Saudi Prince Buys Large Share of Fox News

Sunday, September 25, 2005

(IsraelNN.com) Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has purchased 5.46 percent of the Fox corporation, according to Gulf Daily News, raising concern that the conservative Fox News may soften its anti-terror stance due to the views of the new shareholder.

Journalist Debbie Schlussel, who originally broke the story, notes that Al-Waleed, the nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, was last in the news when he visited the World Trade Center's remains just after the September 11th attacks and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts. Al-Waleed then released a statement blaming US foreign policy and support for Israel for the attacks.

Giuliani returned the prince's check with a statement that, "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered . . . innocent people ... Not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

Source:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=news&id=90439

___________________

FOX News: Fair and Balanced Minus 5.46%?

September 19, 2005
By Debbie Schlussel

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal announced that he has acquired 5.46% of News Corporation, the Rupert Murdoch company that owns and operates FOX News Channel, the New York Post, and several FOX stations around the country.

Prince Alwaleed, nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, is the cretin who--just after 9/11--visited the World Trade Center remains. He offered then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts, but then released a statement full of moral equivocations--rationalizing the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans and blaming U.S. foreign policy and "suggesting" it be changed.

Giuliani promptly returned the check with a statement: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered . . . innocent people ... Not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem."


Saudi Prince: Tried to Bribe Giuliani, Now Owns 5.46% of FOX News' Owner Shortly thereafter, the Napoleonic Prince, who is affected by a strange tick, was also featured on a post-9/11 "60 Minutes" report that was even more offensive--filled with attacks on Giuliani, the U.S., and Israel.

Now, the Prince is one of the largest shareholders in News Corp, and said he may acquire even more shares. Will this affect FOX News' editorial content in favor of his extremist views?

Hopefully not. But . . . I report, you decide.

Posted by Debbie at September 19, 2005 12:07 PM

Source:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/09/fox_news_fair_a.html

_________________________


Terror-supporting Saudi prince buys stock of NewsCorp

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Quite displeasing news. As Debbie Schlussel finds out, Saudi prince Al-Waleed has bought stock in News Corporation, the company owned by Rupert Murdoch that owns FOX News, among other companies. The very same Al-Waleed who, after the terrorist attack on 9-11-2001, when offering a check to mayor Giuliani with which to help repair Manhattan, went and stooped to blaming America and Israel. And thus, what may have seemed like an act of kindness and charity was instead revealed as attempted bribery and a cynical ploy. As Schlussel points out here:

Prince Alwaleed, nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, is the cretin who--just after 9/11--visited the World Trade Center remains. He offered then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts, but then released a statement full of moral equivocations--rationalizing the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans and blaming U.S. foreign policy and "suggesting" it be changed.

Giuliani promptly returned the check with a statement: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered . . . innocent people ... Not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

Shortly thereafter, the Napoleonic Prince, who is affected by a strange tick, was also featured on a post-9/11 "60 Minutes" report that was even more offensive--filled with attacks on Giuliani, the U.S., and Israel.
The New York Sun/Bloomberg news provides something else to ponder too:

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world's fifth-richest man, converted his 5.46% stake in News Corporation to voting shares and said he may buy more, a decision that may help cement Rupert Murdoch's control of the company.
Pardon? Since when was Murdoch having any problems in managing NewsCorp, or in danger of losing control? Sure, of course 20th Century's also had its own share of movie flops, but in any case, I can't understand how exactly Murdoch was ever in danger of losing ownership.

But what's really galling is how, if Murdoch really is having problems, that he should be welcoming a lowlife like Al-Waleed to buy stock in his company. And with this paragraph, it appears that the prince managed to buy stock in part because NewsCorp enabled him to:

Prince Alwaleed in an interview yesterday reiterated support for Mr. Murdoch, who last month extended News Corporation's poison-pill takeover defense to keep John Malone's Liberty Media from increasing its 18% voting stake.
This, you might say, seems typical of some business magnates to pull a trick like this. And that's the real poison-pill here, if you ask me.

Whether or not this could cause any damage to FOX News or other NewsCorp ownerships, it should be noted that they've never really been all that clean: Kingdom of Heaven, if I'm not mistaken, was a product of 20th Century Fox studios, and that was an awful excercise in PC-guilt, meant as an attack on the war on terror today by director Ridley Scott. And even Sky News over in the UK can often be pretty bad too, so it's not as if NewsCorp's truly taken a turnabout. They've always had their share of badness.

Source:
http://telchaination.blogspot.com/2005/09/terror-supporting-saudi-prince-buys.html

______________________

Reid Demands Bennett Apologize for Racial Remark

The Associated Press
The New York Times
Friday 30 September 2005

Washington - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats on Thursday demanded that former Education Secretary William Bennett apologize for remarks on his radio program linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.

Bennett responded that the comments, made Wednesday on his "Morning in America" show, had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible."

The author of "The Book of Virtues," answering a caller's question, took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Bennett said.

He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

On his show Thursday, the anti-abortion Bennett said he was "pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation."

Reid, D-Nev., said he was "appalled by Mr. Bennett's remarks" and called on him "to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation."

Rep. Raum Emanuel, D-Ill., said in a statement, "At the very time our country yearns for national unity in the wake of hurricane Katrina, these comments reflect a spirit of hate and division."

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bennett-Comments310.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print

_______________________

Bush Pre-senile Dementia Video
"a striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills."

The reason? One doctor says "pre-senile dementia" a catch-all term for earlier-than-normal cognitive declines (probably "dry-drunk syndrome"). This video intercuts footage from 10 years ago with recent footage - the difference is dramatic and disturbing. And obvious.

This problem has been noticed for several years, why the media remains silent only lends further speculation into bigger more sinister issues as to who is really ruining our country and the world.

George Bush Presenile Dementia Video - Watch & Download

by ChicagoBruce

This is the footage that started the story that first appeared in the Atlantic - George Bush from ten years ago - dramatically different than the Bush you're used to.

The big story - "a striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills." The reason? One doctor says "presenile dementia" a catch-all term for earlier-than-normal cognitive declines (probably "dry-drunk syndrome"). This video intercuts footage from 10 years ago with recent footage - the difference is dramatic and disturbing. And obvious.

See it yourself at
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm
or
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm

Show it to your friends who think George Bush is okay. He's not. Send it to any media people you know. Many are already suspicious that something's wrong with GWB. This proves it.

You can download this video and pass it on to friends - or just forward the link. Need a copy of the video? (It's a 4+MB QuickTime file) e-mail me at copywork@aol.com

_____________________

Though, he more likely has Korsakoff's Syndrome not 'presenile dementia'

What is Korsakoff's syndrome?

Korsakoff's syndrome is a brain disorder that is usually associated with heavy drinking over a long period. Although it is not strictly speaking a dementia, people with the condition experience loss of short term memory. This sheet outlines the causes, symptoms and treatment of the syndrome.

What causes Korsakoff's syndrome?

Korsakoff's syndrome is caused by lack of thiamine (vitamin B1), which affects the brain and nervous system. Excessive use of alcohol is often the cause of thiamine deficiency. This is because:

* Many heavy drinkers have poor eating habits. Their nutrition is inadequate and will not contain essential vitamins.
* Alcohol can inflame the stomach lining and impede the body's ability to absorb the key vitamins it receives.

Korsakoff's syndrome may also occur in other conditions where there is severe malnutrition, but this is extremely rare.

Korsakoff's is part of the Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which consists of two separate but related stages: Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis. However, not all cases of Korsakoff's are preceded by an episode of Wernicke's. Another term for Korsakoff's is 'alcohol amnestic syndrome', amnestic meaning loss of memory.

What is Wernicke's encephalopathy?

An encephalopathy is a disorder affecting the brain. Wernicke's encephalopathy usually develops suddenly. There are three main symptoms, though these are not always present, so diagnosis may be difficult. They are:

* Involuntary, jerky eye movements or paralysis of muscles moving the eyes
* Poor balance, staggering gait or inability to walk
* Drowsiness and confusion.

Immediate treatment is essential if Wernicke's is suspected. Treatment consists of high doses of thiamine injected into a vein or muscle. If treatment is carried out in time most symptoms should be reversed in a few hours. However, if Wernicke's is left untreated, or is not treated in time, brain damage may result. In some cases the person may die.

What is Korsakoff's psychosis?

Korsakoff's psychosis may follow if Wernicke's encephalopathy is untreated or is not treated soon enough. It may also develop gradually. Brain damage occurs in important small areas in the mid part of the brain, resulting in severe short term memory loss. Many other abilities may remain intact.

Korsakoff's differs from most dementias, in which there is often damage to a large area of the cortex (the outer part of the brain). These dementias affect a much wider range of abilities.

What are the symptoms?

The main symptom is memory loss, particularly of events arising after the onset of the condition. Sometimes, memories of the more distant past can also be affected. Other symptoms may include:

* Difficulty in acquiring new information or learning new skills.
* Lack of insight into the condition. Even a person with great gaps in their memory may believe their memory is functioning normally.
* Inventing events to fill the gaps in memory. This is more common in the early stages of the illness and is known as 'confabulation'.
* Apathy, in some cases, or talkative and repetitive behaviour in others.

People usually retain skills that they acquired before developing the disorder, so they are often able to manage with appropriate support.

How is Korsakoff's diagnosed?

Korsakoff's syndrome cannot be diagnosed until the person has abstained from alcohol for at least four to five weeks to enable the acute symptoms of alcohol withdrawal to subside.

Psychological tests of the person's memory and other abilities will then be carried out to see whether they may have Korsakoff's or some other condition.

They will also be observed to see whether their condition progresses without alcohol. If their condition does not change, they may be diagnosed with a form of dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease. It is possible to have both Korskoff's and a dementia.

Who is affected?

Those affected tend to be men between the ages of 45 and 65 with a long history of alcohol abuse, though it is possible to have Korsakoff's at an older or a younger age.

Women can also be affected. They tend to develop Korsakoff's at a slightly younger age than men as they appear to be more vulnerable to the impact of alcohol. It has been suggested that whereas it may take around 20 years for a man to develop Korsakoff's syndrome, it may take about half that time for a woman.

It is not yet clear why some heavy drinkers develop Korsakoff's syndrome and others do not, although this may relate to diet.

Treatment

The progress of Korsakoff's can be completely halted if the person:

* Completely abstains from alcohol
* Adopts a healthy diet with vitamin supplements.

While it remains unclear whether additional thiamine helps people improve once the brain damage has already occurred, it may help prevent further damage occurring.

Prognosis

Any improvement usually occurs within a period of up to two years. It has been estimated that about a quarter of those affected make a very good recovery. About half make a partial recovery and need support to manage their lives. Another quarter make no recovery and may need long term care. Korsakoff's is likely to continue to progress if the person continues to drink heavily and has poor nutrition.

Other problems associated with heavy drinking

* Alcohol can have a harmful effect on nerve cells in the brain cortex. A wide range of skills and abilities can be affected by this. This is sometimes known as alcoholic dementia. However, deterioration ceases and there is often some recovery over time if the person abstains from alcohol completely. At present, much research is being carried out into alcoholic dementia and how it may overlap with Korsakoff's psychosis.
* There may be physical disorders associated with drinking, such as damage to the liver or damage to nerves in the legs and arms.
* People with drinking problems are more likely to have experienced head injuries due to accidents, fights or epileptic seizures.

Source:
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_about_dementia/What_is_dementia/info_korsakoffs.htm

_________________________

Anti-Bush, And Mincing No Words

Sunday, September 25, 2005
washingtonpost.com


Controversy and intrigue have swirled around Venezuela's Hugo Chavez ever since he was elected president seven years ago and established himself as a leftist force. Chavez's rising influence in Latin American politics, his country's role as a major supplier of crude oil for U.S. refiners and his close ties to Cuba's Fidel Castro have alarmed policymakers in the Bush administration. Last month, on his television show, the Rev. Pat Robertson actually went so far as to suggest the United States should assassinate the 51-year-old Chavez. (Robertson later apologized.)

While Chavez was in New York last week for the gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, he sat down with Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth. He spelled his dislike for the Bush administration and described himself as a revolutionary. Dressed in a bright red shirt, he noted that he was planning to stop in Havana on his way home so that he could spend several hours talking with Castro.

Excerpts:

The opposition in Venezuela feels that it has no space. The leaders of Sumate [a group that supported a referendum vote on Chavez two years ago] say you indicted them for receiving money from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. Why?

You cannot forget that this very opposition governed Venezuela between 1958 and 1998. If they feel like they have no space, it is because they have been cooked in their own sauce. Between 1958 and 1998, Venezuela fell apart. We ended the 20th century with poverty as we have never seen it. The economy was totally destroyed. . . . Millions of Venezuelans were without education, health care, jobs, housing. So if they feel they do not have any room to act, it's their own fault.

But they have many rights: the right to demonstrate, the right to participate in elections. The opposition is utterly divided. The revolutionary forces are totally united. Recently, we had elections. We won 90 percent.

You have said that the U.S. is the most evil country in the world and you have called it a terrorist state. Do you want to have relations with the U.S.?

Of course. Indeed, we have relations and want to improve them.

Why did you call the United States a terrorist state?

The country is one thing -- we have lovely relations with the people -- like in the Bronx [where Chavez paid a visit]. We have economic relations. We have a company [Citgo, owned by the Venezuelan state oil company] that refines 800,000 barrels of oil [daily] . . . We have 14,000 gas stations in this country. We have sent Major League Baseball players here. We have many ties between Venezuela and the United States -- economic and social.

What I said is that this U.S. administration -- the current government -- is a terrorist administration, not all U.S. governments. I entertained the best of relations with the Clinton administration, and I consider myself a good friend of former President Carter.

So what's wrong with President Bush?

This administration invaded Iraq. According to Pope John Paul II, it is an illegal war, an immoral war, a terrorist war. The U.S. has bombarded entire cities, used chemical weapons and napalm, killed women, children and thousands of soldiers. That's terrorism.

In Venezuela they fostered a coup d'etat [in 2002] manufactured by the CIA . . . Recently,ReverendRobertson called for my assassination. This is a terrorist attack, according to international law. In Miami, on a daily basis, people on TV shows are calling for my assassination. This is terrorism.

This [present U.S.] government is a threat to humanity. I have confidence that the American people will save humanity from this government -- they will not allow it to [continue to] violate human rights and to invade countries.

Reportedly, one of your best friends is Cuba's Fidel Castro. Is that true?

He is one of my best friends.

Why do you admire him?

I admire many things about Fidel. I think the world admires Fidel for many reasons. His valor, his courage, the way he has led the revolution for more than 40 years -- in spite of a blockade and an embargo. Fidel is going be 80 very soon, but this guy is filled with vitality. I have never met a leader who is so well informed about what is going on in the world as well as in his own country as is Fidel. He is totally devoted to solving people's problems: health, education and work. Just to give you an idea, Cuba used to produce a lot of sugar. Now, as a result of economic crisis and the fall of the Soviet Union, they had to shut down 70 or 80 sugar production centers. But Fidel found a way that this would not lead to unemployment in Cuba. He invented a number of solutions to preserve the jobs of the Cubans.

For me, he is an exemplary friend, filled with a lot of solidarity. Do you know how many Cuban doctors we have in Venezuela today? We have 20,000 Cuban doctors. In Africa there are thousands of Cuban doctors and more in Central America, Asia and India.

Now we are conducting Operation Miracle, saving the eyesight of thousands of Latin Americans through eye surgery. I call upon all U.S. citizens -- especially the poor -- who happen to have eye problems that require surgery. Cuba and Venezuela are offering to pay all expenses so anyone can undergo surgery for eye diseases. Today, we signed an agreement to train 200,000 doctors in the next 10 years. This information is denied to U.S. citizens.

Who would you like to see as president of the United States?

I could deal with President Bush. I would like very much to be able to debate issues with him. I would like to transform this confrontation, this aggressive rhetoric, into a mature, serious debate on common issues. With President Clinton, we were able to sit and talk. But with this administration, it is impossible to talk because they want to impose things on you. If Mr. Bush changes his procedures and approaches, it would be excellent to talk and discuss current issues.

Regarding who is in the White House, it's up to you, the American people. Think it over. A government with so much power that it can start a war and destabilize a country but doesn't take care of its own people. Now, before the hurricane, they knew that Katrina was coming, and the government did not evacuate people. In Cuba, when they know a hurricane is coming, chickens, hens and people are all evacuated. A hurricane recently destroyed many towns in Cuba but not a single person died because no one was there. The government prepared its people and took them to shelters, whereas here they left the poor without protection, especially the blacks. That's horrible. Be careful with the government you have.

Reportedly, Venezuela is buying MiG planes, as well as rifles, from Russia. Why does Venezuela need these?

Who told you that I am going to buy MiGs? I am going to buy rifles, that's true. Our rifles are very old. Venezuela does not have spare parts or the workshops to maintain our equipment. It is high time for us to replace our old rifles. We could not buy rifles from the Americans because of the poor relations we have. We did not like what they had to offer in Europe because of the prices. We liked the Russian rifles. They are to defend our country. We are threatened by the empire.

Is the U.S. the empire?

The government of the United States, that's the empire. We have evidence that there are plans in this country to invade Venezuela. There is a plan called "Balboa." Our intelligence found this plan, and everything is spelled out there -- the target is Venezuela. They have even calculated how many bombings they should do, how many soldiers they will require. We now have the counter-Balboa plan. I hope that this will never happen because you're going to regret it. There will be such havoc in the whole hemisphere if this happens. The United States invaded Iraq, but Venezuela is not Iraq. The price of oil would shoot up and reach what -- $100 a barrel?

Experts in Washington claim you are encouraging radical groups throughout Latin America -- that you're helping the FARC in Colombia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Shafik Handal and the FMLN in El Salvador, and Evo Morales and the MAS in Bolivia.

Shafik is a great friend. We are together in this same revolutionary effort, of course. Shafik is a deputy member of the National Assembly, the [FMLN is] a legal party in El Salvador. Daniel Ortega is a close friend, and I think he will be a candidate in the next election. He is a great guy, very intelligent. Evo Morales is my friend, another great guy and an Indian leader. The parties they represent have excellent relations with my party. Do you want me to support the extreme right wing? I am a revolutionary. I have to support the left-wing movements in Latin America. We have to change Latin America.

Would you like to see these countries modeled on Cuba?

No country is going to copy any model. Cuba is Cuba and is based on its own circumstances. Latin American today is going to the left and not to the right.

In America, people believe in protecting minority rights and in a free press. What about the Sumate members who are on trial in your country?

Never before have we had so many political groups participate in the elections and debates in Venezuela -- right wing, left wing, center, radical left, radical right. They organize demonstrations and meetings; they go to the media: on TV, on radio. Not only have we not shut down any media [outlets] but, on the contrary, they have multiplied. . . . I doubt very much that in any other country in the world, there is more freedom of speech than in Venezuela. We will never jail a journalist in Venezuela because he does not want to reveal his sources. Here, yes. You have a journalist in jail here [New York Times reporter Judith Miller] because she did not want to reveal her sources.

In my capacity as head of state, I cannot comment on the legal aspects of the Sumate issue. It is true that they have been sued. But not only Sumate, other people and groups that took part in the coup of 2002 . . .

Weren't they merely gathering signatures for a referendum [against you as allowed by law]?

They did that as well and they lost.

So, why were they indicted for that?

I don't know if they are really going to be thrown in jail. We have a judiciary and an attorney general. If I had to make the decision, from a political standpoint I would prefer to ignore these people. We have evidence that they took part in the coup before gathering the signatures -- there is proof that they took part in a conspiracy. It is up to the branches in power to say what the decision is. It is not up to me to decide. In this country, from President Bush downward, everyone is defending Sumate. Sumate became an instrument of the U.S. government to intervene in Venezuela. I defend my sovereignty and the sovereignty of my country.

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400016_pf.html

____________________________

Scrap Basra police and start again
orders MoD

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Sun 25 Sep 2005

DEFENCE Secretary John Reid is planning to scrap the 25,000-strong police force in southern Iraq and replace it with a new military-style unit capable of maintaining law and order.

Reid ordered a root-and-branch review of security in the troubled province following last week's disastrous clashes between British troops and Iraqi police.

The violence has also led to the scrapping of a detailed plan that could have seen UK forces withdrawn by May next year. Instead, it now seems certain Prime Minister Tony Blair will have to keep British troops in the country until 2007 at the earliest.

The sudden U-turn on Britain's military commitment to Iraq has caused anger and despair in military circles. One former defence chief told Scotland on Sunday the Iraq expedition had been a "colossal political failure".

In comments that will pile pressure on Blair over his handling of the conflict, General Anthony Walker, a former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, told Scotland on Sunday: "The soldiers should have said to the politicians 'f*** this, we are not going into this conflict until you tell us how you are going to deal with this country once we have won you the war'.

"But they didn't, and it now looks as though we will be there a lot longer than we planned."

The dramatic events in Basra last week, when British troops attempted to rescue two SAS men from an Iraqi jail and were confronted by angry local police and protesters, have forced an urgent rethink.

There was a further setback yesterday in attempts to restore normal relations between the British military and Basra city officials when it emerged an Iraqi judge had ordered the arrest of the two special forces soldiers who sparked the incident. The original withdrawal plans foresaw a reduction in the British military presence in two of the four UK-controlled provinces in southern Iraq - Maysan and al-Muthanna - by the end of this year. The handover would have been completed next spring with the withdrawal from Basra and Dhi Qar and the departure of the last of Britain's 8,000-plus troops.

But the general decline in security, and the disclosure that many members of the Basra police force owe allegiances to rival militia leaders, has sent UK planning back to the drawing board.

MoD officials fear the only lasting solution to the infiltration may be the creation of a new military police force, uncontaminated by external influences. Creating the new force – which would wear combat uniforms and be trained in military tactics - could take over a year.

British officials are insistent that from now on members of the existing police force who are retained - as well as members of any other Iraqi force - are rigorously checked for any allegiances to tribal, family or religious elements that could compromise their loyalty to the new Iraq.

Ministers are also believed to have ordered a boost to the military intelligence operation on the ground in Iraq to ensure that they are not caught by surprise by further violence.

"The British could not reasonably have been expected to have prevented external elements patronising parts of the police force," said Jonathan Lindley, a Middle East expert at the international affairs think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). "But they could have done more to prevent specific external elements and individuals from gaining influence within the new police service. To have done so would not have been difficult."

The violence in Basra has scuppered a detailed plan that was aimed at getting all British troops out in as little as eight months. Reports from Japan yesterday claimed the British and Australians had recently indicated they intended to move out their military presence in Iraq - which numbers almost 10,000 troops - by next May.

Experts in the UK last night confirmed that any plans for a 'draw-down' of British forces had been pushed on to the back-burner. One military insider told Scotland on Sunday: "Senior army people I know were out in Iraq recently making arrangements for an early withdrawal, starting with two of the four provinces by the end of this year. It is a fact that the MoD were in the advanced stages of preparing for that, but there is now no way they can do it."

A 10-strong team of military officers and officials from the MoD had been in the British zone since early spring, liaising with British military commanders on the ground and local Iraqis, with a view to preparing the ground for withdrawal.

The Prime Minister is expected to face pressure over Iraq at the Labour conference in Brighton this week, although party managers expect to keep dissent on the margins of the conference arena.

Blair's spokesman said: "He will address Iraq in his speech.

"What we aren't going to do is put a timetable on an exit strategy, but [talk about] a process of democratization and the development of a security capability under which we can begin a draw-down. We don't want to be there any longer than we want to be there or the Iraqis themselves want us."

US President George Bush warned last week that an early withdrawal would "repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September 11, 2001".

A poll last night suggested most people want British troops to pull out of Iraq. Some 57% said British forces should pull out, 27% said they should not, and 16% questioned in the Five News poll did not know. YouGov asked 1,928 people between September 21 and 22 for the poll.

Sources:
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1990832005
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=404

_________________________

America is running out of time

By Paul Craig Roberts
September 23, 2005

George W. Bush will go down in history as the president who fiddled while America lost its superpower status.
Bush used deceit and hysteria to lead America into a war that is bleeding the US economically, militarily, and diplomatically. The war is being fought with hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed from foreigners. The war is bleeding the military of troops and commitments. The war has ended the US claim to moral leadership and exposed the US as a reckless and aggressive power.

Focused on a concocted "war on terrorism," the Bush administration diverted money from the New Orleans levees to Iraq, with the consequence that the US now has a $100 billion rebuild bill on top of the war bill.
The US is so short of troops that neoconservatives are advocating the use of foreign mercenaries paid with US citizenship.

US efforts to isolate Iran have been blocked by Russia and China, nuclear powers that Bush cannot bully.

The Iraqi war has three beneficiaries: (1) al Qaeda, (2) Iran and (3) US war industries and Bush-Cheney cronies who receive no-bid contracts.

Everyone else is a loser.

The war has bestowed on al Qaeda recruits, prestige, and a training ground.

The war has allied Iran with Iraq’s Shi’ite majority.

The war has brought soaring profits to the military industries and the firms with reconstruction contracts at the expense of 20,000 US military casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties.

The Republican Party is a loser, because its hidebound support for the war is isolating the party from public opinion.

The Democratic Party is a loser, because its cowardly acquiescence in a war that is opposed by the majority of its members is making the party irrelevant.

The latest polls show that a majority of Americans believe the US cannot win against the Iraq insurgency. The majority support withdrawal and the redirection of war spending to rebuilding New Orleans. Despite the clarity of the public’s wishes, the Republican Party continues to support the unpopular war.

With the exceptions of Reps. Cynthia McKinney and John Conyers, Democrats fled the scene of the Sept. 24 antiwar rally in Washington DC. The cynical Democrats are apparently owned by the same interest groups that own the Republicans and are refusing the mantle of majority party that the electorate is offering to the party that will end the war.

The Bush administration is churning out red ink in excess of $1 trillion annually. The federal budget deficit is approaching $500 billion. The US trade deficit is approaching $700 billion.

The budget deficit is being financed by foreigners, primarily Asians who now hold enough US government debt to exercise power over US interest rates and the value of the dollar whenever they decide to use the power that Bush has placed in their hands.

The trade deficit is being financed by turning over the ownership of US assets and future income streams to foreigners, making Americans forever poorer from the loss of accumulated wealth.

For the time being, China is willing to accumulate US assets as a way of taking over our consumer markets, attracting US manufacturing industry with cheap labor subsidized by artificial currency values, and gaining our technology. China’s strategy is to over-value the US dollar in order to encourage the transfer of US economic capabilities to China. China’s strategy gives artificial value to the dollar and keeps US interest rates at an artificial low.

The values of US stocks, bonds, and real estate depend on the support that Asians’ economic strategies provide the dollar and US interest rates. As Asia achieves its goal of preeminence in manufacturing, innovation, and product development, the strategy will change. Once China completes its acquisition of US capabilities, it will no longer have a reason to support the dollar.

When the dollar goes, it will affect costs, profits, interest rates and living standards in dramatic ways. Costs and interest rates will soar, and profits, living standards, equity values, bond prices and real estate will plummet.

These unpleasant events await only Asia’s decision to curtail its support for US red ink. That will happen when this support no longer serves Asia’s interest.

When Asia pulls the plug on the dollar, the US government will find that monetary and fiscal policy are powerless to offset the consequences.

Compared to US budget and trade deficits, terrorists are a minor concern. The greatest danger that the US faces is the dollar’s loss of reserve currency role. This would be an impoverishing event, one from which the US would not recover.

An intelligent government sincerely concerned with homeland security would find a way to halt the global labor arbitrage that is stripping the American economy of high value-added jobs and manufacturing capability, thereby causing the US trade deficit to explode. The loss of tax base that results when US companies outsource jobs and relocate production abroad makes it ever more difficult to balance a budget strained by war, natural disasters, and demographic impact on Social Security and Medicare.

Global labor arbitrage is rapidly dismantling the ladders of upward mobility and thereby endangering American political stability. This threat is far greater than any Osama bin Laden can mount.

Time is running out for Republicans and Democrats to escape from the distraction of a pointless war and to focus on the real threats that endanger the United States of America.

Dr. Roberts, [email him] a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former Contributing Editor of National Review, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration. He is the author of The Supply-Side Revolution and, with Lawrence M. Stratton, of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Source:
http://vdare.com/roberts/050923_america.htm
_____________________

Carter/Baker Report Can't Face How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election and Is Rigging 2008

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
The Free Press
Tuesday 20 September 2005

The stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004 are nowhere to be found in the milquetoast Carter-Baker Report now passing for wisdom on America's broken electoral system.

And unless the public is ready to face the reality that we no longer live in a nation with credible elections, the 2008 balloting is all but over.

As investigative reporters and registered voters living in central Ohio, we witnessed firsthand the outright theft of the 2004 election. We also endured the unwillingness of the Democratic Party to face up to a carefully choreographed "do everything" strategy that gave the presidency to George W. Bush for a second time, and which could make all elections to come virtually moot.

The just-issued report of a special commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and Bush family consigliore Jim Baker is of little real value.

The report warns that public confidence in the electoral system is disappearing. But it fails to point out the most obvious cause: in both 2000 and 2004, the presidency was stolen, and the Republican Party made a mockery of those who took the time and effort to vote. It did the same in Georgia in 2002, when it overrode the public will to install a Republican US Senator and Governor. The US Senate races that year in Minnesota and Colorado are also suspect, to say the least.

Much controversy surrounds the Carter-Baker report over its recommendation that photo IDs be required of all voters. This is the electoral equivalent of blaming the people of New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina (which, of course, this administration has essentially done).

A wide range of critics have pointed out that this requirement is racist and repressive. It is the equivalent of a poll tax and discriminates against people of color, the poor, the elderly, and civil libertarians who object on principle to a national identification card.

The report also recommends that officials who run elections should not be aggressive partisans. But the horse is already out of the barn on that one. Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 were administered by co-chairs of the state Bush-Cheney campaigns. Secretaries of State Katherine Harris and J. Kenneth Blackwell were both extremely outspoken Republican advocates allegedly running non-partisan elections. It's now clear that their fraudulent, illegal vote fixing twice gave George W. Bush the White House.

Among the panel's 87 recommendations is also a warning that electronic voting machines must have verifiable paper trails. On paper this is important. But there are many ways to use electronic voting machines to steal elections, even with a paper trail, if the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are running the show.

In the most laughable Carter/Baker punch line, the commission warns that "had the margin of victory for the [2004] presidential contest been narrower, the lengthy dispute that followed the 2000 election could have been repeated."

In fact, in our own preliminary report, we have unearthed more than 180 bullet points dealing with exactly how the GOP did steal the presidency in Ohio. A "do everything" Republican assault on democracy used intimidation, fraud, vote theft, computer rigging, machine distribution manipulation, a fake Homeland security alert, trashing of provisional ballots, denial of a recount and dozens more "dirty tricks" to produce a 118,775 "official" margin for Bush that was an utter fiction.

Exit polls in nine swing states showed Kerry a clear winner as late as 12:21 am on election night. Nationwide exit polls showed him with a 1.5 million vote margin in the popular vote.

But somehow, against all statistical probability, Bush wound up with a popular vote victory of nearly 3.5 million. And somehow, against all statistical probability, he carried Ohio and three other states (Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico) where he had been the clear loser in the exit polls. Ohio alone was sufficient to give him a second term, just as Florida had been in 2000.

Such an outcome is beyond implausible - unless you saw how the Rove-Blackwell machine stole the vote.

The tactics the GOP perfected in Ohio 2004 are now being honed for re-use in 2008. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry nor the core of the Democratic Party has been willing to face the reality that elections in the United States are all but over. This latest wimp report from the Carter-Baker whitewash commission does no better.

Unless our electoral system gets a total top-to-bottom revamp by an informed public willing to deal with the systematic poisoning of American democracy, there is no reason to bother printing the ballots or plugging in the voting machines in 2008.

Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis are co-authors of How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008, now available in a special release at http://www.FreePress.org and http://www.HarveyWasserman.com

Source:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1462

_________________________

British "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car

"They refused to say what their mission was."

September 20, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

The following Reuters report raises some disturbing questions.

Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked "suspicious". What was the nature of their mission? Occupation forces are supposesd to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities. Why did Britsh Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen." Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective of their undercover mission?

A report of Al Jazeera TV, which preceeded the raid on the prison, suggests that the British undercover soldiers were driving a booby trapped car loaded with ammunition. The Al Jazeera report (see below) also suggests that the riots directed against British military presence were motivated because the British undercover soldiers were planning to explode the booby trapped car in the centre of Basra:

[Anchorman Al-Habib al-Ghuraybi] We have with us on the telephone from Baghdad Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the Iraqi National Assembly. What are the details of and the facts surrounding this incident?

[Al-Shaykh] In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. There have been continuous provocative acts since the day before yesterday by the British forces against the peaceful sons of Basra. There have been indiscriminate arrests, the most recent of which was the arrest of Shaykh Ahmad al-Farqusi and two Basra citizens on the pretext that they had carried out terrorist operations to kill US soldiers. This is a baseless claim. This was confirmed to us by [name indistinct] the second secretary at the British Embassy in Baghdad, when we met with him a short while ago. He said that there is evidence on this. We say: You should come up with this evidence or forget about this issue. If you really want to look for truth, then we should resort to the Iraqi justice away from the British provocations against the sons of Basra, particularly what happened today when the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They [the two non-Iraqis] then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.

[Al-Ghuraybi] Thank you Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra.

Text of report by Qatari Al-Jazeera satellite TV on 19 September (emphasis added)

Is this an isolated incident or is part of a pattern?

More significantly, have the occupation forces been involved in similar undercover missions? Syrian TV (Sept 19, 2005) reports the following:

Ten Iraqis - seven police commandos, two civilians and a child - were killed and more than 10 others wounded in the explosion of two car bombs near two checkpoints in Al-Mahmudiyah and Al-Latifiyah south of Baghdad while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were heading towards the city of Karbala to mark the anniversary of a religious event.

And in a significant incident in the city of Basra, which is also marking the same religious event, Iraqi demonstrators set fire to two British tanks near a police station after Iraqi police had arrested two British soldiers disguised in civilian clothes for opening fire on police. Eight armoured British vehicles surrounded the police station before the eruption of the confrontations. A policeman at the scene said the two detained Britons were wearing traditional Iraqi jallabahs [loose cloaks] and wigs.

[Italics added]

An indepth independent inquiry should be ordered by Britain's House of Commons into the circumstances of this event.


Michel Chossudovsk
Global Research Editor, 20 Sept 2005

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

UK denies storming Iraqi jail to free soldiers

Reuter, 20 September 2005

British forces have freed two undercover soldiers from jail in Basra after a day of rioting in the Iraqi city that was sparked when the soldiers fired on a police patrol.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry official says British forces stormed the jail using six tanks and that dozens of Iraqi prisoners escaped during the raid.

But Britain's Ministry of Defence says the release of the two soldiers had been negotiated and it did not believe the prison had been stormed.

"We've heard nothing to suggest we stormed the prison," a ministry spokesman said.

"We understand there were negotiations."

Lisa Glover, spokeswoman for the British embassy in Baghdad, says three people have been wounded in the operation to free the soldiers.

She did not give further details of how the soldiers were freed.

The events in the mainly Shiite city are likely to worsen relations between British forces responsible for security in southern Iraq and the local population.

Police and local officials say the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them.

They say the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car.

"They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," an official in Basra said.

Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, says the two men looked suspicious to police.

"A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them," Mr Abadi said.

"They refused to say what their mission was. They said they were British soldiers and (suggested) to ask their commander about their mission."

Tank ablaze

Furious crowds pelted British armoured vehicles with rocks and petrol bombs after the shooting incident.

A British soldier was engulfed in flames as he scrambled out of a burning tank during the rioting.

He was pelted with stones by the crowd.

The tank tried to reverse away from trouble after it was attacked by Iraqis flinging petrol bombs, burning furniture and tyres.

Iraqis had driven through the streets with loudhailers demanding that the undercover Britons remain in jail.

Basra, capital of the Shiite south, has been relatively stable compared with central Iraq, where Sunni Arab insurgents have killed thousands of Iraqi and US troops, officials and civilians with suicide attacks, roadside bombs and shootings.

But relations remain tense between the British military and some local groups.

British Defence Secretary John Reid confirms in a statement that the two undercover soldiers are back with British forces, but sheds no light on their mission or how they were released.

"The situation in Basra is currently calmer after a day of disturbances," he said.

"At this stage it is not possible to be certain why these disturbances began."

The main ally of the United States, Britain said on Sunday it would if necessary increase the number of troops in Iraq, where it has about 8,500 soldiers.

Source:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

__________________________

Pentagon gags 'Able Danger' team

By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 (UPI) -- Defense Department lawyers have blocked members of a data-mining intelligence team from testifying Wednesday before a congressional committee probing their claims that they identified the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary sought testimony from several members of the team -- code-named Able Danger -- as part of their investigation into claims that the project identified Mohamed Atta and three of the other 18 hijackers as linked to al-Qaida in early 2000, according to Senate staffers.

Mark Zaid, an attorney representing a liaison to the team, Army reserve Col. Tony Shaffer, told United Press International that a letter to his client gave no reasons for blocking the testimony.

The letter was signed by the principle deputy general counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency, Robert Berry.

Zaid said the team members "were told verbally that they would not be allowed to testify," and that he had requested the decision about his client be put in writing.

He said that the team leader, Navy Capt. Scott Philpott, a civilian analyst named James Smith and other members of the team had all been denied permission to testify.

No one at the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency returned calls for comment Tuesday.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., who first put members of the Able Danger team in contact with the news media, was said by staff to be concerned about the move.

"It is unfortunate that we're trying to get answers ... and the people who could help us get them are not going to testify," said Russ Caso, the congressman's chief of staff.

The Able Danger team will not be the only witnesses missing from Wednesday's hearing. No one from the Sept. 11 commission will be present either, despite the fact that Weldon has publicly blamed them for – in his words -- "ignoring" evidence about the project.

Commission staffers say that after Shaffer told them about the project in 2003 they requested documents about it from the Defense Department, but found nothing to support claims that the team had nailed Atta.

Former GOP Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington told United Press International that he had volunteered to testify, and had been invited to do so, but had to cancel at the last minute owing to an unexpected conflict. He said that he would be submitting a letter in place of his testimony, which would "answer, in detail, all the questions" that the committee had.

Judiciary aides said Shaffer, Philpott and other Able Danger team members had been interviewed by committee staff, seeking information about a chart generated using Able Danger's computer software, and listing the names and connections of about 60 individuals thought linked to the al-Qaida network.

Able Danger used data-mining on massive amounts of "open source" information: culled from the internet, purchased from credit rating bureaus or other data brokers or -- like phone and travel records -- obtained in some cases by means that are still classified.

According to Philpott, that chart -- produced in January or February 2000 -- bore the name and likeness of Mohamed Atta, and linked him to a mosque in Brooklyn which has been a center of Islamic extremism for more than 20 years.

The Pentagon said earlier this month that three more people who worked on the project now corroborate Philpott and Shaffer's claims about the chart -- but that defense officials destroyed documents the project generated.

Pat Downs a senior policy analyst in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing on Sept. 1, that a search of "hundreds of thousands, probably" of documents and electronic files related to the project – including those held by contractors who worked on the project -- had found no copies of the chart, and no documents referring to it.

But she acknowledged that the chart could have been among documents from the project that were -- in accordance with regulations designed to prevent U.S. intelligence agencies spying on citizens -- destroyed.

"There are strict regulations about collection, dissemination and destruction procedures for this type of information," she told a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, "and we know that that did happen in the case of Able Danger documentation."

She said that the regulations had been "very strictly interpreted pre-Sept. 11."

"In a major data mining effort like this," she said, "you're reaching out to a lot of open sources and within that there could be a lot of more information on U.S. persons."

"We're not allowed to collect that type of information."

Weldon said that a defense contractor who would testify Wednesday planned to tell the committee that he was ordered to destroy data from the project.

Weldon told UPI earlier this month that he does not believe the military's account of how the results of the project's work came to be destroyed.

"I seriously have my doubts that it was routine," he said, adding that he had asked the Pentagon for the certificates of destruction military officials must complete when classified data is destroyed.

He said that there had been "a second elimination of data in 2003," in addition to the destruction acknowledged last week.

"For some reason, the bureaucracy in the Pentagon -- I mean the civilian bureaucracy -- didn't want this to get out," he said.

Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
E-mail: swaterman@upi.com
Tel: 202 898 8081

Copyright (c) 2001-2005 United Press International

Source:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050920-091827-1362r

____________________________

Chavez Calls US 'Terrorist State' In UN Speech

Agence France-Presse
9-16-5

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called the United States a "terrorist state" and said the United Nations headquarters should be moved away from New York.

The outspoken Chavez littered his speech to the UN world summit with anti-US comments which were strongly applauded. The ally of Cuba's President Fidel Castro followed this up with a press conference at which he accused the US administration of supporting terrorism.

Tensions have been mounting between the United States and Venezuela for months.

President George W. Bush's government has accused Chavez of becoming a destabilizing influence in Latin America. Chavez has in turn threatened to cut off his country's valuable oil supplies to the United States.

Their dispute has been spiced up by a call from US conservative evangelist, Pat Robertson, for the United States to assassinate Chavez, a comment he later apologized for.

Chavez told the UN General Assembly that the United States was "a country that does not respect the resolutions of this assembly."

To loud applause he took up the call of Latin American revolutionary Simon Bolivar for the UN headquarters to be moved to "an international city" in the southern hemisphere.

"It is time to think about an international city," he said, just before being told that his speech had gone beyond the allotted 15 minutes for each of the 170 heads of state and government leaders at the summit.

Chavez took the opportunity to fire a new assault at the US leader, claiming that Bush had been given 20 minutes.

At a press conference after his speech, Chavez said that the United States was a "terrorist state" because of its actions in Iraq, Robertson's assassination call and for harboring Luis Posada Carriles, who is wanted for the bombing of a Cuban airliner.

"It is a terrorist state. It is a government that violates all rules and behaves shamelessly," he said.

"The United States is the champion of double standards. The United States' government defends terrorism. They talk of the fight against the terrorism, but they commit terrorism, state terrorism," said Chavez.

The Venezuelan president said the United States had used napalm in Iraq and protects Posada Carriles, who is being held in the United States on immigration charges.

The Venezuelan leader arrived in New York on Thursday morning having kept in doubt whether he would attend the summit at all.

Chavez charged Tuesday that the United States had denied visas to his security and medical teams. He also complained that his presidential jet had been ordered to an airport far from the UN building.

Stepping up the diplomatic hostilities, as Chavez arrived, the US administration released a report saying that Venezuela had "failed demonstrably" to meet its counter-narcotics obligations over the past year.

Source:
http://rense.com/general67/chadv.htm

________________________


Venezuelan leader lashes at US in UN speech

Friday September 16, 2005

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called the United States a "terrorist state" and said the United Nations headquarters should be moved away from New York.

The outspoken Chavez littered his speech to the UN world summit with anti-US comments which were strongly applauded. The ally of Cuba's President Fidel Castro followed this up with a press conference at which he accused the US administration of supporting terrorism.

Tensions have been mounting between the United Advertisement

States and Venezuela for months.

President George W. Bush's government has accused Chavez of becoming a destabilizing influence in Latin America. Chavez has in turn threatened to cut off his country's valuable oil supplies to the United States.

Their dispute has been spiced up by a call from US conservative evangelist, Pat Robertson, for the United States to assassinate Chavez, a comment he later apologised for.

Chavez told the UN General Assembly that the United States was "a country that does not respect the resolutions of this assembly."

To loud applause he took up the call of Latin American revolutionary Simon Bolivar for the UN headquarters to be moved to "an international city" in the southern hemisphere.

"It is time to think about an international city," he said, just before being told that his speech had gone beyond the allotted 15 minutes for each of the 170 heads of state and government leaders at the summit.

Chavez took the opportunity to fire a new assault at the US leader, claiming that Bush had been given 20 minutes.

At a press conference after his speech, Chavez said that the United States was a "terrorist state" because of its actions in Iraq, Robertson's assassination call and for harboring Luis Posada Carriles, who is wanted for the bombing of a Cuban airliner.

"It is a terrorist state. It is a government that violates all rules and behaves shamelessly," he said.

"The United States is the champion of double standards. The United States' government defends terrorism. They talk of the fight against the terrorism, but they commit terrorism, state terrorism," said Chavez.

The Venezuelan president said the United States had used napalm in Iraq and protects Posada Carriles, who is being held in the United States on immigration charges.

The Venezuelan leader arrived in New York on Thursday morning having kept in doubt whether he would attend the summit at all.

Chavez charged Tuesday that the United States had denied visas to his security and medical teams. He also complained that his presidential jet had been ordered to an airport far from the UN building.

Stepping up the diplomatic hostilities, as Chavez arrived, the US administration released a report saying that Venezuela had "failed demonstrably" to meet its counternarcotics obligations over the past year.

Source:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16092005/323/venezuelan-leader-lashes-un-speech.html

___________________

Doctor Says FEMA Ordered Him To Stop Treating Hurricane Victims

By Laurie Smith Anderson
Advocate Staff Writer
9-17-5

In the midst of administering chest compressions to a dying woman several days after Hurricane Katrina struck, Dr. Mark N. Perlmutter was ordered to stop by a federal official because he wasn't registered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"I begged him to let me continue," said Perlmutter, who left his home and practice as an orthopedic surgeon in Pennsylvania to come to Louisiana and volunteer to care for hurricane victims. "People were dying, and I was the only doctor on the tarmac (at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport) where scores of nonresponsive patients lay on stretchers. Two patients died in front of me.

"I showed him (the U.S. Coast Guard official in charge) my medical credentials. I had tried to get through to FEMA for 12 hours the day before and finally gave up. I asked him to let me stay until I was replaced by another doctor, but he refused. He said he was afraid of being sued. I informed him about the Good Samaritan laws and asked him if he was willing to let people die so the government wouldn't be sued, but he would not back down. I had to leave."

FEMA issued a formal response to Perlmutter's story, acknowledging that the agency does not use voluntary physicians.

"We have a cadre of physicians of our own," FEMA spokesman Kim Pease said Thursday. "They are the National Disaster Medical Team. ... The voluntary doctor was not a credentialed FEMA physician and, thus, was subject to law enforcement rules in a disaster area."

A Coast Guard spokesman said he was looking into the incident but was not able to confirm it.

Perlmutter, Dr. Clark Gerhart and medical student Alison Torrens flew into Baton Rouge on a private jet loaned by a Pennsylvania businessman several days after Katrina hit. They brought medicine and supplies with them. They stayed the first night in Baton Rouge and persuaded an Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot to fly them into New Orleans the next day.

"I was going to make it happen," the orthopedic surgeon said. "I was at Ground Zero too, and I had to lie to get in there."

At the triage area in the New Orleans airport, Perlmutter was successful in getting FEMA to accept the insulin and morphine he had brought. "The pharmacist told us they were completely out of insulin and our donation would save numerous lives. Still, I felt we were the most-valuable resource, and we were sent away."

Gerhart said the scene they confronted at the airport was one of "hundreds of people lying on the ground, many soaked in their own urine and feces, some coding (dying) before our eyes." FEMA workers initially seemed glad for help and asked Gerhart to work inside the terminal and Perlmutter to work out on the tarmac. They were told only a single obstetrician had been on call at the site for the past 24 hours.

Then, the Coast Guard official informed the group that he could not credential them or guarantee tort coverage and that they should return to Baton Rouge. "That shocked me, that those would be his concerns in a time of emergency," Gerhart said.

Transported back to Baton Rouge, Perlmutter's frustrated group went to state health officials who finally got them certified -- a simple process that took only a few seconds.

"I found numerous other doctors in Baton Rouge waiting to be assigned and others who were sent away, and there was no shortage of need," he said.

Perlmutter spent some time at the Department of Health and Hospital's operational center at Jimmy Swaggart Ministries before moving to the makeshift "Kmart Hospital" doctors established at an abandoned store to care for patients. After organizing an orthopedics room and setting up ventilators there, Perlmutter went back to the Swaggart Center and then to the LSU Pete Maravich Assembly Center's field hospital to care for patients being flown in from the New Orleans area.

"We saw elderly patients who had been off their medicine for days, diabetics without insulin going into shock, uncontrolled hypertension, patients with psychosis and other mental disorders, lots of diarrhea, dehydration and things you would expect. I slept on a patient cot there every night until I came home."

Gerhart said he felt the experience overall was successful and rewarding, although frustrating at times. "You don't expect catastrophes to be well organized. A lot of people, both private citizens and government officials, were working very hard."

Perlmutter did not return home empty-handed. He brought a family of four evacuees back with him and is still working with Baton Rouge volunteer Hollis Barry to facilitate the relocation of additional hurricane victims to Pennsylvania.

He also returned with a sense of outrage. "I have been trying to call Sen. Arlen Specter (of Pennsylvania) to let him know of our experience.

"I have been going to Ecuador and Mexico (on medical missions) for 14 years. I was at ground zero. I've seen hundreds of people die. This was different because we knew the hurricane was coming. FEMA showed up late and then rejected help for the sake of organization. They put form before function, and people died."

Both FEMA and the Coast Guard operate under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has been widely criticized for its disjointed, slow response to the devastation caused by Katrina. Federal officials are urging medical personnel who want to volunteer to help with disaster relief to contact the Medical Reserve Corps or the American Red Cross for registration, training and organization.

Source:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/091605/new_doctorordered001.shtml

____________________

What Noble Cause?

By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Saturday 17 September 2005

It has been one month, one week, and 4 days since I sat in a ditch in Crawford, Texas. My request was very simple: I wanted to speak to the man who has sent over a million of our young people over to fight, kill, and die in a country that was absolutely no threat to the United States of America. I wanted to ask him: "What is the Noble Cause that you keep talking about?"

Well, we all know now that George Bush never came down the road to talk to me. Thank God! Many people have been saying that I am the "spark," "catalyst," "face of the anti-war movement," etc. I beg to differ. George Bush and his arrogant advisers are the spark that lit the prairie fire of peace activism that has swept over America and the entire world. If he had met with me that fateful day in August it would not have been good for him (because I knew he was going to lie and I would have advertised that fact) but it would have had less of an impact on the peace movement if he had.

Upon reflection on the events of this past August, I have come up with two reasons why George could not meet with me: He is a coward and there is no Noble Cause. If George had as much courage and integrity in his entire body as Casey had in his pinky, he would have met with me. But, ironically, if George had that much courage and integrity he never would have preemptively invaded a practically defenseless country. His syncophantic cabinet and hangers-on are also incontrovertible evidence that he is a coward. No one had better dare disagree with him. How dare a mom from Vacaville, California, have the nerve to contradict the emperor of Prairie Chapel Road!!??

All of the "Noble Cause" reasons that George has variously given for the invasion and continued illegal occupation of a sovereign nation are also patently false and ridiculous. He has been claiming recently (since he admitted a long time ago that Iraq had no WMDs or links to 9/11) that this occupation of Iraq is spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. Really?

Does he have any idea that the constitution that the Iraqi governing body is working on is based on Sharia and that it undermines the freedoms of women? Does he realize that for over 50 years women had equal rights with men in Iraq?

Does George realize (of course he does) that the puppet government the US put in place in Iraq is comprised of the very same people who encouraged the invasion to line their own pockets? What kind of freedom and democracy is this?

If George is so hell bent on freedom and democracy for Iraq, then why doesn't he practice it here in America? Up to 62 percent of Americans believe that what George has done in Iraq is a mistake and we should begin to bring our troops home.

Well, George, 62 percent is a clear majority and you should begin to listen to the people who pay your salary.

He has also claimed that what we are doing in Iraq is "making America safer." Another statement that is easier to disprove than the "freedom and democracy" baloney. To disprove this little bit of deception, all we have to do is look at the Gulf States. Ask the people of New Orleans, especially, if they feel safer. By misappropriating all of our personnel, equipment and pouring billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, George has made our country more vulnerable to attack by outside forces. Also, from the cold and callous statements of people like Michael Chertoff and George's own mama, the people of New Orleans seem to be "acceptable" collateral damage to the ruling elite of this country. It is my humble opinion that the only thing that will make America safer is to get George and his unfeeling and dangerously incompetent supporters out of our White House.

We all now know the reason that we are in Iraq. George told us so from a break he was taking from Crawford in San Diego on the same day that Katrina was hitting the Gulf States: it is for oil. It is so George, Dick, and their evil buddies can rape more profits from our children's flesh and blood. This is not a Noble Cause - as a matter of fact, it is the most ignoble cause for any war that has ever been waged. We as Americans knew either in the front of our brains, or in the back of our consciousness, that this war was to feed the corporations. 15 brave young Americans have been killed so far this month while our attention has been focused, and rightfully so, on the Gulf States. Over 200 innocent and unfortunate Iraqis have been killed in this week alone. How much more blood are we as Americans going to allow George, Congress, and the corporations to spill before we demand an end to this war and an accounting for the lives that have been needlessly ruined?

It is also time to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq. I witnessed the abject poverty and sense of abandoment the less fortunate people of New Orleans were living in even before the levees broke. It is time to start pumping hope back into our own communities. It is time to start taking care of Americans. How many millions of our tax dollars are we going to allow George, Congress and the corporations to misuse and waste in Iraq?

Not one more drop of blood. Not one more life. Not one more penny for killing.

If you love our country and want to see a change for the better, come to DC on the 24th of this month and stand up and be counted for peace. The entire world is counting on you.

Source:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091705Y.shtml

___________________

Bush's New Orleans
Rebuilding Scam

By Wayne Madsen
9-16-5

Bush announces plan to help big business to "recover" from Hurricane Katrina. Speaking in a Karl Rove-staged photo op from New Orleans last night, President Bush announced a series of measures that will ensure tax breaks for big business, a permanent Diaspora for the city's poor, and the future gentrification of poor and middle class sections of the flooded city. The Bush speech was full of corporate contrivances that dodge the type of assistance that is actually needed for the displaced population of the New Orleans metropolitan region.

Bush recently named CIA Leakgate suspect Karl Rove as his point man for the rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. The Bush speech reflected both Rove's emphasis on spin and a lack of interest in the plight of the poor. Although Bush accepted responsibility for the "problem" of his administration's poor response effort, he quickly diverted his priorities to workers' recovery accounts (something that sounds suspiciously like medical savings accounts); a "Gulf Opportunity Zone" offering big tax breaks to corporations in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; and a homestead lottery scheme to build homes on federal lands.

Bush did not address the immediate and long-term focused concerns for the people of the Gulf Coast. For example, FEMA continues to block needed assistance to the homeless residents of the region.

Bush failed to provide incentives for people to return to their homes. He also failed to insist on incentives for minority-owned businesses to participate in rebuilding efforts. Yesterday, Rev. Jesse Jackson told a Washington, DC press conference that there are 300 trucks in Memphis loaded with ice, water, and food with an additional 1000 trucks standing by at warehouses across the country. These trucks have not been granted permission by FEMA to move out to the Gulf Coast, where some poor towns, particularly in Mississippi, have not yet seen either FEMA or the Red Cross. 1800 children are still separated from their parents and Bush said nothing to assure parents and their children that they will soon be reunited.

What many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and African American national leadership have called for in relief and reconstruction efforts were not addressed by Bush.

There were no proposals by Bush for:

* an "adopt-a-family" tax credit

* a one-time FEMA help grant for orphaned and homeless children

* a bankruptcy relief provision, provide temporary housing at all available federal government assets (including many closed military bases in the Gulf Coast region)

* the setting of a 50 percent residency target for all contracts

* setting a 40 percent minority vendor target for all reconstruction

* a moratorium on all contracts until civil rights provisions are restored (Davis Bacon minimum wage requirements, minority contract set asides)

* permit the admittance of minority community-based counselors in evacuation facilities nationwide

* Justice Department assistance in individual cases of arrested and detained individuals, ensure evacuees can vote in state and local elections (including February 2006 election)

* ensure home owners have the right of first refusal to reclaim property

* freeze all foreclosures against property in affected area for a minimum of 12 months

* legal protections against predatory lenders

* prohibition of collections and deficiency judgments on real and personal property

* prohibition on negative credit reporting or omission of negative events from credit scores

* voluntary waiver of late fees or interest on loans for a period of at least three months

* establish a diverse commission to monitor the equitable distribution of relief resources by FEMA,
the Red Cross, and Salvation Army

* develop an action plan to secure wetlands in coastal areas of the U.S.

* stop the rollback and waivers of environmental laws

* and develop a comprehensive strategy to address the poverty crisis in America.

Many Gulf Coast residents see a lot of promises from Bush's plan with no guarantees he will follow through. Already, House and Senate conservative Republicans are carping about the Federal price tag for the reconstruction. These include Sen. John McCain, who is already politicking for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination on the backs of the people of the Gulf Coast who lost everything. McCain has no problem spending billions of dollars on a failed war in Iraq -- a ploy by McCain to further ingratiate himself to the neo-cons in the Republican Party.

Bush asks America to trust him to plan the recovery of the Gulf Coast when he couldn't even plan to use the potty before addressing the United Nations on its 60th anniversary. The fool embarrassed America before 160 assembled world leaders. A Reuters photographer snapped this unforgettable presidential bloated bladder moment.

Source:
http://waynemadsenreport.com/

______________________

A Fraction of Democracy

Greg Coleridge

Anyone who’s taken fractions in school knows that 5/3 is greater than 3/5. This is true in mathematics. It’s also true in democracy.

On Friday, September 9, the Camp Casey bus tour came to Cleveland, Ohio. The bus tour is an outgrowth of the encampment of Cindy Sheehan, mother of a killed US solider in the Iraq war, who attempted to meet personally with President George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas in August.

Composed of family members of killed and current US troops in Iraq, among others, the Bring Them Home Now bus tour is making its way across the country calling attention to the human costs of the war and occupation. At every stop, they try to share their stories and perspectives with US Representatives or Senators. If they can’t, then with their aides. That was the case in Cleveland.

On September 9 a delegation of tour participants, along with local peace and anti-war activists, planned to meet with an aide to Ohio Senator George Voinovich. They would follow this visit with leaving material at the office (all aides were to be away for part of the afternoon) of Ohio Senator Mike DeWine.

Following a hour-long meeting in the Federal Building in downtown Cleveland with an aide to Senator Voinovich, the group of 12 tour participants, local activists and others marched to the office of Senator DeWine. His office, curiously, isn’t in the Federal Building. It’s in the 5/3rd Bank corporation building five blocks away

As the combined delegation of 10-12 tour participants and local citizens entered the 5/3rd Bank corporation building, we were immediately stopped by the 5/3rd Bank corporation security guards dressed in flashy red blazers with walkie-talkies. One asked where we were going. When we said to Senator DeWine’s office to deliver a packet of material, we were told, “You can’t go.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“Because you can’t.” After scanning the group, the guard asserted, “Only one of you can go up.”

I immediately blurted, “And who are you to tell citizens they can’t drop off information to a public official that they have elected? You have no authority!”

Silly me. I had forgotten for a moment where I was. We don’t live in a democracy or even a democratic republic. The 5/3rd Bank corporation, after all, has a whole bunch of constitutionally protected “personhood” rights that trump the rights of you and me: First Amendment rights of free speech, Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure, Fifth Amendment rights against takings, Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial. These so-called corporate “rights” come from the Bill of Rights, originally included in the Constitution to protect We the People from government. Over the last century, these human rights (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment granting due process and equal protection rights to freed slaves) have been legally co-opted to protect corporations from citizens.

But it’s not just co-optation of good provisions of the Constitution that’s the problem. Original provisions of the Constitution anoint property with rights that prevent true self-governance. The Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) says nothing shall interfere with trade between states. Some call this “Baby NAFTA” where local rules and laws defining worker rights or environmental protection were defined as trade barriers. The Contracts clause (Article I. Section 10) says nothing shall impair the obligation of contracts. Some believe this opened the Constitutional door to defining the corporate charter as a contract among equals rather than a democratic tool used by the people to dictate the conditions for corporate business.

Other provisions created a firewall between the public exercising “too much democracy” and the propertied few. The appointment of elite judges for life to the Supreme Court and the Electoral College as the mechanism to elect the President are but two examples.

The current disparity of rights and powers between corporations and people, leading to a myriad of problems, abuses, scandals, and further take over of public policy, is not very different from the disparity between different groups of persons which existing the very moment the US Constitution was ratified. Remember them from school?

Men were bestowed with 100% of the rights and privileges spelled out in the Constitution – white, propertied men that is. Women couldn’t vote and lacked many other social and economic rights but were considered 100% persons for purposes of determining how many Representatives should be assigned to each state. The same was true for white indentured servants (people who were working to pay off their debts in exchange for travel from Europe). Slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person. Native people, Indians as they were called, who didn’t pay taxes (not part of the US economy) were total non-persons.

With the Constitution set up to favor white, male, property owners (100% persons), it’s no wonder they benefited the most from its laws and rules. Slaves, 3/5ths persons, didn’t have a chance. It took a social movement to drive the rights of African-Americans into the Constitution. Even then, it took another Civil Rights movement. The rights of women to vote didn’t happen until a women’s movement lasting 70 years finally resulted in the 19th Amendment.

Today, the rights of people to govern themselves are further threatened like never before. More public information is being hidden, more public realms are deemed “private” (i.e. corporate) beyond public reach, more ultimate decisions are shifted from legislative and executive bodies to the courts that have supreme authority.

Attempts to address corporate harms are funneled through or shielded by regulatory agencies that fundamentally change nothing, even if people “win” in the short term. Politicians often use regulatory agencies as their own shield to divert angry and/or organized constituents. “It’s out of my hands. You need to contact the Federal ____ Agency,” they say.

On September 9, it was the 5/3rd Bank corporation that was doing the shielding of the public official named Senator Mike DeWine. We the People couldn’t simply walk up the steps or take the elevator to his office since we were on private property. We had to first receive permission from the 5/3rd corporate “person.” Sort of like the 3/5ths slave “person” asking his master for a cup of water. Aren’t we today little more than slaves to corporations and those few people of privilege who rule? No real voice? No real choice? No real self-governing power?

With fewer rights (who knows what exact fraction it is: 3/5ths, 1/4th, 2/7ths or something else) than those of corporations and those of immense property, how can we realistically expect to be successful educating or organizing against wars, toxic dumps, and genetically modified foods or for higher minimum wages, universal health care, or sustainable energy? The ground rules are stacked against us and, therefore, must be changed.

Back in Cleveland, another 5/3rd Bank corporation security guard, sensing conflict, went upstairs to notify an aide to DeWine’s office (who was there afterall) that we were downstairs. Before long, she appeared, deemed that we were OK to talk to, and took the group upstairs for a chat.

I couldn’t go. I wouldn’t go. It seemed futile.

We can meet all the aides we want, even all the Representatives or Senators we want, but to what avail? Until we the people once more create a grassroots movement, this time for the fundamental right to self-governance, and remove the legal and constitutional barriers along the way, we will never have anything approaching a real democracy. A small fraction of a democracy but little more.

Why? Because a 5/3rds person does not equal a 3/5ths person. Not in mathematics. Not in democracy.

Source:
Greg Coleridge AFSCole@aol.com
http://www.afsc.net/EJCorpDem.html

_____________________________

TV addiction wastes time, mind

By Nina Buck
December 06, 2004

Watching TV is a lot like smoking. People know all the crummy side-effects and continue to do it anyway. It's seductive, addictive and promises entry into certain conversations and certain circles of glamorous people.

Most smokers are aware that their habit can cause cancer and emphysema. Most TV watchers know that their habit is mind-numbing and wasteful.

Television presents a rapid barrage of images that the human brain cannot process as quickly as they are flashed across the screen. The messages hit our subconscious and remain there, influencing our activities in ways that we may not fully understand and are therefore not fully in control of.

It has this subtle power. It sells a specific look, a specific life-style, wealth and body-type. It misrepresents women. It misrepresents and under-represents people of color. It advocates violence. It does all sorts of rotten things that most people are totally aware of- but continue to participate in anyway.

It steals your life.

According to The Kaiser Family Foundation, "American children and adolescents spend 22 to 28 hours per week viewing television, more than any other activity except sleeping. By the age of 70 they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV."

Seven to ten years is a good chunk of your life (especially if you smoke). It is absurd and distressing to think that people are watching reruns of "The Golden Girls" when they could be surfing or learning to cheat at poker. It's hard to believe that people find more value in daytime television than they do in volunteering at a homeless shelter or reading Hamlet or gardening or baking chocolate chip cookies or singing Karaoke.

There is nothing life-affirming about "Baywatch" or "Survivor." There is nothing wonderful and funny in "Fear Factor." Twenty-two to 28 hours in front of the tube is a part-time job! Haven't we got something more meaningful to provide our children with? When was the last time you read "Green Eggs and Ham" with your niece or your next-door neighbor? Give it a shot. They've undoubtedly seen enough of Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

Haven't we got a more significant way to fill the precious hours we are given? Are we really going to spend one-tenth of our lives with drool on our shirts and eyes glazed over as we munch chips in front of a soul-sucking machine? Haven't we got something better to do?

Learn Italian! Take up underwater basket weaving, practice your circus act! Call your grandma, make dinner for your sweetheart, go salsa dancing, use pipe cleaners to make your hair look like Pippi Longstocking's!

It's okay if you are hooked on the occasional clove cigarette out at the bar with buddies. Just recognize that 10 percent of timber harvested goes directly into curing tobacco. Acknowledge that your actions have implications that reach beyond your own lungs. It's okay if you are desperate to see the season finale of "Sex in the City." Just recognize what you have chosen to support. Consider some other options.

Play your guitar! See an opera, donate blood, go fishing, climb a mountain, put in some hours of daydreaming, take a run, do your laundry, plant tomatoes!

Or kiss the Marlboro Man goodbye. You need not participate in something you know to be worthless. Throw some darts. Mend your socks. Wink at someone. Ascribe more care and importance to your hours than the advertisers give you credit for. Don't sell your life short -- not before you've finished "War and Peace" and traveled to Malaysia.

Jerry Springer does not deserve you.

Thanks to Barb T. for the article
Archived Source:
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/06/41b3c749c11ee?in_archive=1

__________________