features rare footage of war crimes against the Iraqi people suffered during and after the Gulf War. The footage is from former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his attempt to document the injustice of United States military actions in the region.
features a film on the struggle of the indigenous people of West Papua to remain sovereign in the face of an Indonesian invasion backed by world capital. Footage of Noam Chomsky on Western involvments in the region and the relation to East Timor.
HANDLING HARVEY By Madeleine Begun Kane @ MadKane.com http://www.madkane.com/pitt.html
CHENEY: Good morning, Mr. President. We need to discuss the Pitt problem. If anybody asks, we're mulling over the idea of asking Harvey to resign. (Wink, wink)
DUBYA: But I like Harvey. More important -- our pals like Harvey. What's the matter with yur eye?
CHENEY: There's nothing wrong with my eye! If anybody asks, we're mulling over the idea of asking Pitt to resign. (Wink, wink)
DUBYA: I just told ya -- I'm not dumpin Harvey! Ya really should get that eye looked at.
CHENEY: My eye's fine, damn it! Look! We're not dumping the guy. We're just mulling over the idea of asking him to resign. (Wink, wink)
DUBYA: Does it hurt?
CHENEY: What?
DUBYA: Yur eye. Does it hurt?
CHENEY: No! But you're giving me chest pains.
DUBYA: Like I keep tellin ya, ya really need ta start workin that treadmill.
CHENEY: Who the hell has time for treadmills? Okay, you really need to pay attention to this.
DUBYA: That's easy! It's me & Laura's silver weddin anniversary.
CHENEY: Right, but what else happens on Tuesday?
DUBYA: Did I show ya the great present I got fer her?
CHENEY: Several times. Now we need ta move on.
DUBYA: Dya think she'll like it?
CHENEY: Wives always appreciate sculptures of their husbands. Now we really need to...
DUBYA: I was plannin ta keep it at the ranch. But maybe it should stay right here in the Oval and keep me & Churchill company.
CHENEY: Whatever...
DUBYA: What's a good spot fer it?
CHENEY: I don't give a flying...
DUBYA: Hey Karl, how's tricks?
ROVE: Fine, Mr. President. Dick, did you talk to him about our Pitt problem?
CHENEY: Yes, but I didn't get anywhere. Maybe you should...
ROVE: Mr. President, where are you going?
DUBYA: I'm late fer my mornin workout.
ROVE: Hold on a sec, Mr. President. We need to talk about Pitts. Don't bring the subject up, of course. But if anybody asks, we're mulling over asking for Pitt's resignation.
DUBYA: Like I already told Dick -- I'm not dumpin Harvey!
ROVE: Look, the election's tight. The Pitt/Webster thing's hurting us. We just need to look like we're taking this thing seriously till after the election.
DUBYA: But we can't dump...
ROVE: We're not dumping. We're mulling dumping.
DUBYA: But I like...
ROVE: Okay, let's try this: If anyone asks you about Pitt, just say you remain committed to cracking down on corporate crime. Can you do that?
DUBYA: No problemo! What didn't you say so the first time? Hey, check out the great gift I got Laura!
When I first heard that Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash while in London this week I immediately thought back to Mel Carnahan's death in a plane crash just before the 2000 election in a hotly contested race with rightwing extremist and current AG John Ashcroft. I also, as in the article posted below, thought back to Rep. Mickey Leland's death in a plane crash in Ethiopia in the 1970s; I knew Mickey fairly well from the Austin scene and he was surely one of the most progressive members in Congress. I also recalled Torrijos' plane crash in Panama and allegations that Noriega himself, working with the CIA, put the bomb on the plane.... In grieving for Wellstone I put all of these suspicions out of my head but was curious to see if there would be any media speculation on assassination when I returned to the US last night. I did receive an email from someone I didn't know who had a long posting alleging assassination though without any proof. Ray McInnis sent me, however, Prof Niman's thoughtful piece in AlterNet and I decided to post it and agree with Niman that an investigation into the plane crash is essential (although it will have to be state official or PI's since the Bush gang could not be trusted to investigate). Recall also that Senators Leahy and Daschle received the most lethal anthrax shipments. It's as if there could be a rogue element in the government sending out messages that anyone too liberal or who goes against rightwing fascist-militarist policy gets eliminated. Its hard to imagine any clique more roguish than Bush-Cheney, however, so the most frightening thing to contemplate is that the thugs have taken over the US government at the highest level. AlterNet: Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?
Repugs using allegations of "voter fraud" to suppress voting; given Repug irregularities in Florida in 2000 election, this sudden religion for voting purity is rank hypocrisy Spinsanity - A vast voter fraud conspiracy?
Microsoft gets off with wrist slap; Bush-Cheney gang continues to relentlessly push deregulation in the face of all its failures and excesses by corrupt and monopolistic corporations; big debate will eventually emerge over regulation, corporate corruption and perhaps monopoly, Bush administration is emerging as the most relentlessly rightwing and procorporate administration in modern US history TechNews.com
Senior Republican Joins in Criticism of S.E.C. Chairman
Pitt under attack; Repub Senator Shelby who has been critical of FBI and Bush administration in their pre-911 lapses on terrorism shows honor once again in his criticism of Pitt; at stake, is whether SEC and corporate capitalism can or cannot be constrained; Bushites are pushing hard to avoid any reform and constraint on corporations; Dems and some smart corporate types see reform as necessary to restore investor confidence and make investment game safe and rewarding. Bush-Cheney, by contrast, simply represent the most corrupt sectors who want to play and rob the system to the max; there is mushrooming movement to get Pitt to resign which would be a major embarassment to the Bush-Cheney gang if they were capable of embarassment Senior Republican Joins in Criticism of S.E.C. Chairman
Bush madly campaigning for GOP 2002 candidates and his own 2004 election, a virtual candidate; actually, all Bush can do is give sound bite, press the flesh, raise money and then give paybacks to contributers; he cannot govern, cannot deal with domestic or foreign policies, so his handlers keep him on the move to create illusion of motion and to feed Bush's ego as crowds erupt in ecstasy for the Pretender; Repugs at lowest intellectual and moral level of their history, a real embarassment, as they engage in demagogery, mudslinging and suppressment of votes, desperately trying to increase their hold on power to push through their hardright agenda; the democratic Republic is at stake in 2002 and 2004 as the Bush Reich pushes to consolidate power and avoid courtime for its corrupt corporate allies and big players like Bush and Cheney who need to stay in office to stay out of jail.... see posting above on reasons why Bush should face SEC inquiry on insider trading... The Virtual Candidate (washingtonpost.com)
Harvey Digs His Own Pitt Bush Was Warned on Insider Trades
Bush SEC head is the Pitts and may go down the pit to multiply the metaphors; once again, the Bush administration is taking on the aura of Teapot Domesque corruption and is working hard to win prize for most corrupt administration of the last century, its odds on to be the winner in the corruption sweepstakes! Harvey Digs His Own Pitt Bush Was Warned on Insider Trades
Repugs ready to do anything to keep control of house and senate, including vote suppression, see Greg Palast story below and Joe Conason commentary; although media continues to ignore 2002 election it will be one of the more fateful ones in US history and a test case if votes can continue to be suppressed and elections stolen.... Salon.com Politics | Joe Conason's Journal
Illicit scrubbing of largely African American voters that helped enable Bush to steal 2000 election still in play in Florida, could take away enough votes to give it to Jeb Salon.com Politics | Jeb Bush's secret weapon
Bush brothers battle hard to keep Florida, a loss would be bigtime embarassment to Bush dynasty and would bode ill tidings for continuation of the dynasty in 2004 Salon.com News | Florida: The Sequel
Paul Krugman on SEC scandals and scandalous Bush head Harvey Pitt, witing: "Harvey Pitt decided not to tell other members of the Securities and Exchange Commission a small detail about the man he had chosen to head a crucial new accounting oversight board, after turning his back on a far more qualified candidate. William Webster, reports Stephen Labaton of The Times, headed the audit committee at U.S. Technologies. Now that company is being sued by investors who claim that management defrauded them of millions.
And what did Mr. Webster's committee do after an outside auditor raised concerns about the company's financial controls? That's right: It fired the auditor.
Mr. Pitt's response when this story broke beats anything a satirist could have imagined. "Pitt seeks probe of himself," read one headline. Honest: Mr. Pitt's own agency will investigate how he chose Mr. Webster.
Meanwhile, what was Mr. Webster thinking? Nobody thinks he's corrupt; but having failed so spectacularly to police executives at a single, small company, how could he imagine himself qualified to enforce honest accounting for all of corporate America?
Yet it's no accident that Mr. Pitt picked the wrong man. Mr. Webster was chosen over better candidates precisely because accounting industry lobbyists — a group that clearly still includes Mr. Pitt — believed he would be ineffectual.
Let's call it the Pitt Principle. The famous Peter Principle said that managers fail because they rise to their level of incompetence. The Pitt Principle tells us that sometimes incompetence is exactly what the people in charge want.
In this particular case, ordinary investors demanded a crackdown on corporate malfeasance — and Mr. Pitt pretended to comply. But this administration is run by and for people who have profited handsomely from their insider connections. (Remember Harken and Halliburton? And why won't the administration come clean about that energy task force?) So he picked someone with an impressive but irrelevant background, whom he could count on not to get the job done."
Krugman continues with a devastating satirical critique of Bush administration imcompetency and villainry at the highest levels; this article should be circulated far and wide!
Pitt Under Fire for Not Telling All He Knew About Webster
Bush gang, desperate to prevent reform of SEC after plethora of corporate scandals, pushes aging former FBI and CIA chief to serve as frontman to block real reforms but failed to tell SEC that he had been involved with companies accused of some of the corruption that SEC was supposed to clean up... big struggle going on over direction of SEC with SEC head Harvey Pitt, longtime whore for the audit and securities lobbies, under fire to resign for incompetency, lies, and blocking needed reform Pitt Under Fire for Not Telling All He Knew About Webster
Is It Time for Cynicism About the Role of the UN's Security Council? IPA members Think So
Recent post from IPA, on "UN Endgame". see also below this IPA post, an editorial by Jay Bookman, an editorial writer at the Atlanata Journal Constitution.
Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * * ipa@accuracy.org
According to the UN Charter: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." -- UN Charter (Chapter I, Article 2) [See: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter ]
JAMES PAUL, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm Executive director of the Global Policy Forum, which monitors global policy-making at the United Nations, Paul said today:
"We understand that a deal is being struck -- after tremendous pressure and who-knows-what sweet deals.... There has apparently been delay in large measure because, according to a highly-placed source at the UN, 'every word of text change had to go back to Washington and get argued over for two days.' But even the hawks understand that public support for a war without a UN resolution is dropping and is low; only 27 percent in a recent Pew poll said they would support the war 'if allies don't go along'.... Many of the worst 'trigger' language is out, but plenty of material remains in the resolution that the U.S. government will claim allows war, make no mistake about that. Council members know this, but now they are running for cover." [See: http://www.accuracy.org/un ]
MICHAEL RATNER, http://www.humanrightsnow.org President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said today:
"What is going on here is completely outrageous. The Security Council, a body that was supposed to make war at the behest of one country illegal and impossible, is paving the way to a war of aggression. And worst of all, the U.S. will be able to argue that somehow it has its blessing."
FRANCIS BOYLE, Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, Boyle said today:
"If the UN Security Council gives the Bush administration this legal fig-leaf for its pre-planned aggression against Iraq, the Security Council shall prove its own legal and moral bankruptcy...."
JOHN BURROUGHS, http://www.lcnp.org Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy.
"If the UN is strong-armed into authorizing this war, then it will be acting contrary to the basic values of the UN Charter.... The U.S. may well get a resolution which it claims authorizes war in the case of Iraqi non-compliance; the U.S. and other countries could agree to disagree. This would undermine the United Nations...."
Burroughs and other lawyers have sent letters to the members of the Security Council, available at the above web page.
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Editorial by Jay Bookman. Bookman rhetorically asks, "What is the goal of our policy toward Iraq?", and then proceeds to give his own answer, which I think is pretty cogent. Here are fragments:
The Bush administration offers conflicting answers to that fundamental question. At the beginning, the president and others defined our goal as the forced ouster of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by leadership more acceptable to the United States.
But more recently, hoping to reassure select audiences such as the United Nations, the administration has claimed a less controversial goal: destroying Iraq's capacity to create and use weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell has even suggested that, with an effective inspections program, regime change might not be necessary...
Four years ago, on Jan. 26, 1998, a group of conservatives sent a strongly worded letter to President Clinton, insisting even back then that U.S. foreign policy "should aim above all at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." It also states that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the U.N. Security Council."
What makes the letter so interesting is the identity of those who signed it, and the jobs they now hold. Among them were:
Paul Wolfowitz, today the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Armitage, now deputy secretary of state; Paula Dobriansky, now undersecretary of state for global affairs; Peter Rodman, today the assistant secretary of defense; Richard Perle, current chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, now on the president's National Security Council; Zalmay Khalilzad, now the president's special envoy to Afghanistan; and John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
Oh, and Rumsfeld, too. ...
The benefits that Rumsfeld and others hope to reap from invasion are obvious. Only regime change would place U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, where we could establish military bases that will dominate the Middle East. Only regime change can intimidate Iran, Syria and other nations that still defy us. Only regime change will give us guaranteed access to the second largest reserve of oil in the entire world.
The dangers, though, are less obvious. By invading and occupying Iraq, we will incur vastly larger defense costs for years to come. By occupying an Arab country, we may stir rather than calm the passions that fuel terrorism. Even Henry Kissinger, who is hardly shy about exerting U.S. power, has warned that he is "viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country."
More important, we will have committed ourselves to what G. John Ikenberry, a foreign policy professor at Georgetown University, calls a "neoimperial grand strategy."
And "neoimperial grand strategy", which pivots on the doctrine, "pre-emptive strike", which makes a persuasive argument that, throughout our history, the US has had a predilection toward achieving hegomony. The first doctrine of hegemony is of course, "manifest destiny," control of the north American continent. Next, and you'll notice, an expansion on "manifest destiny," with the Monroe Doctrine, controlling both North and South American continents. Finally, the doctrine of "pre-emptive" strike gives us an even larger geographical hegemony, world domination. (I'll be writing more about this soon.)
GREG PALAST, greg@gregpalast.com, Author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Palast is featured in the investigative documentary "Counting on Democracy," which is currently being shown on PBS stations. He said today:
"In 2000, Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, ordered county elections officials to purge 57,000 citizens from voter registries as felons not allowed to vote in Florida. In fact, about 95 percent of these voters were innocent of crimes -- but 54 percent were guilty of being African-American. Harris and the state admit that tens of thousands of black voters had been wronged, and with plantation noblesse have agreed to return them to the voter rolls -- at the beginning of 2003.... In 2000, the 180,000 'spoiled ballots' came overwhelmingly from the blackest, poorest, most Democratic counties. Now, the old dogs of ballot-bending are learning some new tricks. Before resigning to run for Congress, Harris leaned hard on the counties to purchase touch screen voting machines. But not just any machines. Harris first authorized the use of machines by only one company, Election Systems & Software of Omaha.... It was ES&S machines that were used in Florida's 2002 primaries and were plagued by countless breakdowns. A report by the state Inspector General says that the company 'bears major responsibility' for the foul-ups. An ACLU study found that, once again, it was Miami-Dade's black voters who were disproportionately disenfranchised by 'lost votes'.... Most troubling of all, some of these practices are going national."
Unfortunately, last evening, other activities prevented me from watching the Jim Lehrer Newshour, but I did listen to one segment this morning on RealOne Player. What I heard was fascinating, and I encourage everyone who can to listen as well. John Burns has been for several weeks the NYT's stringer in Iraq. Burns argues that, as a result of the pressure from the US, remarkable changes have occurred in Iraq, including the amnesty of most of Iraq's prisoners. Listening takes a little over 12 minutes, and if you don't have one already, you have to download the RealOne Player.
BUZZFLASH DISCLAIMER [and blogleft]: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.
1//The Moscow Times, Russia--HOT NEWS: PRESIDENT'S ACTION IN HOSTAGE CRISIS SUPPORTED BY 85% OF RUSSIANS
2//The Independent, UK--BERLUSCONI EDGES AHEAD IN BATTLE OVER JUDGES
3//The Japan Times, Japan--TOKYO, PYONGYANG TRADE ACCUSATIONS AS TALKS COMMENCE
4//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--TANKER BLAST SPAWNS A YEMENI COAST GUARD
Fear of U.S. Power Shapes Iraq Debate: As U.N. Considers War Resolution, a Distrust of American Policy Emerges
Washington Post A world in which one nation is more equal than all the others is not going to be a stable world. There will be consequences that the US will regret.
...The intense debate in the United Nations Security Council over a resolution mandating new weapons inspections in Iraq has boiled down to a few phrases deep with meaning for diplomats. But the seven-week battle has masked a larger struggle over the projection and containment of U.S. power, diplomats and analysts said....
In the past two years, the administration has rejected international agreements covering topics from global warming to war crimes, leaving allies deeply cynical about its motives in going to the United Nations now, according to U.N. diplomats.
"The whole debate is about two issues," said an envoy whose country is one of the five permanent Security Council members. "One is Iraq. The other is U.S. power in the world. The second issue is the bigger part of the debate."
Thank God Bush didn?t handle the Cuban Missile Crisis
Op Ed in Beirut's Daily Star. The guy knows his history. Taught me some things I don't remember about the Cuban Missile crisis.
Kennedy represented the new, appealing face of America, giving the White House a family and human touch, and championing freedom for people at home and abroad. He acted against racial discrimination in the US and is the only American president to have earned worldwide popular admiration and respect. The country was going through a congressional election campaign, too....
Rami G. Khour in the Jordan Times In an apologetic, introspective frame of mind, Rami G. Khour muses about why the assassination occurred in Jordan. This guy, remember, was quoted about a week ago by Tom Friedman.
THE ASSASSINATION here Monday of American diplomat Laurence Foley is the latest in a series of terror acts that must be addressed at the levels of both criminality and politics. The killing of Foley was a deep personal tragedy for his family, colleagues and friends, and for his Arab hosts as well. . He and many other Americans work hard every day presenting the best of America to the world — relaxed friendship, official assistance, dedicated professionalism, and a deep, joyous personal commitment to forging mutually satisfying relations between America and the world.
....What does it mean that proven American friends like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and Jordan have become symbols of anti-American terror? It means we are witnessing growing divergences between official Arab policy and public opinion in countries where governments rely heavily on American support while public sentiment is very critical of Washington. This also may be the first wave of anti-US terror in the Arab-Asian world generated by the American-led war against terror. It might be largely explained by the convergence of five separate strands of political sentiments of very varied legitimacy:
a) The cumulative indignities and anger that several hundred million Arabs feel against American policies in the Middle East, going back some four decades, to when Washington's policy tilted severely and became explicitly pro-Israeli.
b) Trends since the 1990-91 Gulf War, including the growing permanent US military presence in the region, and the Anglo-American-driven harsh enforcement of the UN embargo against Iraq, two factors that seem to have contributed to spawning Osama Ben Ladenism and Al Qaeda terror against America.
c) Israel's harsh military assaults, political brutality and economic suffocation of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza since September 2001, which ordinary Arabs see in parallel with acquiescence by Washington and impotence by Arab governments.
d) America's global “war against terror”, though correct in its inception, is seen to be waged in a discriminating, uneven, manner. Most Arabs and Asians read its latest threat of war to change the regime in Iraq as only emphasising the long tradition of self-serving double-standards in American policy in this region.
e) Many people throughout the Arab-Asian region who feel deeply angry, humiliated, demeaned and helpless because of the above forces become doubly enraged when their own governments limit their freedom of expression or deny them opportunities to participate in political processes that could change government policies. Distortions and rights denials within Arab society only aggravate the pains Arab feel from abroad.
...Saddam Hussein is cruel man, but he seems — to me, at least — a lot saner than Kim Jong Il....Iraq's Saddam
Hussein doesn't have nuclear weapons, but President George Bush wants to use force to disarm him (and actually to dethrone him). North Korea does have nuclear weapons, but President Bush thinks we should use a diplomatic approach, without threats.
What's the difference?
North Korea has no oil; Iraq does. After a bloody war in North Korea, you would have nothing but a poor, devastated country. After a much easier war in Iraq, you would be sitting in charge of the second-largest known oil reserves in the world.
...U.S. estimates of [Amercian] casualties in the event of a war with North Korea said the estimate for the first few hours of combat is 72,000. North Korea is the fourth-largest military power in the world. It has more than 1 million men in its army, and another 4.7 million in reserve. It has 3,500 main battle tanks and 26 submarines. It has so much of its power perched on the Demilitarized Zone, just a few miles from Seoul, South Korea, and 35,000 American troops, that there is no way we could fight a war without losing thousands of men...
'The Democracy Thing' is Tom Friedman's Parodic Take on Bush Senior's Gaffe about the 'The Vision Thing'. That is, if you think Bush Senior lacked vision, wait till you see the Son, who is totally void of 'Vision'. As president, Bush Senior, of course, considered foreign policy his strongest virtue. As candidate for president, Bush Junior, in his 'vision' of appropriate foreign policy, declared that he wanted to avoid 'nation building'. Now, as President, he is conducting a foreign policy of 'nation building', but totally negative 'regime changes', rather than promoting 'visionary' democratic evolution.
Here's how Friedman begins his piece:
Think about the contrasting headlines made last week by the biggest Arab state and the smallest Arab state. From the biggest state, Egypt, came the news that its state TV planned to run a 41-part series during the month of Ramadan; when TV viewing is at its highest; about a Zionist conspiracy to control Arab lands. [Egyptian TV Revives the 'Protocols of Zion' Myth 10/26 on blogleft] From the smallest state, Bahrain, came the news that it had successfully conducted the first democratic parliamentary election in the Arab gulf, to begin empowering Bahrainis to control their own land.
Therein lies the two Arab responses to 9/11.
One, the Egyptian model, is to feed their people bread, circuses and conspiracy theories to explain why they are falling behind in the world.
The other, the Bahraini model, is to feed their people more responsibility, a freer press and greater ability to shape their own future to help them catch up in the world....
Bush's Problems at the UN: Many nations may use next week's expected Security Council vote on US resolution to bridle US might
According to today's CSM, At the UN, it's not just about Iraq. Until today, I wasn't aware of Mexico's position on Iraq, so news about Fox's refusal to cave to Bush is especially gratifying.
... But the case of Mexico, one of 10 rotating members of the Security Council which so far has sided with France on curtailing any war "triggers" in the resolution, illustrates the nonpecuniary motivations.
"Public opinion in Mexico is not favorable to a war with Iraq, and it would be very costly politically for President [Vicente] Fox to support the US at this point," says Jorge Chabat, a noted Mexican specialist in international relations in Mexico City.
"It is not a case of being pro-French or even anti-American," Mr. Chabat says. "But Mexicans have had their own experience with American power," he adds, noting Mexico's historic loss of half its territory to the US in the 19th century. "Mexican people, more even than other people in the world, are not anxious to support the US in its use of power."
