Singularity
Just another Reality-based bubble in the foam of the multiverse.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
No Excuses
Two blogs I don't link to enough are Skookum and the Carnival of Horror. For example, let me lift Spartacus' Pardon Me:
...we listened to Paul Thompson--author of The Terror Timeline--describe the enormous conflicts of interest by members of the 9/11 Commission, as well as recount selected anecdotes about how the commission's director (now Condoleeza Rice's aide) chose who they would interview, who they would not, and what questions they were allowed to ask. The term whitewash came up several times, as did sham, fraud, and coverup.
What did not come up within the limited timeframe of the radio program, however, was that for one distinguished member of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton--a leading Democrat--this wasn't the first time he'd kept a president of the United States from being impeached for proven high crimes. Not even the first time he'd kept a President Bush from being removed from office.
Lee Hamilton, as some may remember, was--along with Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye--head of the Congressional investigation into Iran-Contra, the criminal enterprise run out of the White House, with then Vice President Bush's participation, to ship advanced missile weaponry to the state of Iran, that was at the time holding American citizens hostage. On Wednesday of this week, house Democrats finally found a way to help house Republicans retroactively legalize President Bush's illegal wiretapping of US citizens opposed to his various criminal enterprises.
Some
things seem destined to draw in the Sith like bats to a flame.
¶ 11:24 AM 0 comments
links to this post
...we listened to Paul Thompson--author of The Terror Timeline--describe the enormous conflicts of interest by members of the 9/11 Commission, as well as recount selected anecdotes about how the commission's director (now Condoleeza Rice's aide) chose who they would interview, who they would not, and what questions they were allowed to ask. The term whitewash came up several times, as did sham, fraud, and coverup.
What did not come up within the limited timeframe of the radio program, however, was that for one distinguished member of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton--a leading Democrat--this wasn't the first time he'd kept a president of the United States from being impeached for proven high crimes. Not even the first time he'd kept a President Bush from being removed from office.
Lee Hamilton, as some may remember, was--along with Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye--head of the Congressional investigation into Iran-Contra, the criminal enterprise run out of the White House, with then Vice President Bush's participation, to ship advanced missile weaponry to the state of Iran, that was at the time holding American citizens hostage. On Wednesday of this week, house Democrats finally found a way to help house Republicans retroactively legalize President Bush's illegal wiretapping of US citizens opposed to his various criminal enterprises.
Some
things seem destined to draw in the Sith like bats to a flame.
¶ 11:24 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Republican Subversion All Over Again
Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
Whistling past the graveyard, let's consider another example:
Ripping Off A Democracy Is As Old As Ancient Athens
by Mary Liz Thomson
Part of the American psyche likes to think that whatever the people at the top do to be successful must be good for everyone. This isn't always so. Getting rich can also lead to extraordinary abuses of power. Aristocratic tyranny might sound quaint, but nearly every generation of leaders have warned us of the dangers. From Madison to Jefferson, Lincoln and Eisenhower, in their own ways they told us that money power corrupts and that it could be the death of our republic.
Times of war are crucial moments for the survival of democracies. Giving up too much power to secretive leaders can end up doing more harm than the enemy. That's what happened to the first recorded democracy ever, in Ancient Athens. After flourishing for nearly 200 years, their democracy was taken over from within by its own most prominent civic leaders. Few of us know the story of Athens fall into tyranny and how eerily similar to our own current times. It is a potent reminder of how wartime fears can be used to con a free society into giving up everything.
(The dates of Athens democracy were roughly from the times of Solon in 600 BCE to the end of the Spartan war in 401 BCE. Athens was somewhat democratic until 346 BCE. )
Athenians saw themselves as invincible warriors for freedom when they went off to Syracuse in 413 BCE. They were shocked when victory did not come. The reasons for the war turned out to be a complete lie and the situation much more complex. In a stunning defeat, their entire Navy got trapped in the middle of a civil war and slaughtered. A few rich aristocratic families, the Tyrants, (as they were called) exploited this horrifying loss and convinced Athenians to change the constitution to give them power. Once in power, in the name of patriotism and security this small group of tyrants sold their people out to Sparta, looted the public treasury, and left Athens broke. The educated middle class was destroyed and over time the rule of kings returned.
Athenians made two big mistakes that we modern Americans can learn from. First, they believed that a decisive victory could restore their glory. … Second, they believed that the rich rulers who took power during wartime had the people's best interests at heart.
When Ancient Athenians voted to hand over the people's assembly to tyrants in 411 and 404 BCE, they had suffered many years of war with Sparta. A generation earlier, Athens had won a heroic war much like our WWII, against the brutal dictatorship of the Persians. They became a beacon for free thought across Greece and their army fought for other democratic city-states to establish themselves. It was said proudly of Athenians, "Of no man are they the slaves or subjects" (Aeschylus).
They built the Parthenon and fostered the first advanced system of courts where citizens were paid to be jurors. All the best poets, singers, and plays were from Athens and bohemians could travel Greece reciting Athenian writers for their fare. There were four words for "freedom of speech" in Ancient Greek, more than any other language. The city was known for being talkative, it was a cosmopolitan place where you could say and do what you wanted.
In this free climate there were also a few vocal philosophers that despised democracy and believed in authoritarian rule. Socrates was one of them. He once called the public assembly an audience of dunces and weaklings, and his followers openly promoted oligarchy. They believed only the very elite, "those who know" should be rulers, and many of them were directly involved in the overthrow of the democracy.
Certainly Athens was no utopian society. They did have the contradiction of slavery; although it was a form you could buy your way out of. Women played a large role in religion, yet they could not vote. Still, the ancient Greeks did believe in dignity for the common person and this sense of equity carried over into economics as well. Solon not only held the first elections, he also divided up the large aristocratic land holdings of the past and kept a check on monopoly. Over time though, as Athens power grew, this sense of social balance eroded.
When Athenians sent their fleet to Syracuse they had been fighting a long protracted war with Sparta and people were eager for some kind of heroic victory. Military generals advised against the plan. Still, the citizens seemed to be genuinely stirred by the idea (a lie) that they could once again come to the aid of a democracy asking for their help. They were told that their host would be able to pay for their ships. The truth was that both sides in the battle were actually somewhat democratic and the money was never there. More than anything it appears to have been a power struggle that merchants wanted to exploit to gain control of shipping routes.
After the loss of their entire fleet, the very real danger of more attacks from Sparta loomed over Athens. In this time of fear, Aristocrats argued that commoners had made a mess of the war. Supporters of tyranny started taking over allied city-states and overthrowing their democracies. In Athens they set up secret groups that plotted to overthrow the assembly, (known as Synomosiai, or conspiracies), and they started their own gangs of assassins. Prominent members of the opposition party began to disappear and as intimidation spread people became afraid to speak out.
Like today's leaders that fawn over Arab royalty, elite Athenians openly admired the disciplined Spartan society that was based on a structure of "noble lords". They found a bond of aristocracy and hoped to be Sparta's proxies after the war. In secret they also plotted with Spartan generals to help them attack Athens. There was even a shady port deal that didn't go through. They were trying to build a harbor wall that would have helped Spartan ships invade.
Eventually the tyrants became so brazen that they brought armed guards with them to the public assembly of 5000 Athenian citizens for the final showdown. The guards snapped whips at the Athenian delegates as the vote was taken. In fear and under duress, the ancient democratic assembly voted themselves out of power for a wartime dictatorship.
Unfortunately for Athenians, these tyrants did not win the war with Sparta and it is doubtful that they ever wanted to. Instead of dealing with the real crisis of holding off the Spartan Army and getting food supplies into Athens, what they did was redistribute the whole of the Athenian treasury into their own hands. When that wasn't enough, they took their mercenary guards directly to major Athenian businesses and demanded cash.
This totalitarian mafia-like movement was led by well known leaders of Athens; friends of Socrates, (Criteas), relatives of Plato (Charmides), famous philosophers and businessmen who wanted to take the power of government out of the hands of the common man. Historians of the time period such as Thucydides commented on how shocked Athenians were by the behavior of these elites once they were in power, and by stature of the people who joined them, "There were among them, men whom one would never have expected to change over and favor oligarchy".
It was the so-called "best men" of Athens, inside the assembly, who brought the democracy down. They acted patriotic, wore nice robes, went to the best schools, and gave money to the temples of Athena. All as they used their positions of power to spy on and murder their opponents, steal with impunity, and plot the death of democracy.
Athenian resisters went into exile and did return to fight back. In a stunning victory in the streets, women and elder civilians came out to support them and ended the battle with the tyrants. A much weaker form of democracy was restored, but so much damage had been done that it didn't survive long. The tyrants had stolen so much money that the social structure of Athens changed and the middle class was gone. Over the next thirty years the nobility controlled a much smaller assembly. Without the base of an educated middle class, the strength of the opposition to dictatorship eroded, and the democratic dream of Athens faded into the old style of totalitarian kings.
What happened in Ancient Athens illustrates the danger of letting a small group of people take too much financial control of society through the government. In I.F. Stone's fascinating book The Trial of Socrates, he says, "In 411 and 404 democracy was not overthrown by popular revulsion, but a handful of conspirators. They had to use violence and deceit and to work hand in glove with the Spartan enemy because they had so little support at home". According to Thucydides the tyrants numbers were few, but people became afraid to speak out, fearing that the conspiracy was much larger than it was.
Our current society stands at a crossroads where we could chose to create new paths to environmentally sustainable prosperity, freedom, and security or let our collective wealth become so consolidated into a few elite hands that we no longer have any real voice. Under the Bush administration one might say we've seen the work of thieves masquerading as conservatives. Through their outrageous corruption and graft in government spending, tax cuts to the rich, and huge rises in corporate executive pay they've managed to transfer billions of dollars out of the middle class and into a few key industry leader's hands. Census statistics tell us that the average person has seen little gain in real wages in thirty years, while defense contactors and oil industry executives have enjoyed record profits since 9/11 .
We live at a time when the health of the planet and human survival depends on investing in new sources of non-carbon energy. For oils companies there's a huge incentive to block progress on alternatives. There may have been a past era when Americans sat back and let the grand industrialists lay the foundations of our financial system and direct our wars. Today, we need to make sure that they serve the broader interests of the public. Lets stop pretending that corporate leaders aren't already using the government to control the economy ("Free Trade" agreements often have over 9000 pages of special deals), and get more involved in the debate over who benefits from our money and our military.
In this process lets also re-embrace the value of integrating different points of views together in order to solve our problems. In doing so perhaps we can find the mutuality of respect for our neighbor again (red, green, pink, or blue), and reject the kind of unquestioning consolidation of power in a "king like" executive presidency that the Bush administration has pushed for. The stakes are high. The Ancient Greeks developed an incredible democratic culture but in the end their willingness to fight for freedom was twisted into a tool for the very elite. Let us be watchful for the secretive authoritarians that could be our own modern tyrants. ¶ 9:26 AM 0 comments links to this post
By ROBERT HARRIS
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
Whistling past the graveyard, let's consider another example:
Ripping Off A Democracy Is As Old As Ancient Athens
by Mary Liz Thomson
Part of the American psyche likes to think that whatever the people at the top do to be successful must be good for everyone. This isn't always so. Getting rich can also lead to extraordinary abuses of power. Aristocratic tyranny might sound quaint, but nearly every generation of leaders have warned us of the dangers. From Madison to Jefferson, Lincoln and Eisenhower, in their own ways they told us that money power corrupts and that it could be the death of our republic.
Times of war are crucial moments for the survival of democracies. Giving up too much power to secretive leaders can end up doing more harm than the enemy. That's what happened to the first recorded democracy ever, in Ancient Athens. After flourishing for nearly 200 years, their democracy was taken over from within by its own most prominent civic leaders. Few of us know the story of Athens fall into tyranny and how eerily similar to our own current times. It is a potent reminder of how wartime fears can be used to con a free society into giving up everything.
(The dates of Athens democracy were roughly from the times of Solon in 600 BCE to the end of the Spartan war in 401 BCE. Athens was somewhat democratic until 346 BCE. )
Athenians saw themselves as invincible warriors for freedom when they went off to Syracuse in 413 BCE. They were shocked when victory did not come. The reasons for the war turned out to be a complete lie and the situation much more complex. In a stunning defeat, their entire Navy got trapped in the middle of a civil war and slaughtered. A few rich aristocratic families, the Tyrants, (as they were called) exploited this horrifying loss and convinced Athenians to change the constitution to give them power. Once in power, in the name of patriotism and security this small group of tyrants sold their people out to Sparta, looted the public treasury, and left Athens broke. The educated middle class was destroyed and over time the rule of kings returned.
Athenians made two big mistakes that we modern Americans can learn from. First, they believed that a decisive victory could restore their glory. … Second, they believed that the rich rulers who took power during wartime had the people's best interests at heart.
When Ancient Athenians voted to hand over the people's assembly to tyrants in 411 and 404 BCE, they had suffered many years of war with Sparta. A generation earlier, Athens had won a heroic war much like our WWII, against the brutal dictatorship of the Persians. They became a beacon for free thought across Greece and their army fought for other democratic city-states to establish themselves. It was said proudly of Athenians, "Of no man are they the slaves or subjects" (Aeschylus).
They built the Parthenon and fostered the first advanced system of courts where citizens were paid to be jurors. All the best poets, singers, and plays were from Athens and bohemians could travel Greece reciting Athenian writers for their fare. There were four words for "freedom of speech" in Ancient Greek, more than any other language. The city was known for being talkative, it was a cosmopolitan place where you could say and do what you wanted.
In this free climate there were also a few vocal philosophers that despised democracy and believed in authoritarian rule. Socrates was one of them. He once called the public assembly an audience of dunces and weaklings, and his followers openly promoted oligarchy. They believed only the very elite, "those who know" should be rulers, and many of them were directly involved in the overthrow of the democracy.
Certainly Athens was no utopian society. They did have the contradiction of slavery; although it was a form you could buy your way out of. Women played a large role in religion, yet they could not vote. Still, the ancient Greeks did believe in dignity for the common person and this sense of equity carried over into economics as well. Solon not only held the first elections, he also divided up the large aristocratic land holdings of the past and kept a check on monopoly. Over time though, as Athens power grew, this sense of social balance eroded.
When Athenians sent their fleet to Syracuse they had been fighting a long protracted war with Sparta and people were eager for some kind of heroic victory. Military generals advised against the plan. Still, the citizens seemed to be genuinely stirred by the idea (a lie) that they could once again come to the aid of a democracy asking for their help. They were told that their host would be able to pay for their ships. The truth was that both sides in the battle were actually somewhat democratic and the money was never there. More than anything it appears to have been a power struggle that merchants wanted to exploit to gain control of shipping routes.
After the loss of their entire fleet, the very real danger of more attacks from Sparta loomed over Athens. In this time of fear, Aristocrats argued that commoners had made a mess of the war. Supporters of tyranny started taking over allied city-states and overthrowing their democracies. In Athens they set up secret groups that plotted to overthrow the assembly, (known as Synomosiai, or conspiracies), and they started their own gangs of assassins. Prominent members of the opposition party began to disappear and as intimidation spread people became afraid to speak out.
Like today's leaders that fawn over Arab royalty, elite Athenians openly admired the disciplined Spartan society that was based on a structure of "noble lords". They found a bond of aristocracy and hoped to be Sparta's proxies after the war. In secret they also plotted with Spartan generals to help them attack Athens. There was even a shady port deal that didn't go through. They were trying to build a harbor wall that would have helped Spartan ships invade.
Eventually the tyrants became so brazen that they brought armed guards with them to the public assembly of 5000 Athenian citizens for the final showdown. The guards snapped whips at the Athenian delegates as the vote was taken. In fear and under duress, the ancient democratic assembly voted themselves out of power for a wartime dictatorship.
Unfortunately for Athenians, these tyrants did not win the war with Sparta and it is doubtful that they ever wanted to. Instead of dealing with the real crisis of holding off the Spartan Army and getting food supplies into Athens, what they did was redistribute the whole of the Athenian treasury into their own hands. When that wasn't enough, they took their mercenary guards directly to major Athenian businesses and demanded cash.
This totalitarian mafia-like movement was led by well known leaders of Athens; friends of Socrates, (Criteas), relatives of Plato (Charmides), famous philosophers and businessmen who wanted to take the power of government out of the hands of the common man. Historians of the time period such as Thucydides commented on how shocked Athenians were by the behavior of these elites once they were in power, and by stature of the people who joined them, "There were among them, men whom one would never have expected to change over and favor oligarchy".
It was the so-called "best men" of Athens, inside the assembly, who brought the democracy down. They acted patriotic, wore nice robes, went to the best schools, and gave money to the temples of Athena. All as they used their positions of power to spy on and murder their opponents, steal with impunity, and plot the death of democracy.
Athenian resisters went into exile and did return to fight back. In a stunning victory in the streets, women and elder civilians came out to support them and ended the battle with the tyrants. A much weaker form of democracy was restored, but so much damage had been done that it didn't survive long. The tyrants had stolen so much money that the social structure of Athens changed and the middle class was gone. Over the next thirty years the nobility controlled a much smaller assembly. Without the base of an educated middle class, the strength of the opposition to dictatorship eroded, and the democratic dream of Athens faded into the old style of totalitarian kings.
What happened in Ancient Athens illustrates the danger of letting a small group of people take too much financial control of society through the government. In I.F. Stone's fascinating book The Trial of Socrates, he says, "In 411 and 404 democracy was not overthrown by popular revulsion, but a handful of conspirators. They had to use violence and deceit and to work hand in glove with the Spartan enemy because they had so little support at home". According to Thucydides the tyrants numbers were few, but people became afraid to speak out, fearing that the conspiracy was much larger than it was.
Our current society stands at a crossroads where we could chose to create new paths to environmentally sustainable prosperity, freedom, and security or let our collective wealth become so consolidated into a few elite hands that we no longer have any real voice. Under the Bush administration one might say we've seen the work of thieves masquerading as conservatives. Through their outrageous corruption and graft in government spending, tax cuts to the rich, and huge rises in corporate executive pay they've managed to transfer billions of dollars out of the middle class and into a few key industry leader's hands. Census statistics tell us that the average person has seen little gain in real wages in thirty years, while defense contactors and oil industry executives have enjoyed record profits since 9/11 .
We live at a time when the health of the planet and human survival depends on investing in new sources of non-carbon energy. For oils companies there's a huge incentive to block progress on alternatives. There may have been a past era when Americans sat back and let the grand industrialists lay the foundations of our financial system and direct our wars. Today, we need to make sure that they serve the broader interests of the public. Lets stop pretending that corporate leaders aren't already using the government to control the economy ("Free Trade" agreements often have over 9000 pages of special deals), and get more involved in the debate over who benefits from our money and our military.
In this process lets also re-embrace the value of integrating different points of views together in order to solve our problems. In doing so perhaps we can find the mutuality of respect for our neighbor again (red, green, pink, or blue), and reject the kind of unquestioning consolidation of power in a "king like" executive presidency that the Bush administration has pushed for. The stakes are high. The Ancient Greeks developed an incredible democratic culture but in the end their willingness to fight for freedom was twisted into a tool for the very elite. Let us be watchful for the secretive authoritarians that could be our own modern tyrants. ¶ 9:26 AM 0 comments links to this post
Mourning in 'Murika
Thursday September 28, 2006 dawned like any other morning 
for Those Who Sleep.
But this day was Special.
The strange Stars were finally aligning
correctly.
John Negroponte knew it would be his
kind of day.
The Old Ones were not quite sure what to think of their new acolytes, but it was evident the franchise opportunities were Endless. ¶ 6:54 AM 0 comments links to this post
for Those Who Sleep.But this day was Special.
The strange Stars were finally aligning
correctly.John Negroponte knew it would be his
kind of day.The Old Ones were not quite sure what to think of their new acolytes, but it was evident the franchise opportunities were Endless. ¶ 6:54 AM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, September 29, 2006
Pax 'Murikana
Take it from someone who's seen it before, we are now officially living in a dictatorship.
.jpg)
The people who think they're in charge also think it's an Empire [apologies to the Romulans- who know they're an Empire].
In order to survive the next decade, much less change it back to a Republic, we had all better realize these facts and appreciate the analogies. ¶ 10:26 PM 0 comments links to this post
The people who think they're in charge also think it's an Empire [apologies to the Romulans- who know they're an Empire].
In order to survive the next decade, much less change it back to a Republic, we had all better realize these facts and appreciate the analogies. ¶ 10:26 PM 0 comments links to this post
Projection
What's the source of the Rovian lie that Clinton didn't do enough to try to capture Osama bin-Laden?
Could it be the usual Bu$hCo stategery of accusing your opponent of what you've already done?
...Thus, tonight a special investigation. Mr. Clinton is not in office, Mr. Bush is. His policies determine how the U.S. fights al Qaeda, so it is important that we understand how he has done so in the past. Comparing the two presidents is valid, necessary, to illuminate the capacities of the office. Mr. Clinton said it plainly, he failed to get bin Laden. Mr. Bush has acknowledged no such failure.
But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden, it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar but real feelers were ever extended to Mr. Bush. And it is, we suspect, even more rare to see this tape of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February 2001, after the government knew al Qaeda had attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the—they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, of course, responded to President Clinton by defending the Bush record. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” she said.
Our goal in this report is to rise to Mr. Clinton’s challenge and assess the record of Mr. Bush‘s efforts against al Qaeda in his first eight months in office.
We begin with Rice’s claim that Clinton left no strategy to fight al Qaeda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 20, 2001)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So help me God.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN (voice-over): On January 25, 2001, five days after Mr. Bush took office, counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke sent Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda.” It was, Clarke, wrote, “developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools.”
Clarke’s memo requested a follow-up cabinet-level meeting to address time-sensitive questions about al Qaeda. But President Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries.
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies’ committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.
OLBERMANN: Why the delay? Rice later tried to explain.
RICE: America’s al Qaeda policy wasn’t working because our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working, and our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working because our Pakistan policy wasn’t working. We recognized that America’s counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies, and to our overall foreign policy.
OLBERMANN: That, although Clarke’s January 25 memo specifically warned, “Al Qaeda is not some narrow little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. By proceeding with separate policy reviews on Central Asia, etc., we would deal inadequately with the need for a comprehensive multiregional policy on al Qaeda.”
Clarke’s deputies’ meeting came in April, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda, but Iraq.
By July 16, the deputies had a proposal for dealing with al Qaeda, a proposal, Clarke says, was essentially the same plan he gave Rice five months earlier, and it still had to go to the principals, the cabinet secretaries.
CLARKE: But the principals’ calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn’t meet in August. And therefore the principals met in September.
OLBERMANN: Although the principals had already met on other issues, their first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.
But what were Mr. Bush and his top advisers doing during this time? Mr. Bush was personally briefed about al Qaeda even before the election, in November 2000. During the transition, President Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, say they told Bush and his team of the urgency of getting al Qaeda.
Three days before President Bush took office Berger spoke at a passing-the-baton event, which Rice attended.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
OLBERMANN: Eight days later, Clarke sent Rice the strategy Clinton had developed for retaliating in the event that al Qaeda was found to have been behind the previous October’s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The next day, the FBI conclusively pinned the Cole attack on al Qaeda.
Mr. Bush ordered no military strike, no escalation of existing Clinton measures. Instead, he repeated Clinton’s previous diplomatic efforts, writing a letter to Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf in February and another on August 4.
Until September 11, even when Mr. Bush was asked about the Cole, an attack carried out on water by men in a boat, he offered a consistent prescription for keeping America safe, one he reiterated upon taking office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Democrats, who controlled the Senate, warned that his focus was misplaced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D): I’m also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: He was not alone. The executive director of the Hart-Rudmann Commission’s request to brief Bush and Cheney on the terror threats they had studied was denied.
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, quote, “What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”
According to the 9/11 Commission report, even bin Laden expected Bush to respond militarily to the Cole bombing. Quote, “In February 2001, according to a source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not, he would launch something bigger.”
The most famous warning came in the August 6 presidential daily briefing, reporting “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
According to the 9/11 report, “Bush did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the attorney general, or whether Rice had done so. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. Tenet does not recall any discussions with the president of the domestic threat during this period. Domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. The borders were not hardened, transportation systems were not fortified, electronic surveillance was not targeted against the domestic threat, state and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI‘s efforts. The public was not warned.”
Explanations after the fact suggested a lack of familiarity with the recent history of terrorism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
RICE: I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There wasn’t any way then we could have anticipated what was about to happen, of course, in—on 9/11.
(Subtitle: 1995, Philippines uncovers plot to fly planes into Pentagon and World Trade Center.)
(Subtitle: September 1999, U.S. study: Al Qaeda might crash planes into Pentagon.)
(Subtitle: Spring 2001, New York City trial testimony: Bin Laden sending agents to acquire planes.)
BUSH: These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.
(Subtitle: July 2001, FBI told of Zacarias Moussaoui‘s interest in flying jumbo jets.)
(Subtitle: September 2001, FBI memo: Moussaoui could fly something into the World Trade Center.)
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
OLBERMANN: On September 10, 2001, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California requested a meeting with Vice President Cheney to press the case for aggressive counterterrorism measures. She is told Mr. Cheney will need some time to prepare first, six months.
That same day, the NSA intercepted a communique from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, stating, “Tomorrow is zero hour.” That communique was only translated into English on September 12.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OLBERMANN: It appears now that the operative word in the phrase “We could not have anticipated” was the word “we.”
Check out the video on Olbermann's site.
Apparently Bob Woodward says so too:
The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.
CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.
Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."
Tenet and Black were both frustrated.
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.
Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.
The details of the incident are emerging just days after Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton sparred with Rice over whether the Bush administration had tried to get Bin Laden before the terror attacks.
Woodward claims the intelligence Tenet and Black shared with Rice included communication intercepts indicating the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil.
Tenet said he had hoped the meeting would shock Rice into encouraging the President to take immediate action against Al Qaeda.
Black, looking back at the July 10, 2001, meeting with Rice, concludes, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her [Rice's] head."
Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."
Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, "Could all this be a grand deception?"
The question is, who's fooling who?
More on Woodward's new book here. ¶ 8:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
Could it be the usual Bu$hCo stategery of accusing your opponent of what you've already done?
...Thus, tonight a special investigation. Mr. Clinton is not in office, Mr. Bush is. His policies determine how the U.S. fights al Qaeda, so it is important that we understand how he has done so in the past. Comparing the two presidents is valid, necessary, to illuminate the capacities of the office. Mr. Clinton said it plainly, he failed to get bin Laden. Mr. Bush has acknowledged no such failure.
But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden, it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar but real feelers were ever extended to Mr. Bush. And it is, we suspect, even more rare to see this tape of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February 2001, after the government knew al Qaeda had attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the—they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, of course, responded to President Clinton by defending the Bush record. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” she said.
Our goal in this report is to rise to Mr. Clinton’s challenge and assess the record of Mr. Bush‘s efforts against al Qaeda in his first eight months in office.
We begin with Rice’s claim that Clinton left no strategy to fight al Qaeda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 20, 2001)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So help me God.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN (voice-over): On January 25, 2001, five days after Mr. Bush took office, counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke sent Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda.” It was, Clarke, wrote, “developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools.”
Clarke’s memo requested a follow-up cabinet-level meeting to address time-sensitive questions about al Qaeda. But President Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries.
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies’ committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.
OLBERMANN: Why the delay? Rice later tried to explain.
RICE: America’s al Qaeda policy wasn’t working because our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working, and our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working because our Pakistan policy wasn’t working. We recognized that America’s counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies, and to our overall foreign policy.
OLBERMANN: That, although Clarke’s January 25 memo specifically warned, “Al Qaeda is not some narrow little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. By proceeding with separate policy reviews on Central Asia, etc., we would deal inadequately with the need for a comprehensive multiregional policy on al Qaeda.”
Clarke’s deputies’ meeting came in April, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda, but Iraq.
By July 16, the deputies had a proposal for dealing with al Qaeda, a proposal, Clarke says, was essentially the same plan he gave Rice five months earlier, and it still had to go to the principals, the cabinet secretaries.
CLARKE: But the principals’ calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn’t meet in August. And therefore the principals met in September.
OLBERMANN: Although the principals had already met on other issues, their first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.
But what were Mr. Bush and his top advisers doing during this time? Mr. Bush was personally briefed about al Qaeda even before the election, in November 2000. During the transition, President Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, say they told Bush and his team of the urgency of getting al Qaeda.
Three days before President Bush took office Berger spoke at a passing-the-baton event, which Rice attended.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
OLBERMANN: Eight days later, Clarke sent Rice the strategy Clinton had developed for retaliating in the event that al Qaeda was found to have been behind the previous October’s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The next day, the FBI conclusively pinned the Cole attack on al Qaeda.
Mr. Bush ordered no military strike, no escalation of existing Clinton measures. Instead, he repeated Clinton’s previous diplomatic efforts, writing a letter to Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf in February and another on August 4.
Until September 11, even when Mr. Bush was asked about the Cole, an attack carried out on water by men in a boat, he offered a consistent prescription for keeping America safe, one he reiterated upon taking office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Democrats, who controlled the Senate, warned that his focus was misplaced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D): I’m also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: He was not alone. The executive director of the Hart-Rudmann Commission’s request to brief Bush and Cheney on the terror threats they had studied was denied.
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, quote, “What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”
According to the 9/11 Commission report, even bin Laden expected Bush to respond militarily to the Cole bombing. Quote, “In February 2001, according to a source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not, he would launch something bigger.”
The most famous warning came in the August 6 presidential daily briefing, reporting “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
According to the 9/11 report, “Bush did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the attorney general, or whether Rice had done so. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. Tenet does not recall any discussions with the president of the domestic threat during this period. Domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. The borders were not hardened, transportation systems were not fortified, electronic surveillance was not targeted against the domestic threat, state and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI‘s efforts. The public was not warned.”
Explanations after the fact suggested a lack of familiarity with the recent history of terrorism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
RICE: I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There wasn’t any way then we could have anticipated what was about to happen, of course, in—on 9/11.
(Subtitle: 1995, Philippines uncovers plot to fly planes into Pentagon and World Trade Center.)
(Subtitle: September 1999, U.S. study: Al Qaeda might crash planes into Pentagon.)
(Subtitle: Spring 2001, New York City trial testimony: Bin Laden sending agents to acquire planes.)
BUSH: These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.
(Subtitle: July 2001, FBI told of Zacarias Moussaoui‘s interest in flying jumbo jets.)
(Subtitle: September 2001, FBI memo: Moussaoui could fly something into the World Trade Center.)
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
OLBERMANN: On September 10, 2001, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California requested a meeting with Vice President Cheney to press the case for aggressive counterterrorism measures. She is told Mr. Cheney will need some time to prepare first, six months.
That same day, the NSA intercepted a communique from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, stating, “Tomorrow is zero hour.” That communique was only translated into English on September 12.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OLBERMANN: It appears now that the operative word in the phrase “We could not have anticipated” was the word “we.”
Check out the video on Olbermann's site.
Apparently Bob Woodward says so too:
The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.
CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.
Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."
Tenet and Black were both frustrated.
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.
Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.
The details of the incident are emerging just days after Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton sparred with Rice over whether the Bush administration had tried to get Bin Laden before the terror attacks.
Woodward claims the intelligence Tenet and Black shared with Rice included communication intercepts indicating the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil.
Tenet said he had hoped the meeting would shock Rice into encouraging the President to take immediate action against Al Qaeda.
Black, looking back at the July 10, 2001, meeting with Rice, concludes, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her [Rice's] head."
Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."
Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, "Could all this be a grand deception?"
The question is, who's fooling who?
More on Woodward's new book here. ¶ 8:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
Francisco Franco is NOT dead, although Ronald Reagan still is.
The farmer salutes the Kowtow 12. ¶ 11:59 AM 0 comments links to this post
The farmer salutes the Kowtow 12. ¶ 11:59 AM 0 comments links to this post
Pale Blue Dot Where The Natives Torture Each Other
You might want to avoid it if you can.
What's that pale blue dot in this image taken from Saturn? Earth. The robotic Cassini spacecraft looked back toward its old home world earlier this month as it orbited Saturn. Using Saturn itself to block the bright Sun, Cassini imaged a faint dot on the right of the above photograph. That dot is expanded on the image inset, where a slight elongation in the direction of Earth's Moon is visible. Vast water oceans make Earth's reflection of sunlight somewhat blue. Earth is home to over six billion humans and over one octillion Prochlorococcus.
But whatever you do, don't take their arguments seriously even if the natives act like they do.
It was a done deal regardless of the outcome. ¶ 11:01 AM 0 comments links to this post
What's that pale blue dot in this image taken from Saturn? Earth. The robotic Cassini spacecraft looked back toward its old home world earlier this month as it orbited Saturn. Using Saturn itself to block the bright Sun, Cassini imaged a faint dot on the right of the above photograph. That dot is expanded on the image inset, where a slight elongation in the direction of Earth's Moon is visible. Vast water oceans make Earth's reflection of sunlight somewhat blue. Earth is home to over six billion humans and over one octillion Prochlorococcus.
But whatever you do, don't take their arguments seriously even if the natives act like they do.
It was a done deal regardless of the outcome. ¶ 11:01 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Nobody Expects the Terra Inquisition
Somebody at Pravda seems to have realized even competitors on the Company Board might become a target.
Rushing Off a Cliff
Published: September 28, 2006
New York Times
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.
It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
But in Christ's name.
Amen.
Tristero adds this comment on what the Democrats are really afraid of:
The truth is that the United States government is presently holding, torturing, and even murdering countless numbers of people who have no chance in hell of obtaining a lawyer, let alone anything resembling a trial. The government is doing this under the direct orders of George W. Bush. There is no law, no bill, and no legislature who can stop him. If Congress were to pass a law unequivocably banning torture and send it to him, he'd use it for toilet paper. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Bush in the harshest and bluntest language, he'd yawn.
The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush were a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn't pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.
Better to vote to pass and preserve the appearance of a working American government, the thinking goes. For the very thought that the US government is seriously broken - that the Executive is beyond the control of anyone and everyone in the world - is such a truly awesome and terrifying thought that it can never be publicly acknowledged. If ever it is, if the American crisis gets outed and Congress and the Supremes openly assert that the Executive has run completely amok and is beyond control, the world consequences are staggering. It is the stuff of doomsday novels...
And this brings up the dilemma of a post Nov. 7 world. Apparently, one if not both houses of Congress may be controlled by Democrats. Now what? You think Bush is gonna get impeached? Put on trial for war crimes? Forget it...
If, for some reason, Congress does decide to move against Bush in some substantive way, there will be hell to pay...
Since the day after the 2000 election, Bush and his goons have been playing chicken with the very structure of the United States Government, double-daring anyone to try and stop them. If Congress does try - and I'm not talking little things like wrecking Social Security, that'll happen and a dictator can afford to let things like that wait a while, I'm talking atomic bang bang and thumbscrews - he will force the private Constitutional crisis into the open. And there is no guarantee that Bush will lose.
And that is the truth. The Congress has been given an awful choice: Vote to approve torture and the suspension of habeas or show the world that yes, you really do have no genuine power to check Bush.
Of course, all of Congress should vote against the bill anyway. But they won't. And to themselves, they will justify the vote as saying they made a hard choice but made the best one they could for their country...
The time truly is long overdue where there simply is no choice but to say "enough." It should have been enough over the stolen election, or the neglect that led to 9/11, or Schiavo, or the filibuster. But voting to permit the US government to sidestep Geneva? To suspend habeas? What the fuck is Congress thinking, for crissakes??? Has fascism moved so slowly that only a few bloggers can perceive the inevitable progression? I don't think so.
There's no question about it. Any person in Congress who votes for this - listening, Hillary? - will never get my vote again. Ever, not even for dogcatcher, let alone president. If there is going to be a public Constitutional crisis over Bush's rogue presidency - and there will be sooner or later, guaranteed - bring it on now.
While we have a chance, and somebody remembers what the Constitution was. ¶ 7:18 AM 0 comments links to this post
Somebody at Pravda seems to have realized even competitors on the Company Board might become a target.
Rushing Off a Cliff
Published: September 28, 2006
New York Times
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.
It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
But in Christ's name.
Amen.
Tristero adds this comment on what the Democrats are really afraid of:
The truth is that the United States government is presently holding, torturing, and even murdering countless numbers of people who have no chance in hell of obtaining a lawyer, let alone anything resembling a trial. The government is doing this under the direct orders of George W. Bush. There is no law, no bill, and no legislature who can stop him. If Congress were to pass a law unequivocably banning torture and send it to him, he'd use it for toilet paper. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Bush in the harshest and bluntest language, he'd yawn.
The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush were a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn't pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.
Better to vote to pass and preserve the appearance of a working American government, the thinking goes. For the very thought that the US government is seriously broken - that the Executive is beyond the control of anyone and everyone in the world - is such a truly awesome and terrifying thought that it can never be publicly acknowledged. If ever it is, if the American crisis gets outed and Congress and the Supremes openly assert that the Executive has run completely amok and is beyond control, the world consequences are staggering. It is the stuff of doomsday novels...
And this brings up the dilemma of a post Nov. 7 world. Apparently, one if not both houses of Congress may be controlled by Democrats. Now what? You think Bush is gonna get impeached? Put on trial for war crimes? Forget it...
If, for some reason, Congress does decide to move against Bush in some substantive way, there will be hell to pay...
Since the day after the 2000 election, Bush and his goons have been playing chicken with the very structure of the United States Government, double-daring anyone to try and stop them. If Congress does try - and I'm not talking little things like wrecking Social Security, that'll happen and a dictator can afford to let things like that wait a while, I'm talking atomic bang bang and thumbscrews - he will force the private Constitutional crisis into the open. And there is no guarantee that Bush will lose.
And that is the truth. The Congress has been given an awful choice: Vote to approve torture and the suspension of habeas or show the world that yes, you really do have no genuine power to check Bush.
Of course, all of Congress should vote against the bill anyway. But they won't. And to themselves, they will justify the vote as saying they made a hard choice but made the best one they could for their country...
The time truly is long overdue where there simply is no choice but to say "enough." It should have been enough over the stolen election, or the neglect that led to 9/11, or Schiavo, or the filibuster. But voting to permit the US government to sidestep Geneva? To suspend habeas? What the fuck is Congress thinking, for crissakes??? Has fascism moved so slowly that only a few bloggers can perceive the inevitable progression? I don't think so.
There's no question about it. Any person in Congress who votes for this - listening, Hillary? - will never get my vote again. Ever, not even for dogcatcher, let alone president. If there is going to be a public Constitutional crisis over Bush's rogue presidency - and there will be sooner or later, guaranteed - bring it on now.
While we have a chance, and somebody remembers what the Constitution was. ¶ 7:18 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Bigger Bucks Than Hollywood
And doubtless far better lobbyists.
Our Chinese connection runs a piece by Tom Englehardt.
...Abu Ghraib prison is the place where Saddam's functionaries tortured (and sometimes killed) many enemies of his regime, and where Bush's functionaries, as a series of notorious digital photos revealed, committed what the US press still likes to refer to as "prisoner abuse"....
Of course its prisoners, who remained generally uncharged and without access to Iraqi courts, weren't just released to the winds. Quite the opposite: more than 3,000 of them were redistributed to two other US prisons, Camp Bucca in Iraq's south and Camp Cropper at the huge US base adjoining Baghdad International Airport...
...Camp Cropper, which started out as a bunch of tents, has now become a US$60 million "state-of-the-art" prison. The upgrade, on the drawing boards since 2004, was just completed and hardly a word has been written about it. We really have no idea what it consists of or what it looks like, even though it's in one of the few places in Iraq that an American reporter could safely visit, being on a vast US military base constructed, like the prison, with taxpayer dollars.
Had anyone paid the slightest attention - other than the Pentagon, the Bush administration, and whatever company or companies had the contract to construct the facility - it would still have been taken for granted that Camp Cropper wasn't the business of ordinary Americans (or even their representatives in Congress) - despite the fact that the $60 million, which made the camp "state of the art", was surely Americans', no one in the United States debated or discussed the upgrade and there was no serious consideration of it in Congress before the money was anted up, any more than Congress or the American people are in any way involved in the constant upgrading of US military bases in Iraq.
Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere in the United States - and yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq right now...
First we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent". (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of US towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent US prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best-fortified "embassy" in the solar system, with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.
If, for a moment, Americans stop listening to the arguments about, or even the news about, Iraq here at home and just concentrate on the ignored reality of those facts-on-the-ground, you're likely to assess our world somewhat differently...
Whatever arguments may be going on in Washington over which "tools" or "interrogation techniques" the CIA is to be allowed to use or over exactly how the 14 al-Qaeda detainees just transferred to Guantanamo will be tried, this set of facts-on-the-ground adds up to America's own global Bermuda Triangle of Injustice into which untold numbers of human beings can simply disappear. The "crown jewel" of America's mini-gulag is, of course, Guantanamo. And again, whatever the fierce arguments in the US may be about Guantanamo "methods" or what kinds of commissions or tribunals (if any) may finally be chosen for the run-of-the-mill prisoners there, one fact-on-the-ground points us toward the actual lay of the land. A little-publicized $30 million maximum-security wing at Guantanamo is now being completed by the US Navy, just as at the US prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, there has been an upgrade...
And don't imagine that this is an anomaly, applicable only to imprisonment abroad. Almost anywhere you look, the facts on the ground tell a story at odds with what's important, what's real as we Americans imagine it.
Let's take, for instance, what's now referred to as the Intelligence Community (IC), a collection of at least 16 agencies, ranging from the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Consider then just one recent piece about the IC by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times, headlined "Spy agencies outsourcing to fill key jobs".
As Miller points out, the overall intelligence budget has gone up about $10 billion a year in recent years and for that we've got an upgrading (or at least upsizing) of almost every one of those 16 agencies plus a whole new, sprawling layer of intelligence bureaucracy headed by John Negroponte, the intelligence tsar, who runs the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence (not even included in the count above). Miller reports another interesting fact-on-the-ground as well: enormous numbers of private contractors are flooding into the IC.
"At the National Counterterrorism Center - the agency created two years ago to prevent another attack like [that of] September 11 [2001] - more than half of the employees are not US government analysts or terrorism experts. Instead, they are outside contractors. At CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers - non-agency employees who carry special-colored IDs."
At some clandestine CIA overseas posts such as Islamabad and Baghdad, Miller reports, private contractors can make up as many as three-quarters of the employees, while at home private contractors at the CIA now also outnumber its estimated 17,500 employees. He concludes: "Senior US intelligence officials said that the reliance on contractors was so deep that agencies couldn't function without them. ‘If you took away the contractor support, they'd have to put yellow tape around the building and close it down,' said a former senior CIA official who was responsible for overseeing contracts before leaving the agency earlier this year."
The same could, of course, be said of the US military, which is quite literally incapable of existing today without its private contractors such as Halliburton's KBR, nor could its wars be carried on without the proliferation of hired guns - mercenaries - who are now a given in any such situation. This transformation of the military into first an all-volunteer, then an increasingly privatized as well as outsourced, and now an increasingly mercenary institution is another fact-on-the-ground, another building block to America's future...
This is a reality that no future US administration, nor any better-empowered Congress, would be likely to reverse, no less erase, any time soon. No matter how the details of the argument about NSA spying turn out, for example, it's in essence a given that the National Security Agency will continue to grow and make itself ever more available in ever more ingenious ways, trolling ever more extensively in communications of every sort. These are the facts being established on the ground, while in Washington they argue over the (sometimes significant) details and the media focus their main attention on all of this as the essence of the news of the day.
Take for example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet another sprawling, ill-organized, inefficient bureaucracy established after September 11 and not likely to do anything but grow in our lifetimes. Around it has sprung into existence an anti-terrorism homeland-security industry (thank you, Osama bin Laden!) of staggering proportions. "Seven years ago," writes Paul Harris of The Guardian, "there were nine companies with federal homeland-security contracts. By 2003 it was 3,512. Now there are 33,890."
Think about that. They are there to divide a terrorism/security pie that has, since 2000, resulted in about $130 billion in contracts and now, according to USA Today, is a $59 billion a year business globally - one based on that surefire best-seller, fear, whose single major customer is, of course, the DHS.
Not surprisingly, around those 33,000 companies has sprung up a whole network of Washington-based lobbyists (including the lobbying firm of John Ashcroft, the previous attorney general, the Ashcroft Group), a plethora of security conferences and trade magazines; in short, the full panoply of a thriving business world. Already at least 90 officials have left the Homeland Security Department to become lobbyists or consultants in the business that surrounds it, including Tom Ridge, the first head of the department. After only five years, the homeland-security business, according to USA Today, has already eclipsed "mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue"...
An industry tracker, Homeland Security Research, points the way to one possible future on which Americans are never likely to vote. "A major attack in the United States, Europe or Japan could increase the global market in 2015 to $730 billion, more than a twelvefold increase."
Or consider the Pentagon's Northcom - United States Northern Command, now responsible for "the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles", including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Before October 1, 2002, there was no Northern Command. Less than four short years later, it's not only up and running but has multiple missions. It's preparing for the next hurricane (since we already know the Federal Emergency Management Agency can't do the job), deploying forces to battle wildfires in the west, and getting ready for an avian-flu pandemic. And don't think for a moment that where an institution springs up (especially one with a budget like the Pentagon's behind it), a world of on-the-ground realities doesn't arise as well. Just as it will when, in the near future, the Pentagon redivides its imperial domains by creating a new Africacom (United States Africa Command), supposedly to "anchor US forces on the African continent" - a decision that will be sold around town based on "terrorism security threats", but will in essence be about energy flows and oil (see America's Africa Corps, September 21). Each new structure like this, each decision, will result in new facts on the ground, new flows of money, and new sets of private contractors...
These are increasingly the crucial realities of our world - and it's not the world of a republic. It's not a world of checks and balances. It's not a world where even a change of ownership in one or both houses of the US Congress in November would prove a determining factor. It's not a world where people out there are just "starting to question whether we're following our own high standards". It's distinctly not the world as we Americans like to imagine it, but it is the world we are, regrettably enough, lost in. It's the world created not just by a commander-in-chief presidency, but by a Pentagon-in-chief-dominated government, and by a corporation-in-chief style of imperial rule...
That's a 500 lb gorilla
you'll never hear about in the main$tream media.
Think Darth Rumsfeld's quitting anytime soon? Guess again. He's got too many shareholders to be invited onward, and even if the War fails, as long as his investors take home a bundle, he remains the Sith Executive Officer of Bu$hCo- Cheneyburton. ¶ 9:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
Our Chinese connection runs a piece by Tom Englehardt.
...Abu Ghraib prison is the place where Saddam's functionaries tortured (and sometimes killed) many enemies of his regime, and where Bush's functionaries, as a series of notorious digital photos revealed, committed what the US press still likes to refer to as "prisoner abuse"....
Of course its prisoners, who remained generally uncharged and without access to Iraqi courts, weren't just released to the winds. Quite the opposite: more than 3,000 of them were redistributed to two other US prisons, Camp Bucca in Iraq's south and Camp Cropper at the huge US base adjoining Baghdad International Airport...
...Camp Cropper, which started out as a bunch of tents, has now become a US$60 million "state-of-the-art" prison. The upgrade, on the drawing boards since 2004, was just completed and hardly a word has been written about it. We really have no idea what it consists of or what it looks like, even though it's in one of the few places in Iraq that an American reporter could safely visit, being on a vast US military base constructed, like the prison, with taxpayer dollars.
Had anyone paid the slightest attention - other than the Pentagon, the Bush administration, and whatever company or companies had the contract to construct the facility - it would still have been taken for granted that Camp Cropper wasn't the business of ordinary Americans (or even their representatives in Congress) - despite the fact that the $60 million, which made the camp "state of the art", was surely Americans', no one in the United States debated or discussed the upgrade and there was no serious consideration of it in Congress before the money was anted up, any more than Congress or the American people are in any way involved in the constant upgrading of US military bases in Iraq.
Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere in the United States - and yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq right now...
First we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent". (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of US towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent US prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best-fortified "embassy" in the solar system, with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.
If, for a moment, Americans stop listening to the arguments about, or even the news about, Iraq here at home and just concentrate on the ignored reality of those facts-on-the-ground, you're likely to assess our world somewhat differently...
Whatever arguments may be going on in Washington over which "tools" or "interrogation techniques" the CIA is to be allowed to use or over exactly how the 14 al-Qaeda detainees just transferred to Guantanamo will be tried, this set of facts-on-the-ground adds up to America's own global Bermuda Triangle of Injustice into which untold numbers of human beings can simply disappear. The "crown jewel" of America's mini-gulag is, of course, Guantanamo. And again, whatever the fierce arguments in the US may be about Guantanamo "methods" or what kinds of commissions or tribunals (if any) may finally be chosen for the run-of-the-mill prisoners there, one fact-on-the-ground points us toward the actual lay of the land. A little-publicized $30 million maximum-security wing at Guantanamo is now being completed by the US Navy, just as at the US prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, there has been an upgrade...
And don't imagine that this is an anomaly, applicable only to imprisonment abroad. Almost anywhere you look, the facts on the ground tell a story at odds with what's important, what's real as we Americans imagine it.
Let's take, for instance, what's now referred to as the Intelligence Community (IC), a collection of at least 16 agencies, ranging from the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Consider then just one recent piece about the IC by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times, headlined "Spy agencies outsourcing to fill key jobs".
As Miller points out, the overall intelligence budget has gone up about $10 billion a year in recent years and for that we've got an upgrading (or at least upsizing) of almost every one of those 16 agencies plus a whole new, sprawling layer of intelligence bureaucracy headed by John Negroponte, the intelligence tsar, who runs the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence (not even included in the count above). Miller reports another interesting fact-on-the-ground as well: enormous numbers of private contractors are flooding into the IC.
"At the National Counterterrorism Center - the agency created two years ago to prevent another attack like [that of] September 11 [2001] - more than half of the employees are not US government analysts or terrorism experts. Instead, they are outside contractors. At CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers - non-agency employees who carry special-colored IDs."
At some clandestine CIA overseas posts such as Islamabad and Baghdad, Miller reports, private contractors can make up as many as three-quarters of the employees, while at home private contractors at the CIA now also outnumber its estimated 17,500 employees. He concludes: "Senior US intelligence officials said that the reliance on contractors was so deep that agencies couldn't function without them. ‘If you took away the contractor support, they'd have to put yellow tape around the building and close it down,' said a former senior CIA official who was responsible for overseeing contracts before leaving the agency earlier this year."
The same could, of course, be said of the US military, which is quite literally incapable of existing today without its private contractors such as Halliburton's KBR, nor could its wars be carried on without the proliferation of hired guns - mercenaries - who are now a given in any such situation. This transformation of the military into first an all-volunteer, then an increasingly privatized as well as outsourced, and now an increasingly mercenary institution is another fact-on-the-ground, another building block to America's future...
This is a reality that no future US administration, nor any better-empowered Congress, would be likely to reverse, no less erase, any time soon. No matter how the details of the argument about NSA spying turn out, for example, it's in essence a given that the National Security Agency will continue to grow and make itself ever more available in ever more ingenious ways, trolling ever more extensively in communications of every sort. These are the facts being established on the ground, while in Washington they argue over the (sometimes significant) details and the media focus their main attention on all of this as the essence of the news of the day.
Take for example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet another sprawling, ill-organized, inefficient bureaucracy established after September 11 and not likely to do anything but grow in our lifetimes. Around it has sprung into existence an anti-terrorism homeland-security industry (thank you, Osama bin Laden!) of staggering proportions. "Seven years ago," writes Paul Harris of The Guardian, "there were nine companies with federal homeland-security contracts. By 2003 it was 3,512. Now there are 33,890."
Think about that. They are there to divide a terrorism/security pie that has, since 2000, resulted in about $130 billion in contracts and now, according to USA Today, is a $59 billion a year business globally - one based on that surefire best-seller, fear, whose single major customer is, of course, the DHS.
Not surprisingly, around those 33,000 companies has sprung up a whole network of Washington-based lobbyists (including the lobbying firm of John Ashcroft, the previous attorney general, the Ashcroft Group), a plethora of security conferences and trade magazines; in short, the full panoply of a thriving business world. Already at least 90 officials have left the Homeland Security Department to become lobbyists or consultants in the business that surrounds it, including Tom Ridge, the first head of the department. After only five years, the homeland-security business, according to USA Today, has already eclipsed "mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue"...
An industry tracker, Homeland Security Research, points the way to one possible future on which Americans are never likely to vote. "A major attack in the United States, Europe or Japan could increase the global market in 2015 to $730 billion, more than a twelvefold increase."
Or consider the Pentagon's Northcom - United States Northern Command, now responsible for "the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles", including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Before October 1, 2002, there was no Northern Command. Less than four short years later, it's not only up and running but has multiple missions. It's preparing for the next hurricane (since we already know the Federal Emergency Management Agency can't do the job), deploying forces to battle wildfires in the west, and getting ready for an avian-flu pandemic. And don't think for a moment that where an institution springs up (especially one with a budget like the Pentagon's behind it), a world of on-the-ground realities doesn't arise as well. Just as it will when, in the near future, the Pentagon redivides its imperial domains by creating a new Africacom (United States Africa Command), supposedly to "anchor US forces on the African continent" - a decision that will be sold around town based on "terrorism security threats", but will in essence be about energy flows and oil (see America's Africa Corps, September 21). Each new structure like this, each decision, will result in new facts on the ground, new flows of money, and new sets of private contractors...
These are increasingly the crucial realities of our world - and it's not the world of a republic. It's not a world of checks and balances. It's not a world where even a change of ownership in one or both houses of the US Congress in November would prove a determining factor. It's not a world where people out there are just "starting to question whether we're following our own high standards". It's distinctly not the world as we Americans like to imagine it, but it is the world we are, regrettably enough, lost in. It's the world created not just by a commander-in-chief presidency, but by a Pentagon-in-chief-dominated government, and by a corporation-in-chief style of imperial rule...
That's a 500 lb gorilla
you'll never hear about in the main$tream media. Think Darth Rumsfeld's quitting anytime soon? Guess again. He's got too many shareholders to be invited onward, and even if the War fails, as long as his investors take home a bundle, he remains the Sith Executive Officer of Bu$hCo- Cheneyburton. ¶ 9:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
White Hats, Black Hats, or All Hat?
TheoCons are all in a flutter about Clinton realigning Wallace's wheels, and all aflame with anger at his wife largely, as far as can be told, because she's stuck by him and occasionally had a liberal idea.
Seems like the Clintons are the Great Satan of the TheoConfederacy, so much so they'll rally the Crusade for Dear Leader and his War on Terra.
There are so many levels of subterfuge
in that juxtaposition of players I can't begin to address it.
But I will stand with Duncan and Digby and several hundred others in this today: for anyone professing moral clarity or rectitude to beotch about the morality of the progressive movement while condoning torture and the suspension of habeus corpus is rank hypocrisy.
It is itself an immoral act.
One thing the TheoConfederacy might be smelling these days, though, isn't the brimstone. There's a far greater disturbance in the Force, one that happens about every 11 years or so.
Why is sunspot 905 backwards? Perhaps it is a key marker for the beginning of a new magnetic cycle on our Sun. Every 11 years, our Sun goes through a magnetic cycle, at the end of which its overall magnetic orientation is reversed. An 11-year solar cycle has been observed for hundreds of years by noting peaks and valleys in the average number of sunspots. Just now, the Sun is near Solar Minimum, and likely to start a long progression toward the most active time, called Solar Maximum, in about 5.5 years. An indicator that the sun's magnetic field is reversing is the appearance of sunspots with the reverse magnetic polarity than normal. A few weeks ago, one small candidate reverse sunspot was sighted but faded quickly. Now, however, a larger sunspot with negative polarity is being tracked. This sunspot, numbered 905, appears as the unusual white spot in the above magnetic image of the Sun taken with the SOHO spacecraft a few days ago. In the past few days, Sunspot 905 has actually begun to break apart and might also become the source of coronal mass ejections and explosive solar flares. Solar astronomers predict that the coming Solar Maximum will be unusually active.
You've got that right. Some of the hottest years in human history, one of the worst hurricane years on record, happened while the sun was bottoming out in its 11 year cycle of activity.
Now we're heading back up again.
Keep your cool, TheoCons. While you're watching
for terra'ists, invest in sunscreen and lifejackets, you're gonna need them in Bu$h country.
¶ 7:16 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Seems like the Clintons are the Great Satan of the TheoConfederacy, so much so they'll rally the Crusade for Dear Leader and his War on Terra.
There are so many levels of subterfuge
in that juxtaposition of players I can't begin to address it.But I will stand with Duncan and Digby and several hundred others in this today: for anyone professing moral clarity or rectitude to beotch about the morality of the progressive movement while condoning torture and the suspension of habeus corpus is rank hypocrisy.
It is itself an immoral act.
One thing the TheoConfederacy might be smelling these days, though, isn't the brimstone. There's a far greater disturbance in the Force, one that happens about every 11 years or so.
Why is sunspot 905 backwards? Perhaps it is a key marker for the beginning of a new magnetic cycle on our Sun. Every 11 years, our Sun goes through a magnetic cycle, at the end of which its overall magnetic orientation is reversed. An 11-year solar cycle has been observed for hundreds of years by noting peaks and valleys in the average number of sunspots. Just now, the Sun is near Solar Minimum, and likely to start a long progression toward the most active time, called Solar Maximum, in about 5.5 years. An indicator that the sun's magnetic field is reversing is the appearance of sunspots with the reverse magnetic polarity than normal. A few weeks ago, one small candidate reverse sunspot was sighted but faded quickly. Now, however, a larger sunspot with negative polarity is being tracked. This sunspot, numbered 905, appears as the unusual white spot in the above magnetic image of the Sun taken with the SOHO spacecraft a few days ago. In the past few days, Sunspot 905 has actually begun to break apart and might also become the source of coronal mass ejections and explosive solar flares. Solar astronomers predict that the coming Solar Maximum will be unusually active.
You've got that right. Some of the hottest years in human history, one of the worst hurricane years on record, happened while the sun was bottoming out in its 11 year cycle of activity.
Now we're heading back up again.
Keep your cool, TheoCons. While you're watching
for terra'ists, invest in sunscreen and lifejackets, you're gonna need them in Bu$h country.
¶ 7:16 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Only Game in Town
WASHINGTON -- There is no mystery or manipulation behind the recent fall in gasoline prices, analysts say. Try telling that to many U.S. motorists.
Almost half of all Americans believe the November elections have more influence than market forces. For them, the plunge at the pump is about politics, not economics...
According to a new Gallup poll, 42 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections." Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe in this conspiracy theory, while 5 percent said they had no opinion.
Almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day are registered Democrats, according to Gallup.
Tony Snow addressed the issue Monday, telling reporters that "the one thing I have been amused by is the attempt by some people to say that the president has been rigging gas prices, which would give him the kind of magisterial clout unknown to any other human being.
"It also raises the question, if we're dropping gas prices now, why on earth did we raise them to $3.50 before?" Snow said.
I dunno. Maybe it has to do with lining the pockets of your cronies with cash?
...The plunge in prices, Halff said, is the result of growing domestic inventories of fuel, slowing economic growth and toned-down rhetoric between Iran and the United States, which has been critical of Tehran's uranium enrichment program.
At the start of summer, oil analysts were worried about rising demand, the threat of hurricanes and the nuclear standoff between the West and Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer. But by summer's end, these fears had largely dissipated.
On Monday, November crude futures settled at $61.45 a barrel...
That, and most price speculators are Republican, and realize what kind of damage a Democratic Congress might do to their monopoly on energy.
Lowering energy prices, keeping a lid on the interest rate hikes, these are the kind of things designed to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of DINOcrats who don't have the desire to tell the Reptilicans off to their face, because they get their money from pretty much the same sort of corporate donors.
We can't all be a Clinton... okay, so Clinton kept his mouth shut for 6 years about Bu$hCo tactics in the War on Terra, until it became obvious the Bu$hCo minions were looking to scapegoat him for their own failures. Still, he finally seems to be taking a stand whatever his motivations.
We can't all be an Olberman, who's really put himself on the line at MS-GOP opposing the Party line.
Of course, the fact that the drop in energy prices seems to have bankrupted certain hedge funds and created easy pickings for certain private equity groups might have something to do with the phenomenon, too.
Funny how networked these boys are, how well positioned they are to profit on so many fronts when there's a change in the weather.
Of course, they burned Martha Stewart for that, but she left records and didn't own the watchdogs...
Still, some things
are just a little too coincidental to be totally unrelated.
¶ 10:18 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Almost half of all Americans believe the November elections have more influence than market forces. For them, the plunge at the pump is about politics, not economics...
According to a new Gallup poll, 42 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections." Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe in this conspiracy theory, while 5 percent said they had no opinion.
Almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day are registered Democrats, according to Gallup.
Tony Snow addressed the issue Monday, telling reporters that "the one thing I have been amused by is the attempt by some people to say that the president has been rigging gas prices, which would give him the kind of magisterial clout unknown to any other human being.
"It also raises the question, if we're dropping gas prices now, why on earth did we raise them to $3.50 before?" Snow said.
I dunno. Maybe it has to do with lining the pockets of your cronies with cash?
...The plunge in prices, Halff said, is the result of growing domestic inventories of fuel, slowing economic growth and toned-down rhetoric between Iran and the United States, which has been critical of Tehran's uranium enrichment program.
At the start of summer, oil analysts were worried about rising demand, the threat of hurricanes and the nuclear standoff between the West and Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer. But by summer's end, these fears had largely dissipated.
On Monday, November crude futures settled at $61.45 a barrel...
That, and most price speculators are Republican, and realize what kind of damage a Democratic Congress might do to their monopoly on energy.
Lowering energy prices, keeping a lid on the interest rate hikes, these are the kind of things designed to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of DINOcrats who don't have the desire to tell the Reptilicans off to their face, because they get their money from pretty much the same sort of corporate donors.
We can't all be a Clinton... okay, so Clinton kept his mouth shut for 6 years about Bu$hCo tactics in the War on Terra, until it became obvious the Bu$hCo minions were looking to scapegoat him for their own failures. Still, he finally seems to be taking a stand whatever his motivations.
We can't all be an Olberman, who's really put himself on the line at MS-GOP opposing the Party line.
Of course, the fact that the drop in energy prices seems to have bankrupted certain hedge funds and created easy pickings for certain private equity groups might have something to do with the phenomenon, too.
Funny how networked these boys are, how well positioned they are to profit on so many fronts when there's a change in the weather.
Of course, they burned Martha Stewart for that, but she left records and didn't own the watchdogs...
Still, some things
are just a little too coincidental to be totally unrelated.
¶ 10:18 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Enemy of My Enemy is Not Neccessarily My Friend
The Hawk's Hawks are going after Darth Rumsfeld, tooth and talon:
...John R.S. Batiste
Major General, U.S. Army (Retired)
September 25, 2006
My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican...
... This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except "how to win." He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build "his plan," which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today...
I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld's plan did not set our military up for success.
Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba'athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge.
Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with "his plan" and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Batiste, and the other Generals that testified today, are typically lifelong Republican military paleocons, disturbed that the political revolution they helped unleash in this country has taken such a unsettling turn.
But you know, honored Sirs, this is not a simple a case of a horse that escaped the harness. You wanted Empire, and a government with the right Military Priorities. Now you have Endless War, and realize your armies are pawns on Someone's chessboard.
Yet you hit the nail on the head: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Negroponte, Gonzales, and dozens if not hundreds of their minions do not understand the human dimensions of the world around them.
There's lots more to read and see, and you really do need to read it and watch videos on what happened in Congress today. More here.
Note the passage:
...First, the American people need to take charge through their elected officials. Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values. This needs to stop right now, today.
When you look at the Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton beast, there's one question you really need to ask yourselves about this criminal cabal, Generals:
¶ 7:42 PM 0 comments
links to this post
...John R.S. Batiste
Major General, U.S. Army (Retired)
September 25, 2006
My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican...
... This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except "how to win." He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build "his plan," which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today...
I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld's plan did not set our military up for success.
Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba'athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge.
Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with "his plan" and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Batiste, and the other Generals that testified today, are typically lifelong Republican military paleocons, disturbed that the political revolution they helped unleash in this country has taken such a unsettling turn.
But you know, honored Sirs, this is not a simple a case of a horse that escaped the harness. You wanted Empire, and a government with the right Military Priorities. Now you have Endless War, and realize your armies are pawns on Someone's chessboard.
Yet you hit the nail on the head: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Negroponte, Gonzales, and dozens if not hundreds of their minions do not understand the human dimensions of the world around them.
There's lots more to read and see, and you really do need to read it and watch videos on what happened in Congress today. More here.
Note the passage:
...First, the American people need to take charge through their elected officials. Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values. This needs to stop right now, today.
When you look at the Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton beast, there's one question you really need to ask yourselves about this criminal cabal, Generals:
¶ 7:42 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Move Along, These Aren't the 'Droids You're Looking For
The Ministry of Defence went to extraordinary lengths to cover up its true involvement in investigating UFOs, according to secret documents revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The files show that officials attempted to expunge information from documents released to the Public Records Office under the "30-year rule" that would have revealed the extent of the MoD's interest in UFO sightings.
In particular, the ministry wanted to cover up the operation of a secret unit dedicated to UFO investigations within the Defence Intelligence Staff. UFO conspiracy theorists have likened the unit, called DI55, to a sort of "Men in Black" agency for defending the Earth against invasion but the released documents show this is far from the truth. One 1995 memo from DI55 to the MoD's public "UFO desk" said: "I have several books at home that describe our supposed role of 'defender of the Earth against the alien menace' - it is light years from the truth!"
The files were made public following FOI requests by David Clarke, a lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam University and his colleague Andy Roberts.
"These documents don't tell us anything about UFOs but they do show how desperate the MoD have been to conceal the interest which the intelligence services had in the subject," said Dr Clarke.
The trail begins with a request, in 1976, from a UFO enthusiast called Julian Hennessy for access to the MoD's records on UFO sightings. A note from the UFO desk to the MoD's head of security on March 23 shows that officials intended to refuse him access on the grounds that the files contain confidential information and "very little of value to a serious scientific investigator".
But the note continues: "This is not to say that the investigation is not taken seriously. The branches have their own methods - and [the public UFO desk] has no 'need to know' about them - but we are aware that DI55 for example sometimes makes extensive inquiries.
"It is undesirable that even a hint of this should become public and we are currently consulting the [Air Historical Branch] on ways of expurgating the official records against the time when they qualify for disclosure [at the Public Records Office]."
Hearing of the background to his fob off 30 years ago Mr Hennessy, who is a local magistrate, was not surprised. "Everything led me to believe there was a major cover up going on," he said."They didn't want to let the public know just how interested they were in these phenomena."
Attempts to alter the public record went on into the 90s. In a note dated April 28 1993 from DI55 to the public UFO desk the unnamed author argued the unit's involvement should be excised from records due to be released under the 30-year rule. But the cat was already out of the bag. A clerical error in 1983 had meant that the distribution list was incorrectly left on a publicly released UFO-related document, so UFO enthusiasts were already asking questions.
"Since then they have obviously been bombarded by people saying who is this DI55, what do they do, what is the extent of their involvement," said Dr Clarke.
Eventually, DI55 decided to allow its involvement to be made public. A note from DI55 to the public UFO desk on 5July 1995 said: "I see no reason for continuing to deny that the [Defence Intelligence Service] has an interest in UFOs. However, if the association is formally made public then the MoD will no doubt be pressured to state what the intelligence role/interest is. This could lead to disbelief and embarrassment since few people are likely to believe the truth that lack of funds and higher priorities have prevented any study of the thousands of reports received."
At this point someone, presumably from the public UFO desk, has scribbled "ouch!" in the margin.
"The lengths they went to to remove any mention of the Defence Intelligence Staff's central role in investigating sightings suggests they had something to hide," said Dr Clarke. "But what they were hiding was not evidence of ET visits but embarrassment at the fact they were never allowed to spend public money on investigating the subject in any depth." The full extent of DI55's involvement has subsequently been made clear by a report released to Dr Clarke in May and reported in the Guardian. That threw up a 500-page document which brought together everything the unit knew about UFOs, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) as the MoD prefers, including more than 10,000 sightings. It said the existence of UAPs was "indisputable", but blamed the most vexing sighting on airborne "plasmas" formed during "more than one set of weather and electrically charged conditions", or during meteor showers...
The main problem the Brits have is they're looking for aliens in all the wrong places. ¶ 12:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
The files show that officials attempted to expunge information from documents released to the Public Records Office under the "30-year rule" that would have revealed the extent of the MoD's interest in UFO sightings.
In particular, the ministry wanted to cover up the operation of a secret unit dedicated to UFO investigations within the Defence Intelligence Staff. UFO conspiracy theorists have likened the unit, called DI55, to a sort of "Men in Black" agency for defending the Earth against invasion but the released documents show this is far from the truth. One 1995 memo from DI55 to the MoD's public "UFO desk" said: "I have several books at home that describe our supposed role of 'defender of the Earth against the alien menace' - it is light years from the truth!"
The files were made public following FOI requests by David Clarke, a lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam University and his colleague Andy Roberts.
"These documents don't tell us anything about UFOs but they do show how desperate the MoD have been to conceal the interest which the intelligence services had in the subject," said Dr Clarke.
The trail begins with a request, in 1976, from a UFO enthusiast called Julian Hennessy for access to the MoD's records on UFO sightings. A note from the UFO desk to the MoD's head of security on March 23 shows that officials intended to refuse him access on the grounds that the files contain confidential information and "very little of value to a serious scientific investigator".
But the note continues: "This is not to say that the investigation is not taken seriously. The branches have their own methods - and [the public UFO desk] has no 'need to know' about them - but we are aware that DI55 for example sometimes makes extensive inquiries.
"It is undesirable that even a hint of this should become public and we are currently consulting the [Air Historical Branch] on ways of expurgating the official records against the time when they qualify for disclosure [at the Public Records Office]."
Hearing of the background to his fob off 30 years ago Mr Hennessy, who is a local magistrate, was not surprised. "Everything led me to believe there was a major cover up going on," he said."They didn't want to let the public know just how interested they were in these phenomena."
Attempts to alter the public record went on into the 90s. In a note dated April 28 1993 from DI55 to the public UFO desk the unnamed author argued the unit's involvement should be excised from records due to be released under the 30-year rule. But the cat was already out of the bag. A clerical error in 1983 had meant that the distribution list was incorrectly left on a publicly released UFO-related document, so UFO enthusiasts were already asking questions.
"Since then they have obviously been bombarded by people saying who is this DI55, what do they do, what is the extent of their involvement," said Dr Clarke.
Eventually, DI55 decided to allow its involvement to be made public. A note from DI55 to the public UFO desk on 5July 1995 said: "I see no reason for continuing to deny that the [Defence Intelligence Service] has an interest in UFOs. However, if the association is formally made public then the MoD will no doubt be pressured to state what the intelligence role/interest is. This could lead to disbelief and embarrassment since few people are likely to believe the truth that lack of funds and higher priorities have prevented any study of the thousands of reports received."
At this point someone, presumably from the public UFO desk, has scribbled "ouch!" in the margin.
"The lengths they went to to remove any mention of the Defence Intelligence Staff's central role in investigating sightings suggests they had something to hide," said Dr Clarke. "But what they were hiding was not evidence of ET visits but embarrassment at the fact they were never allowed to spend public money on investigating the subject in any depth." The full extent of DI55's involvement has subsequently been made clear by a report released to Dr Clarke in May and reported in the Guardian. That threw up a 500-page document which brought together everything the unit knew about UFOs, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) as the MoD prefers, including more than 10,000 sightings. It said the existence of UAPs was "indisputable", but blamed the most vexing sighting on airborne "plasmas" formed during "more than one set of weather and electrically charged conditions", or during meteor showers...
The main problem the Brits have is they're looking for aliens in all the wrong places. ¶ 12:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Find the Messengers and Shoot Them
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official...
Obviously these anonymous intelligence officials will be rooted out and made an example of.
Meanwhile, the news has spread, to the last place Dear Leader's poodle would want it:
An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism.
The National Intelligence Estimate was completed in April but not made public. Its conclusions, which were first reported by the New York Times, contradict assertions made by President George Bush and White House officials during the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
"It's a very candid assessment," said one official who has seen the report. "It's stating the obvious."
The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, points out the "centrality" of the US invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks. One section of the 30-page report, Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement, describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism.
While arguing that there has been success in dismantling the leadership of al-Qaida and its ability to plan major operations, the report says that radical cells have moved to more than 5,000 websites to organise and spread their message.
The report's tone contradicts recent optimistic assertions by the US administration. It also furthers the divisions between the military and politicians in their assessment of the impact of US policy in Iraq... ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official...
Obviously these anonymous intelligence officials will be rooted out and made an example of.
Meanwhile, the news has spread, to the last place Dear Leader's poodle would want it:
An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism.
The National Intelligence Estimate was completed in April but not made public. Its conclusions, which were first reported by the New York Times, contradict assertions made by President George Bush and White House officials during the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
"It's a very candid assessment," said one official who has seen the report. "It's stating the obvious."
The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, points out the "centrality" of the US invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks. One section of the 30-page report, Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement, describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism.
While arguing that there has been success in dismantling the leadership of al-Qaida and its ability to plan major operations, the report says that radical cells have moved to more than 5,000 websites to organise and spread their message.
The report's tone contradicts recent optimistic assertions by the US administration. It also furthers the divisions between the military and politicians in their assessment of the impact of US policy in Iraq... ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
Floating in the Kool-Aid
Jane Hamsher points to a piece of idiocy uttered by Senator Harry Reid (D-MGM Grand Casino) my (alas) Senator, Carl Levin (D-Misguided Mercenaries, Automotive, and Private Equity) regarding the Blob legistlation, a.k.a. the We Always Wear White Hats on our Dorsal Pseudopods Law:
"A handful of principled Republican Senators have forced the White House to back down from the worst elements of its extreme proposal for new interrogation rules,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. . . .
And Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Senators Warner, McCain and Graham as “standing up to the administration” and producing a bill that, “while it has a number of problems, is a substantial improvement over the language proposed by the administration.”
It seems it's deja vu all over Ground Hog Day again. ¶ 7:46 AM 0 comments links to this post
"A handful of principled Republican Senators have forced the White House to back down from the worst elements of its extreme proposal for new interrogation rules,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. . . .
And Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Senators Warner, McCain and Graham as “standing up to the administration” and producing a bill that, “while it has a number of problems, is a substantial improvement over the language proposed by the administration.”
It seems it's deja vu all over Ground Hog Day again. ¶ 7:46 AM 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Toy Story
The amazing telescopic view, recorded on September 17, captures shuttle orbiter Atlantis and the International Space Station in orbit over planet Earth. At a range of 550 kilometers from the observing site near Mamers, Normandy, France, Atlantis (left) has just undocked and moved about 200 meters away from the space station.
We can do marvelous and beautiful things with our toys.
Or otherwise.
The choice is ours to make. ¶ 9:55 PM 0 comments links to this post
The amazing telescopic view, recorded on September 17, captures shuttle orbiter Atlantis and the International Space Station in orbit over planet Earth. At a range of 550 kilometers from the observing site near Mamers, Normandy, France, Atlantis (left) has just undocked and moved about 200 meters away from the space station.
We can do marvelous and beautiful things with our toys.
Or otherwise.
The choice is ours to make. ¶ 9:55 PM 0 comments links to this post
Slight Slippage Acceleration
Relative to 2004, the ice mass of Greenland is losing weight.
Nature 443, 329-331(21 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05168; Received 21 June 2006; Accepted 14 August 2006
Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004
Isabella Velicogna1, and John Wahr
Abstract
In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected the contribution to sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet to be between -0.02 and +0.09 m from 1990 to 2100 (ref. 1). However, recent work (2, 3, 4) has suggested that the ice sheet responds more quickly to climate perturbations than previously thought, particularly near the coast. Here we use a satellite gravity survey by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) conducted from April 2002 to April 2006 to provide an independent estimate of the contribution of Greenland ice mass loss to sea level change. We detect an ice mass loss of 248 plusminus 36 km3 yr-1, equivalent to a global sea level rise of 0.5 plusminus 0.1 mm yr-1. The rate of ice loss increased by 250 per cent between the periods April 2002 to April 2004 and May 2004 to April 2006, almost entirely due to accelerated rates of ice loss in southern Greenland; the rate of mass loss in north Greenland was almost constant. Continued monitoring will be needed to identify any future changes in the rate of ice loss in Greenland.
1. Church, J. A. et al. in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 639–693 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001)
2. Rignot, E. & Kanagaratnam, P. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science 311, 986–990 (2006)
3. Howat, I. , Joughin, I. , Tulaczyk, S. & Gogineni, S. Rapid retreat and acceleration of Helheim Glacier, east Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L22502, doi:10.1029/2005GL024737 (2005)
4. Luckman, A. , Murray, T. , de Lange, R. & Hanna, E. Rapid and synchronous ice-dynamic changes in East Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L03503, doi:10.1029/2005GL025428 (2006) ¶ 5:29 PM 0 comments links to this post
Nature 443, 329-331(21 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05168; Received 21 June 2006; Accepted 14 August 2006
Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004
Isabella Velicogna1, and John Wahr
Abstract
In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected the contribution to sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet to be between -0.02 and +0.09 m from 1990 to 2100 (ref. 1). However, recent work (2, 3, 4) has suggested that the ice sheet responds more quickly to climate perturbations than previously thought, particularly near the coast. Here we use a satellite gravity survey by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) conducted from April 2002 to April 2006 to provide an independent estimate of the contribution of Greenland ice mass loss to sea level change. We detect an ice mass loss of 248 plusminus 36 km3 yr-1, equivalent to a global sea level rise of 0.5 plusminus 0.1 mm yr-1. The rate of ice loss increased by 250 per cent between the periods April 2002 to April 2004 and May 2004 to April 2006, almost entirely due to accelerated rates of ice loss in southern Greenland; the rate of mass loss in north Greenland was almost constant. Continued monitoring will be needed to identify any future changes in the rate of ice loss in Greenland.
1. Church, J. A. et al. in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 639–693 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001)
2. Rignot, E. & Kanagaratnam, P. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science 311, 986–990 (2006)
3. Howat, I. , Joughin, I. , Tulaczyk, S. & Gogineni, S. Rapid retreat and acceleration of Helheim Glacier, east Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L22502, doi:10.1029/2005GL024737 (2005)
4. Luckman, A. , Murray, T. , de Lange, R. & Hanna, E. Rapid and synchronous ice-dynamic changes in East Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L03503, doi:10.1029/2005GL025428 (2006) ¶ 5:29 PM 0 comments links to this post
Conspiracy Fact
Who is Mahmood Ahmed? And why is Richard Armitage taken seriously by anyone? He looks like a bad 007 villian.
¶ 7:50 AM 0 comments
links to this post
What Sam Said
On "Our Country, Right or Wrong".
On Crusadin'.
Sam got it right, just about every time.
Somebody else thought so too at the time, or we wouldn't be remembering what he said today. ¶ 7:02 AM 0 comments links to this post
On Crusadin'.
Sam got it right, just about every time.
Somebody else thought so too at the time, or we wouldn't be remembering what he said today. ¶ 7:02 AM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, September 22, 2006
Amoebic Compromise
What the Rude One says today:
The fact that anyone thought for two seconds that we were watching honorable men confront the evil wrought by a president from their own party is a pathetic statement on just how debased politics has become in this country. If there can be actual celebratory jubilation over the brief stand taken by the Gutless Trio, then no one's been paying attention. For if John McCain actually gave a rat's ass about torture, then he would not have voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales or Samuel Alito. If Lindsey Graham gave a happy monkey fuck about the rights of detainees, then he wouldn't have authored an amendment limiting their rights of appeal. And Warner, despite his reputation as a moderate in some of his statements, almost always goes along with the herd, so, you know, fuck him, too. A real, genuine confrontation with the White House would have been to open hearings on the treatment of detainees, with subpoenas and possibly arrests. This was just legalistic wrangling over language.
And as for Democrats? Did they not realize that when they face the Republican party now that they are facing the Blob? And if part of the Blob is blown away or cut off from the rest of the Blob, that doesn't mean the Blob part is dead. No, no, see, once you turn your back, that blobby segment is just gonna find a way to ooze back to the main Blob and just fuckin' devour you with its acidic blobularity. The thing is that some of us out here in the audience are screamin' at the Democrats, "Turn around; it's not dead." Too late, just too late. (Was gonna go with the Terminator here, but the Blob is from the 1950s, which the Republicans wish it still was.) Democrats got handed their asses again by once more putting faith in the alleged independence of John McCain, hiding behind his gimpy skirts, thinking that he was gonna take one for the team. One imagines that after the "negotiations" were done and the "compromise" was reached, Bush called McCain up and said, "You've covered your ass now."
In the final analysis, the compromise says that Bush gets to decide what is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, a government prosecutor gets to say what evidence a detainee and/or his attorney can see at trial, and the lights get turned back on at some godforsaken CIA dungeon in a remote area of Uzbekistan. Thank Christ we can finally get back to the goodly work of arresting people without charge, sending them to Syria, and looking away while they're kept in a coffin-sized space and beaten with metal cable.
But, really, and, c'mon, this was all a pretty dance for the cameras and the folks back home because of the inevitable signing statement that'll accompany the bill...
Of course, Digby and here too, Lambert, and a host of others in the progressive blogsphere have been right about this facade all along. Opposition among Reptilicans? The Big Lizard in the pond eats all opposition. It's that simple.
Torture doesn't work. You can torture anyone into saying anything, and you win undying hatred. Torture is totally unacceptable, and only Evil uses it. You do not "compromise" about torture.
You have to hand it to Bu$hCo. The pre-election kabuki grows in fractal reiterations of the same dance, incorporating elements of time honored Company strategems like Mockingbird and Chaos. Maybe even another Northwoods is in the works. The excitment is killing me. Among others.
Welcome to the perogative state.
And, of course, it's official: “There will be no more torture. There will be no more mistreatment of prisoners that would violate standards of conduct we would expect of people who work for the United States of America.”
As Dear Leader would say, we did not do it then, and even if we does, we doesn't.
It's a known unknown, you see. ¶ 6:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
The fact that anyone thought for two seconds that we were watching honorable men confront the evil wrought by a president from their own party is a pathetic statement on just how debased politics has become in this country. If there can be actual celebratory jubilation over the brief stand taken by the Gutless Trio, then no one's been paying attention. For if John McCain actually gave a rat's ass about torture, then he would not have voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales or Samuel Alito. If Lindsey Graham gave a happy monkey fuck about the rights of detainees, then he wouldn't have authored an amendment limiting their rights of appeal. And Warner, despite his reputation as a moderate in some of his statements, almost always goes along with the herd, so, you know, fuck him, too. A real, genuine confrontation with the White House would have been to open hearings on the treatment of detainees, with subpoenas and possibly arrests. This was just legalistic wrangling over language.
And as for Democrats? Did they not realize that when they face the Republican party now that they are facing the Blob? And if part of the Blob is blown away or cut off from the rest of the Blob, that doesn't mean the Blob part is dead. No, no, see, once you turn your back, that blobby segment is just gonna find a way to ooze back to the main Blob and just fuckin' devour you with its acidic blobularity. The thing is that some of us out here in the audience are screamin' at the Democrats, "Turn around; it's not dead." Too late, just too late. (Was gonna go with the Terminator here, but the Blob is from the 1950s, which the Republicans wish it still was.) Democrats got handed their asses again by once more putting faith in the alleged independence of John McCain, hiding behind his gimpy skirts, thinking that he was gonna take one for the team. One imagines that after the "negotiations" were done and the "compromise" was reached, Bush called McCain up and said, "You've covered your ass now."
In the final analysis, the compromise says that Bush gets to decide what is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, a government prosecutor gets to say what evidence a detainee and/or his attorney can see at trial, and the lights get turned back on at some godforsaken CIA dungeon in a remote area of Uzbekistan. Thank Christ we can finally get back to the goodly work of arresting people without charge, sending them to Syria, and looking away while they're kept in a coffin-sized space and beaten with metal cable.
But, really, and, c'mon, this was all a pretty dance for the cameras and the folks back home because of the inevitable signing statement that'll accompany the bill...
Of course, Digby and here too, Lambert, and a host of others in the progressive blogsphere have been right about this facade all along. Opposition among Reptilicans? The Big Lizard in the pond eats all opposition. It's that simple.
Torture doesn't work. You can torture anyone into saying anything, and you win undying hatred. Torture is totally unacceptable, and only Evil uses it. You do not "compromise" about torture.
You have to hand it to Bu$hCo. The pre-election kabuki grows in fractal reiterations of the same dance, incorporating elements of time honored Company strategems like Mockingbird and Chaos. Maybe even another Northwoods is in the works. The excitment is killing me. Among others.
Welcome to the perogative state.
And, of course, it's official: “There will be no more torture. There will be no more mistreatment of prisoners that would violate standards of conduct we would expect of people who work for the United States of America.”
As Dear Leader would say, we did not do it then, and even if we does, we doesn't.
It's a known unknown, you see. ¶ 6:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
The M.B.A. Preznitcy
MBA students are the biggest cheats of all graduate students, with 56 per cent admitting to misdemeanours such as using crib notes in exams, plagiarism and downloading essays from the web.
The statistic comes from a survey of graduate students to be published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. The report is based on data from about 5,300 survey respondents at 54 colleges and universities in the US and Canada, including 623 students in 32 graduate business programmes.
The report will be unpleasant reading to US business schools, many of which are still smarting from the involvement of their alumni in the corporate scandals of recent years: Jeffrey Skilling, former chief executive of Enron, received his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1979, for example...
It's the entrepreneural form of government, with a thousand points of light, aimed right into your face while it's picking your pocket, or sifting through your files when you're at work. ¶ 6:45 AM 0 comments links to this post
MBA students are the biggest cheats of all graduate students, with 56 per cent admitting to misdemeanours such as using crib notes in exams, plagiarism and downloading essays from the web.
The statistic comes from a survey of graduate students to be published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. The report is based on data from about 5,300 survey respondents at 54 colleges and universities in the US and Canada, including 623 students in 32 graduate business programmes.
The report will be unpleasant reading to US business schools, many of which are still smarting from the involvement of their alumni in the corporate scandals of recent years: Jeffrey Skilling, former chief executive of Enron, received his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1979, for example...
It's the entrepreneural form of government, with a thousand points of light, aimed right into your face while it's picking your pocket, or sifting through your files when you're at work. ¶ 6:45 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Palantir
BAGHDAD — On a recent Sunday, I was buying groceries in my beloved Amariya neighborhood in western Baghdad when I heard the sound of an AK-47 for about three seconds. It was close but not very close, so I continued shopping.
As I took a right turn on Munadhama Street, I saw a man lying on the ground in a small pool of blood. He wasn't dead.
The idea of stopping to help or to take him to a hospital crossed my mind, but I didn't dare. Cars passed without stopping. Pedestrians and shop owners kept doing what they were doing, pretending nothing had happened.
I was still looking at the wounded man and blaming myself for not stopping to help. Other shoppers peered at him from a distance, sorrowful and compassionate, but did nothing.
I went on to another grocery store, staying for about five minutes while shopping for tomatoes, onions and other vegetables. During that time, the man managed to sit up and wave to passing cars. No one stopped. Then, a white Volkswagen pulled up. A passenger stepped out with a gun, walked steadily to the wounded man and shot him three times. The car took off down a side road and vanished.
No one did anything. No one lifted a finger. The only reaction came from a woman in the grocery store. In a low voice, she said, "My God, bless his soul."
I went home and didn't dare tell my wife. I did not want to frighten her.
---thanks to Billmon for the link.
And this one, too:
Torture in Iraq is reportedly worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein, the United Nations' chief anti-torture expert said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners.
"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Nowak, the global body's special investigator on torture. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
This one, too [a .pdf file]:
...When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.---Colonel Sam Gardiner
What filter do we use, then, to predict the illogical?
It's quite simple, really, if you understand the root of all evil.
What action do they think stands to make them the most money?
¶ 10:36 PM 0 comments
links to this post
As I took a right turn on Munadhama Street, I saw a man lying on the ground in a small pool of blood. He wasn't dead.
The idea of stopping to help or to take him to a hospital crossed my mind, but I didn't dare. Cars passed without stopping. Pedestrians and shop owners kept doing what they were doing, pretending nothing had happened.
I was still looking at the wounded man and blaming myself for not stopping to help. Other shoppers peered at him from a distance, sorrowful and compassionate, but did nothing.
I went on to another grocery store, staying for about five minutes while shopping for tomatoes, onions and other vegetables. During that time, the man managed to sit up and wave to passing cars. No one stopped. Then, a white Volkswagen pulled up. A passenger stepped out with a gun, walked steadily to the wounded man and shot him three times. The car took off down a side road and vanished.
No one did anything. No one lifted a finger. The only reaction came from a woman in the grocery store. In a low voice, she said, "My God, bless his soul."
I went home and didn't dare tell my wife. I did not want to frighten her.
---thanks to Billmon for the link.
And this one, too:
Torture in Iraq is reportedly worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein, the United Nations' chief anti-torture expert said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners.
"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Nowak, the global body's special investigator on torture. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
This one, too [a .pdf file]:
...When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.---Colonel Sam Gardiner
What filter do we use, then, to predict the illogical?
It's quite simple, really, if you understand the root of all evil.
What action do they think stands to make them the most money?
¶ 10:36 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Back to the Iron Age with Equal Opportunity Oppression
There's something to be said for consistency:
...John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace. He felt keenly the terrible history of Catholic-Jewish relations, and having fought with the Polish resistance to save Jews in the second world war, John Paul II made unprecedented efforts to begin to heal centuries of hostility and indifference on the part of the Catholic church to Europe's Jews. John Paul II also addressed himself to the ancient enmity between Muslims and Catholics; he apologised for the Crusades and was the first Pope to visit a mosque during a visit to Syria in 2001.
In contrast, Pope Benedict has managed to antagonise two major world faiths within a few months. The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the anger and disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-semitism, and offered no apology - whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged he was a "son of the German people" ... "but not guilty on that account"; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a "ring of criminals" were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else...
Even worse, in his Auschwitz address, he managed to argue in a long theological exposition that the real victims of the Holocaust were God and Christianity. As one commentator put it, he managed to claim that Jews were the "themselves bit players - bystanders at their own extermination. The true victim was a metaphysical one." This theological treatise bears the same characteristics as last week's Regensburg lecture; put at its most charitable, they are too clever by half. More plainly speaking, they indicate a deep arrogance rooted in a blinkered Catholic triumphalism which is utterly out of place in the 21st century...
Like John-Paul said, it was utterly out of place in the 12th century, too.
...The Catholic church has to make a dramatic break with its triumphalist, bigoted past if it is to contribute in any constructive way to chart this new course. John Paul II made some dramatic steps in this direction; but the fear now is that Pope Benedict XVI has no intention of following suit, and that he has another direction altogether in mind.
More from Pope Benedict...
On Buddhism
"Auto-erotic spirituality."
The ordination of women
On the excommunication of seven women who called themselves priests: "... the penalty imposed is not only just, but also necessary, in order to protect true doctrine, to safeguard the communion and unity of the church, and to guide consciences of the faithful."
On same-sex marriage
"Call[s] into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make[s] homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."
On rock music
"[A] vehicle of anti-religion"; "the complete antithesis of the Christian faith in the redemption."
Der Panzerpapen seems to want to clear the way for post-industrial feudalism once the petrocarbon's all gone. ¶ 12:04 PM 0 comments links to this post
...John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace. He felt keenly the terrible history of Catholic-Jewish relations, and having fought with the Polish resistance to save Jews in the second world war, John Paul II made unprecedented efforts to begin to heal centuries of hostility and indifference on the part of the Catholic church to Europe's Jews. John Paul II also addressed himself to the ancient enmity between Muslims and Catholics; he apologised for the Crusades and was the first Pope to visit a mosque during a visit to Syria in 2001.
In contrast, Pope Benedict has managed to antagonise two major world faiths within a few months. The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the anger and disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-semitism, and offered no apology - whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged he was a "son of the German people" ... "but not guilty on that account"; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a "ring of criminals" were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else...
Even worse, in his Auschwitz address, he managed to argue in a long theological exposition that the real victims of the Holocaust were God and Christianity. As one commentator put it, he managed to claim that Jews were the "themselves bit players - bystanders at their own extermination. The true victim was a metaphysical one." This theological treatise bears the same characteristics as last week's Regensburg lecture; put at its most charitable, they are too clever by half. More plainly speaking, they indicate a deep arrogance rooted in a blinkered Catholic triumphalism which is utterly out of place in the 21st century...
Like John-Paul said, it was utterly out of place in the 12th century, too.
...The Catholic church has to make a dramatic break with its triumphalist, bigoted past if it is to contribute in any constructive way to chart this new course. John Paul II made some dramatic steps in this direction; but the fear now is that Pope Benedict XVI has no intention of following suit, and that he has another direction altogether in mind.
More from Pope Benedict...
On Buddhism
"Auto-erotic spirituality."
The ordination of women
On the excommunication of seven women who called themselves priests: "... the penalty imposed is not only just, but also necessary, in order to protect true doctrine, to safeguard the communion and unity of the church, and to guide consciences of the faithful."
On same-sex marriage
"Call[s] into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make[s] homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."
On rock music
"[A] vehicle of anti-religion"; "the complete antithesis of the Christian faith in the redemption."
Der Panzerpapen seems to want to clear the way for post-industrial feudalism once the petrocarbon's all gone. ¶ 12:04 PM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Breakup in the North
Arctic summer ice anomaly shocks scientists
19 September 2006
Satellite images acquired from 23 to 25 August 2006 have shown for the first time dramatic openings – over a geographic extent larger than the size of the British Isles – in the Arctic’s perennial sea ice pack north of Svalbard, and extending into the Russian Arctic all the way to the North Pole.
Observing data from Envisat’s Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument and the AMSR-E instrument aboard the EOS Aqua satellite, scientists were able to determine that around 5-10 percent of the Arctic’s perennial sea ice, which had survived the summer melt season, has been fragmented by late summer storms. The area between Spitzbergen, the North Pole and Severnaya Zemlya is confirmed by AMSR-E to have had much lower ice concentrations than witnessed during earlier years.
Mark Drinkwater of ESA’s Oceans/Ice Unit said: “This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low ice seasons. It is highly imaginable that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or Northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty.
"If this anomaly trend continues, the North-East Passage or ‘Northern Sea Route’ between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10-20 years." ¶ 5:32 PM 0 comments links to this post
19 September 2006
Satellite images acquired from 23 to 25 August 2006 have shown for the first time dramatic openings – over a geographic extent larger than the size of the British Isles – in the Arctic’s perennial sea ice pack north of Svalbard, and extending into the Russian Arctic all the way to the North Pole.
Observing data from Envisat’s Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument and the AMSR-E instrument aboard the EOS Aqua satellite, scientists were able to determine that around 5-10 percent of the Arctic’s perennial sea ice, which had survived the summer melt season, has been fragmented by late summer storms. The area between Spitzbergen, the North Pole and Severnaya Zemlya is confirmed by AMSR-E to have had much lower ice concentrations than witnessed during earlier years.
Mark Drinkwater of ESA’s Oceans/Ice Unit said: “This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low ice seasons. It is highly imaginable that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or Northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty.
"If this anomaly trend continues, the North-East Passage or ‘Northern Sea Route’ between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10-20 years." ¶ 5:32 PM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The Debate is Over, Except in Washington
The above image was produced in June 2005 to show regions of average lessened ice density due to melting (red) as well as regions where average ice was increasing due to increased precipitation (blue).
What the popularly elected but not Company in$talled 43rd President of the United States says:
A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the earth's principle mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where hurricanes form. A few weeks earlier, new information from yet another team showed dramatic increases in the burning of forests throughout the American West, a trend that has increased decade by decade, as warmer temperatures have dried out soils and vegetation. All these findings come at the end of a summer with record breaking temperatures and the hottest twelve month period ever measured in the U.S., with persistent drought in vast areas of our country. Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: "The debate on global warming is over."
Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could - within as little as 10 years - make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature. The scientists tell us that the tundra in danger of thawing contains an amount of additional global warming pollution that is equal to the total amount that is already in the earth's atmosphere. Similarly, earlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale - a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency - a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth's thermostat and avert catastrophe.
The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage.
...Americans are tired of borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf to make huge amounts of pollution that destroys the planet's climate. Increasingly, Americans believe that we have to change every part of that pattern...
So, what would a responsible approach to the climate crisis look like if we had one in America?
Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead. I remember a quarter century ago when I was the author of a complex nuclear arms control plan to deal with the then rampant arms race between our country and the former Soviet Union. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the nuclear freeze movement, which I saw as simplistic and naive. But, 3/4 of the American people supported it - and as I look back on those years I see more clearly now that the outpouring of public support for that very simple and clear mandate changed the political landscape and made it possible for more detailed and sophisticated proposals to eventually be adopted.
When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat, our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.
A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions within a global cap.
At present, the global system for carbon emissions trading is embodied in the Kyoto Treaty. It drives reductions in CO2 and helps many countries that are a part of the treaty to find the most efficient ways to meet their targets for reductions. It is true that not all countries are yet on track to meet their targets, but the first targets don't have to be met until 2008 and the largest and most important reductions typically take longer than the near term in any case...
Third, a responsible approach to solutions would avoid the mistake of trying to find a single magic "silver bullet" and recognize that the answer will involve what Bill McKibben has called "silver-buckshot" - numerous important solutions, all of which are hard, but no one of which is by itself the full answer for our problem.
One of the most productive approaches to the "multiple solutions" needed is a road-map designed by two Princeton professors, Rob Socolow and Steven Pacala, which breaks down the overall problem into more manageable parts. Socolow and Pacala have identified 15 or 20 building blocks (or "wedges") that can be used to solve our problem effectively - even if we only use 7 or 8 of them. I am among the many who have found this approach useful as a way to structure a discussion of the choices before us.
Over the next year, I intend to convene an ongoing broad-based discussion of solutions that will involve leaders from government, science, business, labor, agriculture, grass-roots activists, faith communities and others...
Read it all. Or watch it here. It's almost as important as keeping Dear Leader from launching global thermonuclear war. ¶ 10:38 PM 1 comments links to this post
The above image was produced in June 2005 to show regions of average lessened ice density due to melting (red) as well as regions where average ice was increasing due to increased precipitation (blue).
What the popularly elected but not Company in$talled 43rd President of the United States says:
A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the earth's principle mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where hurricanes form. A few weeks earlier, new information from yet another team showed dramatic increases in the burning of forests throughout the American West, a trend that has increased decade by decade, as warmer temperatures have dried out soils and vegetation. All these findings come at the end of a summer with record breaking temperatures and the hottest twelve month period ever measured in the U.S., with persistent drought in vast areas of our country. Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: "The debate on global warming is over."
Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could - within as little as 10 years - make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature. The scientists tell us that the tundra in danger of thawing contains an amount of additional global warming pollution that is equal to the total amount that is already in the earth's atmosphere. Similarly, earlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale - a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency - a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth's thermostat and avert catastrophe.
The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage.
...Americans are tired of borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf to make huge amounts of pollution that destroys the planet's climate. Increasingly, Americans believe that we have to change every part of that pattern...
So, what would a responsible approach to the climate crisis look like if we had one in America?
Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead. I remember a quarter century ago when I was the author of a complex nuclear arms control plan to deal with the then rampant arms race between our country and the former Soviet Union. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the nuclear freeze movement, which I saw as simplistic and naive. But, 3/4 of the American people supported it - and as I look back on those years I see more clearly now that the outpouring of public support for that very simple and clear mandate changed the political landscape and made it possible for more detailed and sophisticated proposals to eventually be adopted.
When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat, our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.
A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions within a global cap.
At present, the global system for carbon emissions trading is embodied in the Kyoto Treaty. It drives reductions in CO2 and helps many countries that are a part of the treaty to find the most efficient ways to meet their targets for reductions. It is true that not all countries are yet on track to meet their targets, but the first targets don't have to be met until 2008 and the largest and most important reductions typically take longer than the near term in any case...
Third, a responsible approach to solutions would avoid the mistake of trying to find a single magic "silver bullet" and recognize that the answer will involve what Bill McKibben has called "silver-buckshot" - numerous important solutions, all of which are hard, but no one of which is by itself the full answer for our problem.
One of the most productive approaches to the "multiple solutions" needed is a road-map designed by two Princeton professors, Rob Socolow and Steven Pacala, which breaks down the overall problem into more manageable parts. Socolow and Pacala have identified 15 or 20 building blocks (or "wedges") that can be used to solve our problem effectively - even if we only use 7 or 8 of them. I am among the many who have found this approach useful as a way to structure a discussion of the choices before us.
Over the next year, I intend to convene an ongoing broad-based discussion of solutions that will involve leaders from government, science, business, labor, agriculture, grass-roots activists, faith communities and others...
Read it all. Or watch it here. It's almost as important as keeping Dear Leader from launching global thermonuclear war. ¶ 10:38 PM 1 comments links to this post
If a nuke drops and CNN isn't there to report it, does anyone hear?
The stupidest goddamned idea I've heard in a long time, too [thanks, Atrios].
...At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.
Somebody tell these idiots that fissile uranium in a chain reaction puts out a whole different particle spectrum than just blowing up a nuclear reactor with TNT.
And that you can detect it from the other side of the planet.
Morons. But what else do you expect from a C-average cheerleader from Yale? ¶ 7:09 AM 0 comments links to this post
...At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.
Somebody tell these idiots that fissile uranium in a chain reaction puts out a whole different particle spectrum than just blowing up a nuclear reactor with TNT.
And that you can detect it from the other side of the planet.
Morons. But what else do you expect from a C-average cheerleader from Yale? ¶ 7:09 AM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, September 18, 2006
Hive Minds
It's not just Cylons
any more.
The idea is to develop software to make a collection of robots smart enough to break into, explore and neutralize deep bunkers. The challenges are gigantic.
The robots have to deal with an unspecified number of unknown obstacles as they travel via cable runs, air ducts, service pipes or other channels, dealing with grilles, bars, doors or other checks.
Then they need to correctly identify the target (waste bin, or WMD container?), which is easy for people but hard for robots – and this task requires being out of radio contact.
They have to act in concert and help rather than hinder each other, co-ordinating their efforts to explore and map the facility.
And all the time they have to be able to avoid, outwit or defeat the human defenders of the bunker, whose tactics, numbers and abilities cannot be predicted.
Thaler’s believes his software can do all this. It’s an unusual neural network with the ability to ‘dream up’ new ideas, exploring likely approaches before putting them into action. For example, give it a set of robotic limbs and it will quickly find the most effective way of using them – a video here shows a six-legged robot figuring out how to walk from scratch with no programming in eight minutes flat.
Imagination Engines’ capabilities also extend to sensors. Thaler describes products including a million-pixel array which can interpret input ‘an order of magnitude’ faster than any comparable system and another with formidable powers of recognition, such as distinguishing a T-72 from an Abrams. There is no programming involved: just show the system the two different objects and it figures out how to tell them apart.
The most guarded aspect of the Creative Robots is their tactical intelligence, which seems to be considerable – Thaler describes them as "Machiavellian" in how devious they can be. The Creativity Machine's ability to explore the entire range of possibilities means that in principle it could dream up any tactic that a human could, and more besides.
Within the next few months the software toolkit for Creative Robots will be available for the military. It will run on any standard hardware, turning a pack of dumb robots into smart team players capable of carrying out missions on their own. Thaler believes their speed makes Creative Robots superior to those that rely on human control, “performing at near-human levels of intelligence at Terahertz clock rates, while our joy-stick controlled robots are performing effectively at the 4 Hz clock rates characteristic of the brain.”
The possibilities for civilian use are tremendous. There are a vast number of ‘hard problems’ involved in getting robots to interact with the everyday world which require intelligence. Thaler believes that he has the solution. Look out for a host of commercial and industrial applications.
Dean Vieau, a consultant with many years of experience in the fields of Controls and Machine Vision, is an enthusiastic supporter. In one case study he carried out, Vieau found that a solution using Imagination Engines software was twenty times faster to develop and a hundred times cheaper than the existing approach.
“Imagination Engines represents a significant advancement in the realms of AI. Not just esoteric academic conjecture but real world paths to concrete results.”
As usual the military are developing world-changing technology that will filter down to the rest of us later. But are we really ready for killer robots yet?
Not Cylons.
Replicators.
¶ 8:28 PM 0 comments
links to this post
any more.The idea is to develop software to make a collection of robots smart enough to break into, explore and neutralize deep bunkers. The challenges are gigantic.
The robots have to deal with an unspecified number of unknown obstacles as they travel via cable runs, air ducts, service pipes or other channels, dealing with grilles, bars, doors or other checks.
Then they need to correctly identify the target (waste bin, or WMD container?), which is easy for people but hard for robots – and this task requires being out of radio contact.
They have to act in concert and help rather than hinder each other, co-ordinating their efforts to explore and map the facility.
And all the time they have to be able to avoid, outwit or defeat the human defenders of the bunker, whose tactics, numbers and abilities cannot be predicted.
Thaler’s believes his software can do all this. It’s an unusual neural network with the ability to ‘dream up’ new ideas, exploring likely approaches before putting them into action. For example, give it a set of robotic limbs and it will quickly find the most effective way of using them – a video here shows a six-legged robot figuring out how to walk from scratch with no programming in eight minutes flat.
Imagination Engines’ capabilities also extend to sensors. Thaler describes products including a million-pixel array which can interpret input ‘an order of magnitude’ faster than any comparable system and another with formidable powers of recognition, such as distinguishing a T-72 from an Abrams. There is no programming involved: just show the system the two different objects and it figures out how to tell them apart.
The most guarded aspect of the Creative Robots is their tactical intelligence, which seems to be considerable – Thaler describes them as "Machiavellian" in how devious they can be. The Creativity Machine's ability to explore the entire range of possibilities means that in principle it could dream up any tactic that a human could, and more besides.
Within the next few months the software toolkit for Creative Robots will be available for the military. It will run on any standard hardware, turning a pack of dumb robots into smart team players capable of carrying out missions on their own. Thaler believes their speed makes Creative Robots superior to those that rely on human control, “performing at near-human levels of intelligence at Terahertz clock rates, while our joy-stick controlled robots are performing effectively at the 4 Hz clock rates characteristic of the brain.”
The possibilities for civilian use are tremendous. There are a vast number of ‘hard problems’ involved in getting robots to interact with the everyday world which require intelligence. Thaler believes that he has the solution. Look out for a host of commercial and industrial applications.
Dean Vieau, a consultant with many years of experience in the fields of Controls and Machine Vision, is an enthusiastic supporter. In one case study he carried out, Vieau found that a solution using Imagination Engines software was twenty times faster to develop and a hundred times cheaper than the existing approach.
“Imagination Engines represents a significant advancement in the realms of AI. Not just esoteric academic conjecture but real world paths to concrete results.”
As usual the military are developing world-changing technology that will filter down to the rest of us later. But are we really ready for killer robots yet?
Not Cylons.
Replicators.
¶ 8:28 PM 0 comments
links to this post
A Federation, not an Empire
...“Star Trek” is often reduced to kitsch: Kirk’s paunch, Spock’s pointy ears, green-skinned alien girls. But it was more than escapism and rubber-suited aliens. It was a morality play, with Capt. James T. Kirk as a futuristic John F. Kennedy piloting a warp-driven PT-109 through the far reaches of the galaxy.
Kirk, for me, embodied an American idea: His mission was to explore the final frontier, not to conquer it. He was moral without moralizing. Week after week, he confronted the specters of intolerance and injustice, and week after week found a way to defeat them without ever becoming them. Jim Kirk may have beat up his share of bad guys, but you could never imagine him torturing them.
A favorite quote: “We’re human beings, with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers, but we won’t kill today.” Kirk clearly understood humanity’s many flaws, yet never lost faith in our ability to rise above the muck and reach for the stars.
“Star Trek” painted a noble, heroic vision of the future, and that vision became my lodestar... What is the obligation of a free society toward the less fortunate? Does an “advanced” culture have the right to spread its ideas among more “primitive” ones? What does it mean to be human, and at what point do we lose our humanity to our technology?
And as I grew into an adult, and my political views took shape, I treasured “Star Trek” as a dream of what my country could one day become — a liberal and tolerant society, unafraid to live by its ideals in a dangerous universe, and secure in the knowledge that its greatness derived from the strength of its ideas rather than the power of its phasers... ¶ 8:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
...“Star Trek” is often reduced to kitsch: Kirk’s paunch, Spock’s pointy ears, green-skinned alien girls. But it was more than escapism and rubber-suited aliens. It was a morality play, with Capt. James T. Kirk as a futuristic John F. Kennedy piloting a warp-driven PT-109 through the far reaches of the galaxy.
Kirk, for me, embodied an American idea: His mission was to explore the final frontier, not to conquer it. He was moral without moralizing. Week after week, he confronted the specters of intolerance and injustice, and week after week found a way to defeat them without ever becoming them. Jim Kirk may have beat up his share of bad guys, but you could never imagine him torturing them.
A favorite quote: “We’re human beings, with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers, but we won’t kill today.” Kirk clearly understood humanity’s many flaws, yet never lost faith in our ability to rise above the muck and reach for the stars.
“Star Trek” painted a noble, heroic vision of the future, and that vision became my lodestar... What is the obligation of a free society toward the less fortunate? Does an “advanced” culture have the right to spread its ideas among more “primitive” ones? What does it mean to be human, and at what point do we lose our humanity to our technology?
And as I grew into an adult, and my political views took shape, I treasured “Star Trek” as a dream of what my country could one day become — a liberal and tolerant society, unafraid to live by its ideals in a dangerous universe, and secure in the knowledge that its greatness derived from the strength of its ideas rather than the power of its phasers... ¶ 8:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Company Take Over
Spy Agencies Outsourcing to Fill Key Jobs
Contractors, many of them former employees, are doing sensitive work, such as handling agents. A review of the practice has been ordered.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
September 17, 2006
WASHINGTON — At the National Counterterrorism Center — the agency created two years ago to prevent another attack like Sept. 11 — more than half of the employees are not U.S. government analysts or terrorism experts. Instead, they are outside contractors.
At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers — nonagency employees who carry special-colored IDs.
Some of the work being outsourced is extremely sensitive. Abraxas Corp., a private company in McLean, Va., founded by a group of CIA veterans, devises "covers," or false identities, for an elite group of overseas case officers, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the arrangement.
Contractors also are turning up in increasing numbers in clandestine facilities around the world. At the CIA station in Islamabad, Pakistan, as many as three-quarters of those on hand since the Sept. 11 attacks have been contractors. In Baghdad, site of the agency's largest overseas presence, contractors have at times outnumbered full-time CIA employees, according to officials who have held senior positions in the station.
The post-9/11 period has brought sweeping changes to the U.S. intelligence community. Spy budgets have swelled by more than $10 billion a year, and agencies have seen their roles and authorities altered by legislation.
Largely because of the demands of the war on terrorism and the drawn-out conflict in Iraq, U.S. spy agencies have turned to unprecedented numbers of outside contractors to perform jobs once the domain of government-employed analysts and secret agents.
The proliferation of contractors has outstripped the intelligence community's ability to keep track of them.
Former intelligence officials said most U.S. spy agencies did not have even approximate counts of the numbers of contractors they were employing — although several officials said the number at the CIA had nearly doubled in the last five years and now surpassed the full-time workforce of about 17,500. Often, the contract employees had previous ties to the agencies.
Concerned by the lack of data and direction, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte this year ordered a comprehensive study of the use of contractors...
The study, of course, got subcontracted to Dubai Ports in the UAE (just kidding. i hope!).
Mercenary spies. An idea so stupid, it had to originate in Bu$hCo. ¶ 4:44 PM 1 comments links to this post
Contractors, many of them former employees, are doing sensitive work, such as handling agents. A review of the practice has been ordered.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
September 17, 2006
WASHINGTON — At the National Counterterrorism Center — the agency created two years ago to prevent another attack like Sept. 11 — more than half of the employees are not U.S. government analysts or terrorism experts. Instead, they are outside contractors.
At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers — nonagency employees who carry special-colored IDs.
Some of the work being outsourced is extremely sensitive. Abraxas Corp., a private company in McLean, Va., founded by a group of CIA veterans, devises "covers," or false identities, for an elite group of overseas case officers, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the arrangement.
Contractors also are turning up in increasing numbers in clandestine facilities around the world. At the CIA station in Islamabad, Pakistan, as many as three-quarters of those on hand since the Sept. 11 attacks have been contractors. In Baghdad, site of the agency's largest overseas presence, contractors have at times outnumbered full-time CIA employees, according to officials who have held senior positions in the station.
The post-9/11 period has brought sweeping changes to the U.S. intelligence community. Spy budgets have swelled by more than $10 billion a year, and agencies have seen their roles and authorities altered by legislation.
Largely because of the demands of the war on terrorism and the drawn-out conflict in Iraq, U.S. spy agencies have turned to unprecedented numbers of outside contractors to perform jobs once the domain of government-employed analysts and secret agents.
The proliferation of contractors has outstripped the intelligence community's ability to keep track of them.
Former intelligence officials said most U.S. spy agencies did not have even approximate counts of the numbers of contractors they were employing — although several officials said the number at the CIA had nearly doubled in the last five years and now surpassed the full-time workforce of about 17,500. Often, the contract employees had previous ties to the agencies.
Concerned by the lack of data and direction, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte this year ordered a comprehensive study of the use of contractors...
The study, of course, got subcontracted to Dubai Ports in the UAE (just kidding. i hope!).
Mercenary spies. An idea so stupid, it had to originate in Bu$hCo. ¶ 4:44 PM 1 comments links to this post
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Ford Drank the Kool-Aid
Disaster for the American worker, despite all the sunny news from Wall Street and Dear Leader's minions about how great the economy is for his Base. Ford's trying to dump 75,000 workers, a third of its work force, including white collar executives as well. You can bet the remaining jobs will be moving out of the country.
With sales off and worker buy-outs Ford could end up $9.5 billion in the red.
Who's buying out Ford? These things are kept pretty quiet to those of us on the outside. Apparently Citigroup is involved, enough for one of its executives, a former US Treasury secretary, to leave the Board at Ford to avoid appearance of conflict of interest. On the other hand, Bill Ford has been forced to turn over the job of CEO to an "ex" head of Boeing for a "minimum" of $20.5 million per year.
Why did this happen?
Cheneyburton really, really wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11.
Cheneyburton sold the war as a sure thing, and said the oil would flow cheaper than ever.
Did he tell William Ford the same thing in 2003? Is that why Ford insisted on promoting SUVs and trucks as its main product? Because certainly the price of gasoline had to come down.
Now it is coming down- because the resistance of the military to start a war with Iran as things stand mean the futures aren't as valuable.
It also helps to ease consumer hostility to Dear Leader's policies in an election year. This election being rather crucial. The mood of the American public being what it is, with only Dear Leader's Faithful 30% supporting him, a Democratic-controlled Congress might be in the mood to Impeach. And that might send Dear Leader, Lord Cheneyburton, and Darth Rumsfeld to the Hague.
But the scam gets even better, if Ford really stuck with the promotion of gas guzzling light trucks because of the advice of his Adminstration contacts.
Especially if the Citigroup "assistance" means that the Carlyle Group, who specialize in these kind of corporate raids, comes out on top.
Imagine: Dick Cheney tells Ford he'll make a lot of money, because in our New American Century, the Empire just takes what it wants. With Iraq, and Iran, as fiefdoms, the oil will flow like water in a Michigan river.
Imagine Dick Cheney telling him that even though he knows better- because it might give the Company an "in" on the Big Three. ¶ 4:22 PM 0 comments links to this post
Disaster for the American worker, despite all the sunny news from Wall Street and Dear Leader's minions about how great the economy is for his Base. Ford's trying to dump 75,000 workers, a third of its work force, including white collar executives as well. You can bet the remaining jobs will be moving out of the country.
With sales off and worker buy-outs Ford could end up $9.5 billion in the red.
Who's buying out Ford? These things are kept pretty quiet to those of us on the outside. Apparently Citigroup is involved, enough for one of its executives, a former US Treasury secretary, to leave the Board at Ford to avoid appearance of conflict of interest. On the other hand, Bill Ford has been forced to turn over the job of CEO to an "ex" head of Boeing for a "minimum" of $20.5 million per year.
Why did this happen?
Cheneyburton really, really wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11.
Cheneyburton sold the war as a sure thing, and said the oil would flow cheaper than ever.
Did he tell William Ford the same thing in 2003? Is that why Ford insisted on promoting SUVs and trucks as its main product? Because certainly the price of gasoline had to come down.
Now it is coming down- because the resistance of the military to start a war with Iran as things stand mean the futures aren't as valuable.
It also helps to ease consumer hostility to Dear Leader's policies in an election year. This election being rather crucial. The mood of the American public being what it is, with only Dear Leader's Faithful 30% supporting him, a Democratic-controlled Congress might be in the mood to Impeach. And that might send Dear Leader, Lord Cheneyburton, and Darth Rumsfeld to the Hague.
But the scam gets even better, if Ford really stuck with the promotion of gas guzzling light trucks because of the advice of his Adminstration contacts.
Especially if the Citigroup "assistance" means that the Carlyle Group, who specialize in these kind of corporate raids, comes out on top.
Imagine: Dick Cheney tells Ford he'll make a lot of money, because in our New American Century, the Empire just takes what it wants. With Iraq, and Iran, as fiefdoms, the oil will flow like water in a Michigan river.
Imagine Dick Cheney telling him that even though he knows better- because it might give the Company an "in" on the Big Three. ¶ 4:22 PM 0 comments links to this post
Der PanzerPapen
Billmon:
Not content with demonizing homosexuals and abandoning the church's post-Galileo reconciliation with science, Benedict XVI (or as I saw one blogger refer to him, Der Panzerpapen) has made his own small contribution to the clash of civilizations:
'In Tuesday's speech the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.'
The fundamentalists on the other side, as they have a habit of doing, have now responded with bullets, not bulls:
In Gaza City, a group calling itself the Islamic Organization of the Swords of Righteousness claimed responsibility for unleashing a volley of gunfire on the oldest church in the city.
Since at least the mid-'90s, Al Qaeda's primary objective -- its purpose in life -- has to been to provoke a religious war, one that would polarize the Islamic world and force most Muslims to line up on the side of jihad. Or so bin Laden and company hope.
The entire concept of targeting the far enemy instead of the near is predicated on this belief. It is what the military gurus call Al Qaeda's "grand strategy." Anything that promotes or facilitates this grand strategy helps Al Qaeda win. Anything that inhibits it -- that prevents the Islamic world from polarizing into pro-Western and anti-Western camps -- helps defeat bin Laden.
This isn't to say every single step taken against the international jihadi movement must avoid alienating or offending Muslims at all costs. Some actions, such as the overthrow of the Taliban, may be necessary and worth the collateral damage they cause to the larger struggle (although subsequent events in Afghanistan have shown how easy it is to flip that equation completely).
But Ratzinger's little dissertation was all pain, no gain. It was totally gratuitous. It served no useful purpose, either for peace or war. As such, it amounted to a nice little windfall gift to Al Qaeda -- and was thus objectively pro-bin Laden...
And speaking of history, the farmer documents a little bit regarding the humanity of that 14th century Christian emperor der Panzerpapen regards so highly. ¶ 7:06 AM 0 comments links to this post
Not content with demonizing homosexuals and abandoning the church's post-Galileo reconciliation with science, Benedict XVI (or as I saw one blogger refer to him, Der Panzerpapen) has made his own small contribution to the clash of civilizations:
'In Tuesday's speech the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.'
The fundamentalists on the other side, as they have a habit of doing, have now responded with bullets, not bulls:
In Gaza City, a group calling itself the Islamic Organization of the Swords of Righteousness claimed responsibility for unleashing a volley of gunfire on the oldest church in the city.
Since at least the mid-'90s, Al Qaeda's primary objective -- its purpose in life -- has to been to provoke a religious war, one that would polarize the Islamic world and force most Muslims to line up on the side of jihad. Or so bin Laden and company hope.
The entire concept of targeting the far enemy instead of the near is predicated on this belief. It is what the military gurus call Al Qaeda's "grand strategy." Anything that promotes or facilitates this grand strategy helps Al Qaeda win. Anything that inhibits it -- that prevents the Islamic world from polarizing into pro-Western and anti-Western camps -- helps defeat bin Laden.
This isn't to say every single step taken against the international jihadi movement must avoid alienating or offending Muslims at all costs. Some actions, such as the overthrow of the Taliban, may be necessary and worth the collateral damage they cause to the larger struggle (although subsequent events in Afghanistan have shown how easy it is to flip that equation completely).
But Ratzinger's little dissertation was all pain, no gain. It was totally gratuitous. It served no useful purpose, either for peace or war. As such, it amounted to a nice little windfall gift to Al Qaeda -- and was thus objectively pro-bin Laden...
And speaking of history, the farmer documents a little bit regarding the humanity of that 14th century Christian emperor der Panzerpapen regards so highly. ¶ 7:06 AM 0 comments links to this post
Full Metal Dominion
It's starting to look like the love story of the same old used-to-be is gaining currency among what passes for Bu$hCo's strategerists, according to Chris Floyd.
...a Shigalovian plan for global re-ordering – a brutal vision of national dismemberment, forced migration and ethnic cleansing on a gargantuan scale – recently published in Armed Forces Journal has thrown a stark light on the mindset of the "full spectrum dominance" gang now in power in Washington. The article could perhaps be dismissed as the fantasy of a would-be world-shaker – but it has already provoked a diplomatic firestorm from the plan's intended targets, requiring a State Department intervention to dampen the flames.
What's more, a series of events now emerging from the "arc of crisis" stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean bear witness to the deadly chaos and "creative destruction" celebrated by the new Shigalovs dancing attendance on the Bush-Cheney administration. These disturbances include strange, Bush-backed treaties with al Qaeda fueling American deaths in Afghanistan; the assassination of moderate voices in Pakistan and Iraq; the despairing surrender of the last hope of holding back civil war in Iraq; and feverish new plans for more war in the turbulent arc, based on the deliberate fomenting of sectarian strife.
Ralph Peters – "Terror War" analyst, hack novelist, ex-military intelligence officer – was the cartographer of creative destruction in the Journal article. Peters, a long-time member of the "close your hearts to pity" school of warhawking commentary, forever urging more strenuous application of hot iron on the recalcitrant tribes that beset us, has recently joined with the bold visionaries at the Project for a New American Century crowd. That's the group made up of Bush Faction heavy hitters – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Brother Jeb and others – who in September 2000 laid out the blueprint that George W. followed faithfully once he acquired the presidency.
This plan – long pre-dating 9/11 – included astronomical hikes in the military budget; invading Iraq and establishing a "permanent role" for a "substantial American force presence in the Gulf;" planting a "worldwide network of forward operating bases;" gutting arms control treaties; and making "regime change" a primary focus of American policy. The PNAC plan did note that it could take decades to get the American people to accept these "revolutionary" changes; unless, of course, the United States was struck by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Peters was not involved with this remarkably prophetic document, but he recently hitched up with PNAC and its demands for adding at least 25,000 new soldiers to U.S. forces each year. However, in his AFJ article – aptly named "Blood Borders" – he surpasses his new compatriots. Where they were content merely to usurp existing regimes, Peters has produced a detailed plan for re-ordering whole regions – ruthlessly chopping up Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and creating new countries such as Greater Kurdistan, a Vatican-like "Islamic Sacred State" out of Mecca and Medina, and a "Free Baluchistan," tearing the oil-rich province away from Pakistan. He'd also lighten Islamabad of its troublesome Waziristan provinces and give them to Afghanistan.
To be sure, Peters acknowledges that "correcting" these borders "may be impossible. For now." Nevertheless, he assures us that his admittedly draconian adjustments are the only way we will ever see "a more peaceful Middle East." And in any case, he says, "given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge." Why? Because of a "dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."
Thus from the warmongers' stated goal of freedom for all nations we've now arrived at a savage hacking at their sovereignty, with enforced "corrections" and ethnic cleansing "from the Bosporus to the Indus." Long-eared Shigalov would surely approve...
It's very good for business
¶ 6:25 AM 2 comments
links to this post
It's starting to look like the love story of the same old used-to-be is gaining currency among what passes for Bu$hCo's strategerists, according to Chris Floyd.
...a Shigalovian plan for global re-ordering – a brutal vision of national dismemberment, forced migration and ethnic cleansing on a gargantuan scale – recently published in Armed Forces Journal has thrown a stark light on the mindset of the "full spectrum dominance" gang now in power in Washington. The article could perhaps be dismissed as the fantasy of a would-be world-shaker – but it has already provoked a diplomatic firestorm from the plan's intended targets, requiring a State Department intervention to dampen the flames.
What's more, a series of events now emerging from the "arc of crisis" stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean bear witness to the deadly chaos and "creative destruction" celebrated by the new Shigalovs dancing attendance on the Bush-Cheney administration. These disturbances include strange, Bush-backed treaties with al Qaeda fueling American deaths in Afghanistan; the assassination of moderate voices in Pakistan and Iraq; the despairing surrender of the last hope of holding back civil war in Iraq; and feverish new plans for more war in the turbulent arc, based on the deliberate fomenting of sectarian strife.
Ralph Peters – "Terror War" analyst, hack novelist, ex-military intelligence officer – was the cartographer of creative destruction in the Journal article. Peters, a long-time member of the "close your hearts to pity" school of warhawking commentary, forever urging more strenuous application of hot iron on the recalcitrant tribes that beset us, has recently joined with the bold visionaries at the Project for a New American Century crowd. That's the group made up of Bush Faction heavy hitters – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Brother Jeb and others – who in September 2000 laid out the blueprint that George W. followed faithfully once he acquired the presidency.
This plan – long pre-dating 9/11 – included astronomical hikes in the military budget; invading Iraq and establishing a "permanent role" for a "substantial American force presence in the Gulf;" planting a "worldwide network of forward operating bases;" gutting arms control treaties; and making "regime change" a primary focus of American policy. The PNAC plan did note that it could take decades to get the American people to accept these "revolutionary" changes; unless, of course, the United States was struck by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Peters was not involved with this remarkably prophetic document, but he recently hitched up with PNAC and its demands for adding at least 25,000 new soldiers to U.S. forces each year. However, in his AFJ article – aptly named "Blood Borders" – he surpasses his new compatriots. Where they were content merely to usurp existing regimes, Peters has produced a detailed plan for re-ordering whole regions – ruthlessly chopping up Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and creating new countries such as Greater Kurdistan, a Vatican-like "Islamic Sacred State" out of Mecca and Medina, and a "Free Baluchistan," tearing the oil-rich province away from Pakistan. He'd also lighten Islamabad of its troublesome Waziristan provinces and give them to Afghanistan.
To be sure, Peters acknowledges that "correcting" these borders "may be impossible. For now." Nevertheless, he assures us that his admittedly draconian adjustments are the only way we will ever see "a more peaceful Middle East." And in any case, he says, "given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge." Why? Because of a "dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."
Thus from the warmongers' stated goal of freedom for all nations we've now arrived at a savage hacking at their sovereignty, with enforced "corrections" and ethnic cleansing "from the Bosporus to the Indus." Long-eared Shigalov would surely approve...
It's very good for business
¶ 6:25 AM 2 comments
links to this post
Friday, September 15, 2006
Déja Tubes, All Over Again
Jonathan Schwarz noticed that we seem to be celebrating Ground Hog Day in September this year:
Here's a story from page A17 of the Washington Post today, September 14, 2006:
'U.N. INSPECTORS DISPUTE IRAN REPORT BY HOUSE PANEL
'Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest
'U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims...
' "This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector...'
Here's a story from page A18 of the Washington Post exactly four years ago this week, on September 19, 2002:
'EVIDENCE ON IRAQ CHALLENGED
'Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
'A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program...'
It just goes to prove you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Although you can't fool the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, it does seem the Faithful have an infinite capacity to fool themselves about them:
VIENNA, Austria -- A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."
"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.
"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."
Now that's an amazing straw man of a response from Mr. Ware. In fact, what the IAEA faults the Report for is the conclusion that Iran's trying to make nuclear weapons with its reactors it has on line. It doesn't say what you say it says about the Report.
...The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.
El Baradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election. ¶ 10:07 PM 0 comments links to this post
Here's a story from page A17 of the Washington Post today, September 14, 2006:
'U.N. INSPECTORS DISPUTE IRAN REPORT BY HOUSE PANEL
'Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest
'U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims...
' "This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector...'
Here's a story from page A18 of the Washington Post exactly four years ago this week, on September 19, 2002:
'EVIDENCE ON IRAQ CHALLENGED
'Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
'A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program...'
It just goes to prove you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Although you can't fool the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, it does seem the Faithful have an infinite capacity to fool themselves about them:
VIENNA, Austria -- A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."
"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.
"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."
Now that's an amazing straw man of a response from Mr. Ware. In fact, what the IAEA faults the Report for is the conclusion that Iran's trying to make nuclear weapons with its reactors it has on line. It doesn't say what you say it says about the Report.
...The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.
El Baradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election. ¶ 10:07 PM 0 comments links to this post
"The Program is Not Going to Go Forward"
The CIA interrogators don't break the Law, either.
Of course, Dear Leader's word is the Divine Law.
L'Etat, c'est moi
.
Next question, please. ¶ 9:57 PM 0 comments links to this post
Of course, Dear Leader's word is the Divine Law.
L'Etat, c'est moi
.Next question, please. ¶ 9:57 PM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Déja Vote All Over Again
Election glitches ‘could get ugly'
New voting equipment, lack of training feed fears
By Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Eight weeks before elections that will decide control of Congress, a rush by state and local governments to prepare new voting machines and train poll workers is raising the possibility of trouble reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election standoff.
Problems range from delayed delivery of new equipment to an insufficient supply of trained technicians to fix anticipated problems, voting experts say.
Already this year, glitches have occurred in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Maryland became the latest on Tuesday, when technical problems, human errors and staff shortages led officials to keep some polls open an extra hour.
The fall elections shape up as the most technologically perilous since 2000, election officials say, because 30% of the nation's voting jurisdictions will be using new equipment. They include large parts of Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, scenes of key Senate races. “If you're ever going to have a problem, it's going to be that first election,” says Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services.
Since 2000, nearly half of U.S. counties have switched from punch cards, lever machines and paper ballots to electronic voting or optical-scan ballots read by a computer. They continue to rely on poll workers who are on average 72 years old and lack computer experience.
Since 2002, the federal government has given states $3 billion to upgrade registration and voting systems. Some states, however, still don't have statewide voter registration databases or equipment that people with disabilities can use independently.
Among the other concerns:
•Demand for new equipment, produced largely by four manufacturers, has delayed deliveries.
•States, counties and manufacturers don't have enough technical support staff. Spokesmen for Diebold and Election Systems & Software, two major vendors, say they're continuously seeking people. States such as Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania have advertised for help on the jobs website Monster.com.
“The vendors have done a much better job of selling the machines than they have of servicing them,” says Doug Chapin, director of Electionline.org, which monitors voting changes.
•Touch-screen machines with a paper backup for recounts have caused problems in primaries. Twenty-seven states require a paper trail, up from one in 2004.
“There are so many potential failure points this year that some of it could get ugly,” says R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, which represents state and local election officials.
Well, it works for these guys. Just check out the video.
Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten
Abstract: This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.
Link to the full .pdf here showing the windows in the software that make your vote moot.
Unless, of course, you vote Reptilican. ¶ 11:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
New voting equipment, lack of training feed fears
By Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Eight weeks before elections that will decide control of Congress, a rush by state and local governments to prepare new voting machines and train poll workers is raising the possibility of trouble reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election standoff.
Problems range from delayed delivery of new equipment to an insufficient supply of trained technicians to fix anticipated problems, voting experts say.
Already this year, glitches have occurred in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Maryland became the latest on Tuesday, when technical problems, human errors and staff shortages led officials to keep some polls open an extra hour.
The fall elections shape up as the most technologically perilous since 2000, election officials say, because 30% of the nation's voting jurisdictions will be using new equipment. They include large parts of Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, scenes of key Senate races. “If you're ever going to have a problem, it's going to be that first election,” says Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services.
Since 2000, nearly half of U.S. counties have switched from punch cards, lever machines and paper ballots to electronic voting or optical-scan ballots read by a computer. They continue to rely on poll workers who are on average 72 years old and lack computer experience.
Since 2002, the federal government has given states $3 billion to upgrade registration and voting systems. Some states, however, still don't have statewide voter registration databases or equipment that people with disabilities can use independently.
Among the other concerns:
•Demand for new equipment, produced largely by four manufacturers, has delayed deliveries.
•States, counties and manufacturers don't have enough technical support staff. Spokesmen for Diebold and Election Systems & Software, two major vendors, say they're continuously seeking people. States such as Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania have advertised for help on the jobs website Monster.com.
“The vendors have done a much better job of selling the machines than they have of servicing them,” says Doug Chapin, director of Electionline.org, which monitors voting changes.
•Touch-screen machines with a paper backup for recounts have caused problems in primaries. Twenty-seven states require a paper trail, up from one in 2004.
“There are so many potential failure points this year that some of it could get ugly,” says R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, which represents state and local election officials.
Well, it works for these guys. Just check out the video.
Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten
Abstract: This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.
Link to the full .pdf here showing the windows in the software that make your vote moot.
Unless, of course, you vote Reptilican. ¶ 11:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Secretary Michael Wynne says nonlethal weapons should be tested on U.S. civilians before being used on the battlefield.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
POSTED: 7:56 p.m. EDT, September 12, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved... [thanks to Chicago Dyke for the link]
This
stuff is real and likely to be used on Democratic protesters sooner or later.
Now what makes me think, with toys like this, and Halliburton detention camps out west built for the Department of Homeland Security, that Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton is planning on giving us all something to be testy about?
Over at Defense Tech they think this means the Air Force is looking for an excuse to can this turkey, possibly because the device is too slow to use effectively as a weapon. On the other hand, if you had told a lot of people 10 years ago it would be possible to project microwaves like this, they would have told you it couldn't be done. Big crowds can't move quickly, and if Dear Leader had a broadcast pain device and wasn't too picky about the side effects, it might become a motivational tool for the 21st Century. ¶ 12:25 PM 0 comments links to this post
POSTED: 7:56 p.m. EDT, September 12, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved... [thanks to Chicago Dyke for the link]
This
stuff is real and likely to be used on Democratic protesters sooner or later.Now what makes me think, with toys like this, and Halliburton detention camps out west built for the Department of Homeland Security, that Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton is planning on giving us all something to be testy about?
Over at Defense Tech they think this means the Air Force is looking for an excuse to can this turkey, possibly because the device is too slow to use effectively as a weapon. On the other hand, if you had told a lot of people 10 years ago it would be possible to project microwaves like this, they would have told you it couldn't be done. Big crowds can't move quickly, and if Dear Leader had a broadcast pain device and wasn't too picky about the side effects, it might become a motivational tool for the 21st Century. ¶ 12:25 PM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Maybe if we close our eyes it will just go away...
WASHINGTON - There is no such thing as Gulf War syndrome, even though U.S. and foreign veterans of the war report more symptoms of illness than do soldiers who didn't serve there, a federally funded study concludes.
U.S. and foreign veterans of the Gulf War do suffer from an array of very real problems, according to the Veterans Administration-sponsored report released Tuesday.
Yet there is no one complex of symptoms to suggest those veterans - nearly 30 percent of all those who served - suffered or still suffer from a single identifiable syndrome.
"There's no unique pattern of symptoms. Every pattern identified in Gulf War veterans also seems to exist in other veterans, though it is important to note the symptom rate is higher, and it is a serious issue," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, of Johns Hopkins University, who headed the Institute of Medicine committee that prepared the report...
This despite the VA recognition that Gulf War Syndrome presents with...manifestations of an undiagnosed illness:
* fatigue
* skin disorders
* headaches
* muscle pain
* joint pain
* neurologic symptoms
* neuropsychological symptoms
* symptoms involving the respiratory system
* sleep disturbances
* gastrointestinal symptoms
* cardiovascular symptoms
* abnormal weight loss
* menstrual disorders
While these categories represent the sign and symptoms frequently noted in VA's experiences to date, other signs and symptoms also could qualify for compensation. A disability is considered chronic if it has existed for at least six months. The VA operates a toll-free hotline at 800-749-8387 to inform Persian Gulf War veterans about VA programs, their benefits and the latest information on Persian Gulf benefits.
Who is Dr. Lynn Goldman?
Dr. Goldman was trained as a pediatrician who turned to public health policy. She has published mostly in pediatric environmental health. Unlike most of the scientists I'm familiar with, her funding sources aren't too transparent, coming from groups like "Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy" and not the National Institutes of Health like us pedestrian wet biochemists. While she's Professor and Chair of the Interdepartmental Program in Applied Public Health at Johns Hopkins, somehow she seems a bit out of her element investigating an adult syndrome among soldiers that someone like Rumsfeld claims doesn't exist.
Because, you know, Somebody
makes one hell of a lot of money out of recycling depleted uranium into munitions the D.o'D. buys at top dollar.
She also has a lot of publications (check them out on the link above) recently saying genetically modified corn- corn modified to express insecticides and herbicides, not more nutrients- is, you know, harmless. ¶ 8:38 PM 0 comments links to this post
U.S. and foreign veterans of the Gulf War do suffer from an array of very real problems, according to the Veterans Administration-sponsored report released Tuesday.
Yet there is no one complex of symptoms to suggest those veterans - nearly 30 percent of all those who served - suffered or still suffer from a single identifiable syndrome.
"There's no unique pattern of symptoms. Every pattern identified in Gulf War veterans also seems to exist in other veterans, though it is important to note the symptom rate is higher, and it is a serious issue," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, of Johns Hopkins University, who headed the Institute of Medicine committee that prepared the report...
This despite the VA recognition that Gulf War Syndrome presents with...manifestations of an undiagnosed illness:
* fatigue
* skin disorders
* headaches
* muscle pain
* joint pain
* neurologic symptoms
* neuropsychological symptoms
* symptoms involving the respiratory system
* sleep disturbances
* gastrointestinal symptoms
* cardiovascular symptoms
* abnormal weight loss
* menstrual disorders
While these categories represent the sign and symptoms frequently noted in VA's experiences to date, other signs and symptoms also could qualify for compensation. A disability is considered chronic if it has existed for at least six months. The VA operates a toll-free hotline at 800-749-8387 to inform Persian Gulf War veterans about VA programs, their benefits and the latest information on Persian Gulf benefits.
Who is Dr. Lynn Goldman?
Dr. Goldman was trained as a pediatrician who turned to public health policy. She has published mostly in pediatric environmental health. Unlike most of the scientists I'm familiar with, her funding sources aren't too transparent, coming from groups like "Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy" and not the National Institutes of Health like us pedestrian wet biochemists. While she's Professor and Chair of the Interdepartmental Program in Applied Public Health at Johns Hopkins, somehow she seems a bit out of her element investigating an adult syndrome among soldiers that someone like Rumsfeld claims doesn't exist.
Because, you know, Somebody
makes one hell of a lot of money out of recycling depleted uranium into munitions the D.o'D. buys at top dollar.She also has a lot of publications (check them out on the link above) recently saying genetically modified corn- corn modified to express insecticides and herbicides, not more nutrients- is, you know, harmless. ¶ 8:38 PM 0 comments links to this post
"The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose"
Fred Hoyle got that right, at least.
Just ask Gabrielle.
Now what are the odds that when Neptune, Pluto, and Xena are all in the same neighborhood out there in Kuiper Belt at the same time with their satellites merry gravitational hell is unleashed and you get that 26 million year extinction maxima event?
¶ 9:36 AM 1 comments
links to this post
Just ask Gabrielle.
Now what are the odds that when Neptune, Pluto, and Xena are all in the same neighborhood out there in Kuiper Belt at the same time with their satellites merry gravitational hell is unleashed and you get that 26 million year extinction maxima event?
¶ 9:36 AM 1 comments
links to this post
"...a fallout all its own"
As documented by Crooks and Liars in transcript and video on prime time, Olbermann quotes Serling about Dear Leader's 9-11.
"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
You should read and listen to it all. ¶ 8:37 AM 0 comments links to this post
"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
You should read and listen to it all. ¶ 8:37 AM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, September 11, 2006
There Goes One Conspiracy Theory
In case you didn't know, before they Classify it:
Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)
Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)
Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)
Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109) --thanks to Think Progress.
On the other hand, Dear Leader's "allies" just got all kissy face with Al Qaeda. Again.
But pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain.
¶ 9:07 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)
Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)
Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)
Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109) --thanks to Think Progress.
On the other hand, Dear Leader's "allies" just got all kissy face with Al Qaeda. Again.
But pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain.
¶ 9:07 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Fall Strategery: Burn the Constitution
Digby scopes out Andrew Sullivan to find the neoliberal is a bit troubled by what his friends are planning- and even his friends are troubled by what their Dear Leader has lined up:
Next week, I'm informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove's fall election strategy. He's intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it's brutally exploitative of 9/11; it's pure partisanship; and it's designed to enable an untrammeled executive. Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that this administration's first priority is not a humane and effective counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at any price, you just got it.
Is this all they've got planned for November?
Or just the strong-arm part to take care of what they can't Diebold?
You can bet it isn't. You can bet it's only part of the game. Karl sez it's only 230-year old paper anyway. ¶ 6:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
Next week, I'm informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove's fall election strategy. He's intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it's brutally exploitative of 9/11; it's pure partisanship; and it's designed to enable an untrammeled executive. Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that this administration's first priority is not a humane and effective counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at any price, you just got it.
Is this all they've got planned for November?
Or just the strong-arm part to take care of what they can't Diebold?
You can bet it isn't. You can bet it's only part of the game. Karl sez it's only 230-year old paper anyway. ¶ 6:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
"This is not going to happen"
Bu$hie seems to tell the Faithful at the Wall Street Pravda the fix is in, so the Base shouldn't worry.
Dear Leader sees
all.
Or at least he knows how much he's paid his boys to Diebold all they can and strong arm the rest.
Oh, and by the way, kiss Social Security good-bye by executive fiat in 2007. ¶ 1:36 PM 0 comments links to this post
Dear Leader sees
all. Or at least he knows how much he's paid his boys to Diebold all they can and strong arm the rest.
Oh, and by the way, kiss Social Security good-bye by executive fiat in 2007. ¶ 1:36 PM 0 comments links to this post
Deep Pockets and Fairyland on All Sides of 9-11
The $40 million turkey airing tomorrow night goes on commercial-free thanks largely to the efforts of these men, Richard Mellon Scaife and David Horowitz.
The path to them is labyrithine as you might expect, leading from the wingnut evangelical Youth With A Mission (YWAM) organization through a torch-bearer for the Shah of Iran into the the lap of Horowitz and Scaife.
A few thousand years from now, when the mechas dig up our hardrives from the ice
and try to make sense of why humanity crashed and burned, I think the reasons will be evident.
¶ 6:40 AM 0 comments
links to this post
The path to them is labyrithine as you might expect, leading from the wingnut evangelical Youth With A Mission (YWAM) organization through a torch-bearer for the Shah of Iran into the the lap of Horowitz and Scaife.
A few thousand years from now, when the mechas dig up our hardrives from the ice
and try to make sense of why humanity crashed and burned, I think the reasons will be evident.
¶ 6:40 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Alarming Reports of Irresponsible Theories
The DINOcrats write letters of protest to the Mickey Mouse Reptilicans.
I particularly find this line amusing:
...Amidst alarming reports that irresponsible theories about the events of 9/11 have begun to gain currency with the American people, you should not want to lend your personal reputation to a production which seems likely to instigate new and dangerous falsehoods...
The Washington Post and MSNBC are also all upset about the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
That, and all the wackos out here in cyberspace calling for Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton impeachment and for Darth Rumsfeld (and the whole White House Iraq Group) to be given one way tickets to the Hague war crimes' tribunal.
I can't imagine why anyone would come up with a conspiracy theory when a think tank calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" to change the thinking of the American people, takes an election without the popular vote, allows a new Pearl Harbor nine months later, promptly goes to war with an old scapegoat who had nothing to do with the new Pearl Harbor and no weapons to resist, and gets filthy rich(er) doing it.
(thanks to Mike Tidmus and Firedoglake)
The old and dangerous falsehoods, like the Saddam/ 9-11 link, seemed to squeeze by the DINOcratic possé easily. Without any complaint. Only now, with the other side of the Clintons looking at the presidency with more than a little lust, and the potential takeover of Congress by Democrats propelled by progressive unrest, do they take up the call against the War.
The DINOcrats are also funded by the Carlyle Group. Google "Soros" and read carefully. They didn't fuss when we were bombing Iraqi civilians under Clinton, they kissed up to Al Qaeda in the Balkans, and they appointed Tenet to mislead the CIA. Now they cry when Karl Rove targets the DINOcratic version of Ronald Reagan.
One hopes they are successful in slamming ABC/ Disney. That Mickey Mouse outfit has no business taking over the airwaves. I just hope people don't hand over their power to question the system to just another faction of the Company board.
But many of the most irresponsible theorists have made some pretty careful points.
For example, Jeff Wells digs up the facts that Anderson Cooper did an internship for the CIA when he was younger, but goes on to note:
...Cooper's internships nearly two decades ago don't imply that he's "on the payroll." But the payroll isn't very long. It's the assets, not the agents that predominate in the media, and his summer work is a strong indicator of affinity: something the Agency would not be inclined to forget as it follows the progress of his career, even as Cooper's viewers remain in the dark.
This is something to be remembered by 9/11 truthseekers who are ready to settle instead for heroes, and uncritically embrace longtime intelligence veterans as sudden "converts" and spokespersons. Like 28-year CIA analyst William Christison, whose "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" was widely astroturfed last month. His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity. As with "former Bush insider" Morgan Reynolds' triple-dog-dare-ya that there were no planes at the World Trade Center either, more sensible observers need to ask why certain people with certain backgrounds are advancing certain positions, rather than be gratified that persons of a certain stature are saying something, anything, even when it's wrong or uncertain or foolish. ¶ 1:36 PM 0 comments links to this post
I particularly find this line amusing:
...Amidst alarming reports that irresponsible theories about the events of 9/11 have begun to gain currency with the American people, you should not want to lend your personal reputation to a production which seems likely to instigate new and dangerous falsehoods...
The Washington Post and MSNBC are also all upset about the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
That, and all the wackos out here in cyberspace calling for Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton impeachment and for Darth Rumsfeld (and the whole White House Iraq Group) to be given one way tickets to the Hague war crimes' tribunal.
I can't imagine why anyone would come up with a conspiracy theory when a think tank calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" to change the thinking of the American people, takes an election without the popular vote, allows a new Pearl Harbor nine months later, promptly goes to war with an old scapegoat who had nothing to do with the new Pearl Harbor and no weapons to resist, and gets filthy rich(er) doing it.
(thanks to Mike Tidmus and Firedoglake)The old and dangerous falsehoods, like the Saddam/ 9-11 link, seemed to squeeze by the DINOcratic possé easily. Without any complaint. Only now, with the other side of the Clintons looking at the presidency with more than a little lust, and the potential takeover of Congress by Democrats propelled by progressive unrest, do they take up the call against the War.
The DINOcrats are also funded by the Carlyle Group. Google "Soros" and read carefully. They didn't fuss when we were bombing Iraqi civilians under Clinton, they kissed up to Al Qaeda in the Balkans, and they appointed Tenet to mislead the CIA. Now they cry when Karl Rove targets the DINOcratic version of Ronald Reagan.
One hopes they are successful in slamming ABC/ Disney. That Mickey Mouse outfit has no business taking over the airwaves. I just hope people don't hand over their power to question the system to just another faction of the Company board.
But many of the most irresponsible theorists have made some pretty careful points.
For example, Jeff Wells digs up the facts that Anderson Cooper did an internship for the CIA when he was younger, but goes on to note:
...Cooper's internships nearly two decades ago don't imply that he's "on the payroll." But the payroll isn't very long. It's the assets, not the agents that predominate in the media, and his summer work is a strong indicator of affinity: something the Agency would not be inclined to forget as it follows the progress of his career, even as Cooper's viewers remain in the dark.
This is something to be remembered by 9/11 truthseekers who are ready to settle instead for heroes, and uncritically embrace longtime intelligence veterans as sudden "converts" and spokespersons. Like 28-year CIA analyst William Christison, whose "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" was widely astroturfed last month. His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity. As with "former Bush insider" Morgan Reynolds' triple-dog-dare-ya that there were no planes at the World Trade Center either, more sensible observers need to ask why certain people with certain backgrounds are advancing certain positions, rather than be gratified that persons of a certain stature are saying something, anything, even when it's wrong or uncertain or foolish. ¶ 1:36 PM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, September 08, 2006
Scion of King John
European watchdog calls for clampdown on CIA
· UK is urged to take lead in monitoring agents
· Scathing attack on Bush, 'the King John of USA'
Nicholas Watt in Brussels and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday September 8, 2006
The Guardian
The head of Europe's human rights watchdog yesterday called for monitoring of CIA agents operating in Britain and other European countries, after President George Bush's admission that the US had detained terrorist suspects in secret prisons.
Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said CIA agents operating in Europe should be subject to the same rules as British agents working for MI5 and MI6.
"There is a need to deal with the conduct of allied foreign security services agents active on the territory of a council member state," Terry Davis said. "In the UK there is parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services but there is no parliamentary scrutiny of friendly foreign services. The UK should be in the lead on this issue."
As part of this process, diplomatic immunity should be reviewed. "Immunity should not mean impunity," he said...
The former British Labour MP was scathing about President Bush. "Why does the US need to keep people in secret prisons? I thought that was settled by Magna Carta. But King John is alive and well and running the USA.
"There is a smoking gun. We know where it is - it is in the hands of George Bush. His fingerprints are on the gun."
...Rene van der Linden, president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, said: "Our work has helped to flush out the dirty nature of this secret war which, we learn at last, has been carried out completely beyond any legal framework.
"Kidnapping people and torturing them in secret, however tempting the short-term gain may appear to be, is what criminals do, not democratic governments. In the long term, such practices create more terrorists and undermine the values we are fighting for."
John of England was arguably one of its worst Kings. This is the same Prince John from the old Robin Hood stories, who had King Richard thrown into prison while off at the Crusades by the Pope. Richard returned, forgave him, and was usurped afterwards by John, who became King. He was so bad the nobility rose to a man to oppose him, and made him turn over much power (on paper) by signing the Magna Carta.
Known for ruthlessness and incompetance, he was likely poisoned to death.
Incidently, he was an ancestor of the Bush family. ¶ 10:41 PM 0 comments links to this post
· UK is urged to take lead in monitoring agents
· Scathing attack on Bush, 'the King John of USA'
Nicholas Watt in Brussels and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday September 8, 2006
The Guardian
The head of Europe's human rights watchdog yesterday called for monitoring of CIA agents operating in Britain and other European countries, after President George Bush's admission that the US had detained terrorist suspects in secret prisons.
Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said CIA agents operating in Europe should be subject to the same rules as British agents working for MI5 and MI6.
"There is a need to deal with the conduct of allied foreign security services agents active on the territory of a council member state," Terry Davis said. "In the UK there is parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services but there is no parliamentary scrutiny of friendly foreign services. The UK should be in the lead on this issue."
As part of this process, diplomatic immunity should be reviewed. "Immunity should not mean impunity," he said...
The former British Labour MP was scathing about President Bush. "Why does the US need to keep people in secret prisons? I thought that was settled by Magna Carta. But King John is alive and well and running the USA.
"There is a smoking gun. We know where it is - it is in the hands of George Bush. His fingerprints are on the gun."
...Rene van der Linden, president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, said: "Our work has helped to flush out the dirty nature of this secret war which, we learn at last, has been carried out completely beyond any legal framework.
"Kidnapping people and torturing them in secret, however tempting the short-term gain may appear to be, is what criminals do, not democratic governments. In the long term, such practices create more terrorists and undermine the values we are fighting for."
John of England was arguably one of its worst Kings. This is the same Prince John from the old Robin Hood stories, who had King Richard thrown into prison while off at the Crusades by the Pope. Richard returned, forgave him, and was usurped afterwards by John, who became King. He was so bad the nobility rose to a man to oppose him, and made him turn over much power (on paper) by signing the Magna Carta.
Known for ruthlessness and incompetance, he was likely poisoned to death.
Incidently, he was an ancestor of the Bush family. ¶ 10:41 PM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 07, 2006
"If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?"
In Florida, no less:
The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should...
If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence showing that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges?
If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn’t bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!)
Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.)
If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!)
If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter than the real Osama bin Laden?
Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies?
Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center?
The American people and the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve the truth, and we do not yet have it. The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered questions not even raised by those who “investigated” the 9/11 tragedy.
The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government. The Kean-Hamilton commission report was a whitewash, a cover-up, and a bundle of deception.
If a new investigation identifies those responsible, they should be indicted for treason. And those who covered up the treason should themselves be indicted as accessories after the fact.-Robert Bowman
via Bradblog via Correntewire. Thanks! ¶ 10:17 PM 0 comments links to this post
The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should...
If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence showing that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges?
If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn’t bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!)
Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.)
If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!)
If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter than the real Osama bin Laden?
Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies?
Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center?
The American people and the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve the truth, and we do not yet have it. The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered questions not even raised by those who “investigated” the 9/11 tragedy.
The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government. The Kean-Hamilton commission report was a whitewash, a cover-up, and a bundle of deception.
If a new investigation identifies those responsible, they should be indicted for treason. And those who covered up the treason should themselves be indicted as accessories after the fact.-Robert Bowman
via Bradblog via Correntewire. Thanks! ¶ 10:17 PM 0 comments links to this post
The Best Information Money Can Buy, Wholesale and Resale.
After it's gathered, anyone with the money can buy it again.
With no one to spot the double and triple billing, either.
The thousands of mercenary security contractors employed in the Bush administration's "War on Terror" are billed to American taxpayers, but they've handed Osama Bin Laden his greatest victories -- public relations coups that have transformed him from just another face in a crowd of radical clerics to a hero of millions in the global South (posters of Bin Laden have been spotted in largely Catholic Latin America during protests against George W. Bush).
The internet hums with viral videos of British contractors opening fire on civilian vehicles in Iraq as part of a bloody game, stories about CIA contractors killing prisoners in Afghanistan, veterans of Apartheid-era South African and Latin American death squads discovered among contractors' staffs and notoriously shady Russian arms dealers working for occupation authorities. One Special Forces operator told Amnesty International that some contractors are in it just because they "really want to kill somebody and they can do it easier there ... "
...According to Amnesty, half of the interrogators at Abu Ghraib were private contractors -- about 30 in all...
CACI, for California Analysis Center, Inc. (also known as Colonels and Captains), is among the top 10 information providers in the Fortune 500. The company was founded in 1962 as a computer-engineering firm, and later moved into network management for federal, state, and local governments. The company claims that, since Abu Ghraib, it no longer is in the interrogation business, but it remains a major intelligence contractor. Corporate spying has become a booming business -- it's estimated that half of the $46 billion classified intelligence budget is handled by the private sector, including everything from intelligence analysis to managing spy satellites...
Let me interject you can be sure everything that our intelligence entrepreneurs get their hands on stays secure- for the discriminating clients only.
"A lot of Halliburton's business depends on foreign customers getting loans from U.S. banks, which are in turn guaranteed by the government's trade-promoting Export-Import Bank. In the five years before Cheney took the helm, the Ex-Im Bank guaranteed $100 million in loans so foreign customers could buy Halliburton's services; during Cheney's five years as C.E.O., that figure jumped to $1.5 billion."
The intelligence community was a laggard, for obvious reasons. But following the attacks of Sept. 11, lawmakers were itching to pour tens of billions of new dollars into intelligence and didn't have the personnel to do it. Firms like CACI were simply at the right place at the right time. They had well-established revolving doors to the defense and intelligence communities -- the hawkish former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage once sat on CACI's board, and Barbara A McNamara, former deputy director of the NSA, continues to do so -- and they hired thousands of former intelligence officials at premium prices to fill a host of new contracts.
John Gannon, a former CIA deputy director for intelligence and now head of BAE Systems' Global Analysis Group, told journalist Sebastian Abbot that an intelligence contractor "is going to look at a government requirement, and it's going to go and find people wherever it can and get the greatest number of people at the lowest price and maximizing the profit to the business to do it." "When I was in government hiring people," he continued, "I was looking for the best possible people I could get ... [but] that is not what the private sector does." Gannon warned that these companies "are not looking to be right or looking to ensure that they are getting access to the best information and expertise; they are looking to please a customer at the lowest common denominator." It's as clear a case of ideology and cronyism trumping common sense as one could find. ¶ 9:01 PM 0 comments links to this post
With no one to spot the double and triple billing, either.
The thousands of mercenary security contractors employed in the Bush administration's "War on Terror" are billed to American taxpayers, but they've handed Osama Bin Laden his greatest victories -- public relations coups that have transformed him from just another face in a crowd of radical clerics to a hero of millions in the global South (posters of Bin Laden have been spotted in largely Catholic Latin America during protests against George W. Bush).
The internet hums with viral videos of British contractors opening fire on civilian vehicles in Iraq as part of a bloody game, stories about CIA contractors killing prisoners in Afghanistan, veterans of Apartheid-era South African and Latin American death squads discovered among contractors' staffs and notoriously shady Russian arms dealers working for occupation authorities. One Special Forces operator told Amnesty International that some contractors are in it just because they "really want to kill somebody and they can do it easier there ... "
...According to Amnesty, half of the interrogators at Abu Ghraib were private contractors -- about 30 in all...
CACI, for California Analysis Center, Inc. (also known as Colonels and Captains), is among the top 10 information providers in the Fortune 500. The company was founded in 1962 as a computer-engineering firm, and later moved into network management for federal, state, and local governments. The company claims that, since Abu Ghraib, it no longer is in the interrogation business, but it remains a major intelligence contractor. Corporate spying has become a booming business -- it's estimated that half of the $46 billion classified intelligence budget is handled by the private sector, including everything from intelligence analysis to managing spy satellites...
Let me interject you can be sure everything that our intelligence entrepreneurs get their hands on stays secure- for the discriminating clients only.
"A lot of Halliburton's business depends on foreign customers getting loans from U.S. banks, which are in turn guaranteed by the government's trade-promoting Export-Import Bank. In the five years before Cheney took the helm, the Ex-Im Bank guaranteed $100 million in loans so foreign customers could buy Halliburton's services; during Cheney's five years as C.E.O., that figure jumped to $1.5 billion."
The intelligence community was a laggard, for obvious reasons. But following the attacks of Sept. 11, lawmakers were itching to pour tens of billions of new dollars into intelligence and didn't have the personnel to do it. Firms like CACI were simply at the right place at the right time. They had well-established revolving doors to the defense and intelligence communities -- the hawkish former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage once sat on CACI's board, and Barbara A McNamara, former deputy director of the NSA, continues to do so -- and they hired thousands of former intelligence officials at premium prices to fill a host of new contracts.
John Gannon, a former CIA deputy director for intelligence and now head of BAE Systems' Global Analysis Group, told journalist Sebastian Abbot that an intelligence contractor "is going to look at a government requirement, and it's going to go and find people wherever it can and get the greatest number of people at the lowest price and maximizing the profit to the business to do it." "When I was in government hiring people," he continued, "I was looking for the best possible people I could get ... [but] that is not what the private sector does." Gannon warned that these companies "are not looking to be right or looking to ensure that they are getting access to the best information and expertise; they are looking to please a customer at the lowest common denominator." It's as clear a case of ideology and cronyism trumping common sense as one could find. ¶ 9:01 PM 0 comments links to this post
Information War
From the Democratic Party website:
Keep "Path to 9/11" Propaganda Film Off The Air
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC bills the two-night production as a public service that is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That is false - it is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats.
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats. The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth -- and embraced the fiction known as "The Path to 9/11."
Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible -- and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth.
Sign the petition and add your two cents, too. ¶ 8:34 PM 0 comments links to this post
Keep "Path to 9/11" Propaganda Film Off The Air
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC bills the two-night production as a public service that is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That is false - it is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats.
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats. The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth -- and embraced the fiction known as "The Path to 9/11."
Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible -- and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth.
Sign the petition and add your two cents, too. ¶ 8:34 PM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Enemy of Terra
There's lots of talk now among us of the reality (or lack thereof) of a terrorist threat.
Several interesting posts about this have emerged over the last few days, from John Mueller's question Is there still a terrorist threat? The myth of an omnipresent enemy-
...On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon."
But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?
One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered...
A better focussed analysis comes from Juan Cole:
The Bush administration obviously wishes it were waging war on Nazi Germany. Even the old Soviet Union would be fine, these nostalgic Cold Warriors seem to think. Something big and menacing that would scare the blue-haired grannies in Peoria into voting Republican because, everyone knows, in addition to being good for business (except for that Depression unpleasantness), Republicans are mean s.o.b.'s and would as soon shoot a potential menace to the US as glare at him.
The Bush administration has the misfortune to have no powerful enemies it is brave enough actually to take on. China and Russia are not exactly enemies any more, and are the only potential state challengers to United States freedom of action as the sole superpower. And they don't go beyond potential. Too busy making money while Washington bleeds itself dry with military adventures. Waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.
So what enemies does Bush see that he really will confront?
...a laundry list of places Bush would like to control because they have oil or gas, or are key to its development, or have other strategic benefits for the US and/or its regional allies, especially Israel.
So Bush is basically saying that the US is threatened by a congeries of Middle Eastern movements and governments that have nothing to do with one another, and only one of which has struck directly at the US since Bush came to office. Plus North Korea.
And this is the reason for which he needs to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq, to stop the Muslim fundamentalists from taking it over. But of course, the Da'wa Party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sadr movement have *already* taken it over.
Nor is it plausible that "al-Qaeda" could take over Iraq! The United States couldn't take over Iraq. The Shiites and Kurds would never put up with it. Bush doesn't need to stay in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda there. If Bush weren't in Iraq, neither would al-Qaeda be. There less than 1,000 such foreign fighters, anyway.
So there are good Muslim fundamentalist movements and bad ones. What seems to distinguish them is whether they are eager to do business with Houston or whether they badmouth Bush.
...If you want to know what is really going on, it is a struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim. Bush has to demonize the Muslim world in order to justify his swooping down on the Strategic Ellipse. If demons occupy it, obviously they have to be cleared out in favor of Christian fundamentalists or at least Texas oilmen. And what is the Strategic Ellipse?
Voila.
...Bush is undermining our Republic, gutting our rights, spending us into penury, and smearing a great civilization, in order to get his grubby fingers on the Ellipse. You get to pay for it twice, once at the pump and once on your annual tax return.
Finally, the janitor at the Mighty Corrente Building weighs in on Dear Leader's attire. Read Lambert's breakdown of Mueller's post. It's far more succinct and entertaining.
Whether Bu$hCo let 9/11 happen by accident, or on purpose, or made it happen are gradations of complicity.
If you want to argue those, read the evidence I've posted here over the last couple of years.
There are people who hate our freedom and want to end America as a Democracy. Some call themselves Islamic. Some call themselves Christian. Some call themselves Jewish. Some call themselves Hindu, some call themselves athiests, but most of all of these are just plain avaricious criminals.
They're best fought like criminals. Open war is good against open warriors. Terrorists don't fit that description.
There is real danger in the world, and we do need the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. We need them under the rule of Constitutional law. There are real terrorists.
But having Bu$hCo “protect” us from them is like letting the hungriest chickenhawk in the woods guard the henhouse from the other predators. ¶ 10:13 PM 2 comments links to this post
Several interesting posts about this have emerged over the last few days, from John Mueller's question Is there still a terrorist threat? The myth of an omnipresent enemy-
...On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon."
But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?
One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered...
A better focussed analysis comes from Juan Cole:
The Bush administration obviously wishes it were waging war on Nazi Germany. Even the old Soviet Union would be fine, these nostalgic Cold Warriors seem to think. Something big and menacing that would scare the blue-haired grannies in Peoria into voting Republican because, everyone knows, in addition to being good for business (except for that Depression unpleasantness), Republicans are mean s.o.b.'s and would as soon shoot a potential menace to the US as glare at him.
The Bush administration has the misfortune to have no powerful enemies it is brave enough actually to take on. China and Russia are not exactly enemies any more, and are the only potential state challengers to United States freedom of action as the sole superpower. And they don't go beyond potential. Too busy making money while Washington bleeds itself dry with military adventures. Waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.
So what enemies does Bush see that he really will confront?
...a laundry list of places Bush would like to control because they have oil or gas, or are key to its development, or have other strategic benefits for the US and/or its regional allies, especially Israel.
So Bush is basically saying that the US is threatened by a congeries of Middle Eastern movements and governments that have nothing to do with one another, and only one of which has struck directly at the US since Bush came to office. Plus North Korea.
And this is the reason for which he needs to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq, to stop the Muslim fundamentalists from taking it over. But of course, the Da'wa Party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sadr movement have *already* taken it over.
Nor is it plausible that "al-Qaeda" could take over Iraq! The United States couldn't take over Iraq. The Shiites and Kurds would never put up with it. Bush doesn't need to stay in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda there. If Bush weren't in Iraq, neither would al-Qaeda be. There less than 1,000 such foreign fighters, anyway.
So there are good Muslim fundamentalist movements and bad ones. What seems to distinguish them is whether they are eager to do business with Houston or whether they badmouth Bush.
...If you want to know what is really going on, it is a struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim. Bush has to demonize the Muslim world in order to justify his swooping down on the Strategic Ellipse. If demons occupy it, obviously they have to be cleared out in favor of Christian fundamentalists or at least Texas oilmen. And what is the Strategic Ellipse?
Voila.
...Bush is undermining our Republic, gutting our rights, spending us into penury, and smearing a great civilization, in order to get his grubby fingers on the Ellipse. You get to pay for it twice, once at the pump and once on your annual tax return.
Finally, the janitor at the Mighty Corrente Building weighs in on Dear Leader's attire. Read Lambert's breakdown of Mueller's post. It's far more succinct and entertaining.
Whether Bu$hCo let 9/11 happen by accident, or on purpose, or made it happen are gradations of complicity.
If you want to argue those, read the evidence I've posted here over the last couple of years.
There are people who hate our freedom and want to end America as a Democracy. Some call themselves Islamic. Some call themselves Christian. Some call themselves Jewish. Some call themselves Hindu, some call themselves athiests, but most of all of these are just plain avaricious criminals.
They're best fought like criminals. Open war is good against open warriors. Terrorists don't fit that description.
There is real danger in the world, and we do need the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. We need them under the rule of Constitutional law. There are real terrorists.
But having Bu$hCo “protect” us from them is like letting the hungriest chickenhawk in the woods guard the henhouse from the other predators. ¶ 10:13 PM 2 comments links to this post
When is an ICBM not an ICBM?
When it's a UAV bomber, chances are it's not covered by the existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties, either.
As NASA's space shuttle fleet sputters toward a planned 2010 retirement, the next generation of U.S. space planes is gestating in the heart of the U.S. military.
The U.S. Military Space Plane -- or MSP -- has been high on the Pentagon's wish list since at least 2003, when an Air Force planning document revealed the military's desire for a quick-launch space plane that could drop a bomb anywhere on the globe within two hours, without the need of forward bases.
Also wanted is a space vehicle that can repair, deploy and even attack satellites, or insert reconnaissance drones into the atmosphere -- all within hours of orders.
Space weapons experts say the technology is at least 10 to 20 years away from being operational. But a small number of MSP prototypes are being tested in some type of wind tunnel today.
"We know this because it's in the budget," said Michael Katz-Hyman, a research associate for The Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington D.C. think tank, pointing to line items in the research and development area of the Defense Department’s $400-billion, 2007 budget request.
One potential MSP has already taken flight -- however briefly. In 2004, Boeing's unmanned X-37 orbital plane, originally a replacement candidate for the space shuttle, was transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
In April of this year, the newly classified craft had its first atmospheric "drop test," in which it was carried to high altitude, released and directed to land. The plane overshot the runway and was promptly removed from the public eye.
The remotely piloted X-37 is much smaller than the space shuttle, with a weight, including fuel, of 5 to 8 tons and a length of roughly 9 meters, according to scientists at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. In contrast, the shuttle weighs 94 tons and is 37 meters long. The X-37 can carry a payload of just 1 to 2 tons, compared with shuttle's 20 tons.
Like the space shuttle, the X-37 needs a rocket boost, or the assistance of another aircraft, to achieve orbit -- requiring a half-day of preparation before a mission. Katz-Hyman says the Air Force and Darpa hope to someday build a so-called "single-stage-to-orbit" space plane that will simply take off from a runway.
In the meantime, the military is researching near-space weapons delivery systems under the Falcon project [.pdf from DARPA], or Forced Application and Launch from the Continental United States. Like the X-37, Falcon is managed by Darpa, and contracted to several aerospace defense giants, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Katz-Hyman says all the research is driven by the Pentagon's desperate desire for the capability to carry out a "rapid global strike," i.e., hit any target on Earth within two hours of orders being issued. Currently, long-range bomber runs using stealth bombers or B-52s take 12 to 24 hours to execute, depending on which U.S. base is used and where the target is located.
Whether the MSP will provide that quick-bombing capability remains to be seen. But for now, as in so many times in history, military needs are driving research of potentially significant civilian importance...
The better to bomb you with, my dear. Weapons that aren't really classified as weapons. ¶ 9:19 PM 0 comments links to this post
As NASA's space shuttle fleet sputters toward a planned 2010 retirement, the next generation of U.S. space planes is gestating in the heart of the U.S. military.
The U.S. Military Space Plane -- or MSP -- has been high on the Pentagon's wish list since at least 2003, when an Air Force planning document revealed the military's desire for a quick-launch space plane that could drop a bomb anywhere on the globe within two hours, without the need of forward bases.
Also wanted is a space vehicle that can repair, deploy and even attack satellites, or insert reconnaissance drones into the atmosphere -- all within hours of orders.
Space weapons experts say the technology is at least 10 to 20 years away from being operational. But a small number of MSP prototypes are being tested in some type of wind tunnel today.
"We know this because it's in the budget," said Michael Katz-Hyman, a research associate for The Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington D.C. think tank, pointing to line items in the research and development area of the Defense Department’s $400-billion, 2007 budget request.
One potential MSP has already taken flight -- however briefly. In 2004, Boeing's unmanned X-37 orbital plane, originally a replacement candidate for the space shuttle, was transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
In April of this year, the newly classified craft had its first atmospheric "drop test," in which it was carried to high altitude, released and directed to land. The plane overshot the runway and was promptly removed from the public eye.
The remotely piloted X-37 is much smaller than the space shuttle, with a weight, including fuel, of 5 to 8 tons and a length of roughly 9 meters, according to scientists at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. In contrast, the shuttle weighs 94 tons and is 37 meters long. The X-37 can carry a payload of just 1 to 2 tons, compared with shuttle's 20 tons.
Like the space shuttle, the X-37 needs a rocket boost, or the assistance of another aircraft, to achieve orbit -- requiring a half-day of preparation before a mission. Katz-Hyman says the Air Force and Darpa hope to someday build a so-called "single-stage-to-orbit" space plane that will simply take off from a runway.
In the meantime, the military is researching near-space weapons delivery systems under the Falcon project [.pdf from DARPA], or Forced Application and Launch from the Continental United States. Like the X-37, Falcon is managed by Darpa, and contracted to several aerospace defense giants, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Katz-Hyman says all the research is driven by the Pentagon's desperate desire for the capability to carry out a "rapid global strike," i.e., hit any target on Earth within two hours of orders being issued. Currently, long-range bomber runs using stealth bombers or B-52s take 12 to 24 hours to execute, depending on which U.S. base is used and where the target is located.
Whether the MSP will provide that quick-bombing capability remains to be seen. But for now, as in so many times in history, military needs are driving research of potentially significant civilian importance...
The better to bomb you with, my dear. Weapons that aren't really classified as weapons. ¶ 9:19 PM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Re-Writing History in Time for November
On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”
The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:
So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed… Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.
Fat chance, that, but try it anyway!
I personally find Avedon's take on this (and most things) most appealing:
...The right-wing persists in its fantasy that it was Clinton rather than Bush who failed to respond to the attack on the USS Cole, despite the fact that the evidence to confirm the culprits didn't come in until Clinton was out of office. As always, Clinton is responsible for everything that happened before and after his presidency, including the fact that the Farting Prince refused to react once the evidence on the Cole operation was confirmed. Clearly, Bill Clinton is a Time Lord.
When Clinton told every one about the threat of terrorism on the increase in Y2k he was mercilessly mocked by the wingnuts and accused of wagging the dog, despite the fact his heightened terror alert caught terrorists entering our country.
Suspect carrying nitroglycerin may be linked to bin Laden, officials say
December 17, 1999
Web posted at: 11:13 p.m. EST (0413 GMT)
From staff and wire reports
SEATTLE (CNN) -- A man detained earlier this week at the U.S.-Canadian border faces charges of transporting the explosive material nitroglycerin into the United States, and U.S. officials say there is evidence he may be connected with the organization headed by accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The sources would not divulge what the evidence is that connects Ahmed Ressam, 32, a native of Algeria, with bin Laden's organization. Bin Laden, who is living in Afghanistan, has been indicted on charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 259 people.
Ressam also was charged in federal court Friday in Seattle with possessing false identification and making false statements to U.S. Customs officials when they stopped him upon arrival by ferry at Port Angeles, Washington.
Officials say these charges may be only the beginning, as FBI counterterrorism agents try to track Ressam's background and contacts.
Ressam has a Canadian criminal history of minor thefts, according to an affidavit by Customs Agent Michael Calonita.
Customs officials at the ferry crossing became suspicious when Ressam's itinerary showed he had come from Vancouver, British Columbia, and was heading to Seattle -- a 140-mile drive that does not require a trip to Vancouver Island, a ferry ride or a stop in Port Angeles, said FBI spokesman Pat Jones in Washington, D.C.
When the inspector asked about his roundabout route, Ressam became nervous, Jones said.
Ressam entered the United States on Tuesday around 6 p.m. PST (9 p.m. EST) in a rented Chrysler aboard a ferry from Victoria, British Columbia. His car was the last vehicle off the ferry, officials said.
According to the affidavit, he identified himself as Benni Antoine Noris, and when authorities asked him to get out of the vehicle "he was uncooperative."
While conducting a search of the vehicle "inspectors lifted up a mat to inspect the spare tire well. The well did not have a spare tire," the affidavit says.
Instead, authorities say they found:
* Two 22-ounce jars, each three-quarters full with nitroglycerin
* 10 plastic bags containing 110 pounds of a white powder identified as urea, a legal substance used to make explosives and fertilizers
* Two plastic bags containing about 14 pounds of sulfate, used as a desiccant to absorb water
* Four small black boxes containing homemade timers -- a circuit board with a Casio watch and a 9-volt battery.
"Preliminary analysis disclosed that when these materials are combined with a detonator, it would produce a large explosive device," the affidavit says.
At one point, when U.S. Customs inspectors began to escort Ressam from the car, he broke free, sprinting about five to six blocks away, where he tried unsuccessfully to get into a woman's car at an intersection, according to the affidavit. He was tackled in the street and taken into custody, authorities say.
Ressam had at least eight credit cards on him under the name Benni Noris as well other items in that name, including a Customs baggage declaration form, a Costco card, and a Quebec driver's license.
Authorities say he had reserved a room Tuesday in a downtown Seattle Best Western motel, just blocks from the Space Needle and the Seattle Center, where 150,000 people are expected to attend a New Year's celebration.
The timing of his arrival -- just before the millennial New Year's Eve -- "is very interesting," said Jesse Chester, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "It raises a lot of questions in a lot of our minds as far as motive."
FBI agent Ray Lowler would not comment on whether a stakeout had been conducted at the Best Western, or any other part of the investigation. But Lowler did say no other arrests had been made in connection to Ressam's case.
Authorities say airline reservations the suspect had under his alias has heightened concerns he may have been dropping off the potential bomb-making material.
According to airline records at Seatac International Airport, a "Benni Norris" had a reservation the next day, December 15, on an American Airlines flight from Seattle to New York through Chicago, connecting to a British Airways flight in New York to London.
Ressam appeared briefly before a U.S. Magistrate in Seattle Friday and remains in custody pending a bail hearing and arraignment in Seattle next Wednesday...
...and...
US
Investigators seek links between terror groups and explosives suspect
December 19, 1999
Web posted at: 10:27 p.m. EST (0327 GMT)
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
SEATTLE (CNN) -- Law enforcement officials are looking for possible links between a man charged with trying to bring bomb-making materials into the United States and a terrorist organization known as the Armed Islamic Group.
Canadian investigators also are trying to determine whether Ahmed Ressam is connected to individuals believed to have been funneling money to radical Islamic fundamentalist groups around the world, according to U.S. and Canadian officials.
U.S. sources told CNN on Sunday that investigators continue to search for links between Ressam and Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, who is accused of masterminding the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa.
Meanwhile, Canadian law enforcement officials have located a van in a residential area of Montreal which may be connected to Ressam.
As a precaution, authorities have cordoned off the vehicle and evacuated some 400 people from nearby homes. Bomb technicians were preparing to search the van for explosives, according to a law enforcement official.
The official said the van was registered to a "Benni Antoine Norris," an alias allegedly used by Ressam.
President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Samuel Berger, told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that a "very full and active investigation" is under way to determine whether Ressam is associated with any terrorist groups including that of bin Laden.
Investigators are looking for similarities between the explosive materials allegedly found in Ressam's car and those used in the embassy bombings. Of particular interest are the timing devices -- which officials say are similar to devices used by some radical Islamic groups and bin Laden.
Ressam, 32, was charged with trying to transport explosives into the United States from Canada. He was stopped on Tuesday at the border, allegedly with a car load of nitroglycerin and other potential bomb-making materials. He is in custody in Seattle.
Andre Poirear, a spokesman for the Montreal Police Department, told CNN that Ressam's name came up during the investigation when accused terrorist Karim Said Atmani was extradited to France from Canada earlier this year. But Poirer said that authorities didn't have specific information linking Ressam with Atmani.
He said that Montreal Police arrested Ressam in late 1998 in connection with the theft of laptops and cell phones from cars. Poirear said Ressam was charged and convicted, and spent two weeks in jail.
After he was released, Poirear said investigators received information that Ressam may have been connected to a burglary at a home and two other thefts from cars. Poirear said authorities couldn't find Ressam.
"The next time we heard of Mr. Ressam was when he was arrested at the Washington State border," said Poirear.
Poirear also told CNN that the Montreal Police Department has arrested 11 individuals -- eight of them Algerian natives like Ressam -- over the past few months for thefts similar to those for which Ressam was arrested.
He said Montreal investigators believe the items were sold and that the proceeds may have been funneled to Islamic groups around the world.
"At this moment, we don't have a link between Mr. Ressam and those people," said Poirear. But he said the Montreal Police Department is working with the Canadian Royal Mounted Police, Interpol and the FBI to make "certain links."
Berger told reporters that law enforcement officials "are taking extra precautions" and are "on extra alert status to be very vigilant to try to prevent any acts of terrorism in the United States."
He also said that, at this time, U.S. officials have no "credible information of threats against particular targets against the U.S."
"I think as Americans go about their plans, they should be vigilant. Obviously, if they see something that looks suspicious, they should report it to law enforcement," Berger said...
Somehow some people in the United States of Amnesia don't want you to remember that. ¶ 7:17 AM 0 comments links to this post
The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:
So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed… Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.
Fat chance, that, but try it anyway!
I personally find Avedon's take on this (and most things) most appealing:
...The right-wing persists in its fantasy that it was Clinton rather than Bush who failed to respond to the attack on the USS Cole, despite the fact that the evidence to confirm the culprits didn't come in until Clinton was out of office. As always, Clinton is responsible for everything that happened before and after his presidency, including the fact that the Farting Prince refused to react once the evidence on the Cole operation was confirmed. Clearly, Bill Clinton is a Time Lord.
When Clinton told every one about the threat of terrorism on the increase in Y2k he was mercilessly mocked by the wingnuts and accused of wagging the dog, despite the fact his heightened terror alert caught terrorists entering our country.
Suspect carrying nitroglycerin may be linked to bin Laden, officials say
December 17, 1999
Web posted at: 11:13 p.m. EST (0413 GMT)
From staff and wire reports
SEATTLE (CNN) -- A man detained earlier this week at the U.S.-Canadian border faces charges of transporting the explosive material nitroglycerin into the United States, and U.S. officials say there is evidence he may be connected with the organization headed by accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The sources would not divulge what the evidence is that connects Ahmed Ressam, 32, a native of Algeria, with bin Laden's organization. Bin Laden, who is living in Afghanistan, has been indicted on charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 259 people.
Ressam also was charged in federal court Friday in Seattle with possessing false identification and making false statements to U.S. Customs officials when they stopped him upon arrival by ferry at Port Angeles, Washington.
Officials say these charges may be only the beginning, as FBI counterterrorism agents try to track Ressam's background and contacts.
Ressam has a Canadian criminal history of minor thefts, according to an affidavit by Customs Agent Michael Calonita.
Customs officials at the ferry crossing became suspicious when Ressam's itinerary showed he had come from Vancouver, British Columbia, and was heading to Seattle -- a 140-mile drive that does not require a trip to Vancouver Island, a ferry ride or a stop in Port Angeles, said FBI spokesman Pat Jones in Washington, D.C.
When the inspector asked about his roundabout route, Ressam became nervous, Jones said.
Ressam entered the United States on Tuesday around 6 p.m. PST (9 p.m. EST) in a rented Chrysler aboard a ferry from Victoria, British Columbia. His car was the last vehicle off the ferry, officials said.
According to the affidavit, he identified himself as Benni Antoine Noris, and when authorities asked him to get out of the vehicle "he was uncooperative."
While conducting a search of the vehicle "inspectors lifted up a mat to inspect the spare tire well. The well did not have a spare tire," the affidavit says.
Instead, authorities say they found:
* Two 22-ounce jars, each three-quarters full with nitroglycerin
* 10 plastic bags containing 110 pounds of a white powder identified as urea, a legal substance used to make explosives and fertilizers
* Two plastic bags containing about 14 pounds of sulfate, used as a desiccant to absorb water
* Four small black boxes containing homemade timers -- a circuit board with a Casio watch and a 9-volt battery.
"Preliminary analysis disclosed that when these materials are combined with a detonator, it would produce a large explosive device," the affidavit says.
At one point, when U.S. Customs inspectors began to escort Ressam from the car, he broke free, sprinting about five to six blocks away, where he tried unsuccessfully to get into a woman's car at an intersection, according to the affidavit. He was tackled in the street and taken into custody, authorities say.
Ressam had at least eight credit cards on him under the name Benni Noris as well other items in that name, including a Customs baggage declaration form, a Costco card, and a Quebec driver's license.
Authorities say he had reserved a room Tuesday in a downtown Seattle Best Western motel, just blocks from the Space Needle and the Seattle Center, where 150,000 people are expected to attend a New Year's celebration.
The timing of his arrival -- just before the millennial New Year's Eve -- "is very interesting," said Jesse Chester, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "It raises a lot of questions in a lot of our minds as far as motive."
FBI agent Ray Lowler would not comment on whether a stakeout had been conducted at the Best Western, or any other part of the investigation. But Lowler did say no other arrests had been made in connection to Ressam's case.
Authorities say airline reservations the suspect had under his alias has heightened concerns he may have been dropping off the potential bomb-making material.
According to airline records at Seatac International Airport, a "Benni Norris" had a reservation the next day, December 15, on an American Airlines flight from Seattle to New York through Chicago, connecting to a British Airways flight in New York to London.
Ressam appeared briefly before a U.S. Magistrate in Seattle Friday and remains in custody pending a bail hearing and arraignment in Seattle next Wednesday...
...and...
US
Investigators seek links between terror groups and explosives suspect
December 19, 1999
Web posted at: 10:27 p.m. EST (0327 GMT)
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
SEATTLE (CNN) -- Law enforcement officials are looking for possible links between a man charged with trying to bring bomb-making materials into the United States and a terrorist organization known as the Armed Islamic Group.
Canadian investigators also are trying to determine whether Ahmed Ressam is connected to individuals believed to have been funneling money to radical Islamic fundamentalist groups around the world, according to U.S. and Canadian officials.
U.S. sources told CNN on Sunday that investigators continue to search for links between Ressam and Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, who is accused of masterminding the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa.
Meanwhile, Canadian law enforcement officials have located a van in a residential area of Montreal which may be connected to Ressam.
As a precaution, authorities have cordoned off the vehicle and evacuated some 400 people from nearby homes. Bomb technicians were preparing to search the van for explosives, according to a law enforcement official.
The official said the van was registered to a "Benni Antoine Norris," an alias allegedly used by Ressam.
President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Samuel Berger, told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that a "very full and active investigation" is under way to determine whether Ressam is associated with any terrorist groups including that of bin Laden.
Investigators are looking for similarities between the explosive materials allegedly found in Ressam's car and those used in the embassy bombings. Of particular interest are the timing devices -- which officials say are similar to devices used by some radical Islamic groups and bin Laden.
Ressam, 32, was charged with trying to transport explosives into the United States from Canada. He was stopped on Tuesday at the border, allegedly with a car load of nitroglycerin and other potential bomb-making materials. He is in custody in Seattle.
Andre Poirear, a spokesman for the Montreal Police Department, told CNN that Ressam's name came up during the investigation when accused terrorist Karim Said Atmani was extradited to France from Canada earlier this year. But Poirer said that authorities didn't have specific information linking Ressam with Atmani.
He said that Montreal Police arrested Ressam in late 1998 in connection with the theft of laptops and cell phones from cars. Poirear said Ressam was charged and convicted, and spent two weeks in jail.
After he was released, Poirear said investigators received information that Ressam may have been connected to a burglary at a home and two other thefts from cars. Poirear said authorities couldn't find Ressam.
"The next time we heard of Mr. Ressam was when he was arrested at the Washington State border," said Poirear.
Poirear also told CNN that the Montreal Police Department has arrested 11 individuals -- eight of them Algerian natives like Ressam -- over the past few months for thefts similar to those for which Ressam was arrested.
He said Montreal investigators believe the items were sold and that the proceeds may have been funneled to Islamic groups around the world.
"At this moment, we don't have a link between Mr. Ressam and those people," said Poirear. But he said the Montreal Police Department is working with the Canadian Royal Mounted Police, Interpol and the FBI to make "certain links."
Berger told reporters that law enforcement officials "are taking extra precautions" and are "on extra alert status to be very vigilant to try to prevent any acts of terrorism in the United States."
He also said that, at this time, U.S. officials have no "credible information of threats against particular targets against the U.S."
"I think as Americans go about their plans, they should be vigilant. Obviously, if they see something that looks suspicious, they should report it to law enforcement," Berger said...
Somehow some people in the United States of Amnesia don't want you to remember that. ¶ 7:17 AM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, September 04, 2006
Because it takes one to know one
At A Tiny Revolution, a curious fact is noted that went entirely unnoticed last week here in the United States of Amnesia:
...Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday:
"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons...once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism."
George Bush yesterday:
"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century...As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be."
Where were both of these speeches given? At the national convention of the American Legion.
And what was the American Legion up to in the 1920s and 30s? Let's ask one of the greatest reporters of the 20th century, George Seldes:
'In a interview in January 1923, Commander-in-Chief Alvin Owsley of the American Legion not only endorsed Mussolini and Fascism, but announced his readiness to do what the Duce did, that is, upset the democratic form of government, establish a reign of terror, maintain a dictatorship where the masses of people are deprived of all civil rights.
' "If ever needed," he said, "the American Legion stands ready to protect our country's institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy."
'Asked whether that meant taking over the government, he replied:
' "Exactly that...Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States." '
And who were those loathsome appeasers whom Donald Rumsfeld hates so much?
'Prior to April, 1941, his journal now discloses, [Charles] Lindbergh was exceedingly active behind the scenes in generating antiwar sentiment. The flier worked intimately with Robert R. McCormick, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune; Robert Wood, board Chairman of Sears, Roebuck; former president Herbert Hoover, Henry Ford, Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, Hanford MacNider [co-founder of the American Legion], Senator Burton K. wheeler of Montana and John T. Flynn, the economist. ' ¶ 8:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
...Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday:
"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons...once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism."
George Bush yesterday:
"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century...As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be."
Where were both of these speeches given? At the national convention of the American Legion.
And what was the American Legion up to in the 1920s and 30s? Let's ask one of the greatest reporters of the 20th century, George Seldes:
'In a interview in January 1923, Commander-in-Chief Alvin Owsley of the American Legion not only endorsed Mussolini and Fascism, but announced his readiness to do what the Duce did, that is, upset the democratic form of government, establish a reign of terror, maintain a dictatorship where the masses of people are deprived of all civil rights.
' "If ever needed," he said, "the American Legion stands ready to protect our country's institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy."
'Asked whether that meant taking over the government, he replied:
' "Exactly that...Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States." '
And who were those loathsome appeasers whom Donald Rumsfeld hates so much?
'Prior to April, 1941, his journal now discloses, [Charles] Lindbergh was exceedingly active behind the scenes in generating antiwar sentiment. The flier worked intimately with Robert R. McCormick, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune; Robert Wood, board Chairman of Sears, Roebuck; former president Herbert Hoover, Henry Ford, Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, Hanford MacNider [co-founder of the American Legion], Senator Burton K. wheeler of Montana and John T. Flynn, the economist. ' ¶ 8:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
Watch Yer Language
Google developing eavesdropping software
Audio 'fingerprint' for content relevant ads
The first thing that came out of our mouths when we heard that Google is working on a system that listens to what's on your TV playing in the background, and then serves you relevant adverts, was "that's cool, but dangerous".
The idea appeared in Technology Review citing Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, who says these ideas will show up eventually in real Google products - sooner rather than later.
The idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then shows you relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject.
And, of course, we wouldn’t put it past Google to store that information away, along with the search terms it keeps that you've used, and the web pages you have visited, to help it create a personalised profile that feeds you just the right kind of adverts/content. And given that it is trying to develop alternative approaches to TV advertising, it could go the extra step and help send "content relevant" advertising to your TV as well.
We suspect that such a world would be rather eerie, with a constant feeling of déjà vu every time anyone watched TV.
Technology Review said Google talked about this software in Europe last June, and that it breaks sound into a five-second snippets to pick out audio from a TV, reducing the snippet to a digital "fingerprint", which it matches on an internet server.
Given the furore caused when AOL released searches on the internet, there might be more than a few civil liberties activists less than happy for Google to put this idea into practice. Also, given that Google provides the software link between its search software and the microphone, it's a small step to making the same link to any webcams attached to the PC.
Pretty soon the security industry is going to find a way to hijack the Google feed and use it for full on espionage.
Google says that its fingerprinting technology makes it impossible for the company (or anyone else) to eavesdrop on other sounds in the room, such as personal conversations, because the conversion to a fingerprint is made on the PC, and a fingerprint can't be reversed, as it's only an identity.
But we should think that "spyware" might take on an extra meaning if someone less scrupulous decided on a similar piece of software...
Ya think? ¶ 7:15 AM 0 comments links to this post
Audio 'fingerprint' for content relevant ads
The first thing that came out of our mouths when we heard that Google is working on a system that listens to what's on your TV playing in the background, and then serves you relevant adverts, was "that's cool, but dangerous".
The idea appeared in Technology Review citing Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, who says these ideas will show up eventually in real Google products - sooner rather than later.
The idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then shows you relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject.
And, of course, we wouldn’t put it past Google to store that information away, along with the search terms it keeps that you've used, and the web pages you have visited, to help it create a personalised profile that feeds you just the right kind of adverts/content. And given that it is trying to develop alternative approaches to TV advertising, it could go the extra step and help send "content relevant" advertising to your TV as well.
We suspect that such a world would be rather eerie, with a constant feeling of déjà vu every time anyone watched TV.
Technology Review said Google talked about this software in Europe last June, and that it breaks sound into a five-second snippets to pick out audio from a TV, reducing the snippet to a digital "fingerprint", which it matches on an internet server.
Given the furore caused when AOL released searches on the internet, there might be more than a few civil liberties activists less than happy for Google to put this idea into practice. Also, given that Google provides the software link between its search software and the microphone, it's a small step to making the same link to any webcams attached to the PC.
Pretty soon the security industry is going to find a way to hijack the Google feed and use it for full on espionage.
Google says that its fingerprinting technology makes it impossible for the company (or anyone else) to eavesdrop on other sounds in the room, such as personal conversations, because the conversion to a fingerprint is made on the PC, and a fingerprint can't be reversed, as it's only an identity.
But we should think that "spyware" might take on an extra meaning if someone less scrupulous decided on a similar piece of software...
Ya think? ¶ 7:15 AM 0 comments links to this post
Sunday, September 03, 2006
They Might Have Been Klingons
Via Lambert.
Roswell's most famous Area 51 is where (resumably) Stealth technology was developed.
The flying saucer stuff proved an excellent cover for years as the Nazi designs were reworked to give us modern stealth technology. This was all Top Secret stuff; and yes Virginia, lethal force was something they were willing to use to keep you away. If you search my site for DARPA you can find several long posts of the kinds of things that have been funded and have gone on- and continue to go on- (presumably) in places like Roswell.
I find it very interesting and embarrassing for DHS that private contractors working at this site are bringing in cheap labor without appropriate security clearances under the nose of the one of the supposedly most secure areas of the country.
But I suppose I shouldn't be.
After all, if a private contractor sells top secret technological information to another government, well, its not something they wouldn't have figured out eventually.
On the other hand, if CNN announced, for example, those glowing spacecraft were really experimental stealthed fighters painted with radium at a density of a Curie per square cm, some civilians who understood what that meant might really get uneasy. ¶ 7:54 PM 0 comments links to this post
Roswell's most famous Area 51 is where (resumably) Stealth technology was developed.
The flying saucer stuff proved an excellent cover for years as the Nazi designs were reworked to give us modern stealth technology. This was all Top Secret stuff; and yes Virginia, lethal force was something they were willing to use to keep you away. If you search my site for DARPA you can find several long posts of the kinds of things that have been funded and have gone on- and continue to go on- (presumably) in places like Roswell.
I find it very interesting and embarrassing for DHS that private contractors working at this site are bringing in cheap labor without appropriate security clearances under the nose of the one of the supposedly most secure areas of the country.
But I suppose I shouldn't be.
After all, if a private contractor sells top secret technological information to another government, well, its not something they wouldn't have figured out eventually.
On the other hand, if CNN announced, for example, those glowing spacecraft were really experimental stealthed fighters painted with radium at a density of a Curie per square cm, some civilians who understood what that meant might really get uneasy. ¶ 7:54 PM 0 comments links to this post
Making the Middle East Safe for Its Biggest Cash Crop
Mission accomplished in Afghanistan!
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan’s world-leading opium cultivation rose a “staggering” 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.
The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin — outstripping the demand of the world’s heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures...
...Afghanistan’s insecurity is fueling the opium boom, saying he has pleaded with the NATO force that took over military operations in the south a month ago to take a “stronger role” in fighting drugs. NATO says it has no mandate for direct involvement in the anti-drug campaign.
“We need much stronger, forceful measures to improve security or otherwise I’m afraid we are going to face a dramatic situation of failed regions, districts and even perhaps even provinces in the near future,” Costa said.
The U.N. report, based on satellite imagery and ground surveys, said the area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached 407,700 acres in 2006, up from 257,000 acres in 2005. The previous high was 323,700 acres in 2004.
The estimated yield of 6,100 tons of opium resin — described by Costa as “staggering” — is up from 4,100 tons last year, and exceeds the previous high for total global output of 5,764 tons recorded in 1999.
Last year, about 450 tons of heroin was consumed worldwide, 90 percent of it from Afghanistan, according to the U.N.
The report will increase pressure on the beleaguered Afghan president. Karzai has often talked tough on drugs, even declaring a “holy war” against the trade, but he is increasingly criticized for appointing and failing to sack corrupt provincial governors and police.
...In an indication of the alarming extent of official complicity in the trade, a Western counternarcotics official said about 25,000 to 30,000 acres of government land in Helmand was used to cultivate opium poppies this year.
The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said police and government officials are involved in cultivating poppies, providing protection for growers or taking bribes to ensure the crops aren’t destroyed.
You got that right. Land owned and controlled by the Cheneyburton-Unocal puppet is being used to flood the world market with opium and heroin.
But along with the lack of armed confrontation here at home, it's got to be puzzling and frustratng to the Bu$hCo-Cheneyburton cabal that the antiwar movement isn't the drug culture that the Nixon CIA helped create in the '60s and '70s anymore.
That's one Rovian strategery that hasn't worked out as planned. ¶ 7:49 AM 0 comments links to this post
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan’s world-leading opium cultivation rose a “staggering” 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.
The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin — outstripping the demand of the world’s heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures...
...Afghanistan’s insecurity is fueling the opium boom, saying he has pleaded with the NATO force that took over military operations in the south a month ago to take a “stronger role” in fighting drugs. NATO says it has no mandate for direct involvement in the anti-drug campaign.
“We need much stronger, forceful measures to improve security or otherwise I’m afraid we are going to face a dramatic situation of failed regions, districts and even perhaps even provinces in the near future,” Costa said.
The U.N. report, based on satellite imagery and ground surveys, said the area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached 407,700 acres in 2006, up from 257,000 acres in 2005. The previous high was 323,700 acres in 2004.
The estimated yield of 6,100 tons of opium resin — described by Costa as “staggering” — is up from 4,100 tons last year, and exceeds the previous high for total global output of 5,764 tons recorded in 1999.
Last year, about 450 tons of heroin was consumed worldwide, 90 percent of it from Afghanistan, according to the U.N.
The report will increase pressure on the beleaguered Afghan president. Karzai has often talked tough on drugs, even declaring a “holy war” against the trade, but he is increasingly criticized for appointing and failing to sack corrupt provincial governors and police.
...In an indication of the alarming extent of official complicity in the trade, a Western counternarcotics official said about 25,000 to 30,000 acres of government land in Helmand was used to cultivate opium poppies this year.
The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said police and government officials are involved in cultivating poppies, providing protection for growers or taking bribes to ensure the crops aren’t destroyed.
You got that right. Land owned and controlled by the Cheneyburton-Unocal puppet is being used to flood the world market with opium and heroin.
But along with the lack of armed confrontation here at home, it's got to be puzzling and frustratng to the Bu$hCo-Cheneyburton cabal that the antiwar movement isn't the drug culture that the Nixon CIA helped create in the '60s and '70s anymore.
That's one Rovian strategery that hasn't worked out as planned. ¶ 7:49 AM 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Never Letting the Fact Interfere with Truthiness. Again.
This Friday we heard:
September 1, 2006 · The Pentagon acknowledges what already has been expressed by U.S. military commanders and others recently: Sectarian violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. In its quarterly report, the Pentagon report showed Iraqi deaths have risen by 50 percent over the previous quarter.
Five weeks after the Bush administration brought thousands of new troops to quell rising sectarian violence in Baghdad, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says violence between Sunni and Shiite muslims has increased elsewhere in Iraq.
The report says violence has held steady in Baghdad. But it has increased in the southern city of Basra, where British troops have clashed with the Mahdi Army. It has risen in Diyala Province in central Iraq, as well as in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
The report says, "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months."
Nationwide in Iraq, the average number of weekly attacks tallied by the Pentagon has increased 15 percent over the past few months. Iraqi casualties have risen by 51 percent. That translates to 1,000 additional Iraqis killed each month.
...and:
WASHINGTON - Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.
In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring
Iran and
Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.
Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.
"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.
"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.
The response from All Hat and No Cattle hisself?
''Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address. ''They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.''
"His" commanders and diplomats. Meaning of course, Rumsfeld's armchair sycophants and Condi Rice.
I agree with Helen Thomas:
... it's time for the Democratic candidates to call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
We don't need more phony timetables to prolong the agony. We need a quick exit from a bad show.
It's distressing that The Washington Post has found that most Democrats in competitive congressional races are resisting pressure to call for a speedy pullout. Those spineless Democrats are apparently frightened by the prospect that the Bush administration would use the "cut-and-run" fear card against them.
Where is the opposition in the opposition party?
If politicians live and die by the polls, the evidence is there to support a strong anti-war position. I refer to polls that show Americans are losing faith in this no-win war. For example, a Newsweek poll conducted Aug. 24-25 said 63 percent of those polled disapprove of President Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. Approval was 31 percent.
Maybe Americans have had it with all the deception that led to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Bush continues to brand the war in Iraq as part of the "global war on terror." However, when the president was asked at a news conference last week what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, he replied: "Nothing."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich doesn't believe Bush will leave it at that when the fifth anniversary of the al-Qaida attack rolls around soon. Bush will go back to his drumbeat, subtly trying to link Iraq to 9/11.
"The new propaganda strategy will be right out of Lewis Carroll ('Alice in Wonderland')," Rich wrote last Sunday. "If we leave the country that had nothing to do with 9/11, then 9/11 will happen again."
Despite growing proof that the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. presence is becoming more lethal, the president insists on adhering to his unpopular course. "Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster," he told reporters.
"What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world," he said.
Where have we heard this familiar refrain before?
Of course, this baloney is almost verbatim from President Johnson during the Vietnam War era when protesters hit the streets en masse to express their disenchantment with the war.
In his book "The Logic of Withdrawal," author-journalist Anthony Arnove wrote: "During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government learned how quickly the discipline of an army fighting an unjust war can break down.
"Today the soldiers in the field can see contradictions between the claims of their officers -- and especially the politicians who sent them to war -- and the reality of the conflict on the ground. They now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat.
"And as the resistance grows, more soldiers have come to see they are fighting not to liberate Iraqis but to pacify them."
Arnove rebuts some arguments against pulling up stakes and leaving Iraq. One is that the U.S. presence is preventing a civil war. He points out that the various religious factions in Iraq already are pitted against one another.
If it's not a civil war, it's a reasonable facsimile. ¶ 10:13 PM 0 comments links to this post
September 1, 2006 · The Pentagon acknowledges what already has been expressed by U.S. military commanders and others recently: Sectarian violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. In its quarterly report, the Pentagon report showed Iraqi deaths have risen by 50 percent over the previous quarter.
Five weeks after the Bush administration brought thousands of new troops to quell rising sectarian violence in Baghdad, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says violence between Sunni and Shiite muslims has increased elsewhere in Iraq.
The report says violence has held steady in Baghdad. But it has increased in the southern city of Basra, where British troops have clashed with the Mahdi Army. It has risen in Diyala Province in central Iraq, as well as in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
The report says, "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months."
Nationwide in Iraq, the average number of weekly attacks tallied by the Pentagon has increased 15 percent over the past few months. Iraqi casualties have risen by 51 percent. That translates to 1,000 additional Iraqis killed each month.
...and:
WASHINGTON - Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.
In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring
Iran and
Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.
Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.
"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.
"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.
The response from All Hat and No Cattle hisself?
''Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address. ''They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.''
"His" commanders and diplomats. Meaning of course, Rumsfeld's armchair sycophants and Condi Rice.
I agree with Helen Thomas:
... it's time for the Democratic candidates to call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
We don't need more phony timetables to prolong the agony. We need a quick exit from a bad show.
It's distressing that The Washington Post has found that most Democrats in competitive congressional races are resisting pressure to call for a speedy pullout. Those spineless Democrats are apparently frightened by the prospect that the Bush administration would use the "cut-and-run" fear card against them.
Where is the opposition in the opposition party?
If politicians live and die by the polls, the evidence is there to support a strong anti-war position. I refer to polls that show Americans are losing faith in this no-win war. For example, a Newsweek poll conducted Aug. 24-25 said 63 percent of those polled disapprove of President Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. Approval was 31 percent.
Maybe Americans have had it with all the deception that led to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Bush continues to brand the war in Iraq as part of the "global war on terror." However, when the president was asked at a news conference last week what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, he replied: "Nothing."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich doesn't believe Bush will leave it at that when the fifth anniversary of the al-Qaida attack rolls around soon. Bush will go back to his drumbeat, subtly trying to link Iraq to 9/11.
"The new propaganda strategy will be right out of Lewis Carroll ('Alice in Wonderland')," Rich wrote last Sunday. "If we leave the country that had nothing to do with 9/11, then 9/11 will happen again."
Despite growing proof that the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. presence is becoming more lethal, the president insists on adhering to his unpopular course. "Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster," he told reporters.
"What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world," he said.
Where have we heard this familiar refrain before?
Of course, this baloney is almost verbatim from President Johnson during the Vietnam War era when protesters hit the streets en masse to express their disenchantment with the war.
In his book "The Logic of Withdrawal," author-journalist Anthony Arnove wrote: "During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government learned how quickly the discipline of an army fighting an unjust war can break down.
"Today the soldiers in the field can see contradictions between the claims of their officers -- and especially the politicians who sent them to war -- and the reality of the conflict on the ground. They now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat.
"And as the resistance grows, more soldiers have come to see they are fighting not to liberate Iraqis but to pacify them."
Arnove rebuts some arguments against pulling up stakes and leaving Iraq. One is that the U.S. presence is preventing a civil war. He points out that the various religious factions in Iraq already are pitted against one another.
If it's not a civil war, it's a reasonable facsimile. ¶ 10:13 PM 0 comments links to this post
Acquisition by Proxy
Via Buzzflash, an interesting set of connected dots:
Today Dubai Ports World announced it would "transfer fully the U.S. operations…to a United States entity." PBS News Hour reporter, Norm Ornstein,said that DP World was considering selling its U.S. operations to Halliburton:
Today is Wednesday, August 30, 2006. Yesterday, in an article I posted, I conceded that I couldn't quite fathom why George Bush tried, some months back, to transfer the American Ports to Dubai ports, in spite of terrorist ties, and sympathies. I pointed out that this attempted change was made during a congressional break, that it during a hiatus while the congressmen were vacationing.
I suggested some kind of profiteering on the part of president Bush.
Today, 24 hours later, we have a report on Public Broadcasting, presented by Norm Ornstein, that the Dubai Ports were possibly going to be bought by Halliburton.
Halliburton is the company which rebuilds Iraq, after American bombs, missiles, and artillery do their damage.
Halliburton also has, or had, plans to build a detention facility, comparable to the one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the holding of suspected terrorists. The Halliburton facility would be in fact larger ...the Guantanamo bay Facility is infamous for holding un-charged suspected terrorists, for allegations of torture, for numerous suicides, and more.
Vice President Dick Chaney is a past executive officer of Halliburton.
Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998. Here is some interesting info about Dresser industries:
Dresser had been founded by Solomon Dresser in 1880, and taken over in 1928 by W.H. Harriman & Company, the investment bank owned by the descendants of railroad magnate E.H. Harriman, himself a front for the British Royal Family. Under Averell and Roland Harriman, Dresser was a Skull & Bones shop, whose board included Bonesman and presidential father and grandfather Prescott Bush. Both Roland Harriman and Prescott Bush were directors of Union Banking Corp. when it was raided by Federal agents in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, for its dealings on behalf of Nazi Germany.
The Nation., NY - Jun 22, 2006
This partial quote from a Google link:
"Envision a pseudo-political group whose sole interest is in the manipulation of the economy for it's own interests. Not influenced whatever by legal or moral issues, beyond the need to present an acceptable façade; no concern for social programs, the citizenry, world interests, only, by it's very charter, economic gain.
How much damage could these profiteers do?" -BBJ
This manipulization of the American Armed Forces, non-compliances with American laws, by The Bushs, and Chaneys, to further private economic interests,goes far beyond the scope of "impeachable offenses."
Despite the uproar last winter where Congress "blocked" the takeover, Bu$hCo simply pushed the limited takeover through, letting it occur after the Congressional posturing died down.
So now Cheneyburton will control port security. The better to Operation Northwoods you, my dear. ¶ 7:07 AM 0 comments links to this post
Today Dubai Ports World announced it would "transfer fully the U.S. operations…to a United States entity." PBS News Hour reporter, Norm Ornstein,said that DP World was considering selling its U.S. operations to Halliburton:
Today is Wednesday, August 30, 2006. Yesterday, in an article I posted, I conceded that I couldn't quite fathom why George Bush tried, some months back, to transfer the American Ports to Dubai ports, in spite of terrorist ties, and sympathies. I pointed out that this attempted change was made during a congressional break, that it during a hiatus while the congressmen were vacationing.
I suggested some kind of profiteering on the part of president Bush.
Today, 24 hours later, we have a report on Public Broadcasting, presented by Norm Ornstein, that the Dubai Ports were possibly going to be bought by Halliburton.
Halliburton is the company which rebuilds Iraq, after American bombs, missiles, and artillery do their damage.
Halliburton also has, or had, plans to build a detention facility, comparable to the one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the holding of suspected terrorists. The Halliburton facility would be in fact larger ...the Guantanamo bay Facility is infamous for holding un-charged suspected terrorists, for allegations of torture, for numerous suicides, and more.
Vice President Dick Chaney is a past executive officer of Halliburton.
Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998. Here is some interesting info about Dresser industries:
Dresser had been founded by Solomon Dresser in 1880, and taken over in 1928 by W.H. Harriman & Company, the investment bank owned by the descendants of railroad magnate E.H. Harriman, himself a front for the British Royal Family. Under Averell and Roland Harriman, Dresser was a Skull & Bones shop, whose board included Bonesman and presidential father and grandfather Prescott Bush. Both Roland Harriman and Prescott Bush were directors of Union Banking Corp. when it was raided by Federal agents in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, for its dealings on behalf of Nazi Germany.
The Nation., NY - Jun 22, 2006
This partial quote from a Google link:
"Envision a pseudo-political group whose sole interest is in the manipulation of the economy for it's own interests. Not influenced whatever by legal or moral issues, beyond the need to present an acceptable façade; no concern for social programs, the citizenry, world interests, only, by it's very charter, economic gain.
How much damage could these profiteers do?" -BBJ
This manipulization of the American Armed Forces, non-compliances with American laws, by The Bushs, and Chaneys, to further private economic interests,goes far beyond the scope of "impeachable offenses."
Despite the uproar last winter where Congress "blocked" the takeover, Bu$hCo simply pushed the limited takeover through, letting it occur after the Congressional posturing died down.
So now Cheneyburton will control port security. The better to Operation Northwoods you, my dear. ¶ 7:07 AM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Company Serves Man
It's being noticed all over.
The Great Conservative Privatization Scam
By workingmansblues
One of the most pervasive beliefs among conservatives is that government is inherently flawed. Ronald Reagan, in his nomination speech before the 1980 Republican convention, stood before the nation and declared "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."Right wing talk show hosts rampage daily against the evil government and, even amongst many Democrats, government is seen as a necessary evil or a last resort.
This may be the greatest trick ever played upon the American people - to convince them that Their government, by the people, of the people, and for the people, is a bad thing. Mankind waited thousands of years for a constitution of self-governance, and these right wing millionaires have turned the people against it...
...those same demagogues and sophists who rail against our government have simultaneously hijacked it to serve their own purposes. While they cry out at the horrors of government in public, behind closed doors they are using it secure their power and reap its rewards.
For evidence of this fact, look no further than the massive privatization agenda pushed by conservative Republicans. Their argument is, of course, that government is really, really bad so we must replace it with private contractors who are more efficient due to their competitiveness and profit motive.
But time and time again, the evidence clearly shows that government contractors aren't more efficient, they rarely compete, and their profit motive ends up making a few people extremely wealthy at taxpayer's significant expense.
Last week we learned that privately run, charter schools failed to outperform public schools despite their being, private. We also heard about how disaster profiteers were landing big government contracts to clean up New Orleans and then sub-contracting down at pennies on the dollar:
The report claims many large companies established 'contracting pyramids', with each layer skimming money. It highlighted the $500m contract awarded to Ashbritt to remove debris, which worked out at $23 per cubic metre of rubbish moved. In turn, it hired C&B Enterprises to do the work for $9 per cubic metre, which in turn hired Amlee Transportation which was paid $8 per cubic metre. Amlee hired another company for $7 a cubic metre. Finally, the work was done at $3 per cubic metre by a haulier from New Jersey.
Today, a new report exposes how the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors made a whopping $984 million since 9/11. Here are some other key findings:
* Since the “War on Terror” began, the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have enjoyed average pay levels that are double the amounts they received during the four years leading up to 9/11.
* Defense CEO pay was 108 percent higher on average in 2005 compared to 2001, whereas pay for their counterparts at other large U.S. companies increased only 6 percent during this period.
* Defense CEO pay was 44 times that of a military general with 20 years of experience and 308 times that of an Army private in 2005. Generals made $174,452 and Army privates made $25,085, while average defense CEO pay was $7.7 million.
The conservative privatization agenda is nothing more than a scam to get their greedy hands on our tax dollars. Record deficits and record profits for corporate contractors are proof of it... ¶ 10:58 PM 0 comments links to this post
The Great Conservative Privatization Scam
By workingmansblues
One of the most pervasive beliefs among conservatives is that government is inherently flawed. Ronald Reagan, in his nomination speech before the 1980 Republican convention, stood before the nation and declared "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."Right wing talk show hosts rampage daily against the evil government and, even amongst many Democrats, government is seen as a necessary evil or a last resort.
This may be the greatest trick ever played upon the American people - to convince them that Their government, by the people, of the people, and for the people, is a bad thing. Mankind waited thousands of years for a constitution of self-governance, and these right wing millionaires have turned the people against it...
...those same demagogues and sophists who rail against our government have simultaneously hijacked it to serve their own purposes. While they cry out at the horrors of government in public, behind closed doors they are using it secure their power and reap its rewards.
For evidence of this fact, look no further than the massive privatization agenda pushed by conservative Republicans. Their argument is, of course, that government is really, really bad so we must replace it with private contractors who are more efficient due to their competitiveness and profit motive.
But time and time again, the evidence clearly shows that government contractors aren't more efficient, they rarely compete, and their profit motive ends up making a few people extremely wealthy at taxpayer's significant expense.
Last week we learned that privately run, charter schools failed to outperform public schools despite their being, private. We also heard about how disaster profiteers were landing big government contracts to clean up New Orleans and then sub-contracting down at pennies on the dollar:
The report claims many large companies established 'contracting pyramids', with each layer skimming money. It highlighted the $500m contract awarded to Ashbritt to remove debris, which worked out at $23 per cubic metre of rubbish moved. In turn, it hired C&B Enterprises to do the work for $9 per cubic metre, which in turn hired Amlee Transportation which was paid $8 per cubic metre. Amlee hired another company for $7 a cubic metre. Finally, the work was done at $3 per cubic metre by a haulier from New Jersey.
Today, a new report exposes how the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors made a whopping $984 million since 9/11. Here are some other key findings:
* Since the “War on Terror” began, the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have enjoyed average pay levels that are double the amounts they received during the four years leading up to 9/11.
* Defense CEO pay was 108 percent higher on average in 2005 compared to 2001, whereas pay for their counterparts at other large U.S. companies increased only 6 percent during this period.
* Defense CEO pay was 44 times that of a military general with 20 years of experience and 308 times that of an Army private in 2005. Generals made $174,452 and Army privates made $25,085, while average defense CEO pay was $7.7 million.
The conservative privatization agenda is nothing more than a scam to get their greedy hands on our tax dollars. Record deficits and record profits for corporate contractors are proof of it... ¶ 10:58 PM 0 comments links to this post
Class Struggle: the Prey Turns and Fights the Predator
jurrasicpork posts Tom Frank's parting shot at The New York Pravda:
What we have watched unfold for a few decades, I have argued, is a broad reversion to 19th-century political form, with free-market economics understood as the state of nature, plutocracy as the default social condition, and, enthroned as the nation’s necessary vice, an institutionalized corruption surpassing anything we have seen for 80 years. All that is missing is a return to the gold standard and a war to Christianize the Philippines.
Historically, liberalism was a fighting response to precisely these conditions. Look through the foundational texts of American liberalism and you can find everything you need to derail the conservative juggernaut. But don’t expect liberal leaders in Washington to use those things. They are “New Democrats” now, enlightened and entrepreneurial and barely able to get out of bed in the morning, let alone muster the strength to deliver some Rooseveltian stemwinder against “economic royalists...”
Krugman also takes up the call. [linked as soon as i bothered to read more of juruasicpork's excellent blog!]
Marie Cocco at the Boulder Daily Camera has this to say:
The "ownership society" looks like this: The owners are doing quite well, thank you.
Wealth — the value of assets such as houses, stocks and cash that an individual holds, after debts are subtracted — has become more concentrated over the past four decades, and more intensely so since 1998. Middle-income families who, in contemporary political mythology, are socking away money in mutual funds and soon will see their net worth rise with their stocks are, in truth, holding a steadily shrinking proportion of the nation's wealth.
For all the popular fascination with Wall Street greed and glory, investment wealth is still a distant dream on Main Street: In 2004, more than half of all U.S. households held no stock at all. That includes stocks held indirectly in mutual funds and in 401(k) retirement accounts. And almost two out of three households that did own stock held portfolios valued at less than $5,000.
Meanwhile, households with incomes in the top 10 percent owned close to 80 percent of all stock. The net worth of the wealthiest Americans has climbed consistently since 1962, when the top holders of wealth held 125 times what the median household did. By 2004 the best-off had wealth amounting to 190 times that of a typical household.
"The fallacy that all or even most American households are greatly invested in the stock market — either directly or indirectly through pension plans — is exposed," says the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute in its annual study of the State of Working America.
The study, published every Labor Day, hasn't been released in its entirety. The book's chapter on wealth was released in advance. The analysis is based on Federal Reserve and other government data.
The excerpt's value is not in telling us what we already know: that wages are stagnant or shrinking; that the fruits of American workers' increased productivity have fed corporate profits, to an extent unprecedented in the post-World War II era; that even as wages fall and benefits such as guaranteed pensions are discarded as an extravagant "legacy" cost that drags down profits, corporate chieftains reward themselves with eye-popping pay packages and retirement benefits. ..
But while most CEOs earn disproportionately more than their serfs, what group has really pulled ahead of the rest of the pack of jackals?
You guessed it. The wolves of war:
CEOs at Defense Contractors Earn 45% More
Campaign Contributions Tied to Bigger Contracts
* Download
the Study (PDF, 285 KB)
Median CEO pay at the 37 largest defense contractors rose 79 percent from 2001 to 2002, while overall CEO pay climbed only 6 percent, according to a new report from United for a Fair Economy, More Bucks for the Bang: CEO Pay at Top Defense Contractors, by Chris Hartman and David Martin.
Median pay was 45 percent higher in 2002 at defense contractors than at the 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week magazine. The typical U.S. CEO made $3.7 million in 2002, while the typical defense industry CEO got $5.4 million.
The jump in median defense contractor CEO pay far exceeded the increase in defense spending, which rose 14 percent from 2001 to 2002.
Compared with an army private’s pay of $19,585, the average CEO at a major defense contractor made 577 times as much in 2002, or $11,297,548. This is also more than 28 times as much as the Commander in Chief’s salary of $400,000.
The study also looked at the size of campaign contributions by the largest defense contractors and found a strong correlation between campaign contributions made by a company in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles and the value of defense contracts awarded to that company. Ninety percent of the difference in contract size can be accounted for by size of contributions. For example, top arms contractor Lockheed Martin was also the top campaign contributor among defense firms...
That was just the first year after 9/11.
A longer study:
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
By Andrew Taylor
The Associated Press
Washington- The chief executives of corporations making big profits from the war on terror are enjoying far bigger pay increases than CEOs of nondefense companies, according to a study by two liberal groups.
The study, conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, found that, on average, CEOs of corporations with extensive defense contracts are getting paid about double what they made before Sept. 11, 2001.
CEOs of other large corporations without big stakes in the war have averaged pay gains of 6 percent during the same period, the study said...
There you have it. Bu$hie's base sez the economy is very, very good.
The rest of you can just eat MREs.
¶ 7:25 AM 2 comments
links to this post
What we have watched unfold for a few decades, I have argued, is a broad reversion to 19th-century political form, with free-market economics understood as the state of nature, plutocracy as the default social condition, and, enthroned as the nation’s necessary vice, an institutionalized corruption surpassing anything we have seen for 80 years. All that is missing is a return to the gold standard and a war to Christianize the Philippines.
Historically, liberalism was a fighting response to precisely these conditions. Look through the foundational texts of American liberalism and you can find everything you need to derail the conservative juggernaut. But don’t expect liberal leaders in Washington to use those things. They are “New Democrats” now, enlightened and entrepreneurial and barely able to get out of bed in the morning, let alone muster the strength to deliver some Rooseveltian stemwinder against “economic royalists...”
Krugman also takes up the call. [linked as soon as i bothered to read more of juruasicpork's excellent blog!]
Marie Cocco at the Boulder Daily Camera has this to say:
The "ownership society" looks like this: The owners are doing quite well, thank you.
Wealth — the value of assets such as houses, stocks and cash that an individual holds, after debts are subtracted — has become more concentrated over the past four decades, and more intensely so since 1998. Middle-income families who, in contemporary political mythology, are socking away money in mutual funds and soon will see their net worth rise with their stocks are, in truth, holding a steadily shrinking proportion of the nation's wealth.
For all the popular fascination with Wall Street greed and glory, investment wealth is still a distant dream on Main Street: In 2004, more than half of all U.S. households held no stock at all. That includes stocks held indirectly in mutual funds and in 401(k) retirement accounts. And almost two out of three households that did own stock held portfolios valued at less than $5,000.
Meanwhile, households with incomes in the top 10 percent owned close to 80 percent of all stock. The net worth of the wealthiest Americans has climbed consistently since 1962, when the top holders of wealth held 125 times what the median household did. By 2004 the best-off had wealth amounting to 190 times that of a typical household.
"The fallacy that all or even most American households are greatly invested in the stock market — either directly or indirectly through pension plans — is exposed," says the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute in its annual study of the State of Working America.
The study, published every Labor Day, hasn't been released in its entirety. The book's chapter on wealth was released in advance. The analysis is based on Federal Reserve and other government data.
The excerpt's value is not in telling us what we already know: that wages are stagnant or shrinking; that the fruits of American workers' increased productivity have fed corporate profits, to an extent unprecedented in the post-World War II era; that even as wages fall and benefits such as guaranteed pensions are discarded as an extravagant "legacy" cost that drags down profits, corporate chieftains reward themselves with eye-popping pay packages and retirement benefits. ..
But while most CEOs earn disproportionately more than their serfs, what group has really pulled ahead of the rest of the pack of jackals?
You guessed it. The wolves of war:
CEOs at Defense Contractors Earn 45% More
Campaign Contributions Tied to Bigger Contracts
* Download
the Study (PDF, 285 KB)
Median CEO pay at the 37 largest defense contractors rose 79 percent from 2001 to 2002, while overall CEO pay climbed only 6 percent, according to a new report from United for a Fair Economy, More Bucks for the Bang: CEO Pay at Top Defense Contractors, by Chris Hartman and David Martin.
Median pay was 45 percent higher in 2002 at defense contractors than at the 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week magazine. The typical U.S. CEO made $3.7 million in 2002, while the typical defense industry CEO got $5.4 million.
The jump in median defense contractor CEO pay far exceeded the increase in defense spending, which rose 14 percent from 2001 to 2002.
Compared with an army private’s pay of $19,585, the average CEO at a major defense contractor made 577 times as much in 2002, or $11,297,548. This is also more than 28 times as much as the Commander in Chief’s salary of $400,000.
The study also looked at the size of campaign contributions by the largest defense contractors and found a strong correlation between campaign contributions made by a company in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles and the value of defense contracts awarded to that company. Ninety percent of the difference in contract size can be accounted for by size of contributions. For example, top arms contractor Lockheed Martin was also the top campaign contributor among defense firms...
That was just the first year after 9/11.
A longer study:
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
By Andrew Taylor
The Associated Press
Washington- The chief executives of corporations making big profits from the war on terror are enjoying far bigger pay increases than CEOs of nondefense companies, according to a study by two liberal groups.
The study, conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, found that, on average, CEOs of corporations with extensive defense contracts are getting paid about double what they made before Sept. 11, 2001.
CEOs of other large corporations without big stakes in the war have averaged pay gains of 6 percent during the same period, the study said...
There you have it. Bu$hie's base sez the economy is very, very good.
The rest of you can just eat MREs.
¶ 7:25 AM 2 comments
links to this post
