Thierry Meyssan
28 May 2011
http://www.voltairenet.org/article170083.html
It is impossible to understand the downfall of Dominique Strauss-Khan without linking it to his project for the creation of a new international reserve currency, which was to be launched on 26 May 2011 at the Deauville G-8 summit. The project was paradoxically anticipated as much by the Emerging States as by stateless capital, but rejected by the U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex. Thierry Meyssan exposes the chicanery of the Obama administration to dodge its commitments.
The French were dumbstruck at the arrest in the United States of the most popular political leader of their country, Dominique Strauss Khan. Former Economy Minister, he had become the highest-paid public official in the world (base salary, excluding bonuses and expenses: 461 510 USD) and was, reportedly, about to enter the French presidential race. This affable VIP, reputed for his appetite at the table as well as in bed and often accused of being a political amateur because of the time he dedicated to satisfying his lust for life, has been charged with the precipitous sexual assault on a chamber maid in a Manhattan hotel.
For six days, the French remained glued to their television screens watching in a daze the judicial harassment against a man they considered to be a hopeful alternative to the catastrophic first five-year term of Nicolas Sarkozy. DSK’s fall marked the end of their illusions.
The spectacle of this shattered destiny is suggestive of ancient tragedy. The Roman saying: "Arx tarpeia Capitoli proxima" comes to mind: the Tarpeian Rock from which a convicted person was hurled to his death was close to the Capitol, the symbol of power and greatness.
Leaving aside any considerations of his innocence or guilt, the steamrolling of such a high-profile personality can only provoke anguish in the ordinary citizen. If someone like him is unable to defend himself, then how can we hope to succeed if we were to be accused like him?
The rise and the fall
Nevertheless, as a politicized people raised on Machiavellian lessons, without ever having read his works, it didn’t take the French long to start questioning the solidity of the charges brought against their compatriot DSK. According to the opinion polls, 57% didn’t buy the rutting-season story that the U.S. media have taken delight in dishing out. Some started imagining all kinds of manipulation scenarios, while others are asking "cui bono?" (who benefits?).
At that game, the first name that comes to mind is that of Nicolas Sarkozy. It is impossible not to think of him knowing that he became president by pressing charges against his chief rival, Dominique de Villepin, and entangling him in a forgery scandal just as convoluted as the current one. Therefore, why not another plot to move a new competitor out of the way?
Never mind if DSK and Sarkozy have needed each other to prepare the forthcoming international summits, or if they were both subservient to the United States. It is well known that the worst crimes are perpetrated against one’s own friends or even family.
As is happens, the French are unaware of DSK’s ties [1] or, for that matter, Sarkozy’s when they voted for him [2]. The media have never informed them that in the 1990’s, during his political wilderness, he was hired as professor at Stanford University by a certain... Condoleezza Rice. They also don’t know that he and his lieutenants Pierre Moscovici and Jean-Chrisophe Cambadélis were in charge of raising funds for the Socialist Party from the National Endowment for Democracy - a legal CIA front [3]. Nor did they follow his activities and various contracts with Atlanticist think-tanks, such as the German Marshall Fund of the United States [4] or the Bilderberg Group [5]. Finally, they are oblivious about his commitment to integrate France and Europe into a vast transatlantic market dominated by the United States.
Nor do the French know anything about DSK’s close links to Israel. Within the Socialist Party, he steers the Cercle Léon Blum, named after a former Jewish prime minister. The role of this discreet and powerful lobby is to eject from the political scene any individual who is likely to criticize the Zionist project. Thus, it can make heads roll, like that of political scientist Pascal Boniface who highlighted the electorally counter-productive implications of supporting Tel-Aviv in a country where 10% of the population is of Arabic culture. Yet, DSK is very open about it. Without beating around the bush, he asserted: "I deem that every diaspora Jew must support Israel. For that reason, it is important for Jews to take up political responsibilities. In short, in my functions and in my everyday life, in everything I do, I endeavor to make my modest contribution toward the construction of Israel." It’s rather disconcerting from someone who aspires to become president of France. But who cares? He’s so jovial!
However, Dominique Strauss-Khan and his loved ones were spared no humiliation: while kept incommunicado under protective police custody, the New York prosecutor’s office was distributing to the media copies of the detailed indictment.
It contains a clinical description of the alleged crimes: "The defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct with another person by forcible compulsion; the defendant attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with another person by sexual compulsion; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; the defendant restrained another person; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact without the latter’s consent; and in that the defendant intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touched the sexual and other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading and abusing such person, and for the purpose of gratifying the defendant’s sexual desire.
The offenses were committed under the following circumstances:
Deponent states and deponent is informed by an individual known to the District Attorney’s office that defendant 1) shut the door to the above location and prevented informant from leaving the above location; 2) grabbed informant’s breasts without consent; 3) attempted to pull down defendant’s pantyhose and forcibly grabbed informant’s vaginal area; 4) forcibly made contact with his penis and informant’s mouth twice; and 5) was able to accomplish the above acts by using actual physical force."
All these juicy details were splashed all over the evening news for days on end before wide-eyed parents just back from work, and before horrified children who buried their noses in their bowl of soup.
The cultural shock
It is difficult to know who was more traumatized: the brilliant economist who was going to save humanity from the financial crisis and has been abruptly relegated to the ranks of an infamous criminal, or the French people who were looking forward to a respite by choosing him as their leader, and have been compelled once again meet head-on the violence of the United States.
In this regard, the French are trying to find excuses for the nature of the Anglo-Saxon judicial system to which they are just beginning to awaken. They had already seen such a parody of justice in their favorite television series, but they never imagined it could actually exist in reality. As for the extra-judicial system, Guantánamo and the secret prisons, they have always preferred not to know. Some commentators have speculated that the harsh treatment at the hands of the police and the first judge denotes a will to treat the powerful and the weak on an equal footing. Yet, surely, they must all be familiar with the works of illustrious sociologists explaining that in this unjust system money is king and that justice may be blindfolded, but is not class blind.
Furthermore, the French unflinchingly went along with the criticisms relayed by the Anglo-American press, laying all the blame on its French counterparts for having failed to investigate Mr. Strauss-Khan’s life of sexual depravity in the name of his right to privacy. And yet - the puritans comment further - a man who ostensibly seduces a women, squeezes or even jostles her is obviously a potential raper. "He that will steal a penny will steal a pound." On its cover, Time Magazine depicts DSK and his peers in the guise of a pig. However, no one has pointed out that the defendant was IMF Managing Director and a Washington D.C. resident for the past 3 years, but whose hidden vices the moralizing Anglo-American press has also failed to dig into.
The accusation against DSK having opened up suspicions, now everyone remembers - albeit somewhat late - that in 2002 DSK had tried to force himself on a beautiful French journalist, Tristane Banon. When she asked him for an interview, he gave her an appointment in a private apartment located in the Marais, a historic district of Paris. He received her in a huge loft, completely unfurnished except for a big bed. Since the beauty refused to submit to the libertine, he bashed her.
Could it be that, in New York, the gentleman was overwhelmed by his own violence and transformed into a criminal?
Nothing seems to point in that direction, all the more since DSK is not a frustrated bachelor. He is married to television star Anne Sinclair, a French top-notch journalist, who abandoned her profession to accompany her husband in his career. The French saw her again during Dominique Strauss-Khan’s court hearings, as beautiful and determined as ever despite the extra years. The grand-daughter of a major art merchant, she sits on a cushy family fortune. Without hesitation, she flew to Paris to pay the one-million dollar bail and provide the court with an additional 5 million in collateral. At that moment, this wealthy woman was prepared to sacrifice everything to rescue her husband from the crushing jaws of United States justice. She was all the more admirable for it; a wife who didn’t hold his escapades against him and who even liked to go with him to the Chandelle, a Paris swingers club.
Any nation worthy of that name would not have endured to see a political figure, who was slated to become president and represent their country, walking handcuffed between two FBI officers, shoved in the back of a car like a thug, and paraded in court shaggy and unshaven. In any other country, people would probably have staged a rally in front of the U.S. Embassy chanting patriotic songs. But not in France. The "Americans" are far too admired. The French look up to them like a rabbit hypnotized by a cobra. And they have a hard time accepting that they are not the navel of the world, that if indeed there was a plot, it was not necessarily hatched on the banks of the Seine but on those of the Potomac.
The confinement
Is DSK guilty of rape or is he victim of a machination? One only has to think in order to answer the question.
The defendant allegedly spent the night with a call-girl, then raped the chambermaid at brunch time before calmly going to have lunch with his daughter, a student at Columbia University. Finally, he is supposed to have boarded his flight, booked several days in advance, bound for Berlin where he was to meet Chancellor Angela Merkel. Comfortably settled in his Air France business class seat, he was arrested ten minutes before takeoff.
According to the cabin crew, the officers of the Special Victims Unit (the same as in the NBC "Law and Order SVU" serial) didn’t delegate the questioning procedure to their airport counterparts, insisting on doing it themselves despite the risk of arriving too late. However, to prevent any warning from reaching DSK, they ordered the cell phone jamming of the zone until their arrival [6]. Now, this kind of jamming operation exceeds the scope of a vice squad. It could only have been ordered by national security services.
As soon as the suspect was placed under police custody, he was cut off from any external contact, with the exception of his lawyers, as prescribed by U.S. law. But when Judge Melissa Jackson moved him into protective custody, he was again cut off from the outside world. With no reason. It was explained that DSK’s detention was warranted for fear he might flee to France, with which Washington did not sign an extradition agreement and which has protected another sexual offender accused of rape, film director Roman Polanski. The decision to isolate him was therefore not taken with the aim of preventing him from influencing the witnesses. Nonetheless, the judge decided to lock him up at Rikers Island, one of the largest prisons in the world which houses 14 000 detainees, and one of the bleakest. A hell on earth. "For his protection", he was assigned to a single cell and kept incommunicado.
The IMF Managing Director was held in confinement for 10 days. During this period the functioning of the international institution was blocked in want of a signature. For 10 days the problems related to the euro and the dollar, Greece’s default, and many others crucial issues were put on standby at the mercy of the police, judges and prison guards.
According to U.S. jurisprudence, considering that he had no criminal record and is domiciled in Washington, DSK should not have been placed in protective custody but should, instead, have been released on bail. He obviously quickly assessed the situation and, through one of his lawyers, sent a letter of resignation to the IMF. On the very next day, against all expectation, a new judge acceded to his request and released him on bail, under house arrest and tight surveillance, pending trial. Indeed, it was no longer necessary to keep him locked up now that the IMF had recovered its freedom to act.
French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde, who made a career in the United States defending the interests of the military-industrial complex [7], is sounded out to succeed the defendant at the helm of the IMF, despite Russia’s and China’s cries of outrage.
Incidentally, DSK’s second lawyer Benjamin Brafman didn’t visit him in prison and was not present at the second court hearing. The star of the New York Bar Association departed precipitously for Israel. Officially, it was to celebrate a religious feast with his family [8]. To claim his fees, Mr. Branfman didn’t simply limit himself to lighting candles on Lag BaOmer, he also must have negotiated to obtain assistance for his client.
The Zhou project
Why were Hollywood-like means deployed to block the IMF during 10 days? There are two possible answers, and they may be linked.
In the first place, on 29 March 2009, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, challenged the predominance of the dollar as reserve currency. Deploring that the objective of economist John Maynard Keynes to create an supranational currency (the Bancor) was not achieved at the end of World War 2, he suggested that the IMF Special Drawing Rights could be used to fulfill this function [9]
At the London G20 summit on 2 April 2009, yielding to pressure, the United States agreed to the tripling of IMF resources and to the issuance by that institution of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for a value of 250 billion dollars. They also acquiesced to the principle of a Financial Stability Council associating the major emerging countries.
This idea was debated at the G8 summit at L’Aquila (Italy) on 8 July 2009. Pushing the pin further, Russia submitted that the new world currency should be minted rather than being virtual. Dmitry Medvedev, who had a few sample of coins minted, slapped them on the table. One side displays the faces of the eight Heads of State, whereas the flip side bears the motto "Unity in Diversity" [10].
The project was submitted to experts from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Their report, in which Professor Popov of the New Economic School of Moscow took part, was examined on 25 April 2010 by a joint IMF and World Bank meeting [11].
This project should have seen the light of day on 26 May 2011 at the G8 summit in Deauville (France). The dollar would thus have met its demise as the reserve currency against the backdrop of an imminent cessation of payments on the part of the U.S. Federal Government. As for Washington, it would have had to give up financing its super-powerful military apparatus through debt and to start concentrating on its domestic restructuring.
The Libyan dinar is the first (and last?) currency backed by gold and by IMF Special Drawing Rights. In 2000, Colonel Gaddafi had thought of creating a pan-African currency based on gold, but was unable to pursue his idea. Also, in 2009, he had spontaneously availed himself of the Zhou project and adopted it unilaterally for his country.
The spanner in the works
Unfortunately, in the final months of this process, military and political initiatives disrupted the plan. Countries such as Russia and China were double crossed. DSK’s arrest exposes Washington’s bad faith, and shows that its concessions were a only ploy to gain time.
Although the exact details of Dominique Strauss-Khan’s device for the creation of the new currency sustained by IMF Special Drawing Rights remain secret, it would appear that Libya had a key role to play. On an experimental level, the Libyan Central Bank was the first to base its currency, the dinar, on gold and later on SDRs. This aspect is especially important considering that Libya possesses one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, exceeding even that of Russia.
By waging war against Libya, France and the United Kingdom generated a theoretical asset freeze targeting not only the Gaddafi family but also the Libyan state. Worse, Paris and London dispatched HSBC bank executives to Benghazi to set up a rebel Libyan central bank and attempt to grab the national assets [12]. Without knowing whether Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron got carried away by their own hubris or acted on instructions from their bosses in Washington, the fact remains that the fragile edifice developed by Dominique Strauss-Khan has collapsed.
According to our contacts in Tripoli, at the time of his arrest, DSK was headed for Berlin in order to work out a solution with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Afterwards, he and a German envoy were supposed leave to negotiate with Colonel Gaddafi’s representatives, and very possibly with Gaddafi himself considering that his signature was indispensable for unblocking the situation.
We are now witnessing a financial war on an unprecedented scale. While the economic situation of the United States is on the brink and the dollar could rapidly turn into monkey currency, the agreement concluded at the G8 and endorsed by the G20, implemented by the IMF in conjunction with the World Bank and the international banking circles, of which DSK was the architect, has been suspended. The hegemony of the dollar remains intact albeit more artificially than ever. The dollar which the emerging states wanted to resize but on which the U.S.-Israeli industrial-military complex rests its power.
In that context, what is one man’s honor worth?
Thierry Meyssan
French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
Showing posts with label Condoleeza Rice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Condoleeza Rice. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Rice meets with Libya leader
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/09/05/libya.us/
Rice meets with Libya leader
9-5-8
From Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer
Story Highlights
Condoleezza Rice meets with Moammar Gadhafi in Libya
First trip to Libya by a U.S. secretary of state in more than 50 years
Libya's journey from pariah nation has taken several years
U.S. companies hoping to take advantage on new friendlier relations
TRIPOLI, Libya (CNN) -- The U.S.'s most senior diplomat, Condoleezza Rice, arrived in Libya on Friday and met with leader Moammar Gadhafi.
It was the first time in more than half a century that a U.S. secretary of state has visited the former pariah nation.
Rice and Gadhafi met in a reception room at the Libyan's Bab Al Azizi compound where the man President Reagan dubbed "the mad dog in the Middle East" asked for the latest news on hurricanes threatening the U.S. coasts.
"The first one was not as bad as feared, but there are two more coming," Rice told him.
Gadhafi, wearing a white robe and a black fez but not his trademark dark sunglasses, shook the hands of the male members of Rice's staff but not Rice, instead offering the traditional greeting of his hand over his heart for her.
Muslim men are prohibited from shaking hands with women to whom they are not related.
After their meeting, Gadhafi, who once called Rice "Leeza ... my darling black African woman," was hosting a dinner for Rice.
Last year in an interview with Arabic TV station al Jazeera, Gadhafi suggested that Rice ran the Arab world, with which he has sometimes had stark differences.
"I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders," he said. "I love her very much because she's a black woman of African origin."
The two are expected to meet in the leader's Bedouin tent he favors for high-profile meetings.
Upon her arrival Friday, Rice met with the Libyan foreign minister and then toured the new U.S. embassy.
Rice's visit marks a 180-degree turn from relations between Washington and Tripoli, which for more than three decades have been marked by personal animosity and insults, Libyan terror attacks and U.S. airstrikes.
Libya's rehabilitation from a "state sponsor of terrorism" represents a rare foreign policy success for the Bush administration in its last months in office.
In Portugal, before flying to Tripoli, Rice called her trip "a historic moment, and it is one that has come after a lot of difficulty, the suffering of many people that will never be forgotten or assuaged, a lot of Americans in particular."
Libya, she acknowledged, "is a place that is changing, and I want to discuss how that change is taking place." Watch excitement in Libya at Rice's trip »
"I am very much looking forward to it," she said.
The United States restored relations with Tripoli in 2005, after Gadhafi abandoned his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, renounced terrorism and agreed to compensate victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in Berlin, Germany, and the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. Libya was also dropped for the U.S. list of "state sponsors of terrorism," the only country except from Iraq to be removed.
Since then, several U.S. officials have visited Tripoli, and Rice has met several times with her Libyan counterpart. The United States opened its embassy in Tripoli in 2006.
The United States has praised Libya's cooperation in fighting terrorism in North Africa, where al Qaeda has been gaining a foothold. U.S. officials also say Gadhafi has prevented Libyan and other foreign fighters from traveling to Iraq to join insurgent movements.
At the U.N., Libya has also voted with the United States to crack down on Iran's nuclear program and has sought to play a helpful role in the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
Yet relations between the two countries face strains over Libya's poor human rights record and final settlement of claims from the La Belle and Pan Am bombings.
In her meetings with Libyan officials, Rice is expected to raise the issue of political prisoners, especially Fathi al -Jahami, a leading Libyan reformer being held in detention since 2002.
Last month, the United States and Libya reached a deal to resolve outstanding claims for the bombings, but Libya has yet to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to a fund set up to compensate the victims' families.
Many of the Lockerbie families have criticized Rice's decision to meet with Gadhafi, whom they say remains unrepentant for the Lockerbie attack which killed 280 people, 180 of them American.
In a recent interview with the BBC, Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam al-Gadhafi called the Lockerbie families "very greedy" and "trading with the blood of their sons and daughters" for money.
The Bush administration has expressed sympathy with the Lockerbie families but says it is time to move forward with a new relationship with Libya.
The deal paves the way for greater access by U.S. companies to Libya's booming economy, in particular its vast oil reserves, the ninth largest in the world.
European companies have had much greater access to Libya's energy sector, but Libyan officials say the improved relations with the United States will result in more deals with U.S. oil companies, including exploring vast areas of the country which remain untapped.
The country's growing banking, infrastructure and telecommunications sectors also offer enormous opportunities for U.S. investors.
Rice will travel throughout North Africa after leaving Tripoli, stopping in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. But is the visit to Libya which the State Department recognizes will be the most talked about.
Libya • Condoleezza Rice • Moammar Gadhafi
Rice meets with Libya leader
9-5-8
From Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer
Story Highlights
Condoleezza Rice meets with Moammar Gadhafi in Libya
First trip to Libya by a U.S. secretary of state in more than 50 years
Libya's journey from pariah nation has taken several years
U.S. companies hoping to take advantage on new friendlier relations
TRIPOLI, Libya (CNN) -- The U.S.'s most senior diplomat, Condoleezza Rice, arrived in Libya on Friday and met with leader Moammar Gadhafi.
It was the first time in more than half a century that a U.S. secretary of state has visited the former pariah nation.
Rice and Gadhafi met in a reception room at the Libyan's Bab Al Azizi compound where the man President Reagan dubbed "the mad dog in the Middle East" asked for the latest news on hurricanes threatening the U.S. coasts.
"The first one was not as bad as feared, but there are two more coming," Rice told him.
Gadhafi, wearing a white robe and a black fez but not his trademark dark sunglasses, shook the hands of the male members of Rice's staff but not Rice, instead offering the traditional greeting of his hand over his heart for her.
Muslim men are prohibited from shaking hands with women to whom they are not related.
After their meeting, Gadhafi, who once called Rice "Leeza ... my darling black African woman," was hosting a dinner for Rice.
Last year in an interview with Arabic TV station al Jazeera, Gadhafi suggested that Rice ran the Arab world, with which he has sometimes had stark differences.
"I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders," he said. "I love her very much because she's a black woman of African origin."
The two are expected to meet in the leader's Bedouin tent he favors for high-profile meetings.
Upon her arrival Friday, Rice met with the Libyan foreign minister and then toured the new U.S. embassy.
Rice's visit marks a 180-degree turn from relations between Washington and Tripoli, which for more than three decades have been marked by personal animosity and insults, Libyan terror attacks and U.S. airstrikes.
Libya's rehabilitation from a "state sponsor of terrorism" represents a rare foreign policy success for the Bush administration in its last months in office.
In Portugal, before flying to Tripoli, Rice called her trip "a historic moment, and it is one that has come after a lot of difficulty, the suffering of many people that will never be forgotten or assuaged, a lot of Americans in particular."
Libya, she acknowledged, "is a place that is changing, and I want to discuss how that change is taking place." Watch excitement in Libya at Rice's trip »
"I am very much looking forward to it," she said.
The United States restored relations with Tripoli in 2005, after Gadhafi abandoned his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, renounced terrorism and agreed to compensate victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in Berlin, Germany, and the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. Libya was also dropped for the U.S. list of "state sponsors of terrorism," the only country except from Iraq to be removed.
Since then, several U.S. officials have visited Tripoli, and Rice has met several times with her Libyan counterpart. The United States opened its embassy in Tripoli in 2006.
The United States has praised Libya's cooperation in fighting terrorism in North Africa, where al Qaeda has been gaining a foothold. U.S. officials also say Gadhafi has prevented Libyan and other foreign fighters from traveling to Iraq to join insurgent movements.
At the U.N., Libya has also voted with the United States to crack down on Iran's nuclear program and has sought to play a helpful role in the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
Yet relations between the two countries face strains over Libya's poor human rights record and final settlement of claims from the La Belle and Pan Am bombings.
In her meetings with Libyan officials, Rice is expected to raise the issue of political prisoners, especially Fathi al -Jahami, a leading Libyan reformer being held in detention since 2002.
Last month, the United States and Libya reached a deal to resolve outstanding claims for the bombings, but Libya has yet to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to a fund set up to compensate the victims' families.
Many of the Lockerbie families have criticized Rice's decision to meet with Gadhafi, whom they say remains unrepentant for the Lockerbie attack which killed 280 people, 180 of them American.
In a recent interview with the BBC, Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam al-Gadhafi called the Lockerbie families "very greedy" and "trading with the blood of their sons and daughters" for money.
The Bush administration has expressed sympathy with the Lockerbie families but says it is time to move forward with a new relationship with Libya.
The deal paves the way for greater access by U.S. companies to Libya's booming economy, in particular its vast oil reserves, the ninth largest in the world.
European companies have had much greater access to Libya's energy sector, but Libyan officials say the improved relations with the United States will result in more deals with U.S. oil companies, including exploring vast areas of the country which remain untapped.
The country's growing banking, infrastructure and telecommunications sectors also offer enormous opportunities for U.S. investors.
Rice will travel throughout North Africa after leaving Tripoli, stopping in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. But is the visit to Libya which the State Department recognizes will be the most talked about.
Libya • Condoleezza Rice • Moammar Gadhafi
Friday, August 29, 2008
Iraq wants U.S. troops deal to expire in three years
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082201265.html
Iraq wants U.S. troops deal to expire in three years
Friday, August 22, 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq wants an agreement authorizing the continued presence of U.S. troops on its soil to expire in three years, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Friday.
Washington and Baghdad say they are close to signing the deal, which is required to allow U.S. forces to stay on in Iraq beyond the end of this year when a U.N. Security Council mandate ends.
A draft of the agreement is being circulated to Iraqi political leaders for their approval.
Iraqi officials say that, although the draft contains no firm schedule for a U.S. withdrawal, they want the agreement to require U.S. forces to move off of most Iraqi streets by the middle of 2009 and combat troops to go home by the end of 2011.
Dabbagh said Iraq wants to negotiate a firm date by which all U.S. forces must pull out of the country, and wants the agreement allowing them to stay to be valid for only three years.
"The Iraqi government wants this agreement to be valid just for three years," Dabbagh told Reuters. "The full withdrawal will depend on the situation on the ground and the needs of Iraqis and the decisions of the Iraqi government."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad unannounced on Thursday to help prod the deal along. She denied that a final agreement had been reached, but said it was close, and any timelines for withdrawal would have to be "feasible."
(Reporting by Wisam Mohammed; writing by Peter Graff; editing by Robert Hart)
Iraq wants U.S. troops deal to expire in three years
Friday, August 22, 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq wants an agreement authorizing the continued presence of U.S. troops on its soil to expire in three years, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Friday.
Washington and Baghdad say they are close to signing the deal, which is required to allow U.S. forces to stay on in Iraq beyond the end of this year when a U.N. Security Council mandate ends.
A draft of the agreement is being circulated to Iraqi political leaders for their approval.
Iraqi officials say that, although the draft contains no firm schedule for a U.S. withdrawal, they want the agreement to require U.S. forces to move off of most Iraqi streets by the middle of 2009 and combat troops to go home by the end of 2011.
Dabbagh said Iraq wants to negotiate a firm date by which all U.S. forces must pull out of the country, and wants the agreement allowing them to stay to be valid for only three years.
"The Iraqi government wants this agreement to be valid just for three years," Dabbagh told Reuters. "The full withdrawal will depend on the situation on the ground and the needs of Iraqis and the decisions of the Iraqi government."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad unannounced on Thursday to help prod the deal along. She denied that a final agreement had been reached, but said it was close, and any timelines for withdrawal would have to be "feasible."
(Reporting by Wisam Mohammed; writing by Peter Graff; editing by Robert Hart)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Condi Rock & Rolls All Night, Parties Everyday
http://www.tmz.com/2008/05/30/condi-rock-and-rolls-all-night-parties-everyday/
Condi Rock & Rolls All Night, Parties Everyday
Posted May 30th 2008
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to a KISS after-party in Stockholm, Sweden on Thursday night and got her groove on with the hard-rockin' band. Is it possible to do a keg stand in a pants suit?
The band invited Condi to hang with them after hearing she was in town. Rice told reporters it was fun meeting the guys and that they seemed really informed about current events. Did they also trade eye liner and lipstick tips?
Condi also says that her favorite KISS song is "Rock and Roll All Night" - a safe answer considering that's pretty much the only KISS song anyone knows.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
FBI agents created “war crimes file”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/tort-m22.shtml
FBI agents created “war crimes file” documenting US torture
By Joe Kay
22 May 2008
FBI agents who witnessed the torture of detainees at the US prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba created what they called a “war crimes” file documenting what they had seen, according to a report released Tuesday by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The file, initiated in 2002, was ordered shut down by higher-ups in 2003 and agents were told to stop keeping records of the illegal acts that they had seen. Nonetheless, the use of the term “war crimes” by the US government’s main domestic intelligence arm, an agency with its own long record of political repression, is an extraordinary confirmation of charges that have long been leveled by opponents of the Bush administration and the criminal practices it has carried out in the so-called “global war on terror.”
According to the OIG report, FBI agents objected to the use by the CIA and the US military of techniques that one FBI official called “borderline torture.” Some agents raised concerns within the agency, but these concerns were ignored or squelched by the White House.
The report is on the role of the FBI in observing or participating in abusive practices, and is based on a survey of several hundred FBI agents. It seeks to absolve the bureau and its agents of responsibility for the abuse.
Although it deliberately ignores the question of accountability, the 437-page report by Inspector General Glenn Fine makes clear once again that the policy of torture was approved at the highest levels.
Among the techniques used by the military and the CIA to which the FBI agents objected were: sleep deprivation; prolonged “short-shackling,” or the shackling of the hands and feet together; the use of dogs to terrorize detainees; humiliation, including tying a detainee to a leash and forcing him to perform tricks; and sexual humiliation, including enforced nudity and touching.
The military and CIA used these methods against prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. Many of these same torture techniques would become notorious when they were depicted in photographs involving prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Their replication makes it clear that the crimes in Abu Ghraib were not an aberration perpetrated by rouge prison guards, but rather a deliberate and planned implementation of methods designed to “break” detainees.
The FBI agents objected to the methods largely on the grounds that they would not provide “actionable intelligence.” They were also worried that the use of torture could undermine future trials and might cast the FBI and the US government in a bad light if they were publicly revealed.
According to the report, some FBI personnel began complaining to their supervisors as early as 2002. These complaints were reported to at least one meeting of the National Security Council at the White House in 2003. However, there was no change in policy and the torture continued.
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly questioned some of the methods, including to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. However, Ashcroft refused to be interviewed by Fine, citing the confidentiality of the discussions.
It is hardly surprising that the FBI agents’ concerns were ignored, since the impetus behind the use of torture came from the White House itself. Beginning with the capture of alleged Al Qaeda members Mohammed Al-Qahtani in December 2001 and Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, top administration officials saw an opportunity to shred international law and employ torture more openly on the pretext of the “war on terror.” Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, were closely involved in directing the details of the interrogations.
A report by ABC news last month found that top Bush administration officials participated in discussion about torture techniques that were so detailed that “some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed—down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”
In part as a response to concerns within the CIA and military over legal accountability, the Justice Department itself issued at least two legal opinions in 2002 and 2003 that provided a pseudo-legal rationale for torture.
The focus of the OIG report is on military-controlled facilities between 2001 and 2004. The report has very limited information on the torture of prisoners at the hands of the CIA, as the CIA refused to cooperate with the investigation. According to the report, “we were unable to obtain highly classified information about CIA-controlled facilities, what occurred there, and what legal authorities governed their operations.”
The CIA also refused to allow the OIG to interview Abu Zubaydah. The White House has acknowledged that it used waterboarding on Zubaydah, among other methods. The CIA claimed that the inspector general had no pressing need to interview Zubaydah, and that he might provide false allegations against CIA agents.
The report’s section on the interrogation of Zubaydah seeks to exonerate FBI Special Agent Gibson, who has been accused of participating in the torture. An email written by an acquaintance of Gibson charged that Gibson “spoke openly and with much enthusiasm about the torturing of captured al-Qaeda terrorists [including Zubaydah], undisclosed locations and the brutal interrogation techniques by both CIA and FBI which Agent [Gibson] was involved.”
The interrogation of Zubaydah was initially in the hands of the FBI but was quickly taken over by the CIA. Much of the details in the report about the treatment of Zubaydah are redacted. It does note, however, “Gibson stated that the CIA personnel assured him that the procedures being used on Zubaydah had been approved ‘at the highest levels’ and that Gibson would not get in trouble” for participating.
The report cites an email from Spike Bowman, head of the national security law unit at the FBI, declaring in July 2003: “Beyond any doubt, what they are doing (and I don’t know the extent of it) would be unlawful were these enemy prisoners of war,” referring to the treatment of Zubaydah.
Another section of the report deals with a facility in Iraq, the name and location of which is redacted along with large portions of the section. It notes that an FBI Agent, referred to as Ryan, worked at the facility in the spring and summer of 2004 and reported that “a military interrogator told him that detainees at the facility were confined in ‘inhumane conditions’ and were subjected to abusive interrogation techniques, including food, water, and sleep deprivation and ‘water interrogation.’”
“Water interrogation” is apparently a reference to “waterboarding,” which would indicate that this particular torture technique was more widely employed than the Bush administration has acknowledged.
A substantial section of the report is devoted to disputes between FBI agents and the military over the treatment of Mohammed Al-Qahtani at Guantánamo Bay in 2002. The report found that these disputes were ultimately resolved in favor of the more aggressive methods employed by the military, which was operating under the close supervision of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The brutal interrogation methods used on Al-Qahtani have been reported already—including the use of dogs, tying him to a chain and forcing him to perform dog tricks, and sexual humiliation.
The report details, however, the close interest of the military—including General Geoffrey Miller, who was then in charge of Guantánamo Bay and was later sent by Rumsfeld to Iraq—in the interrogation of Al-Qahtani. Citing an FBI agent, the report states that Miller used such terms as “relentless” and “sustained attack” to describe the way that he wanted Al-Qahtani to be treated.
The fact that several FBI agents protested strongly against the treatment of prisoners held by the military and CIA is an indication of how blatantly illegal this treatment was. They were clearly seen by some agents as “war crimes” for which the authors could ultimately be prosecuted.
In implementing this policy, the Bush administration systematically violated the most basic tenants of international and domestic law, including anti-torture statutes and the Geneva Conventions.
This policy has been known for years. Leading figures from both political parties were briefed on it from the very beginning. What is most remarkable is that not a single individual responsible for its implementation has been held accountable.
FBI agents created “war crimes file” documenting US torture
By Joe Kay
22 May 2008
FBI agents who witnessed the torture of detainees at the US prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba created what they called a “war crimes” file documenting what they had seen, according to a report released Tuesday by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The file, initiated in 2002, was ordered shut down by higher-ups in 2003 and agents were told to stop keeping records of the illegal acts that they had seen. Nonetheless, the use of the term “war crimes” by the US government’s main domestic intelligence arm, an agency with its own long record of political repression, is an extraordinary confirmation of charges that have long been leveled by opponents of the Bush administration and the criminal practices it has carried out in the so-called “global war on terror.”
According to the OIG report, FBI agents objected to the use by the CIA and the US military of techniques that one FBI official called “borderline torture.” Some agents raised concerns within the agency, but these concerns were ignored or squelched by the White House.
The report is on the role of the FBI in observing or participating in abusive practices, and is based on a survey of several hundred FBI agents. It seeks to absolve the bureau and its agents of responsibility for the abuse.
Although it deliberately ignores the question of accountability, the 437-page report by Inspector General Glenn Fine makes clear once again that the policy of torture was approved at the highest levels.
Among the techniques used by the military and the CIA to which the FBI agents objected were: sleep deprivation; prolonged “short-shackling,” or the shackling of the hands and feet together; the use of dogs to terrorize detainees; humiliation, including tying a detainee to a leash and forcing him to perform tricks; and sexual humiliation, including enforced nudity and touching.
The military and CIA used these methods against prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. Many of these same torture techniques would become notorious when they were depicted in photographs involving prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Their replication makes it clear that the crimes in Abu Ghraib were not an aberration perpetrated by rouge prison guards, but rather a deliberate and planned implementation of methods designed to “break” detainees.
The FBI agents objected to the methods largely on the grounds that they would not provide “actionable intelligence.” They were also worried that the use of torture could undermine future trials and might cast the FBI and the US government in a bad light if they were publicly revealed.
According to the report, some FBI personnel began complaining to their supervisors as early as 2002. These complaints were reported to at least one meeting of the National Security Council at the White House in 2003. However, there was no change in policy and the torture continued.
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly questioned some of the methods, including to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. However, Ashcroft refused to be interviewed by Fine, citing the confidentiality of the discussions.
It is hardly surprising that the FBI agents’ concerns were ignored, since the impetus behind the use of torture came from the White House itself. Beginning with the capture of alleged Al Qaeda members Mohammed Al-Qahtani in December 2001 and Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, top administration officials saw an opportunity to shred international law and employ torture more openly on the pretext of the “war on terror.” Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, were closely involved in directing the details of the interrogations.
A report by ABC news last month found that top Bush administration officials participated in discussion about torture techniques that were so detailed that “some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed—down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”
In part as a response to concerns within the CIA and military over legal accountability, the Justice Department itself issued at least two legal opinions in 2002 and 2003 that provided a pseudo-legal rationale for torture.
The focus of the OIG report is on military-controlled facilities between 2001 and 2004. The report has very limited information on the torture of prisoners at the hands of the CIA, as the CIA refused to cooperate with the investigation. According to the report, “we were unable to obtain highly classified information about CIA-controlled facilities, what occurred there, and what legal authorities governed their operations.”
The CIA also refused to allow the OIG to interview Abu Zubaydah. The White House has acknowledged that it used waterboarding on Zubaydah, among other methods. The CIA claimed that the inspector general had no pressing need to interview Zubaydah, and that he might provide false allegations against CIA agents.
The report’s section on the interrogation of Zubaydah seeks to exonerate FBI Special Agent Gibson, who has been accused of participating in the torture. An email written by an acquaintance of Gibson charged that Gibson “spoke openly and with much enthusiasm about the torturing of captured al-Qaeda terrorists [including Zubaydah], undisclosed locations and the brutal interrogation techniques by both CIA and FBI which Agent [Gibson] was involved.”
The interrogation of Zubaydah was initially in the hands of the FBI but was quickly taken over by the CIA. Much of the details in the report about the treatment of Zubaydah are redacted. It does note, however, “Gibson stated that the CIA personnel assured him that the procedures being used on Zubaydah had been approved ‘at the highest levels’ and that Gibson would not get in trouble” for participating.
The report cites an email from Spike Bowman, head of the national security law unit at the FBI, declaring in July 2003: “Beyond any doubt, what they are doing (and I don’t know the extent of it) would be unlawful were these enemy prisoners of war,” referring to the treatment of Zubaydah.
Another section of the report deals with a facility in Iraq, the name and location of which is redacted along with large portions of the section. It notes that an FBI Agent, referred to as Ryan, worked at the facility in the spring and summer of 2004 and reported that “a military interrogator told him that detainees at the facility were confined in ‘inhumane conditions’ and were subjected to abusive interrogation techniques, including food, water, and sleep deprivation and ‘water interrogation.’”
“Water interrogation” is apparently a reference to “waterboarding,” which would indicate that this particular torture technique was more widely employed than the Bush administration has acknowledged.
A substantial section of the report is devoted to disputes between FBI agents and the military over the treatment of Mohammed Al-Qahtani at Guantánamo Bay in 2002. The report found that these disputes were ultimately resolved in favor of the more aggressive methods employed by the military, which was operating under the close supervision of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The brutal interrogation methods used on Al-Qahtani have been reported already—including the use of dogs, tying him to a chain and forcing him to perform dog tricks, and sexual humiliation.
The report details, however, the close interest of the military—including General Geoffrey Miller, who was then in charge of Guantánamo Bay and was later sent by Rumsfeld to Iraq—in the interrogation of Al-Qahtani. Citing an FBI agent, the report states that Miller used such terms as “relentless” and “sustained attack” to describe the way that he wanted Al-Qahtani to be treated.
The fact that several FBI agents protested strongly against the treatment of prisoners held by the military and CIA is an indication of how blatantly illegal this treatment was. They were clearly seen by some agents as “war crimes” for which the authors could ultimately be prosecuted.
In implementing this policy, the Bush administration systematically violated the most basic tenants of international and domestic law, including anti-torture statutes and the Geneva Conventions.
This policy has been known for years. Leading figures from both political parties were briefed on it from the very beginning. What is most remarkable is that not a single individual responsible for its implementation has been held accountable.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/05/a-heartbeat-awa.html
May 16, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
Daniel Finkelstein
McCain needs to pick his partner very carefully. A heartbeat away from the Presidency matters more when the heart in question will be 72 at the time of the inauguration. Here are some of the suggestions:
1) Tim Pawlenty
The Governor of Minnesota is at the top of many pundit's lists. The Springsteen fan likes to emphasise his working class roots and has managed to win twice in a traditionally Democratic state. He's renowned for his personal and rhetorical skills and liked by left and right. The one to watch.
2) Joe Lieberman
Connecticut Senator Lieberman bridges the political divide. A former Democrat, he still supports most of their policies but is also in favour of the Iraq war. He's made presidential and vice-presidential runs before and is an old friend of John McCain. The two Senators were together on the recent UK trip of McCain's and were frequently see yukking it up. But age is a big, big issue. Lieberman is 66. Together the ticket will add up to 138 years of experience.
3) Mitt Romney
McCain and Romney fell out several times during the Republican nomination race. But they've been cozying up of late and Romney has been spotted fundraising with McCain in the west. The worse the economy gets, the higher his chances. His impeccable financial credentials are his strongest card. He would make McCain seem more conservative (probably - Romney is, ahem, flexible). This would help with the base but would it put off independents?
4) Condoleezza Rice
The dream ticket for some. The nightmare for others. The Secretary of State's race and gender would boost the Republican argument that they're not just a party for white men. Condi speaks five languages and would provide some much-needed foreign policy clout. The odds of selecting her might have been higher if Clinton had wrapped up the Democratic nomination. But no-one would sneeze at this option. So what's not to like (if you are a Republican)? In a word - Bush. McCain's presidential bid won't fly if he is tethered to the President. And wouldn't Condi do just that?
5) Charlie Crist
Also a popular option. The popular Governor of Florida might bring the swing-state with him, and he's not even a Bush. The Times has written before about the likelihood of him making VP. He appeals to both independents and more conservative Republicans. A possible snag? He's single and has been forced to repeatedly defend his sexuality. Or is that a snag?
6) Bobby Jindal
The Governor of Louisiana, his name's cropped up several times recently. He's made waves with ethics reform in his homestate. The child of Indian immigrants, he'd add some diversity to the ticket and, at just 36, years old, he's half McCain's age. He also has a strong background in healthcare.
7) Sarah Palin
A former Miss Congeniality, the young Alaska senator has made quite a splash. The first female governor of her state, she might help bring women into the fold. And her strong support of family values and pro-life views will appeal to Republican voters who might be alienated by McCain's more maverick opinions.
8) Colin Powell
The former Secretary of State is a much-loved and well-respected moderate. But his denouncement of the Iraq mission may make him less appealing to McCain. Another catch? He's advised Barack Obama on foreign policy and praised him heavily in the past. An endorsement isn't out of the question.
9) Haley Barbour
The Governor of Mississippi would help secure the South. He's been head of the RNC and no-one could quibble with his conservatism. Knows everyone in politics but there is one large cloud hanging over his head. A series of Katrina-related ethics violations were alleged last summer. McCain might decide to steer clear.
10) Mike Huckabee:
If he really wants to propitiate the base, McCain should go with Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor scored surprisingly well during the nomination campaign, taking Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana and West Virginia. And McCain would get two for one. Huckabee's bound to bring celebrity endorser Chuck Norris along for the ride. On the other hand, the guy doesn't even believe in the theory of evolution.
May 16, 2008
Top ten McCain Vice Presidential picks
Daniel Finkelstein
McCain needs to pick his partner very carefully. A heartbeat away from the Presidency matters more when the heart in question will be 72 at the time of the inauguration. Here are some of the suggestions:
1) Tim Pawlenty
The Governor of Minnesota is at the top of many pundit's lists. The Springsteen fan likes to emphasise his working class roots and has managed to win twice in a traditionally Democratic state. He's renowned for his personal and rhetorical skills and liked by left and right. The one to watch.
2) Joe Lieberman
Connecticut Senator Lieberman bridges the political divide. A former Democrat, he still supports most of their policies but is also in favour of the Iraq war. He's made presidential and vice-presidential runs before and is an old friend of John McCain. The two Senators were together on the recent UK trip of McCain's and were frequently see yukking it up. But age is a big, big issue. Lieberman is 66. Together the ticket will add up to 138 years of experience.
3) Mitt Romney
McCain and Romney fell out several times during the Republican nomination race. But they've been cozying up of late and Romney has been spotted fundraising with McCain in the west. The worse the economy gets, the higher his chances. His impeccable financial credentials are his strongest card. He would make McCain seem more conservative (probably - Romney is, ahem, flexible). This would help with the base but would it put off independents?
4) Condoleezza Rice
The dream ticket for some. The nightmare for others. The Secretary of State's race and gender would boost the Republican argument that they're not just a party for white men. Condi speaks five languages and would provide some much-needed foreign policy clout. The odds of selecting her might have been higher if Clinton had wrapped up the Democratic nomination. But no-one would sneeze at this option. So what's not to like (if you are a Republican)? In a word - Bush. McCain's presidential bid won't fly if he is tethered to the President. And wouldn't Condi do just that?
5) Charlie Crist
Also a popular option. The popular Governor of Florida might bring the swing-state with him, and he's not even a Bush. The Times has written before about the likelihood of him making VP. He appeals to both independents and more conservative Republicans. A possible snag? He's single and has been forced to repeatedly defend his sexuality. Or is that a snag?
6) Bobby Jindal
The Governor of Louisiana, his name's cropped up several times recently. He's made waves with ethics reform in his homestate. The child of Indian immigrants, he'd add some diversity to the ticket and, at just 36, years old, he's half McCain's age. He also has a strong background in healthcare.
7) Sarah Palin
A former Miss Congeniality, the young Alaska senator has made quite a splash. The first female governor of her state, she might help bring women into the fold. And her strong support of family values and pro-life views will appeal to Republican voters who might be alienated by McCain's more maverick opinions.
8) Colin Powell
The former Secretary of State is a much-loved and well-respected moderate. But his denouncement of the Iraq mission may make him less appealing to McCain. Another catch? He's advised Barack Obama on foreign policy and praised him heavily in the past. An endorsement isn't out of the question.
9) Haley Barbour
The Governor of Mississippi would help secure the South. He's been head of the RNC and no-one could quibble with his conservatism. Knows everyone in politics but there is one large cloud hanging over his head. A series of Katrina-related ethics violations were alleged last summer. McCain might decide to steer clear.
10) Mike Huckabee:
If he really wants to propitiate the base, McCain should go with Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor scored surprisingly well during the nomination campaign, taking Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana and West Virginia. And McCain would get two for one. Huckabee's bound to bring celebrity endorser Chuck Norris along for the ride. On the other hand, the guy doesn't even believe in the theory of evolution.
Friday, May 9, 2008
US secretary: biofuels may spur food price rises
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080428163555.uzi9tokz
US secretary concedes biofuels may spur food price rises
Apr 28, 2008
Setting aside farmland to produce biofuels like ethanol may be partly to blame for driving up world food prices, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday.
"There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence from the alternative fuels effort," Rice told a meeting in Washington when asked for the US government's view on skyrocketing food prices.
"Although we believe that while biofuels continue to be an extremely important piece of the alternative energy picture, obviously we want to make sure that it is not having an adverse affect," she said.
"We think that it is not a large part of the problem, but it in fact may be a part of the problem, the ethanol debate," Rice told a gathering of the Peace Corps.
She said other factors fueling high prices are problems of distributing food in conflict areas like Sudan as well as export caps imposed by countries like China which are trying to meet rising demand from more affluent citizens.
Biofuels are touted as a way to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, held responsible for global warming, but since they are grown on land that would otherwise be used for food production, they have been increasingly blamed for soaring food prices.
Outgoing Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told a conference in Rome last week that agricultural prices were not only being driven by rising demand but also by increased cultivation of biofuels, "creating strong tensions in a number of countries."
US secretary concedes biofuels may spur food price rises
Apr 28, 2008
Setting aside farmland to produce biofuels like ethanol may be partly to blame for driving up world food prices, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday.
"There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence from the alternative fuels effort," Rice told a meeting in Washington when asked for the US government's view on skyrocketing food prices.
"Although we believe that while biofuels continue to be an extremely important piece of the alternative energy picture, obviously we want to make sure that it is not having an adverse affect," she said.
"We think that it is not a large part of the problem, but it in fact may be a part of the problem, the ethanol debate," Rice told a gathering of the Peace Corps.
She said other factors fueling high prices are problems of distributing food in conflict areas like Sudan as well as export caps imposed by countries like China which are trying to meet rising demand from more affluent citizens.
Biofuels are touted as a way to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, held responsible for global warming, but since they are grown on land that would otherwise be used for food production, they have been increasingly blamed for soaring food prices.
Outgoing Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told a conference in Rome last week that agricultural prices were not only being driven by rising demand but also by increased cultivation of biofuels, "creating strong tensions in a number of countries."
Tortured Logic
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/04/30/tortured-logic-scalia-torture-is-not-punishment/
Tortured Logic: Scalia Says ‘Torture’ Is Not Unconstitutional Because It Is Not ‘Punishment’
Jon Ponder Apr. 30, 2008
The meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution could not be clearer:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
And yet, beginning in 2002, the most senior members of the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft and others, met dozens of times to draft a set of torture guidelines for use by CIA interrogators. It’s no wonder that Jonathan Turley, a strong advocate of impeaching Pres. Clinton, called their actions a war crime and compared their sessions to a meeting of gangster Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing Club.
On “60 Minutes” Last Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia offered a new and, well, tortured rationale for the legality of what Bush has euphemistically called “advanced interrogation techniques”:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
As often happens, Keith Olbermann speaks for every sane American:
The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average.
Media types and conservatives still deride Bill Clinton for saying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit a decade ago, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And yet, here we have a Supreme Court justice playing semantics over the definition of torture — and the media has barely taken notice.
Tortured Logic: Scalia Says ‘Torture’ Is Not Unconstitutional Because It Is Not ‘Punishment’
Jon Ponder Apr. 30, 2008
The meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution could not be clearer:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
And yet, beginning in 2002, the most senior members of the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft and others, met dozens of times to draft a set of torture guidelines for use by CIA interrogators. It’s no wonder that Jonathan Turley, a strong advocate of impeaching Pres. Clinton, called their actions a war crime and compared their sessions to a meeting of gangster Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing Club.
On “60 Minutes” Last Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia offered a new and, well, tortured rationale for the legality of what Bush has euphemistically called “advanced interrogation techniques”:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
As often happens, Keith Olbermann speaks for every sane American:
The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average.
Media types and conservatives still deride Bill Clinton for saying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit a decade ago, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And yet, here we have a Supreme Court justice playing semantics over the definition of torture — and the media has barely taken notice.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
White House ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/04/12/turley-bush-torture-conspirators-like-a-meeting-of-the-bada-bing-club/
Turley: White House Torture Planning Was Like a ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
Jon Ponder Apr. 12, 2008
Suggests Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other White House Officials Committed War Crimes
In the 1990s, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert, was a strong advocate for impeaching Pres. Bill Clinton because Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky while under oath in a deposition for a civil lawsuit.
The issue today is far more serious. According to ABC News, starting in 2002, senior Bush officials, including Vice President Cheney and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser, were involved hands-on in drafting torture guidelines for the CIA. Because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, Jonathan Turley says he believes the drafting of these guidelines was a war crime.
Late Friday afternoon, George Bush confirmed to ABC News that Cheney, Rice and the other officials — including then Sec. of State Colin Powell, then Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, then Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and their aides — were working at his behest.
This new development — the president’s admission that he commissioned alleged war crimes — is being ignored in the media today (Saturday). It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the Sunday political shows, including even ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous.”
The transcript for Turley’s “Countdown” interview follows:
OLBERMANN: What if the step-by-step and case-by-case details of the torture of detainees had been discussed at the highest levels of government, inside the White House? It might prove to be the core to unraveling an entire administration‘s policy on torture. It might even one day find its way into a trial of war criminals. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, such meetings were regular occurrences in the Bush White House.
The group called itself the National Security Principals Committee. It held dozens of top-secret decisions in the White House. This according to an ABC News investigation, sourced with unnamed, high-ranking officials. The Principals included Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, also the CIA Director at the time, George Tenet, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who according to a top official said, quote, why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.
The Principals signed off on exactly how the CIA would interrogate supposed top al Qaeda suspects and approved of combined techniques, including, but not limited to, water boarding. A choreography, if you will. Such meetings began in the spring of 2002, according to the ABC report, after the CIA had captured a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, who the CIA has since confirmed was one of the three al Qaeda suspects who were, indeed, water boarded.
All the Principals present approved at each discussion, reportedly, yet the CIA wanted the principals to sign off on each case, each time. When then director George Tenet sometimes made elaborate presentations, and that was even after a so-called golden shield was issued—that was in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department giving formal legal authority to government interrogators to use enhanced interrogation techniques.
Let‘s turn now to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Jon, good evening.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If this is accurate or nearly accurate, what is the fullest interruption, as you see it, of what went on in those meetings?
TURLEY: This is one meeting of principal. They‘re not talking about the LE kind. What you have are a bunch of people talking about what is something that‘s a crime. For those of us who look at the criminal code and see torture for what it is, this is like a meeting of the Bada Bing club. These people are sitting around regularly talking about something defined as a crime.
Then you have John Ashcroft standing up and saying, maybe we shouldn‘t be talking about this at the White House. Well, obviously, that‘s quite disturbing. It shows that this was a program, not just some incident, not just someone going too far. It was a torture program, implemented by the United States of America and approved as the very highest level. And it goes right to the president‘s desk.
And it‘s notable that this group wanted to get lawyers to sign off on this, and they found those lawyers, people like Jay Buyby (ph), and John Yoo. And those people were handsomely rewarded. In Buyby‘s case, he became a federal judge after signing off on a rather grotesque memo that said that they could do everything short of causing organ failure or death.
OLBERMANN: The point that you made up—mentioned there that Attorney General Ashcroft said, why do this in the White House, why do it at such a high level; between the location and the resumes, you said it goes to President Bush‘s desk here. Is it the smoking gun that President Bush authorized torture by the United States of America?
TURLEY: We really don‘t have much of a question about the president‘s role here. He‘s never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He, in fact, early on in his presidency—he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that he was aware of this. The doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do anything about it.
OLBERMANN: The meetings, obviously, were not conducted to serve the purposes of historians or those of us who analyze this situation. It looks like it was 100 percent CYA. The question I have here, am I reading this right; did the lower-level interrogators, did the lower-level people in that food chain of principals, people like the director of the CIA, come out ranked a lot lower than, say, the vice president of United States in any kind of ceding of cabinet positions—were they there to protect themselves at the cost of the most powerful people in the nation? In other words, did they play these people? Did they—who was being protected here?
TURLEY: Well, you know, as a criminal defense attorney, we call meetings like this meetings of the designated defendant, because they are people who are signing off and will have to bear witness and bear responsibility. And here you have the CIA, which is basically saying, we‘re not going to have a repeat of the 1970s, where you guys have us go exploding cigars and trying to take out leaders and then you say you didn‘t know about it.
So the CIA has learned a lot. So these meetings certainly cover them in that respect. And they establish a rather clear record, that this was a program that was done with intention, knowingly done, and repeatedly a subject for meetings at the White House itself.
OLBERMANN: If there‘s a paper trail regarding this, John, is this—is this a war crimes trial waiting to happen somewhere some day?
TURLEY: It‘s always been a war crimes trial ready to happen. But Congress is like a convention of Claude Raines actors. Everyone‘s saying, we‘re shocked, shocked; there‘s torture being discussed in the White House. But no one is doing anything about it. So what we have is the need for someone to get off the theater and move to the actual in going and trying to investigate these crimes.
OLBERMANN: And all the attorneys talk about movie characters; they‘re all Burt Lancaster, the Ernst Janning character in “Judgment at Nuremberg,” all the people who authorized this. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University I‘ll save you a seat down front if we ever have this trial.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Topics: Impeachment, Worst President Ever, Torture
Turley: White House Torture Planning Was Like a ‘Meeting of the Bada Bing Club’
Jon Ponder Apr. 12, 2008
Suggests Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other White House Officials Committed War Crimes
In the 1990s, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert, was a strong advocate for impeaching Pres. Bill Clinton because Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky while under oath in a deposition for a civil lawsuit.
The issue today is far more serious. According to ABC News, starting in 2002, senior Bush officials, including Vice President Cheney and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser, were involved hands-on in drafting torture guidelines for the CIA. Because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, Jonathan Turley says he believes the drafting of these guidelines was a war crime.
Late Friday afternoon, George Bush confirmed to ABC News that Cheney, Rice and the other officials — including then Sec. of State Colin Powell, then Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, then Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and their aides — were working at his behest.
This new development — the president’s admission that he commissioned alleged war crimes — is being ignored in the media today (Saturday). It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the Sunday political shows, including even ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous.”
The transcript for Turley’s “Countdown” interview follows:
OLBERMANN: What if the step-by-step and case-by-case details of the torture of detainees had been discussed at the highest levels of government, inside the White House? It might prove to be the core to unraveling an entire administration‘s policy on torture. It might even one day find its way into a trial of war criminals. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, such meetings were regular occurrences in the Bush White House.
The group called itself the National Security Principals Committee. It held dozens of top-secret decisions in the White House. This according to an ABC News investigation, sourced with unnamed, high-ranking officials. The Principals included Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, also the CIA Director at the time, George Tenet, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who according to a top official said, quote, why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.
The Principals signed off on exactly how the CIA would interrogate supposed top al Qaeda suspects and approved of combined techniques, including, but not limited to, water boarding. A choreography, if you will. Such meetings began in the spring of 2002, according to the ABC report, after the CIA had captured a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, who the CIA has since confirmed was one of the three al Qaeda suspects who were, indeed, water boarded.
All the Principals present approved at each discussion, reportedly, yet the CIA wanted the principals to sign off on each case, each time. When then director George Tenet sometimes made elaborate presentations, and that was even after a so-called golden shield was issued—that was in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department giving formal legal authority to government interrogators to use enhanced interrogation techniques.
Let‘s turn now to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Jon, good evening.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If this is accurate or nearly accurate, what is the fullest interruption, as you see it, of what went on in those meetings?
TURLEY: This is one meeting of principal. They‘re not talking about the LE kind. What you have are a bunch of people talking about what is something that‘s a crime. For those of us who look at the criminal code and see torture for what it is, this is like a meeting of the Bada Bing club. These people are sitting around regularly talking about something defined as a crime.
Then you have John Ashcroft standing up and saying, maybe we shouldn‘t be talking about this at the White House. Well, obviously, that‘s quite disturbing. It shows that this was a program, not just some incident, not just someone going too far. It was a torture program, implemented by the United States of America and approved as the very highest level. And it goes right to the president‘s desk.
And it‘s notable that this group wanted to get lawyers to sign off on this, and they found those lawyers, people like Jay Buyby (ph), and John Yoo. And those people were handsomely rewarded. In Buyby‘s case, he became a federal judge after signing off on a rather grotesque memo that said that they could do everything short of causing organ failure or death.
OLBERMANN: The point that you made up—mentioned there that Attorney General Ashcroft said, why do this in the White House, why do it at such a high level; between the location and the resumes, you said it goes to President Bush‘s desk here. Is it the smoking gun that President Bush authorized torture by the United States of America?
TURLEY: We really don‘t have much of a question about the president‘s role here. He‘s never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He, in fact, early on in his presidency—he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that he was aware of this. The doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do anything about it.
OLBERMANN: The meetings, obviously, were not conducted to serve the purposes of historians or those of us who analyze this situation. It looks like it was 100 percent CYA. The question I have here, am I reading this right; did the lower-level interrogators, did the lower-level people in that food chain of principals, people like the director of the CIA, come out ranked a lot lower than, say, the vice president of United States in any kind of ceding of cabinet positions—were they there to protect themselves at the cost of the most powerful people in the nation? In other words, did they play these people? Did they—who was being protected here?
TURLEY: Well, you know, as a criminal defense attorney, we call meetings like this meetings of the designated defendant, because they are people who are signing off and will have to bear witness and bear responsibility. And here you have the CIA, which is basically saying, we‘re not going to have a repeat of the 1970s, where you guys have us go exploding cigars and trying to take out leaders and then you say you didn‘t know about it.
So the CIA has learned a lot. So these meetings certainly cover them in that respect. And they establish a rather clear record, that this was a program that was done with intention, knowingly done, and repeatedly a subject for meetings at the White House itself.
OLBERMANN: If there‘s a paper trail regarding this, John, is this—is this a war crimes trial waiting to happen somewhere some day?
TURLEY: It‘s always been a war crimes trial ready to happen. But Congress is like a convention of Claude Raines actors. Everyone‘s saying, we‘re shocked, shocked; there‘s torture being discussed in the White House. But no one is doing anything about it. So what we have is the need for someone to get off the theater and move to the actual in going and trying to investigate these crimes.
OLBERMANN: And all the attorneys talk about movie characters; they‘re all Burt Lancaster, the Ernst Janning character in “Judgment at Nuremberg,” all the people who authorized this. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University I‘ll save you a seat down front if we ever have this trial.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Topics: Impeachment, Worst President Ever, Torture
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot
Robalini's Note: If McCain goes this route, it's more evidence of why I think he smells like a loser. Imagine, picking the one black woman who has no appeal among either blacks or women...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html
Dan Senor: Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot
April 06, 2008
ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.
“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.
“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”
Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.
“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
“The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, 'I get it, that person could be president tomorrow,'" Senor added. "Condi Rice is an option.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html
Dan Senor: Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot
April 06, 2008
ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.
“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.
“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”
Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.
“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
“The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, 'I get it, that person could be president tomorrow,'" Senor added. "Condi Rice is an option.”
Friday, February 15, 2008
Great Seal Secrets Revealed!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQ-yr_Rooq8JyWd9Q8oDFYQhvyFQD8UP9IHG0
Great Seal Secrets Revealed!
By MATTHEW LEE
2-13-8
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conspiracy theorists take note: The myths surrounding one of America's oldest and most enduring national symbols are about to be debunked ... if you believe the government, that is.
The keepers of the Great Seal of the United States, the familiar emblem on the back of the $1 bill, want you to know what it is not. It is not a sign that Freemasons run the country, it has nothing to do with the occult, and it does not contain clues to a fabulous hidden treasure.
It is rather the nation's stamp of authority, sovereignty and power, gracing our cash and embossing the most important of documents from its home at the State Department, which has held it since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the first secretary of state.
Not that the Seal's symbols — the all-seeing eye, the unfinished pyramid, the Latin phrases, the bald eagle clutching an olive branch and arrows and the number 13 — aren't powerful.
They are, historians say. Yet their meanings have been misidentified, misunderstood and misrepresented almost since the Continental Congress first commissioned the Seal in 1776.
It would be another six years before the original design was approved and another 128 before it evolved into its current form. Along the way, a movement to decipher the Seal's meaning with ancient Egyptian, mystical and otherwise otherworldly explanations has gained currency.
The Internet age has seen an explosion in such conspiracy theories, many which have now been ingrained in public consciousness through the popular "National Treasure" movie franchise that serves up a combination of Masonic lore and historical myths in blockbuster Hollywood fashion.
Among them:
_That the Seal proves the domination of the United States by a powerful, quasi-religious cult. The Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is a perennial favorite of conspiracy theorists as some Founding Fathers were Masons and the Seal uses several Masonic symbols.
_That the Seal draws on Satanism or polytheistic ritual to promote a universal new world order under which Earth would be ruled by a single omnipotent government.
_That repeated references to 13 — the number of steps in the unfinished pyramid, stars in the constellation over the eagle's head, arrows in the eagle's claw, stripes on the eagle's shield, letters in the phrase "Annuit Coeptis" — demonstrate the power of 13 American families.
_That there are two seals: one in which the eagle's head faces the arrows for times of war and another in which the eagle's head faces the olive branch for times of peace.
All rubbish, according to historians, who say the Seal's symbolism is far less ominous or revelatory than many believe.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Seal's 66th and current custodian, on Tuesday inaugurated a new exhibition to commemorate its 225th birthday and trace the history and evolution of the symbolism.
"This exhibit honoring the Great Seal affirms our continued belief in the values of our founding," she said. "The Great Seal symbolizes the unity, strength and independence of a new nation, the United States of America."
The Seal will remain at the State Department but the interactive exhibit is designed to travel and curators hope it will dispel the rumors and educate Americans about the real meaning of the symbols.
Among the highlights:
_That known Masons like the first U.S. president, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin had no role in designing the final seal, which uses elements of traditional heraldry, such as the unfinished pyramid to symbolize a work in progress, arrows for war and an olive branch for peace. Masons share some of those symbols, but they have never been exclusively the domain of the order.
_That the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" below the Roman numerals for 1776 at the base of the pyramid translates as "A New Order of the Ages" that began with independence and does not imply the United States will be the lynchpin of a sinister "New World Order."
_That the words "Annuit Coeptis" ("Providence favors") and the eye of providence that hovers over the pyramid refer to unexpected interventions of fate that assisted the colonists in creating a new country.
_That the references to 13 refer to the number of colonies that formed the original United States.
"People are just not aware of the complexity and intent of the symbolism and what our Founding Fathers were trying to do with it," said Priscilla Linn, senior curator at the U.S. Diplomacy Center. "The hidden treasure in the Seal is the courage and presence of mind of the people who created it and created these values for the whole country."
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Chavez: Pull reserves from US
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_bi_ge/venezuela_alba_summit
Chavez: Pull reserves from US
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 26, 2008
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his Latin American allies on Saturday to begin withdrawing billions of dollars in international reserves from U.S. banks, warning of a looming U.S. economic crisis.
Chavez made the suggestion as he hosted a summit aimed at boosting Latin American integration and rolling back U.S. influence.
"We should start to bring our reserves here," Chavez said. "Why does that money have to be in the north? ... You can't put all your eggs in one basket."
To help pool resources within the region, Chavez and other leaders launched a new development bank at the summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Nations of Our America, or ALBA.
The left-leaning regional trade alliance first proposed by Chavez is intended to offer an alternative, socialist path to integration while snubbing U.S.-backed free-trade deals.
Chavez noted that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Colombia in recent days, saying "that has to do with this summit."
"The empire doesn't accept alternatives," Chavez told the gathering, attended by the presidents of Bolivia and Nicaragua and Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage.
Chavez warned that U.S. "imperialism is entering into a crisis that can affect all of us" and said Latin America "will save itself alone."
Rice left Colombia on Friday after a trip aimed at reviving a free trade deal that has stalled in the U.S. Congress. She sidestepped an opportunity to confront Chavez, who accused Colombia and the United States of plotting "military aggression" against Venezuela.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega joined Chavez in his criticism of U.S.-style capitalism, saying "the dictatorship of global capitalism ... has lost control." Three days earlier, Ortega had shouted "Long live the U.S. government" as he inaugurated an American-financed section of highway in his country.
The ALBA Bank is "being born with the aim of boosting development in our countries," Venezuelan Finance Minister Rafael Isea said Saturday as he and other officials gathered at the bank's Caracas office for an inaugural ceremony.
Isea has said the bank will be started with $1 billion to $1.5 billion.
Chavez welcomed the Caribbean island of Dominica into the ALBA — an acronym that means "dawn" in Spanish — joining Nicaragua, Bolivia and Cuba. Attending as observers were the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, along with officials from Ecuador, Honduras, Haiti and St. Kitts and Nevis.
Chavez said a new fund created by Venezuela and Iran to support projects in third countries would have links to the ALBA Bank.
Chavez: Pull reserves from US
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 26, 2008
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his Latin American allies on Saturday to begin withdrawing billions of dollars in international reserves from U.S. banks, warning of a looming U.S. economic crisis.
Chavez made the suggestion as he hosted a summit aimed at boosting Latin American integration and rolling back U.S. influence.
"We should start to bring our reserves here," Chavez said. "Why does that money have to be in the north? ... You can't put all your eggs in one basket."
To help pool resources within the region, Chavez and other leaders launched a new development bank at the summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Nations of Our America, or ALBA.
The left-leaning regional trade alliance first proposed by Chavez is intended to offer an alternative, socialist path to integration while snubbing U.S.-backed free-trade deals.
Chavez noted that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Colombia in recent days, saying "that has to do with this summit."
"The empire doesn't accept alternatives," Chavez told the gathering, attended by the presidents of Bolivia and Nicaragua and Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage.
Chavez warned that U.S. "imperialism is entering into a crisis that can affect all of us" and said Latin America "will save itself alone."
Rice left Colombia on Friday after a trip aimed at reviving a free trade deal that has stalled in the U.S. Congress. She sidestepped an opportunity to confront Chavez, who accused Colombia and the United States of plotting "military aggression" against Venezuela.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega joined Chavez in his criticism of U.S.-style capitalism, saying "the dictatorship of global capitalism ... has lost control." Three days earlier, Ortega had shouted "Long live the U.S. government" as he inaugurated an American-financed section of highway in his country.
The ALBA Bank is "being born with the aim of boosting development in our countries," Venezuelan Finance Minister Rafael Isea said Saturday as he and other officials gathered at the bank's Caracas office for an inaugural ceremony.
Isea has said the bank will be started with $1 billion to $1.5 billion.
Chavez welcomed the Caribbean island of Dominica into the ALBA — an acronym that means "dawn" in Spanish — joining Nicaragua, Bolivia and Cuba. Attending as observers were the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, along with officials from Ecuador, Honduras, Haiti and St. Kitts and Nevis.
Chavez said a new fund created by Venezuela and Iran to support projects in third countries would have links to the ALBA Bank.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2983771.ece
December 2, 2007
Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment
Tony Allen-Mills, New York
IT SHOULD have been Condoleezza Rice’s finest hour as US secretary of state: at last President George W Bush was hosting a Middle East peace conference that she had been struggling to organise for months.
Yet when Rice’s photograph appeared on the front page of America’s bestselling weekly newspaper last week, it had nothing to do with her peacemaking efforts. She had been dragged into a National Enquirer article headlined “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not”.
The article revived long-standing Washington gossip about Rice’s sexuality and sparked off the usual flurry of internet chatter about her high-profile role in a Republican administration widely regarded as hostile to gays.
It also underlined the increasing friction in American politics between a high-minded media establishment disdainful of bedroom gossip and the no-holds-barred, consumer-driven world of instant internet scandal. A Google search of the words “Condoleezza” and “lesbian” last week yielded 146,000 hits.
Rice was not alone in falling victim to what the US media elite invariably decries as corrupted journalistic standards but what the rest of America seems to regard as the real story in Washington: who is sleeping with whom?
While most leading US newspapers were preoccupied with serious policy issues such as Iraq and illegal immigration, New York tabloids were feasting on startling new details about Rudolph Giuliani, the city’s former mayor, who is alleged to have concealed the cost of the security protection he needed while on secret trysts with his then mistress.
Giuliani dismissed the allegations as a “political hit job” and “dirty trick” that just happened to pop up hours before a key televised debate between Republican presidential candidates. Although it appeared that Giuliani had done nothing illegal, the fuss refocused attention on his colourful private life and may damage his appeal to conservative voters.
Political insiders also noted that the detailed allegations, including documented evidence of the accounts used to hide Giuliani’s potentially embarrassing expenses, were published not by a newspaper but by Politico.com, an increasingly influential website.
The mainstream US media also managed to ignore one of the most read political stories on the internet last week, an account in The Times about a dirty-tricks campaign in South Carolina, including anonymous allegations that Senator Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Huma Abedin, a female member of her campaign staff. Democrat officials dismissed the allegations as an obvious attempt to smear the frontrunning presidential candidate.
The former senator John Edwards, Clinton’s Democratic rival, felt the tabloid lash when the Enquirer claimed he too was having an affair with a campaign aide while his cancer-stricken wife campaigned on his behalf elsewhere. Edwards denounced the story as “false, completely untrue, ridiculous” and said the Enquirer had failed to produce evidence “because it’s made up”.
The steady flow of salacious and often thinly sourced sex-related stories is causing headaches for US newspaper editors, who have been bludgeoned by shrinking circulations and internet competition yet are still clinging to values described by one blogger last week as “snoozy, prissy and haughty”.
The drift towards internet-fuelled sensationalism was deemed to be so serious earlier this year that the Columbia Journalism Review, a bastion of US media elitism, convened a panel of top editors to consider whether the government should step in to subsidise serious newspapers as a valuable public service, along the lines of the BBC.
The Enquirer described its article as “the ultimate guessing game among Hollywood fans - trying to figure out which big-name stars are gay”. The report went on: “According to the buzz among political insiders, it’s an open secret that . . . Rice is gay.”
The piece quoted an unnamed “in-the-know” blogger as saying that during her years as provost of Stanford University in California, Rice was “completely out as a lesbian and it was not a scandal, just a reality”. The paper referred to reports that in 1998 Rice bought a house with a “special friend”, another unmarried woman, a film-maker named Randy Bean.
It was far from the first time that she had been linked to lesbian rumours. In a recent biography of Rice, Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s diplomatic correspondent, noted that Bean, described as a “liberal progressive”, was her “closest female friend”. It was Kessler who discovered from a search of property records that Rice and Bean owned a house together.
Rice does not comment on her private life, and she is not an elected official, so her sexuality has never been a campaign issue. But the gay community has long been troubled by her association with conservative Republicans opposed to gay marriage, and with evangelical Christians who regard homosexuality as a sin.
At one point last year Rice was regarded as a possible Republican candidate in the 2008 White House race. Yet most commentators agreed that she was reluctant to run, and a Washington Post columnist concluded that she was “the longest of long shots”, as it indeed turned out.
The columnist Chris Cillizza made no mention of Rice’s sexuality, and it took an internet reader named Anne Roifes to remind the Post that high journalistic standards sometimes miss the point.
“It is widely believed in gay circles that Condi is a lesbian,” Roifes commented. “That could be one reason she will not run.”
December 2, 2007
Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment
Tony Allen-Mills, New York
IT SHOULD have been Condoleezza Rice’s finest hour as US secretary of state: at last President George W Bush was hosting a Middle East peace conference that she had been struggling to organise for months.
Yet when Rice’s photograph appeared on the front page of America’s bestselling weekly newspaper last week, it had nothing to do with her peacemaking efforts. She had been dragged into a National Enquirer article headlined “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not”.
The article revived long-standing Washington gossip about Rice’s sexuality and sparked off the usual flurry of internet chatter about her high-profile role in a Republican administration widely regarded as hostile to gays.
It also underlined the increasing friction in American politics between a high-minded media establishment disdainful of bedroom gossip and the no-holds-barred, consumer-driven world of instant internet scandal. A Google search of the words “Condoleezza” and “lesbian” last week yielded 146,000 hits.
Rice was not alone in falling victim to what the US media elite invariably decries as corrupted journalistic standards but what the rest of America seems to regard as the real story in Washington: who is sleeping with whom?
While most leading US newspapers were preoccupied with serious policy issues such as Iraq and illegal immigration, New York tabloids were feasting on startling new details about Rudolph Giuliani, the city’s former mayor, who is alleged to have concealed the cost of the security protection he needed while on secret trysts with his then mistress.
Giuliani dismissed the allegations as a “political hit job” and “dirty trick” that just happened to pop up hours before a key televised debate between Republican presidential candidates. Although it appeared that Giuliani had done nothing illegal, the fuss refocused attention on his colourful private life and may damage his appeal to conservative voters.
Political insiders also noted that the detailed allegations, including documented evidence of the accounts used to hide Giuliani’s potentially embarrassing expenses, were published not by a newspaper but by Politico.com, an increasingly influential website.
The mainstream US media also managed to ignore one of the most read political stories on the internet last week, an account in The Times about a dirty-tricks campaign in South Carolina, including anonymous allegations that Senator Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Huma Abedin, a female member of her campaign staff. Democrat officials dismissed the allegations as an obvious attempt to smear the frontrunning presidential candidate.
The former senator John Edwards, Clinton’s Democratic rival, felt the tabloid lash when the Enquirer claimed he too was having an affair with a campaign aide while his cancer-stricken wife campaigned on his behalf elsewhere. Edwards denounced the story as “false, completely untrue, ridiculous” and said the Enquirer had failed to produce evidence “because it’s made up”.
The steady flow of salacious and often thinly sourced sex-related stories is causing headaches for US newspaper editors, who have been bludgeoned by shrinking circulations and internet competition yet are still clinging to values described by one blogger last week as “snoozy, prissy and haughty”.
The drift towards internet-fuelled sensationalism was deemed to be so serious earlier this year that the Columbia Journalism Review, a bastion of US media elitism, convened a panel of top editors to consider whether the government should step in to subsidise serious newspapers as a valuable public service, along the lines of the BBC.
The Enquirer described its article as “the ultimate guessing game among Hollywood fans - trying to figure out which big-name stars are gay”. The report went on: “According to the buzz among political insiders, it’s an open secret that . . . Rice is gay.”
The piece quoted an unnamed “in-the-know” blogger as saying that during her years as provost of Stanford University in California, Rice was “completely out as a lesbian and it was not a scandal, just a reality”. The paper referred to reports that in 1998 Rice bought a house with a “special friend”, another unmarried woman, a film-maker named Randy Bean.
It was far from the first time that she had been linked to lesbian rumours. In a recent biography of Rice, Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s diplomatic correspondent, noted that Bean, described as a “liberal progressive”, was her “closest female friend”. It was Kessler who discovered from a search of property records that Rice and Bean owned a house together.
Rice does not comment on her private life, and she is not an elected official, so her sexuality has never been a campaign issue. But the gay community has long been troubled by her association with conservative Republicans opposed to gay marriage, and with evangelical Christians who regard homosexuality as a sin.
At one point last year Rice was regarded as a possible Republican candidate in the 2008 White House race. Yet most commentators agreed that she was reluctant to run, and a Washington Post columnist concluded that she was “the longest of long shots”, as it indeed turned out.
The columnist Chris Cillizza made no mention of Rice’s sexuality, and it took an internet reader named Anne Roifes to remind the Post that high journalistic standards sometimes miss the point.
“It is widely believed in gay circles that Condi is a lesbian,” Roifes commented. “That could be one reason she will not run.”
Saturday, December 1, 2007
War Paint and Lawyers
War Paint and Lawyers: Rainforest Indians versus Big Oil
Greg Palast investigates for BBC Newsnight - TONIGHT
Chevron: "Nobody has proved that crude causes cancer."
Tuesday, November 27, 10:30pm GMT [5:30pm New York Time] - live on BBC2 TV or on the net at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
BBC Television Newsnight has been able to get close-in film of a new Cofan Indian ritual deep in the heart of the Amazonian rainforest. Known as "The Filing of the Law Suit," natives of Ecuador's jungle, decked in feathers and war paint and heavily armed with lawyers, are filmed presenting a new complaint in their litigation seeking $12 billion from Chevron Inc., the international oil goliath.
It would all be a poignant joke - except that the indigenous tribe is suddenly the odds-on favorite to defeat the oil company known for naming its largest tanker, "Condoleezza," after former Chevron director, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
For Newsnight, reporter Greg Palast, steps (somewhat inelegantly) into a dug-out log canoe to seek out the Cofan in their rainforest village to investigate their allegations. Palast discovers stinking pits of old oil drilling residue leaking into drinking water - and meets farmers whose limbs are covered in pustules.
The Cofan's leader, Emergildo Criollo, tells Palast that when Texaco Oil, now part of Chevron, came to the village in 1972, it obtained permission to drill by offering the Indians candy and cheese. The indigenous folk threw the funny-selling cheese into the jungle.
Criollo says his three-year son died from oil contamination after, "He went swimming, then began vomiting blood."
Flying out of the rainforest, past the Andes volcanoes, Palast gets the other side of the story in Ecuador's capitol, Quito. "It's the largest fraud in history!" asserts Chevron lawyer Jaime Varela reacting to the Cofan law suits against his company. Chevron-Texaco, Varela insists, cleaned up all its contaminated oil pits when it abandoned the country nearly 15 years ago - except those pits it left in the hands of Ecuador's own state oil company.
What about the Indian kids dying of cancer? Texaco lawyer Rodrigo Perez asks, "And it’s the only case of cancer in the world? How many cases of children with cancer do you have in the States, in Europe, in Quito? If there is somebody with cancer there, [the Cofan parents] must prove [the deaths were] caused by crude or by petroleum industry. And, second, they have to prove that it is OUR crude – which is absolutely impossible." The Texaco man stated, "Scientifically, nobody has proved that crude causes cancer."
Even if the Indians can prove their case and win billions to clean up the jungle, collecting the cash is another matter. Chevron has removed all its assets from Ecuador.
But, this week, the political planet tilts toward the natives as Alberto Acosta takes office as President of Ecuador's new Constitutional Assembly. Newsnight catches up with Acosta - who gives Chevron a tongue-lashing. "Chevron is responsible for environmental and social destruction in the Amazon. And that’s why they’re on trial."
"He LOVES Chavez"
Little Ecuador does not seem like much of a match against big Chevron - whose revenue exceeds the entire GDP of the Andean nation. However, behind Little Ecuador is Huge Venezuela - and its larger-than-life leader, Hugo Chavez. "Acosta," complains one local pundit to the BBC, "loves - LOVES - Chavez."
And apparently, the feeling is mutual. That is, Chavez sees in Ecuador's new government, which won election campaigning to the tune of the Twisted Sister hit, We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore, a new ally in his fight with George Bush over control of Latin hearts and minds - and energy.
Chevron-Texaco's largest new oil reserves are in Venezuela; Venezuela stands with Ecuador; and Ecuador now stands with its "affectados," the Indians and farmers claiming the poisons in their bodies trace right back to the Texaco star.
Suddenly, the David-versus-Goliath story of Little Indians versus Big Oil is becoming part of the larger conflict between Uncle Sam and Uncle Hugo. The outcome is now a cliff-hanger. Indeed, Newsnight has learned that this month, Chevron will face a new legal challenge by Cofan attorneys before US securities regulators to investigate whether the company has fully disclosed to shareholders the massive potential legal liability from the equatorial Rumble in the Jungle.
Watch the story live on BBC2 or, in the US, on the net at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm after broadcast - or via a link from http://www.gregpalast.com/. WARNING: The day's news events may require Newsnight to delay broadcast to another evening.
And this weekend, catch Palast discussing the BBC Report with environmental crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on RFK's Air America Radio program, Ring of Fire.
And pick of a copy of "Ecuador: Oiled and Despoiled," one of the documentary shorts on Palast's DVD film collection, The Assassination of Hugo Chavez, released this week. Available only by making a tax-deductible donation to The Palast Investigative Fund at http://www.palastinvestigativefund.org/
BBC Television Newsnight story filmed in Ecuador by Rick Rowley, edited by Jacquie Shoohen in New York, produced in London by Meirion Jones, written and reported from Ecuador by Greg Palast. http://www.gregpalast.com/
Widely Reported
Greg Palast investigates for BBC Newsnight - TONIGHT
Chevron: "Nobody has proved that crude causes cancer."
Tuesday, November 27, 10:30pm GMT [5:30pm New York Time] - live on BBC2 TV or on the net at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
BBC Television Newsnight has been able to get close-in film of a new Cofan Indian ritual deep in the heart of the Amazonian rainforest. Known as "The Filing of the Law Suit," natives of Ecuador's jungle, decked in feathers and war paint and heavily armed with lawyers, are filmed presenting a new complaint in their litigation seeking $12 billion from Chevron Inc., the international oil goliath.
It would all be a poignant joke - except that the indigenous tribe is suddenly the odds-on favorite to defeat the oil company known for naming its largest tanker, "Condoleezza," after former Chevron director, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
For Newsnight, reporter Greg Palast, steps (somewhat inelegantly) into a dug-out log canoe to seek out the Cofan in their rainforest village to investigate their allegations. Palast discovers stinking pits of old oil drilling residue leaking into drinking water - and meets farmers whose limbs are covered in pustules.
The Cofan's leader, Emergildo Criollo, tells Palast that when Texaco Oil, now part of Chevron, came to the village in 1972, it obtained permission to drill by offering the Indians candy and cheese. The indigenous folk threw the funny-selling cheese into the jungle.
Criollo says his three-year son died from oil contamination after, "He went swimming, then began vomiting blood."
Flying out of the rainforest, past the Andes volcanoes, Palast gets the other side of the story in Ecuador's capitol, Quito. "It's the largest fraud in history!" asserts Chevron lawyer Jaime Varela reacting to the Cofan law suits against his company. Chevron-Texaco, Varela insists, cleaned up all its contaminated oil pits when it abandoned the country nearly 15 years ago - except those pits it left in the hands of Ecuador's own state oil company.
What about the Indian kids dying of cancer? Texaco lawyer Rodrigo Perez asks, "And it’s the only case of cancer in the world? How many cases of children with cancer do you have in the States, in Europe, in Quito? If there is somebody with cancer there, [the Cofan parents] must prove [the deaths were] caused by crude or by petroleum industry. And, second, they have to prove that it is OUR crude – which is absolutely impossible." The Texaco man stated, "Scientifically, nobody has proved that crude causes cancer."
Even if the Indians can prove their case and win billions to clean up the jungle, collecting the cash is another matter. Chevron has removed all its assets from Ecuador.
But, this week, the political planet tilts toward the natives as Alberto Acosta takes office as President of Ecuador's new Constitutional Assembly. Newsnight catches up with Acosta - who gives Chevron a tongue-lashing. "Chevron is responsible for environmental and social destruction in the Amazon. And that’s why they’re on trial."
"He LOVES Chavez"
Little Ecuador does not seem like much of a match against big Chevron - whose revenue exceeds the entire GDP of the Andean nation. However, behind Little Ecuador is Huge Venezuela - and its larger-than-life leader, Hugo Chavez. "Acosta," complains one local pundit to the BBC, "loves - LOVES - Chavez."
And apparently, the feeling is mutual. That is, Chavez sees in Ecuador's new government, which won election campaigning to the tune of the Twisted Sister hit, We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore, a new ally in his fight with George Bush over control of Latin hearts and minds - and energy.
Chevron-Texaco's largest new oil reserves are in Venezuela; Venezuela stands with Ecuador; and Ecuador now stands with its "affectados," the Indians and farmers claiming the poisons in their bodies trace right back to the Texaco star.
Suddenly, the David-versus-Goliath story of Little Indians versus Big Oil is becoming part of the larger conflict between Uncle Sam and Uncle Hugo. The outcome is now a cliff-hanger. Indeed, Newsnight has learned that this month, Chevron will face a new legal challenge by Cofan attorneys before US securities regulators to investigate whether the company has fully disclosed to shareholders the massive potential legal liability from the equatorial Rumble in the Jungle.
Watch the story live on BBC2 or, in the US, on the net at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm after broadcast - or via a link from http://www.gregpalast.com/. WARNING: The day's news events may require Newsnight to delay broadcast to another evening.
And this weekend, catch Palast discussing the BBC Report with environmental crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on RFK's Air America Radio program, Ring of Fire.
And pick of a copy of "Ecuador: Oiled and Despoiled," one of the documentary shorts on Palast's DVD film collection, The Assassination of Hugo Chavez, released this week. Available only by making a tax-deductible donation to The Palast Investigative Fund at http://www.palastinvestigativefund.org/
BBC Television Newsnight story filmed in Ecuador by Rick Rowley, edited by Jacquie Shoohen in New York, produced in London by Meirion Jones, written and reported from Ecuador by Greg Palast. http://www.gregpalast.com/
Widely Reported
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Blackwater ‘may be worse than Abu Ghraib’
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13008.html
Blackwater ‘may be worse than Abu Ghraib’
Posted September 26th, 2007
To describe the ongoing Blackwater scandal as a fiasco would be a dramatic understatement. Not only do we have a situation in which private security contractors stand accused of killing Iraqi civilians without provocation, we also have deep divisions brewing between the Pentagon and the State Department, coupled by State stonewalling a congressional investigation.
A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.
In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department’s authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the official said.
“This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.”
At this point, the State Department seems to be treating Blackwater contractors as the agency’s own private army, accountable to no one outside the department. The Maliki government believes Blackwater is a criminal enterprise, the Iraqi people resent Blackwater’s presence, the Pentagon believes Blackwater is lying about the Sept. 16 incident in Nisoor Square, and congressional Democrats have questions about what has transpired — which the State Department refuses to answer.
This is a debacle so severe and humiliating, only the Bush administration could pull it off.
David Kurtz offers this helpful timeline of events that sets the stage for where we are now.
Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.
Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.
Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.
Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State’s prior written approval.
Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.
Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a “full and complete review” of diplomatic security in Iraq.
And while it’s certainly nice of Rice to suddenly take an interest in accountability, Congress, which has oversight responsibility and is paying the bills for all of this, believes a bipartisan review on Capitol Hill will produce a more accurate picture of what’s transpired.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not only refuses to cooperate, her office has also ordered Blackwater not to answer any questions from lawmakers.
The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.
In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company “to make no disclosure of the documents or information” about its work in Iraq without permission.
I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It’s pure lunacy.
The State Department’s cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can’t simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.
When these guys act like they have something to hide, it’s almost always because they have something to hide. Stay tuned.
Blackwater ‘may be worse than Abu Ghraib’
Posted September 26th, 2007
To describe the ongoing Blackwater scandal as a fiasco would be a dramatic understatement. Not only do we have a situation in which private security contractors stand accused of killing Iraqi civilians without provocation, we also have deep divisions brewing between the Pentagon and the State Department, coupled by State stonewalling a congressional investigation.
A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.
In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department’s authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the official said.
“This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.”
At this point, the State Department seems to be treating Blackwater contractors as the agency’s own private army, accountable to no one outside the department. The Maliki government believes Blackwater is a criminal enterprise, the Iraqi people resent Blackwater’s presence, the Pentagon believes Blackwater is lying about the Sept. 16 incident in Nisoor Square, and congressional Democrats have questions about what has transpired — which the State Department refuses to answer.
This is a debacle so severe and humiliating, only the Bush administration could pull it off.
David Kurtz offers this helpful timeline of events that sets the stage for where we are now.
Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.
Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.
Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.
Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State’s prior written approval.
Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.
Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a “full and complete review” of diplomatic security in Iraq.
And while it’s certainly nice of Rice to suddenly take an interest in accountability, Congress, which has oversight responsibility and is paying the bills for all of this, believes a bipartisan review on Capitol Hill will produce a more accurate picture of what’s transpired.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not only refuses to cooperate, her office has also ordered Blackwater not to answer any questions from lawmakers.
The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.
In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company “to make no disclosure of the documents or information” about its work in Iraq without permission.
I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It’s pure lunacy.
The State Department’s cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can’t simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.
When these guys act like they have something to hide, it’s almost always because they have something to hide. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
