives. She would have done better learning from 27-year-old Naji Mujahid, whose impressive testimony to the DC city council follows:

NAJI MUJAHID, BLACK AUGUST PLANNING ORGANIZATION - My name is Naji Mujahid, I'm 27 years old, I was born in the district and I've lived here all of my adult life; I spent most of my childhood in Prince George's County, MD. I do not live in Trinidad, I live in Ward 7, in the Marshall Heights area. . .

Crime in our community should absolutely be of [our] foremost concern and its something that those of us that are most affected by it should be dedicating ourselves to minimizing and eliminating. When we examine the statistics of the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of our residents, it becomes clear the we have [either] an innate inclination towards sociopathic behavior or there is a systematic flaw in the administration of our community affairs.

The first that any intelligent person does when confronted with a problem is to critically analyze the cause of that problem. And when we look closely at our community I believe that what we witness is not a haven for a degenerate species of human beings, but we see reflections of ourselves reacting to the criminally and sadistically poor social conditions of their environment. The poor education, the poor economics, the lack of opportunities, the broken homes, etc., which is the result of either a protracted plan to keep us as a dependent, subservient, and easily exploitable under-class or of endemic malfeasant and contemptuous neglect by our elected officials and those in league with them. In other words, we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others.

One example I'd like to point out is the existence of drugs in our communities as a catalyst for crime. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a suffering people are likely to self-medicate with substances that make their conditions easier to deal with (I could just as easily be talking about Prozac as crack/cocaine) and when those substances can be provided with the incentive of monetary gain for the provider (I could just as easily be talking about Merck Pharmaceuticals as your local pusher man), particularly when economic opportunities are scarce. . . the outcome of those given dynamics should not be surprising; crime follows.

What should be kept in mind and considered is where the drugs in our community came from. And it has been documented by Journalist Gary Webb in his expose 'Dark Alliance,' by former DEA agent Celerino Costillo III in his book 'Powderburns', and by Professor Alfred McCoy in his book 'The Politics of Heroin', that there has been undeniable government complicity and participation in the global and local drug trade; [facilitating] the influx of illegal drugs into our communities.

As the police are deployed into our communities to seek and destroy crime - crime as defined by outsiders who stand to benefit from our arrest and incarceration - they themselves become criminals as they follow questionable orders without question. They become the antagonists in this tragedy. With their claims of protecting our well being, they become similar to an abusive spouse with a literary gift for writing love sonnets. The police are the government's answer for their inability to provide our community with the establishment of justice, the insurance of domestic tranquility, the provision of a common defense, the promotion of the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty. Once again, we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others.

Last year a 14 year-old was shot to death by the police with impunity of the law. Over the past two years, surveillance cameras have sprung up across our communities. This year the police initiated a door-to-door search program and resolved to arm the department with high-powered military assault rifles, AR-15s (at a time when the government is fighting against the right of law abiding citizens to arm themselves). And we are joined here today to discuss the new initiative of check points being used in our communities. This is clearly the development of a police state designed under the guise of ensuring public safety and securing our communities from the criminal element in our midst, while ignoring the real criminal element outside of our midst. When will this stop? At what point have the police crossed the line from security to intrusion [. . . .to occupation]? This is unacceptable and I repeat for a final time that we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others. Thank you for your indulgence.

Let The Russert Revisionism Begin!

by Justin Raimondo, AntiWar

June 18, 2008

Enough already with the encomiums to Tim Russert, whose untimely death has sparked a veritable chorus of eulogies depicting him as the epitome of objectivity and the greatest of journalists. This is all coming, quite naturally, from his fellow journalists and intellectual gatekeepers, who share his prejudices, his politics, and – alas! – his shortcomings. It's time for a little Russert revisionism.

As Bill Moyers pointed out in Buying the War, his trenchant PBS documentary on how the War Party successfully sold us on the invasion of Iraq, Russert's show was a favored venue for the administration to publicize stories they had planted in the media. Administration officials would get booked on Meet the Press and point to their phony reports as "proof" of Saddam's WMDs.

Remember back when Vice President Dick Cheney was going around making speeches in which he asserted that "we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," that this was not in doubt, and he knew it for a fact? Few were skeptical, and the New York Times came out with yet another Judy Miller "scoop" that seemed to confirm Cheney's claim.

Citing anonymous U.S. government officials, the Times averred that the Iraqis were engaged in a global effort to gather the means to make nuclear weapons according to a design that specifically included aluminum tubes. "And there," says Moyers, "on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney" citing Scooter Libby's best buddy. Clearly trying to create the impression that Saddam Hussein already had nuclear weapons, or that he was well on his way to acquiring them, the vice president ticked off three elements essential to the construction of a nuclear device: technical expertise, a viable design, and fissile material. According to Cheney, the Iraqis had all three – and Russert just sat there, not challenging Cheney but actually cueing him:

Cheney: "The third thing you need is fissile material, weapons-grade material. Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs."

Russert: "Aluminum tubes."

Cheney: "Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning – this is – I don't – and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."

There were plenty of scientists in our very own Department of Energy who were warning the administration that this aluminum tube scenario was based on highly dubious "evidence," but Russert, the alleged reporter, was too busy kissing Cheney's butt to go out and find them. There were plenty of national security bureaucrats of one sort or another who strongly doubted the narrative Russert was allowing Cheney to present, unchallenged, on the most-watched political television show on the airwaves, but Russert didn't know about them, and doubtless didn't want to know about them at the time. In retrospect, however, Russert realized, at least to some extent, how badly he'd been used::

Moyers: "Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the New York Times. And then the vice president comes on your show and points to the New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak."

Russert: "I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the New York Times. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."

As Moyers pointed out in his scathing documentary, some journalists – not a lot, but a few of the really good ones – "didn't wait for the phone to ring."

Russert wanted to believe, as did the reporters and pundits who constitute the "mainstream" media, not only because this was the bipartisan consensus at the time, but also because of the incestuous relationship that often exists between journalists and the individuals whose doings they cover. The former are dependent on the latter for their bread and butter: if they don't toe the line and deliver the right cues at the right moment, then they might not get that "scoop," and – worse – they could soon find themselves frozen out of the information pipeline that runs through Washington like an underground sewer.

Okay, so Russert was an enabler of the neocons, who allowed his vastly influential program to function as the War Party's sounding board, but then again, so many were duped that it seems vindictive to emphasize this point so soon after his tragic death. Right?

Wrong. It wasn't just his sycophancy in the presence of power that motivates my little exercise in Russert revisionism – it's what was clearly his vehement hostility to anyone who challenged the status quo in any way and sought to provide an antidote to the Dick Cheneys of this world. Example number one: his disgraceful interview with GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who made opposition to the war and our foreign policy of "preemptive" imperialism the linchpin of his remarkable campaign.

In what has got to be one of the worst examples of high-handed hectoring and attempted intellectual intimidation I've seen in my lifetime, Russert tore into Paul the way he should have lit into Cheney, impugning his integrity, spending half the interview on the arcane subject of the Civil War – which Paul had never made a speech about, and obviously wasn't even a minor issue in the campaign.

When Paul raised the issue of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as fueling al-Qaeda's jihad and support for bin Laden, Russert fell back on that old neocon canard: "So you see a moral equivalency between the West and Islamic fascism."

When Paul pointed out that Bush was intent on invading Iraq just as soon as he got into office, and his war moves had little to do with 9/11, Russert's response was open hostility:

"You mentioned September 11th; a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero said this. 'When September 11th happened, he just completely changed,' talking about you. 'One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was, "Now we're going to get big government."' Was that your reaction?"

How pathetic: Russert couldn't be bothered to get on the phone and talk to even one of many CIA employees who were trying to counter the administration's line of BS about Saddam's alleged WMD, but he went and dug up the demented Dondero, a fool who has made a career out of gunning for the Good Doctor ever since he was fired from Paul's staff. Now that's American journalism at its best.

Oh yes, Russert did his research, all right, but he only utilized it to the War Party's advantage. He sucked up to power and was little more than a stenographer for high government officials whose confidence he coveted. He was, in short, a great journalist, at least by today's standards, and that's why the media blowhards are turning his death into a celebration of… themselves. Because they're virtually all the same – shameless, sycophantic suck-ups who will do anything to advance their careers and could care less about where it takes the country.

The sad state of American journalism is why Antiwar.com was founded: it's why we continue to provide you with the real news about vital issues of foreign policy, war and peace, and the myriad deceptions of our rulers. The "mainstream," which is defined by its subservience to the powers that be, has simply abdicated its responsibilities, the execution of which are so vital to a free society. Few journalists exemplified this abdication more clearly and consistently than the late ringmaster of Meet the Press.

~ Justin Raimondo

Copyright Antiwar.com

Same-Sex Couples In CA Given Equal Chance To Screw Up Marriage!

Equal Rights Under The Law, Homophobic Freepers Be Damned

SFGate Article

SAN FRANCISCO -- Cheers filled San Francisco's City Hall shortly after 5 p.m. as longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, partners for more than 50 years, began their second wedding - and their first legal union.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated the ceremony in the reception area of his office, said it was a fitting way to memorialize last month's state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California, which took effect at 5:01 p.m.

Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, were the first couple married four years ago when Newsom told the county clerk's office to start offering marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Eventually more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco that year, but those unions were later nullified by the court. Today, the couple, and dozens of others, had their first chance to make their unions truly legal.

In at least five counties around the state, other couples were pronounced "spouses for life" once the clock chimed 5.

In Alameda County, Emeryville couple Kenny Latham, 47, and Keith Boadwee, 46, wore pink peonies in their lapels as they became the first gay couple in that county to marry. In Sonoma County, a giddy Mark Gren, 42 and Chris Lechman, 37, of Guerneville, applied for a marriage license at 5:01 p.m. And in Los Angeles County, lesbian couple Robin Tyler and Diane Olson - who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the high court's May 15 decision - donned matching white suits to tie the knot in a traditional Jewish ceremony.

Newsom waited until exactly 5:01 p.m. to begin the San Francisco ceremony, the only one in San Francisco tonight. The women were declared spouses for life at 5:07 p.m. in front of about 50 friends and family members. Martin came into the area in a wheelchair but stood for the ceremony.

The couple made their way out of the office and onto the balcony area where a cake - and large crowd- was waiting. Rose petals fluttered down from the ceiling as the crowd cheered and cameras flashed.

"This is an extraordinary moment in history and extraordinary moment in time" Newsom said to the crowd. "They are extraordinary people who have lived extraordinary lives and spent half a century fighting for justice and equality."

Lyon drew laughter with her comments.

"When first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," she said. "I think it's a wonderful day."

"Ditto," Martin said.

Just before 5:30 p.m., the couple cut their cake.

Although Lyon and Martin's ceremony is the only one at City Hall tonight, hundreds of couples are expected to flood the domed building Tuesday for the first full day of legal same-sex marriage. Elsewhere in California, most clerks are waiting until Tuesday to begin the same-sex weddings.

This evening in Sonoma County, dozens of county staff members and supporters counted the seconds down from 10. And at 5:01 p.m. - with a cheer - Gren and Lechman stepped up to apply for marriage license.

A few minutes later, the couple entered a small room adjacent to the clerk's office to take their vows - "in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, come what may" - then both men said "I do."

Outside, Unitarian Church members handed out little bunches of flowers, while another 18 couples and their families waited for their own special moment.

Joe Balestreri of Santa Rosa said he came just to witness the first wedding.

"Now that I have the choice it doesn't mean I am going to rush in to it," he said, laughing.

Oakland Mayor Ronald Dellums also planned to officiate about a dozen ceremonies at Oakland City Hall this evening, while another 35 couples are expected to wed at the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder's office on Madison Street.

By 5 p.m., the lobby of the clerk's office was packed with couples and their friends, everyone antsy to start the ceremonies. Around 5:20 p.m., the first couple, Latham and Boadwee, finished filling out their wedding certificate and made their way upstairs for the ceremony.

The Emeryville couple celebrated their 10-year anniversary in May, and chose traditional vows for their ceremony.

Janet Appel, a volunteer deputy marriage commissioner, officiated the wedding, telling the men that "no other words are as tender as these vows or important as these vows."

Latham described the moment as a "victory."

"We've been together so long, we know what it means to be a couple," Boadwee added. "However, now we have the legal protection, wherever we go throughout the state people will recognize it."

Not everyone is happy about the state Supreme Court decision, which ruled that denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to marry was a violation of their civil rights under the California Constitution.

Outside San Francisco's City Hall, hundreds of raucous opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage filled the sidewalk.

A woman from the church of Kansas pastor Fred Phelps - whose followers are known for their anti-gay slogans - stood behind several police barricades put up in Civic Center. Along with two of her children, the woman loudly sang while waving derogatory signs. Another protester drove around the block in a truck painted to look like an American flag with a sign that read "Sodomy is sin."

Luong Do, who said he drove up from San Jose, held a giant sign that read, "homo sex is a threat to national security."

"We want to tell people this lifestyle they're living is a death style that will get them diseases in this life and eternal hell in the second," he said.

Others were there to support the pending nuptials. One man strummed a guitar and sang "Going to the Chapel," while Kathryn Werhane threw rose petals on some of the protesters.

"We want to support these weddings. It's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"

Inside the building things were more subdued, though the excitement was palpable even earlier in the day.

Martin and Lyon's friends started gathering early. Arlene Rusche, 68, and Clara Brock, 80, sat on a bench outside the mayor's office shortly after 3 p.m. and planned to witness the wedding. Brock was one of the first members of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian-rights group that Martin and Lyon founded in 1955.

"I never thought this was going to happen to tell you the truth," Brock said.

"This is so, so big," agreed Rusche, Brock's partner for 17 years. "I never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It just shows we are making progress."

Several feet away sat a couple on vacation from Ireland who happened to stumble on the historic event. Christine Yearsley said she planned to stay at City Hall the rest of the afternoon to witness as much as she could.

"This gentleman just told me there are two elderly ladies who are getting married today after being together for 50 years," she said. "They're obviously committed! I think it's terrific. They're an example for heterosexuals, I think."

Chronicle staff writer Heather Knight contributed to this report. E-mail the writer at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

Police Officer Steals Pot, Starts Trippin', Calls 911 To Report That He And His Wife Are Dying!

This is priceless!

Over at Police America, there's a story regarding a police officer who baked him up some good ol' magic brownies with stolen herbal evidence, then believed that he and his wife had overdosed (give me whatever he's havin'!).

Anyone familiar with the sacred herb knows that overdose is impossible, but this is funny as hell, as these news anchors discovered.

Go to Police America Video

Dramatic Chipmunk

I love the Dramatic Lemur, but this made me roll around until I nearly wet myself!

Tellin' It How It Is: Hip-Hop Stands Up For Sean Bell

Jun 07, 2008 By Alexander Billet
Alexander Billet's ZSpace Page / ZSpace

"With the Sean Bell situation, New York is basically saying 'fuck niggas.'" Who in their right minds can honestly disagree with these words, bluntly stated by rapper/producer/activist David Banner? The April 25th aquittal of three New York City cops, who killed Bell after pumping fifty rounds into his car, sends a clear message to the African-American community: If the police can get away with gunning down one unarmed black man, they can get away with it again. Indeed, it happened several times over well before Bell. It's no wonder that the verdict has provoked outrage and frustration from religious leaders, local politicians and community activists.

Banner is certainly not alone as a rapper, either. The frustration, sadness and outrage provoked by the verdict has radiated through the entire hip-hop community, reaching even the upper echelons of the industry. Russell Simmons has spoke about the need for the police to be more accountable. His heir-apparent Jay-Z has set up a charity for Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre Bell. As always, though, the most meaningful solidarity hip-hop has to offer is that of the artists themselves.

This solidarity has, notably, not just been limited to the sector of "conscious hip-hop," that artificial category created by the music industry in order to cheapen the genre; a diverse array of artists have verbally trounced the verdict, ranging from Ice Cube to Immortal Technique to Chamillionaire. By now, it's become something of a cliche to repeat Chuck D's line about rap being "CNN for black people," but the staggering hypocrisy and gutter racism of the case has once again pushed artists into that role.

In the month since the verdict, there have been enough recordings dedicated to Bell to fill a compilation album. Posted on YouTube, Brooklyn MC Papoose (who also penned a song directly following the original shooting in November 2006) calls for a new civil rights movement in "We Shall Overcome." Though lyrically awkward at times, the track almost serves as a blow-by-blow of the entire trial, highlighting the arrogance of Judge Arthur Cooperman, the flimsy defence of the officers, and the complete dismissal of all witness testimony. As the song progresses, Pap lays into the past racist brutalities of the NYPD, bringing up the shooting of Amadou Diallo and the police torture of Abner Louima, and broadens the story even further to immigrants' rights and the shipping of poor black kids to fight in Iraq: "How can they find find freedom in south Iraq? Please! / They can't even find freedom in south-side Queens."

Papoose is only the tip of the iceberg. The web has been swarmed by tracks dedicated to Bell, sometimes released withing mere hours of the verdict. Major-label artists like The Game and Joell Ortiz have released songs on the web. Unsigned artists have been able to chime in too. Pittsburgh rapper Jasiri X (whose song about the Jena Six was named by hip-hop journalist Davey D as the best political rap of 2007), posted not one but two tracks about Bell on his MySpace page the very next day. A simple Google search for "Sean Bell" and "hip-hop" will yield literally thousands of results.

Artists who haven't necessarily had the chance to hit the studio in recent weeks have nonetheless done what they can to protest the verdict. The Roots, performing on the David Letterman Show three days afterwards, wore all black in mourning for Bell as well as pins with Bell's face on it. And then, of course, there is dead prez, whose first show after the verdict in Amhearst, Massachusetts was performed in the memory of Bell. Stic.man, speaking from the event on "Breakdown FM," radio show of hip-hop activist Davey D, summed up the all-encompassing question "what now?": "That verdict's been cast down on us since slavery. We've been denied justice way before April 26th, 2008... But it's not a time to be demoralized... it's a time to organize."

It's been two and a half years since Kanye West appeared on an NBC-televised Katrina benefit to tell the world the obvious: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Last year, after the news that a group of black teenagers were being unjustly thrown in jail in Jena, Louisiana, many in hip-hop also protested the town's style of Jim Crow justice. Now, with the killers of Sean Bell getting off the hook, artists and MCs are once again raising their voices. The sentiments coming from artists like dead prez--that more organizing, more activism, is needed--are for obvious reasons finding resonance not only in the studios, but in the streets and communities. Hip-hop, born out of the deliberate neglect of black America, is finding itself pushed into the political arena more and more. Its message is simple: Enough is enough. Maybe this is the reason politicians find are so threatened by the mere presence of hip-hop.

Alexander Billet is a music journalist and socialist activist living in Washington, DC. He is a regular contributor to Znet, Dissident Voice, and SleptOn.com. His blog, Rebel Frequencies, can be viewed at http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com, and he can be reached at rebelfrequencies@gmail.com.

---

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3516

Former Drug Czar Admits War Has Failed 1.5 Million Addicts

This is a bigger story than McClellan's "revelation" that he was wrong about Iraq. That one was to sell lots of books. This one is from the bulldog former drug czar for the Clinton Administration. He was nothing short of the biggest cheerleader for the War On Some Drugs that there ever was.

Apparently, he woke up.--Pete

ST LOUIS TODAY American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now in prison were instead treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of drug court professionals. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S. drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on lawmakers to increase funding for such courts. "This is not a war on drugs," McCaffrey said. "This is a problem for our families in America. In order to turn drugs around in this country, we're going to have to treat those 1.5 million people who are addicted.". . .

The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they complete the program. "Most addicts need something more than being warehoused," said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in Greenville, S.C. "Drug courts are putting families back together, and they are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers."

Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said. McCaffrey said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.

Housing prices falling faster than during Great Depression

This is the time when the house-of-cards that is corporate crony capitalism will have to withstand the worst hit it has taken in its inequitable, wealth-to-the-wealthy history. The housing crisis is just the catalyst for the rest of the dominoes to fall.

It is a good thing to remember, though, that banks get bailed out while people get thrown out. The government, while not understanding how, will try to do everything to artificially prop up this dead dinosaur, beginning with the ridiculous "stimulus" rebates (used mine to pay down debt - not an approved usage). We need to be ready with our alternatives at the right time in the right place. Participatory Economics Now.--Pete

AMERICA'S HOUSE PRICES ARE FALLING EVEN FASTER THAN DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION

ECONOMIST As house prices in America continue their rapid descent, market-watchers are having to cast back ever further for gloomy comparisons. The latest S&P/Case-Shiller national house-price index, published this week, showed a slump of 14.1% in the year to the first quarter, the worst since the index began 20 years ago. Now Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and co-inventor of the index, has compiled a version that stretches back over a century. This shows that the latest fall in nominal prices is already much bigger than the 10.5% drop in 1932, the worst point of the Depression. And things are even worse than they look. In the deflationary 1930s house prices declined less in real terms. Today inflation is running at a brisk pace, so property prices have fallen by a staggering 18% in real terms over the past year.

Five tips to ensure the TSA doesn't steal your stuff

Before we delve into the article, let me state my opinion of these federal scabs. TSA is the result of the Bush administration's baggage inspector union-busting during our nation's crisis period post-September '01. These employees are barely trained bullies for the most part, all pumped up with "false authority syndrome". One of these scabs once held me for 40 minutes because I refused to remove my reading glasses so that he could "better identify me". At the point where his superior told him to stand down, I was ready to perpetrate physical violence upon his person, which would have resulted in my missing my flight and possibly being labeled a "suspected terrorist". My stepson Nick was once terrorized by an authority-crazed TSA employee repeatedly asking him in an accusing voice, "You picked up the red bowl, didn't you"? He did this in the presence of his mother and myself while virtually detaining us by letting others pass in the security line. This little Napolean also came close to spending a happy half-hour picking up his teeth while I was transported to the nearest detention center. They provide absolutely no real service (security? please!), and I say fuck 'em. One of my favorite ploys is to wear a badge that says, "Suspected Terrorist".--Pete

Five tips to ensure the TSA doesn't steal your stuff

By CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT
Tribune Media Services

Taking. Something. Always.

That's what TSA means to airline passengers like Edward Fleiss, a sales manager from Huntington, N.Y. When screeners inspected his wife's carry-on bag at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport recently, he claims her designer eyeglasses were swiped.

"Great sleight of hand," he says. "We didn't even know they were gone until we got to Los Angeles."

Letters to the Transportation Security Administration — that's what TSA actually stands for, in case you were wondering — were met with a form response. "Dear traveler, thank you, but no reimbursement on a $500 pair of glasses," he recalls.

Thieving TSA? You might be forgiven for thinking so.

Since it was created in 2001, the agency has fired about 200 employees accused of stealing. Although the TSA has taken steps to discourage these government workers from helping themselves to our personal effects — including background checks on new hires, video cameras in screening areas and rules forbidding backpacks or lunchboxes at checkpoints — more and more passengers like Fleiss are coming forward to say they've been ripped off by the very people who are supposed to protect them.

It doesn't help that hardly a week goes by without another story about alleged TSA pilferage making headlines. Here's one from a Miami TV station, where 1,500 items (www.nbc6.net/news/15617249/detail.html) have been reported stolen at the airport since 2003. Here's someone who had his engagement ring filched (www.gadling.com/2008/01/08/engagement-ring-allegedly-stolen-by-lax-airport-security/) by screeners in Los Angeles. Here's another one involving a 12-year-old's heartbreaking loss (http://cbs13.com/seenon/Call.Kurtis.Consumer.2.464401.html) of $265 in birthday money.

You don't need a travel columnist to tell you this agency has a problem. The evidence speaks for itself.

But here's what you might not know. The stealing isn't as random as the TSA may want you to believe (www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/02/tsa-our-officers-public-and-theft.html). Fleiss visited an optometrist for a replacement pair of glasses, and learned that since the TSA was created seven years ago, he'd seen a "marked increase" in patients requesting receipts for insurance claims relating to security-related thefts. "He said there is a huge market for stolen designer eyewear frames in the New York area," he added. "You put it together."

One aviation insider I spoke with believes stealing is a systemic problem the federal agency is unable to control, particularly at problem airports like New York's LaGuardia Airport and Philadelphia International Airport. Not all of the screening areas in U.S. airports are under surveillance, and the TSA's rules have a big loophole that shifts liability for stolen baggage claims to the airline when luggage is delayed, he told me. In other words, there's little incentive for the stealing to stop. "It's the 800-pound gorilla no one wants to discuss at TSA," he says.

I contacted the TSA to get its side of the story. Sari Koshetz, a TSA spokeswoman, sent me an e-mail to say the agency is concerned about theft. "TSA aggressively investigates all allegations of misconduct," she wrote. "When infractions are discovered, it moves swiftly to end the federal careers of offenders." She added that travelers with questions should visit the TSA's Web site for claim information (www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/claims/index.shtm).

I've got a better idea. Why not make sure your valuables aren't taken in the first place? Here are five tips:

Don't try to beat the system

If you think you can avoid a TSA theft by steering clear of LaGuardia or Philadelphia, think again. Reader David Cumpston had a $50 bottle of cologne stolen from his bag in San Francisco. They lifted a box of Montecristo cigars out of P.J. Zornosa's bag in Florida. "Hope someone enjoyed them," he grumbles. And Jeanne Rose lost one shoe — a brand-new Merrick clog — in Atlanta. Why just one shoe? Who knows? Point is, you can't predict where a TSA thief might strike next.

TSA-approved locks are useless, so don't even bother

Anyone can access your luggage after you've checked it. Anyone. Don't believe me? Here's how to break into a bag without the benefit of a TSA master key (http://mosh.nokia.com/content/3EB82A6FB8ADF170E040050AEE040FBA). Besides, the TSA likes to confiscate the locks after they're done rummaging through your belongings, according to readers like Paula Craig. "Sometimes, I get the Dear Paula, we have been through your luggage letter — and sometimes not," she says. "It's maddening."

Don't pack anything valuable in your checked in luggage

That's not just a bad idea because a TSA agent or an airline baggage handler might take something; it's also a terrible idea because if an airline loses it, you probably won't be reimbursed for it. Joe Zinno, a retiree from Seattle, slipped his digital camera in his luggage, from which he believes a TSA officer removed it on a recent trip. He contacted the agency to make a claim, and after "a very long time" it responded with a form letter. "They said there would be no compensation," he recalls. Airlines don't cover electronics in checked luggage, either.

Better yet, leave all of your valuables at home

Packing your valuables in carry-on luggage is no guarantee the TSA — or the airline — won't be able to get to it. For example, you might have to gate-check your carry-on if there's no room in the overhead bin on the plane. Or, like Fleiss, an agent could pull a fast one at the passenger screening area. Cheryl Wahlheim, an information systems manager from Boulder, Colo., had jewelry stolen out of her bag by what she suspects was a TSA employee. Making a claim proved impossible. "They sent me a form letter and basically I had to present them with a document containing pictures of all the stolen jewelry, receipts for all the jewelry and the current cost of the jewelry," she says. "Since most of the things were gifts given to me over the years, I had no receipts and no pictures."

If you can't live without it, carry it on your person

Items like wedding rings, cash and other valuables should be carried through the checkpoint, wherever possible. Mauranna Sherman of Lynchburg, Va., wishes her husband had kept a close eye on his medication when he passed through the TSA screening area a few years ago. "When we reached our hotel several hours later, it wasn't in his bag," she says. "We had to call our house sitter, who used her own money to deliver it to our family in Texas the next day. What a hassle."

Bottom line: if you want to see your valuables again, don't let a TSA agent near them.

There's one final myth about TSA thefts that needs to be busted, and it involves the claims process. In speaking with airline passengers who claim the TSA took their property, I hear about the same frustrating conclusion almost every time. In the end, they were denied compensation.

Well, the end isn't really the end. You can appeal your case to my counterpart at the TSA (www.tsa.gov/join/benefits/careers_benefits_ombudsman.shtm). Its ombudsman can be reached at TSA.Ombudsman@dhs.gov.

Send your questions to chris@elliott.org.

Chronology of a Lie

By Gary Leupp, Counterpunch

In his Antiwar.com columns investigative journalist and historian Gareth Porter has been doing a masterful job of exposing Dick Cheney’s relentless campaign to vilify Iran, build a case for an attack, bomb the country and produce regime change before the administration’s term ends. The campaign as many have noted parallels in several ways the propaganda blitz that preceded the War in Iraq. Cheney and his neocons cabal seek to skew the reports of mainstream intelligence agencies to confirm their allegations (in this case, the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program as an immanent threat to Israel and the U.S., Iranian Quds Force training of Iraqi “insurgents” in Iranian camps, Iranian provision of explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to these “insurgents,” Iranian contacts with al-Qaeda, etc.). If they fail to do this, they circumvent the intelligence community and find ways of disseminating disinformation through their own announcements, editorials by their supporters, and stories planted in the corporate press. Since Cheney got Bush to sign an Executive Order giving his office the same powers to classify as the president has, his operations are shrouded in secrecy.

In his latest piece Porter follows the campaign to blame Iran for supplying EFPs to those attacking U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. In January 2007 some military officials asserted that EFPs that could penetrate U.S. armored vehicles were being manufactured in Iran and supplied to Iraqi Shiite militias by the Iranian government. They prepared a draft for a proposed military briefing to announce this claim, which then circulated in Washington and was leaked to the press. However, the document “met with unanimous objection from the State Department, Defense Department, and the National Security Council (NSC) staff, as administration officials themselves stated publicly.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley all wanted to build upon the negotiations with Iranian officials which had occurred in Iraq to that point. These had been based on the desire of both sides to support the Maliki government, which has warm ties with Tehran. The Cheney camp had opposed those talks.

In a press briefing on Jan. 24, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman Sean McCormack was asked if the government has any evidence for Iranian supply of EFPs to Iraqi forces. He answered indirectly: “You don't necessarily have to construct something in Iran in order for it to be a threat to the U.S. or British troops from the Iranian regime.” He implied that outsiders might be instructing Iraqis on how to produce EFPs.

On February 2, Hadley distanced the National Security Council from the draft report. “The truth is,” he told reporters at a news briefing, “quite frankly, we thought the briefing was overstated. We sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts.” Meanwhile the intelligence community was preparing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that did not support the claim about EFPs but merely accused Iranians of training fighters of Mahdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery nationalist who is not Iran’s favorite Iraqi politician although he may be the most popular man in the country. Rice and Gates both stated their expectation that the planned briefing on Iranian involvement in Iraq would reflect the views contained in the NIE.

Then Cheney made his move. On Feb. 9 presidential spokesperson Dana Perino was asked when the briefing would be held. “Decisions on that,” she replied, “are being made out in Baghdad.” Gen. David Petraeus (whom former CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon, a known opponent of an Iran attack, has described as an “ass-kissing little chicken-shit”) had just arrived to assume command of U.S. forces in Iraq. On February 11 three military officers in Iraq gave a briefing to the press in which they stated that the EFPs could only have been manufactured in Iran and were being supplied to Iraqi militiamen by the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards with the knowledge of the Iranian government.

“Cheney,” Porter writes, “had used the compliant Petraeus to do an end-run around the national security bureaucracy. Petraeus had already reached an agreement with the White House to take Cheney’s line on the EFPs issue and to present the briefing immediately without consulting State or Defense.” This circumventing of normal channels is of course Cheney’s modus operandi, as scathingly documented in the four-part series about Cheney in the Washington Post last July by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, stated that he could not “from his own knowledge” confirm that the Quds Force was providing bomb-making kits to Iraqis, and one of the officers at the briefing backed off the claim of Iranian complicity. Still, the story was “out there,” in the press, and as Porter writes, “Cheney now had a potential casus belli against Iran.” Or one might say, another one to try to foist upon an impressionable public. This, from the only top official who’s never backed off his claim that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.

In September 2007, Congress passed the neocon and AIPAC-backed Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In October the Treasury Department designated the Quds Force “terrorist”---“for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.” Very creative thinking there. Iran’s religious leadership hates the Taliban and almost went to war with Afghanistan when it was led by the group in 1998. It supports U.S.-backed Afghan puppet president Hamid Karzai, who told the Washington Post in January 2008: “We have had a particularly good relationship with Iran in the past six years. It’s a relationship that I hope will continue. We have opened our doors to them. They have been helping us in Afghanistan. The United States very wisely understood that it is our neighbor and encouraged that relationship.”

On May 8 Los Angeles Times correspondent Tina Susman reported from Baghdad: “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.” Don’t you just love the matter-of- fact tone of that? They planned to lie, but somebody opposed to the lie and its consequences was apparently able to abort the effort. Isn’t it obvious that Cheney and the neocons in general believe it perfectly permissible to lie to the people in order to justify wars? And they just hate it when somebody gets in their way.

Remember how a member of Bush’s inner circle (Karl Rove?) told the New York Times’ Ron Suskind in summer 2002 the “the reality-based community” had it all wrong, that the world doesn’t “really work anymore” on the basis of “judicious study of discernible reality.” “We’re an empire now,” he boasted, “and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Combine that Nazi-like faith in the Big Lie; the liars’ smug confidence that the system will continue to protect them even as they’re exposed by the “reality-based” folks whom they find laughable; and the obvious fact that the Congress and media lack the will to call them on their lies. These evidences of system-wide bankruptcy are grounds for profound pessimism in the short term.

NBC’s Keith Olbermann last week talked with former Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan about the prospect for a U.S. attack on Iran. “So knowing what you know,” he asked, “if Dana Perino gets up there and starts making noises that sound very similar to what you heard from the administration, from Ari Fleischer in 2002, from other actual members of the administration and the cabinet, you would be suspicious?” “I would be,” replied McClellan. “I would be. I think that you would need to take those comments very seriously and be skeptical.”

We Americans are being hit by EFP (Extremely False Propaganda) designed to do much worse than penetrate the thin armor of our media-numbed and infotainment- conditioned brains. It’s designed to hurl us and our children into a Long War against the Islamic world. And those of us who are skeptical---or more than skeptical: aware, disgusted and alarmed---will I fear wake to the fait accompli of an attack before Cheney and Bush hand over power to successors who will patriotically go along with the program.

What we need is not mere skepticism, but the toppling of the liars.

United States of Insecurity

May, 24 2008

By Noam Chomsky
and Gabriel Matthew Schivone

Source: Monthly Review

Noam Chomsky's ZSpace Page

Based on an interview with Noam Chomsky conducted by Gabriel Matthew Schivone via telephone and e-mail at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 27, 2007 through February 11, 2008. Parts of the text have been expanded by the author.

A State of Insecurity in the Post-9/11 World

GMS: In a recent interview, Abdel Bari Atwan, author and editor of the London-based Arabic daily newspaper Al-Quds Al Arabi, said that President Bush is not ending terrorism nor is he weakening it, as is one of his strongest assertions in his so-called "War on Terror", but that now Al-Qa'ida has powerfully developed into more of an ideology than an organization, as Atwan describes, expanding like Kentucky Fried Chicken, opening franchises all over the world. "That's the problem," he says. "The Americans are no safer. Their country is a fortress now, the United States of Security." Is this accurate?

CHOMSKY: Except for the last sentence, it's accurate. There's good reason to think that the United States is very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of US intelligence, of specialists of nuclear terror like Harvard professor Graham Allison, and former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and others, who have warned that the probability of even a nuclear attack in the United States is not trivial. So, it's not a fortress.

One of the things that Bush hasn't been doing is improving security. So, for example, if you look at the government commission after 9-11, one of its recommendations—which is a natural one—is to improve security of the US-Canadian border. I mean, if you look at that border, it's very porous. You or I could walk across it somewhere with a suitcase holding components of a nuclear bomb. The Bush administration did not follow that recommendation. What it did instead was fortify the Mexican border, which was not regarded as a serious source of potential terrorism. They in fact slowed the rate of growth of border guards on the Canadian Border.

But quite apart from that, the major part of Atwan's comment is quite correct. Bush Administration programs have not been designed to reduce terror. In fact, they've been designed in a way—as was anticipated by intelligence analysts and others—to increase terror.

Read More

Cynthia McKinney on Israel: ‘Not in my name’

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/cynthia_mckinney_0605/

Cynthia McKinney WW photo: John Catalinotto

On May 16, Cynthia McKinney, former congresswoman from Georgia, who is vying for the presidential nomination on the Green Party ticket, spoke at a rally in opposition to the 60th anniversary of the founding of the pro-Zionist state of Israel, deemed Al Nakba (The Disaster) by the Palestinian people. The following are remarks made by McKinney at the rally outside of the United Nations.

On my birthday last year, I declared my independence from a national leadership that, through its votes in support of the war machine, is now complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace.

I declared my independence from every bomb dropped, every veteran maimed and every child killed.

I noted that the Democratic leadership in Congress had failed to restore this country to constitutional rule by repealing the Patriot Acts, the Secret Evidence Act and the Military Commissions Act.

That it had aided and abetted illegal spying against the American people. And that it took impeachment off the table.

In addition, the Democratic congressional leadership failed to promote the economic integrity of this country by not repealing the Bush tax cuts. They failed to institute a livable wage, Medicare-for-all health care, and gave even more money to the Pentagon as it misuses our hard-earned dollars.

We can add to that list, too, an abject failure to stand up for human rights and dignity.

If the Democratic and Republican leadership won’t respect the right of return for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors, how can we expect them to champion the right of return for Palestinians?

If this country’s leadership tolerates the wanton murder of unarmed Black and Latino men by law enforcement officials—extra-judicial killings—how can we expect them to stop or even speak out against targeted assassinations in the Middle East?

If the Democratic and Republican leadership accept ethnic cleansing in this country by way of gentrification and predatory lending, why should we expect them to put an end to it in Palestine?

If the leadership of this country impedes self-determination for Native peoples in this country, why should we expect them to support Indigenous rights for anyone abroad?

And sadly, the sensationalist corporate media would rather trick us into thinking that reporting on a pastor, a former vice presidential nominee and a former cable TV magnate constitutes this country’s much-needed discussion of its own apartheid past and present, so why should we expect an honest discussion of apartheid and Zionism?

I hope by now it is clear. Our values will never be reflected in public policy as long as our political parties and our country remain hijacked.

Hijacked by false patriots who usurp the applause of the people and all the while betray our values.

I’ve decided that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will operate any longer as business as usual—not in my name.

That Democrats and Republicans will use my tax dollars and betray my values, not one day longer—not in my name; that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have earned my most precious political asset—my vote.

And that now is the time to do some things I’ve never done before in order to have some things I’ve never had before.

And so here today, I declare my independence from weapons transfers, including Apache helicopters; F16s; sidewinder, hellfire and Stinger missiles.

I declare my independence from occupation, demolished homes, political prisoners and babies dying at checkpoints.

I declare my independence from U.N. vetoes, expropriated land, stolen resources and the installation of puppet regimes.

I declare my independence from all forms of dehumanization and I am not afraid to speak truth to power.

And I am happy to join with peace-loving people around the world who know that there can be no peace without justice.

Let us never tire in our work for justice. Thank you.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

Pentagon scales back AFRICOM ambitions

Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the May 16, 2008 edition

Washington - When Pentagon strategists sought to create a new military command to oversee Africa, they believed they could build one that deemphasized military might and would serve as an exemplar of what so-called US soft power could do around the world.

But in recent months, the Pentagon has had to scale back its ambitious vision to adapt Africa's political terrain, military officials acknowledge, adding they remain committed to the original idea of a military command to promote peace in the region.

For now, officials have ruled out basing the headquarters anywhere in Africa and may in fact locate it on the East Coast, a senior defense official says. They have also backed away from selling the new command as a full "interagency" organization that spans military and nonmilitary entities.

"We sort of admitted all along that we were building something that we'd never built before," says one senior defense official, on how the command has changed. "So you gotta start somewhere, you gotta take a stab at it."

As the US Africa Command – or AFRICOM – works to stand on its own by October, the change in plans illustrates the limits of the US trying to use the military to try to broaden its influence across the globe.

The creation of AFRICOM represents a major reorganization of the Defense Department's family of six regional commands, and recognizes the strategic, security, and economic interests the US has begun to confront in Africa.

In addition to the continent's vast oil reserves, the US is wary of China's continued investment there. Military officials also believe the porous borders of many African countries allow havens for terrorist training and smuggling.

As the symbol of the new command's stature, the location of the headquarters has long been a source of controversy, with even some strong US allies refusing to host the command.

Countries like Liberia were privately receptive, say defense officials, who had launched an extensive lobbying effort to counter the notion that the US was trying to establish military bases on the continent. The effort even included a high-profile visit in February by President Bush.

Still, they were unable to sway opposition in African countries, where many viewed the new command as a neocolonialist move to secure US oil interests and counterbalance China's influence. American officials could not overcome the "paranoid rhetoric," said a defense official.

The headquarters will now either stay at its current home in Stuttgart, Germany, or be moved to the East Coast of the US. Technically, AFRICOM remains under European Command until its official launch October 1.

Officials have had to make other adjustments. Initially billed as a "whole of government" approach to solving the region's problems, the new, hybrid command had sought to marry military and civilian expertise.

"To make it more effective, we want to incorporate other nonmilitary US players working in Africa so the security piece is optimized," says Col. Pat Mackin, a spokesman for US Africa Command. But, he adds, "There is no government mechanism to create a true interagency headquarters."

The command of about 1,300 people will still be half civilian and half military, and agencies such as the US State Department will be given senior positions.

But the military will likely remain in the driver's seat. "They are significantly walking back from interagency," says Kathleen Hicks, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "What they're now saying is that they will more efficiently and effectively deliver military programs."

At the same time, officials now recognize that one entity can't do it all. Gen. William "Kip" Ward, AFRICOM's commander, has tried to soften a typically aggressive military approach and instead take a more deliberative tack.

General Ward has also sought to lower the command's public profile, notes Ms. Hicks, to focus on showing what it can do and move it away from controversy.

For example, Navy officials recently completed the first deployment of a program called the Africa Partnership Station, conducting training programs in more than a dozen nations. Capt. John Nowell Jr., commodore of the naval ships in the program, says the project is about "the maritime safety and security piece. And we think we do generate a lot of goodwill and in many cases come up with projects where we can combine the two, but we're not just out there for goodwill."

The command has also begun taking a different approach to public relations.

Its website hosts a chat room where people can post their views, a stark contrast to the stodgy sites of most military commands. One man, identified as Kuol Mangar, wrote in: "It is clear to me that General Ward would be seen as acting like those ancient Africa chiefs who sold the continent to the white man."

But several others countered his views. Stephanie, who identified herself as Kenyan by birth, wrote, "We always complained the US government did not pay Africa any attention, now they are listening and responding we still hear complaints from a few ignorant [people] that don't take the time to research and learn what the organization like AFRICOM is trying to do for the continent."

Find this article at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0516/p03s03-usmi.html