Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: The Most Important Book You'll Ever Read
Signs of the Times
06/09/2006
In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone's lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he had won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world's leading foreign correspondents.
The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers.
After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers' doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and "lost", never to be replaced.
His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task for which all that had gone before was but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use - his years as a foreign correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture.
Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Douglas Reed's powers on what was to be his most important undertaking - that of researching and retelling the story of the last 2000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which for the masses remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of censorship.
The Book: Commencing in 1951, Douglas Reed spent more than three years - much of this time separated from his wife and young family - working in the New York Central Library, or tapping away at his typewriter in spartan lodgings in New York or Montreal. With workmanlike zeal, the book was rewritten, all 300,000 words of it, and the Epilogue only added in 1956.
The story of the book itself - the unusual circumstances in which it was written, and how the manuscript, after having remained hidden for more than 20 years, came to light and was at last made available for publication - is part of the history of our century, throwing some light on a struggle of which the multitudes know nothing: that conducted relentlessly and unceasingly on the battleground of the human mind.
It needed some unusual source of spiritual power and motivation to bring to completion so big a book involving so much laborious research and cross-checking, a book, moreover, which seemed to have little or no chance of being published in the author's lifetime.
Although there is correspondence to show that the title was briefly discussed with one publisher, the manuscript was never submitted but remained for 22 years stowed away in three zippered files on top of a wardrobe in Reed's home in Durban, South Africa.
Relaxed and at peace with himself in the knowledge that he had carried his great enterprise as far as was possible in the circumstances of the times, Douglas Reed patiently accepted his forced retirement as journalist and writer, put behind him all that belonged to the past and adjusted himself cheerfully to a different mode of existence, in which most of his new-found friends and acquaintances, charmed by his lively mind and rich sense of humour, remained for years wholly unaware that this was indeed the Douglas Reed of literary fame.
Of this he was sure, whether or not it would happen in his lifetime, there would come a time when circumstances would permit, and the means be found, to communicate to the world his message of history rewritten, and the central message of Christianity restated.Interpretation: For the rest, The Controversy of Zion, can be left to speak for itself; indeed, it is a work of revisionist history and religious exposition the central message of which is revealed in almost every page, understanding and compassionate of people but severely critical of the inordinate and dangerous ambitions of their leaders.
In the final chapter, under the heading the Climacteric, Douglas Reed remarks that if he could have planned it all when he began writing his book in 1949, he could not have chosen a better moment than the last months of 1956 to review the long history of Talmudic Zionism and re-examine it against the background of what was still happening on the stage of world politics.
For 1956 was the year of another American presidential election in which, once again, the Zionists demonstrated their decisive power to influence Western politics; it was the year in which the nations of the West stood by as helpless spectators as Soviet forces were used to crush a spontaneous revolt and re-install a Jewish-Communist regime in Hungary; and it was the year in which Britain and France, under Zionist pressure, were drawn into the disastrous fiasco of an attempt to capture the Suez Canal, an adventure from which, once again, Israel alone gained any advantage.
Everything that has happened since Reed wrote those last sentences in 1956 has continued to endorse the correctness of his interpretation of more than 2000 years of troubled history.
The Middle East has remained an area of intense political activity and of the maximum falsification of news and suppression of genuine debate, and it was only the few with some knowledge of the role of Talmudic Zionism and Communism who could have had any chance of solving the problem of successive events of major importance, like the so-called Six Day War in 1967 and the massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Those who have read The Controversy of Zion will not be surprised to learn that there were clear signs of collusion between the Soviet Union and Israel in precipitating the Israeli attack on Egypt, for it was only because Colonel Nasser had been warned by the Kremlin bosses that Israel was about to attack Egypt's ally Syria that he moved nearly all his armed forces to his country' s northern border, where they fell an easy prey to Israel's vastly superior army.
It seemed as if nothing had changed when in 1982 Israel launched a massive and most ruthless attack on Southern Lebanon, ostensibly for the purpose of rooting out the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but actually in furtherance of an expansionist policy about which Jewish leaders have always been remarkably frank.
By this time, however, the pro-Zionist mythology generated by Western politicians and media in which Israel was always represented as a tiny and virtuous nation in constant need of help and protection, was obviously beginning to lose much of its plausibility, so that few were surprised when the British Institute of Strategic Studies announced that Israel could now be regarded as fourth in the world as a military power, after the USA, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China - well ahead of nations like Britain and France.
More deeply significant was the reaction of the Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad, to an apparent triumph of Zionist arms in Lebanon. While Western politicians and media remained timorously restrained in their comment, even after news of the massacre of an estimated 1500 men, women and children in two Beirut refugee camps, 350,000 of the residents of Tel Aviv staged a public demonstration against their government and there were reports in the Jewish press that controversy over the Lebanese war had rocked the Israel army and affected all ranks.
Of this, too, Douglas Reed seems to have had some presentiment, for among the last words in his book are these: "I believe the Jews of the world are equally beginning to see the error of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, and, as this century ends, will at last decide to seek involvement in common mankind".
Download or read the book here.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Next Phase of the Middle East War
By Michel Chossudovsky
September 4, 2006
Israel's war on Lebanon is an integral part of a US sponsored "military roadmap".
The war on Lebanon, which has resulted in countless atrocities including the destruction of the nation's economy and civilian infrastructure, is "a stage" in a sequence of carefully planned military operations.
Lebanon constitutes a strategic corridor between Israel and North-western Syria. The underlying objective of this war was the militarization of Lebanon, including the stationing of foreign troops, as a precondition for carrying out the next phase of a broader military agenda.
Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.
Moreover, the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops, following the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has contributed to opening up a "new space". The withdrawal of Syrian troops served Israeli interests. The timely pullout was of strategic significance: it was a major factor in the timing and planning of the July 2006 IDF attacks on Lebanon.
In the aftermath of the Israeli bombings and the "ceasefire", UN Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by France and the US in close consultation with the Israeli government, has paved the way for the militarization of Lebanon, under a bogus UN mandate.
The Next Phase of the Middle East War
Confirmed by official statements and military documents, the US in close coordination with Britain (and in consultation with its NATO partners), is planning to launch a war directed against Iran and Syria. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has already initiated the draft of a UN Security Council resolution with a view to imposing sanctions on Tehran for its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. Whether this resolution is adopted is not the main issue. The US may decide to proceed in defiance of the Security Council, following a veto by Russia and/or China. The vote of France and Britain, among the permanent members has already been secured.
US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack, pursuant to a sanctions regime on Iran, with or without UN approval, would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq
(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
The aerial bombing plans have been fully operational ("in an advanced state of readiness") since June 2005. The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" [Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared "an advanced state of readiness".
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'
The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately The Pentagon will decide on the sequence; " if and when" to launch military operations against Iran and Syria. Israeli military actions and those of other coalition partners including Turkey, would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon.
Ground War
While the threat of punitive aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities have been announced repeatedly by the Bush administration, recent developments suggest that an all out ground war is also under preparation.
CONPLAN constitutes only one component of the Middle East military agenda. CONPLAN 8022 does not contemplate a ground war. It posits "no boots on the ground", which was the initial assumption envisaged in relation to the proposed aerial attacks on Iran.
US and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial "punitive bombings" will almost inevitably lead coalition forces into a ground war scenario in which they will have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the battlefield.
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.
The foreign troops stationed in Lebanon under UN mandate would respond to the diktats of the US led coalition and the prior commitments reached with Washington and Tel Aviv in the context of the various military alliances (NATO-Israel, Turkey-Israel, GUUAM, etc).
War Games
These military preparations have also been marked, quite recently, by the conduct of war games.
In late August, Iran was involved in the conduct of war games in major regions of the country, including border areas with Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran's Defense Minister General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has confirmed the deployment of enhanced military capabilities including weapons systems and troops on the Iranian border: "[Iranian] forces are supervising all movements by trans-regional troops and their agents around the Iranian borders" (FARS news, 2 September 2006)
Iran War Games August 2006.
Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO) were also launched in late August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, were conducted in response to US-Israeli military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. (See Michel Chossudovsky, August 2006). In turn, China an Kazakhstan held concurrent war games under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Azerbaijan and neighboring Georgia have close military ties to Washington. Both countries are part of GUUAM, a military alliance with the US and NATO.
Turkey is a close ally of Israel. Since 2005, Israel has deployed Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government: Pakistan is also a close ally of the US and Britain. Georgia also has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, the USS Enterprise, America's largest aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf.
Map; Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research 2003. Click to enlarge.
US Troop Build-up
US troops in Iraq have been increased to 140,000 as confirmed by recent Pentagon statements (Reuters, 2 September 2006) These plans have been coupled with a the compulsory recall of "inactive servicemen" as well as the expansion of mercenary forces. (Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Pentagon justifies the troop build-up as part of a "routine" process of replacement and rotation, required in its ongoing war against "terrorists" in Iraq. The speeding up of military recruitment is also occurring in the core countries of the Anglo-American coalition including Great Britain. Australia and Canada (see also Recruiting Canada). Canada and Australia are aligned with the US. Australian Prime Minister John Howard as well as Canada's Steven Harper have confirmed their commitment to the US-Israeli war and have promised an expansion of the armed forces in their respective countries.
Meanwhile British troops stationed in Iraq have been redeployed to the Iranian border in southern Iraq. This redeployment has been casually presented by Britain's Ambassador to Iraq as part of a "crack down on smuggling and the entrance of weapons into Iraq from Iran".
While British officials are maintaining no desire or preparations for a conflict with Iran, more British troops are being mobilized and deployed to Iraq at the same time. The Light Infantry of the 2nd Battalion, another unit with rapid deployment capabilities, is deploying to the southern Iraqi border with Iran. The 2nd Battalion is being sent to Iraq under the pretext of working in the Rear Operations Battle Group which will provide escorts for military convoys and security for British forces and bases in Basra. (See Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Role of Israel
In the wake of the war on Lebanon. Israel's military plans and pronouncements are increasingly explicit. Tel Aviv has announced plans to wage a pre-emptive "full-scale war" against Iran and Syria, implying the deployment of both air and ground force. These war plans are now said to at the top of the defense agenda:
"Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources."
(...)
"The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one," said an Israeli defense source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the "Iranian front", a new position in the Israeli Defense Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria."
(...)
In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities," said one insider, "but Iran's growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player."
(...)
As a result of the change in the defense priorities, the budget for the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced." (Sunday Times, 3 September 2006)
Media Disinformation
The Western media is beating the drums of war.
The Sunday Times views Israel's war plans as legitimate acts of self defense, to prevent Tehran from launching an all out nuclear attack on Israel: "Iran and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel Aviv. An emergency budget has now been assigned to building modern shelters."
The fact that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities as confirmed by the IAEA report does not seem to be an issue for debate.
Media disinformation has contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.
Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911.
The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.
The antiwar movement has also been weakened.
While China and Russia will oppose the US led war at the diplomatic level as well as at the UN Security Council, Washington has secured the support of France and Germany. While Russia and China have military cooperation agreements with Iran, they would most probably not would intervene militarily in favor of Iran.
NATO is broadly supportive of the US led military agenda. In February 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Nuclear Weapons against Iran
The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US and Israel against Iran, is contemplated, ironically in retaliation for Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb
The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).
CONPLAN 8022, referred to above, is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferation and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be coordinated with Israel, which possesses a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground").
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The World is at a Critical Crossroads
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.
Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation.
NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey.
Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with
China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above)
In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters.
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Pentagon's Second 911
The economic and political dislocations resulting from this military agenda are far-reaching.
If the attacks directed against Iran and Syria were to proceed, martial law and/or a state of emergency could be declared in the US and possibly Britain on the pretext that the homeland is under attack by Iran sponsored terrorists. The purpose of these measures would essentially be to curb the antiwar movement and provide legitimacy to an illegal war.
The Pentagon has intimated in this regard, in an official statement, that "another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]". In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
Reversing the Tide of War
The issues raised in this article do not necessarily imply that the war will take place. What the analysis of official statments and military documents onfirms is that:
a) the war is part of a political agenda;
b) military plans to launch an attack on Iran and Syria are "in an advanced stage of readiness".
The issue is not whether the war will inevitably take place but what are the instruments at our disposal which will enable us to shunt and ultimately disarm this global military agenda.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
The legitimacy of the war must be addressed. Antiwar sentiment alone does not disarm a military agenda. High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
There is a sense of urgency. In the weeks and months ahead, the antiwar movement must act, consistently, and address a number of key issues:
1. The role of media disinformation in sustaining the military agenda is crucial.
We will not succeed in our endeavours unless the propaganda apparatus is weakened and eventually dismantled. It is essential to inform our fellow citizens on the causes and consequences of the US-led war, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities which are routinely obfuscated by the media. This is no easy task. It requires an effective counter-propaganda program which refutes mainstream media assertions.
It is essential that the relevant information and analysis reaches the broader public. The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates. The media conglomerates which control network TV and the printed press must be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.
2. There is opposition within the political establishment in the US as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces.
While this opposition does not necessarily question to overall direction of US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the "war on terrorism" consensus. The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is, therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.
3. The structure of military alliances must be addressed. A timely shift in military alliances could potentially reverse the course of history.
Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well within the political system itself.
It is essential that the commitments made by European heads of government and heads of State to Washington be cancelled or nullified, through pressure exerted at the appropriate political levels. This applies, in particular, to the unbending support of the Bush adminstration, expressed by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing the tide. Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France and Germany.
4. The holding of large antiwar rallies is important and essential. But in will not in itself reverse the tide of war unless it is accompanied by the development of a cohesive antiwar network.
What is required is a grass roots antiwar network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, as well as their corporate sponsors, and which would ultimately be instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name. The construction of this type of network will take time to develop. Initially, it should focus on developing an antiwar stance within existing citizens' organizations (e.g. trade unions, community organizations, professional regroupings, student federations, municipal councils, etc.).
5. 9/11 plays a crucial and central role in the propaganda campaign.
The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards. Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. Several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the recent foiled "liquid bomb attack". There is evidence that the several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. (e.g Bali 2002).
The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. His most recent book is America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
Original
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: For a Productive New Approach in the Middle East
September 4, 2006
Rodrigue Tremblay
The New American Empire
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
James Bovard, 1994
"In a country well governed poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed wealth is something to be ashamed of."
Confucius (551-479 BC)
"Democracy [is] when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Can you have a miltarily 'occupied democracy'? To ask the question is to answer it. When a foreign army occupies a country by force, the population cannot be in control of its destiny, whatever the language spoken by the local puppet government. -This is an oxymoron. That is the reason there could never be democracy in occupied Iraq or in occupied Afghanistan. It is only, if ever, when foreign troops leave or are kicked out that the national government in these lands can regain its legitimacy and authority.
This is a basic truth that the American president, George W. Bush, seems to have trouble understanding. In order to mobilize American public opinion behind his failed policies, Bush II is forced to rely on incendiary vocabulary to present his 'war on terror', an empty phrase, as a war against terrorists in Iraq. For example, there may be so-called 'terrorists' in Iraq, but there were none before the Bush-Cheney administration decided to invade that country on March 20, 2003, and they are not the worldwide terrorists à la al Qaeda who want to do damage to the United States. The 'al Qaeda terrorists' who have a beef against the U.S. are not in Iraq; they are in Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. ...etc. -Most of the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists, but patriots who are fighting a foreign invader. That would be the case if the United States were invaded by a foreign enemy: Americans would fight the invaders. To fight an invader is not a terrorist act but a patriotic act. For Bush, "to stay the course" in Iraq is not a policy; it is stubborness and a lack of vision.
By gratuitously and illegally attacking, invading and occupying Iraq on March 20, 2003, for reasons that Bush himself says had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism, as he openly conceded during his August 21 (2006) news conference, while continuing to babble the word "democracy", the American president is not only giving the great institution of democracy a bad name, but he has turned hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims against the West and its humanistic values. And, to make matters worse, by pushing Israel to attack and destroy the country of Lebanon, while closing his eyes on the sufferings that Israel imposes daily on the Palestinians, George W. Bush has brought upon himself the contempt and anger of most of the world. As a result of his misguided policies and dumb pronouncements, Bush has only succeeded in presenting western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as 19th Century colonial and imperialistic adventures. In this sense, George W. Bush and his cohort of Neocon advisers are truly men of the 19th Century, not of the 21st Century. In this day and age, such a policy is a dead-end approach. It can only lead to disaster.
What would be called for, at this juncture, is an international conference, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations, on the future of Iraq and of the Middle East region and their inhabitants. This may be the only way to stop the Iraqi civil war that Bush denies but that the Pentagon confirms is going on in Iraq. -A first obvious objective would be to divert the current unproductive military expenditures toward a Marshall-like Plan to raise standards of living in that part of the world. A second imperative objective would be to adopt a plan with teeth to stop, once and for all, the lawlessness that prevails in Israel-Arab relations. I suspect that most Israelis and most Palestinians are war weary and would accept a liveable compromise wrought in good faith.
If no credible leadership pushes events in that rational direction, the laws of inertia and of unintended consequences will move things toward chaos and ever more escalading conflicts.
Since the U.S. is so deeply involved in the current international mess, a reappraisal of the situation would require fundamental changes in the Bush administration's approach to international problems. This could be difficult, but surely not impossible, for the American president to, -first, stop being under the dominating influence of his vice-president, and reassert his authority to formulate foreign policy, and -second, place the interests of the pro-Israel Lobby in a more balanced perspective within American foreign policy. This would require a change of personnel, but other presidents, Ronald Reagan for example, did it with success.
The new American foreign policy toward the Middle East should take a leaf from the 1975 Helsinki Accords and the new productive approach toward the Soviet Bloc. The world needs a policy of 'detente' in the Middle East. -Western leaders should start telling all moderate Muslims, and they are the vast majority, 1- that their country, their culture and their religion will henceforth be respected; and 2- that democratic countries will assist them in their development, but will not dictate to them what political systems and what institutions they must adopt.
The current American administration is scheduled to remain in office until January 2009. The U.S. and the world cannot afford two more long years of amateurism, improvisation and failure. -Let us hope that the world of today can generate leaders of vision of the type found in the past, with Marshall, Acheson, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Baker,...etc.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@ yahoo.com.
He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'.
Visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website:www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Comment on this Editorial
Israel - Pariah Statelet
Report: "86, including 16 children killed, 270 taken prisoners in August"
MEMC & Agencies
Tuesday, 05 September 2006
A monthly report of the International Solidarity Institute for Human Right revealed that Israeli soldiers killed 86 Palestinians, including 16 children. Twelve residents were killed in targeted killing attacks. A three-day old child, and eight women were also killed in August.
Sixteen Palestinian children were killed by Israeli shells and bullets, the youngest casualty was a three-day old child, Shahad Saleh Al Eid.
The report stated that the Israeli attacks are in direct violations to the international law while Israel continues to violate the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people by using excessive force against civilians and children.
65 residents were killed by the Israeli bullets and shells in the Gaza Strip, while in the West Bank, seven residents were killed in Jenin, six in Nablus, two in Bethlehem, two in Tulkarem, one in Qalqilia, one in Tammoun and one in Tubas.
Number of Palestinians killed in July and August arrived to 285 residents.
At least 270 residents, including 11 women, were arrested in August. The eleven women were identified as Myassar Abu Ezneid, 40, Rifqa Al Ja'bary, 43, Rania Abu Khdeir, 25, all from Hebron, Roweida Oweijan, 30, from Nablus, Haya Ghanim, 20, Montaha Boshnaq, 21, both from Tulkarem, Zakiyya Ghawanma, 35, Hiba Al Ammoury, 22, Falasteen Sabah, 22, all from Al Jalazoun refugee camp in Ramallah, and two unidentified women who were arrested in Al Ezariyya town, near Jerusalem.
Troops also arrested several legislators, ministers, members of city councils and one university lecturers.
The arrested ministers are Minister of Education and Vice Prime Minister, Nasser Ed Deen Al Shaer, Dr. Aziz Dweik, head of the Palestinian Legislative Council, member of the Legislative Council, Fadel Hamdan and Mahmoud Musleh, head of Beit Ummar Municipality Farhan Alqam, member of Al Biereh city council, Ziad Dayya, head of Shaqba municipality near Ramallah, Hussein Nakhla, member of Municipality council, Sameh Mahmoud Affana, Dr, Rafiq Abu Dheir, a lecturer at Al Najah University in Nablus.
Hebron district witnessed the largest arrest campaign, at least 75 residents were arrested. In Nablus at least 45 were arrested, 29 in Qalqilia, 24 in Bethlehem, 24 in Tulkarem, 22 in Jenin, 17 in Ramallah, 6 in Jericho, 3 in Jerusalem, two in Tubas, two in Salfit, one on Tammoun and twenty residents were arrested in the Gaza Strip.
Attacks against journalists continued and extended in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, army also attacked several journalist agencies and offices.
In August 1, soldiers broke into Mass Press center and confiscated several computers, files and 550 New Israeli Shekels.
August 3, soldiers detained Romel Al Sweity, a reported with Al Hayat Al Jadeeda newspaper, after stopping him at a military checkpoint near Huwwara town, south of Nablus.
August 18, Rami Abdo, a camera man working with the Associated Press was injured by a rubber coated bullet while reporting from Bilin village, near Ramallah, during a protest against the Wall.
August 24, soldiers shot and injured Dr. Farid Abu Dheir, a lecturer at the Journalism Department at Al Najah University in Nablus as he was crossing through a checkpoint near Hebron.
August 27, an Israeli helicopter fired a missile at an armored press vehicle carrying a clear sign for Reuters, the attack took place near Al Mintar Crossing, east of Gaza City. Cameraman Fadel Shana'a was moderately injured, and a local cameraman, Sabbah Hmeida, was seriously injured.
Targeting medical teams and medical facilities also continued in August causing damage and several injuries.
August 13, Israeli soldiers broke into Al Ahli Hospital in Hebron after surrounded the building. Soldiers also broke into Al Mizan Hospital and the Hebron Governmental Hospital in Hebron.
August 20, soldiers broke into a medical center that belongs to the Islamic Charitable Society, violently searched it causing excessive damage.
August 27, soldiers stationed at a checkpoint near Aseera Al Shimaliyya village, in the northern part of the West Bank, attacked Dr. Jihad Bani Odeh, a veterinarian, and Dr. Salah Bisharat, a dentist, and struck them with rifle-buts.
August 31, a medic identifed as Majid Al Nada, 40, was injured by Israeli military fire as he was trying to transfer a wounded resident to a hospital in Nablus. Al Nada works with the Red Crescent Society.
The Israeli violations also included a strict siege over the occupied territories, installing dozens of checkpoints and barring the residents from crossing.
Invasions, shelling of civilian areas and destruction of civilian properties continues as the soldiers shelled dozens of houses in the Gaza Strip and broke into hundreds of houses in the West Bank.
Comment on this Article
Israel Said to Fear War Crimes Charges
Associated Press
Monday, September 4, 2006
Three weeks after a cease-fire ended Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah guerrillas, Israel is increasingly concerned that government officials and army officers traveling abroad could face war crimes charges, a Foreign Ministry official said Monday.
A special legal team is preparing to provide protection for officers and officials involved in the 34-day conflict in Lebanon, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
More than 850 Lebanese were killed during the conflict, most of them civilians. The human rights group Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets.
Israel has said it acted legally and accused Hezbollah of hiding among civilians in Lebanon and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians in rocket attacks. The fighting left 159 Israelis dead, including 39 civilians hit by Hezbollah rockets in Israel's northern cities. The Amnesty report also criticized Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.
The Foreign Ministry official said the legal-defense team, which includes representatives from the Justice and Defense ministries, is maintained by the government to help officials facing the possibility of war crimes charges abroad. It was first assembled to deal with charges related to Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.
He would not comment on a report in the Haaretz daily that the ministry has urged top officials against making inflammatory statements that might be used against them in legal proceedings.
Israeli Tourism Minister Yitzhak Herzog said he isn't concerned about prosecution of Israeli leaders, but he criticized some officials for excessively belligerent statements during the war that could expose them to legal action abroad.
"Today we have to understand that wars, political situations and military situations include many components, and that one of the components that have to be weighed is international law," Herzog told Army Radio.
Israeli fears of prosecution abroad are based on experience. A retired general arriving in London last year who had commanded Israeli forces in Gaza was tipped off by an Israeli diplomat that he was about to be arrested by British authorities over a 2002 air strike that killed a Hamas leader and 14 others, nine of them children. Doron Almog remained on the plane and returned to Israel.
In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faced a lawsuit in Belgium over his alleged role in a 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. Several former Israeli army chiefs of staff also have been targeted. None of the cases have succeeded.
Daniel Machover, a British attorney involved in attempts to prosecute Israeli officers including Almog, said he knew of "at least two" teams compiling evidence in Lebanon for use in future legal cases. He said it was "too early" to disclose more details.
Comment: Now why would Israeli politicians and military men fear war crimes prosecutions if they didn't committ war crimes?
Comment on this Article
Shin Bet seeks geeks in first-ever public recruiting drive
Haaretz
06/09/2006
In its first-ever public recruiting drive, being launched on Tuesday, the Shin Bet security service is calling on high-tech geeks to join the anti-terror battle. "If you thought the only way to fight terror was with Arabic, think again," says the campaign's slogan.
Shin Bet sources admit the ad campaign is also intended to change the organization's image. For many, the first thing that springs to mind at the mention of Shin Bet is torture. The people in the service are tired of that. They want the Shin Bet to be associated with advanced technology and software development.
"We want the public to know other sides [of the service], not only the investigations and dark rooms," a Shin Bet source said on Monday. "The public doesn't know the service's technological side, which is an essential tool of preventive security. Part of the campaign's aim is to bring that to mind."
"We've located web sites used by high-tech people, and will put Shin Bet banners in them," he added.
The want ads will be published over a few weeks. The service will also approach potential candidates with a letter signed by Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin.
The Shin Bet will market the jobs as "technology with real vocation, not just another start-up waiting for a chance," says a source close to the campaign.
The service was looking for people "who have been out there and made it," and who are now looking for an opportunity to develop technology "that could save lives, catch the suicide bomber on his way to Tel Aviv," he says.
"People think Israel's warfare with terror organizations takes place mainly in operative field activity. But a lot of the secret people who belong to the Shin Bet are software engineers, programmers, and IT and communications people. The technological interface is an important part of our operative activity and many of the warnings and preventive activity we hear of in the media would not have succeeded without the Shin Bet's advanced information systems," he says.
Comment: Ahhh...isn't that nice! You see, Israeli intelligence is not ALL about torturing Palestinian men, women and children to death, some of it is also about helping to FIND the Palestinian men, women and children BEFORE Shin Bet tortures them. So come on Israeli young people! Get involved, kill a few Palestinians children...you'll feel much better, Shin Bet PROMISES you will.
Comment on this Article
Bethlehem to be hemmed in on four sides, the latest for the Wall & a settler road in the southwest
Palestine News Network
06/09/2006
The Israeli forces Commander for the Central Region of the occupied West Bank, Major General Yair Naveh, has decided to confiscate 152 dunams of southern Bethlehem. The stated aims of the confiscation are "military purposes" and "the security wall. " Director of the Committee to Defend against Land Confiscation in the southern West Bank, Khalid Al Azzeh, says that this portion of the Wall will run alongside a new settler road linking Israeli settlements surrounding Bethlehem.
The Wall will stretch from southern Bethlehem to the west side in the town of Al Khader and then further south to northern Hebron's Beit Umar Village. The Palestinian land of Hebron is currently used for grazing and agriculture.
This latest confiscation notice comes in addition to the Israeli move to tighten the blockade around Bethlehem. The northern side of town was confiscated and recently taken into the Israeli controlled Jerusalem Municipality. The "new north" is now closed by several segments of the Wall. The northeast is hemmed in by the encroaching settlement on Abu Ghaneim Mountain, Har Homa. The Efrat Settlement blocks Bethlehem from the south and leads into the military compound of Gush Etzion and the Betar Illit Settlement to the southwest. Today the Israeli government issued tenders to expand two settlements with 700 additional units, over 300 of them in Betar Illit. To the northwest is Gilo Settlement built on what was Beit Jala land, a small city up the hill in western Bethlehem.
Khalid Al Azzeh issued a statement to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. He requested, on behalf of the land defense committee, that the UN take responsible action by applying the numerous existing resolutions against such confiscation. Al Azzeh also wrote that if international law and legitimacy were honored, the economic blockade would end, as would land confiscation, agricultural destruction and population displacement.
The statement also demanded that the Palestinian Authority and the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization step up. It read that the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruling against the Israeli Wall inside the West Bank must be presented to the UN Security Council for adoption. The final word from the Committee to Defend against Land Confiscation is calling for international law to be applied in order to stop Israeli steps to Judaize Palestinian land.
Comment on this Article
Palestinian police, workers demonstrate
By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Palestinian security officers went on the rampage in Gaza City Tuesday to demand back pay from the cash-strapped Hamas-led government, while Israel pressed ahead with its offensive against Hamas militants, killing three.
Late Tuesday, three Hamas militants were killed in two Israeli airstrikes at cars in the Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza. The military said it was targeting Hamas militants in both attacks.
The Palestinian government has been in a financial crisis since Hamas took over in March after winning parliamentary elections. Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel, has refused international pressure to renounce violence and recognize the Jewish state. In response, Western donors cut off aid.
Fatah , which controls many of the unions and dominates the powerful security forces, has openly supported the strikes, drawing accusations from Hamas that the stoppage is politically motivated.
In the West Bank , the work stoppage, launched last weekend by teachers and civil servants, escalated into a full-scale general strike as shop owners closed their stores. In one town, gunmen from the opposition Fatah Party shot weapons in the air after some businesses tried to open.
"We aren't against the government, even if we disagree with it. But for seven months we've suffered without salaries," said Nidal Khader, a security officer who helped organize the protest.
Several men threw rocks at the Palestinian parliament building, smashing windows and doors. The men tried to enter the parliament at one stage, but were held back by policemen guarding the building.
Comment on this Article
Gaza strikes kill Hamas militants
Wednesday, 6 September 2006, 06:09 GMT 07:09 UK
Five Hamas militants have died in three Israeli strikes in southern Gaza, Palestinian officials said.
An Israeli raid early on Wednesday killed one militant and hurt three near the town of Khan Younis, they said.
Hours earlier, four Hamas militants were killed in Israeli air strikes on vehicles in Rafah town. At least 20 bystanders were hurt in those attacks.
Israeli forces have been carrying out raids and air strikes on Gaza after the capture of an Israeli soldier in June.
Hundreds of Palestinians have since been killed by Israeli action.
'Several explosions'
The latest attack, near the southern city of Khan Younis, targeted the house of a Hamas militant, killing him and two others.
Israel said the raid targeted armed men who were planning to approach the border fence.
Two Hamas militants were killed in the earlier strike on a car in Rafah.
Hours before that, an Israeli drone attacked a vehicle being used by two activists from Hamas' military wing. Both men were killed.
Dozens of bystanders were also hurt, Palestinian doctors said.
Many of the injured are said to have been hit by a second blast, having rushed to the vehicle to help its passengers after the initial explosion.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the missiles had targeted militants planning an attack on Israel.
"After the aerial attack, there were a number of explosions, proving that the vehicle was carrying explosives," the spokeswoman said.
Comment on this Article
EU monitors may be forced to leave Gaza crossing by Israel
Reuters
06/09/2006
European monitors could be withdrawn from the border between Gaza and Egypt later this year amid concerns about Israeli restrictions on performing their duties, European officials said on Tuesday. "We cannot continue like this," a European official said.
The Rafah border crossing has been closed for all but 7 days since an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants on a cross-border raid on June 25.
Israel responded to the raid by launching a major ground and air offensive that has killed more than 200 Palestinians in Gaza, about half of them civilians.
Western diplomats say Israel has prevented Rafah from opening by keeping European monitors from getting to the terminal, citing security concerns.
The European official said pulling the monitors out of Rafah was "one of the options" being looked at for when the current agreement for the crossing expires in November.
Other options include relocating the monitors, who have been based in southern Israel, to Egypt.
The European monitors oversee Rafah under an agreement which took effect on Nov. 24, 2005 and was aimed at opening up Gaza after Israel withdrew settlers and soldiers from the strip last year after 38 years of occupation.
The European official said the one-year agreement could be extended, changed or cancelled.
Palestinians technically control the crossing but its operations can be blocked by Israel.
A U.S. plan calls for deploying international monitors at Gaza's main Karni commercial crossing with Israel to ensure that gateway remains open. Israel has shut the crossing frequently this year because of what it says are threats from Palestinian militants.
The U.S. proposal, submitted to donors early this month, includes the deployment of 90 foreign monitors and expanding the Karni crossing at a cost of some $19 million.
Comment: With no European observers, the IDF would have more latitude to butcher Palestinians with impunity.
Comment on this Article
Israeli military court sends captured Hamas leaders for trial
By Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
09/01/06 "The Guardian"
An Israeli military court yesterday ordered 15 Hamas leaders, including two cabinet ministers and the speaker of Palestine's parliament, to go on trial charged with membership of an outlawed organisation. The group, 12 of them elected members of the parliament, appeared in court at Ofer Camp on the occupied West Bank. At trial on December 12 they face a maximum jail sentence of 10 years if convicted.
They are among more than 30 Hamas political leaders detained in recent weeks after the capture by militants near Gaza of an Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, who is still being held. The men, in brown prison shirts and trousers, each held a finger aloft as an act of defiance as they sat together in the dock, surrounded by armed troops. Abdul Aziz Duaik, speaker of parliament, one of the most recent detained, was in pyjamas and chains.
Jawad Boulous, a lawyer representing Mr Duaik and some others, challenged the Israeli court's jurisdiction. "The defence does not recognise the legality of this court because it is a political trial," he said outside the hearing. "We're talking about leaders abducted by Israel. We demand the release of all of them."
Hamas, Islamicists responsible in the past for suicide bombings in Israel, won a surprise victory in elections in January on the promise of an end to corruption and the hope of a stronger Palestinian authority. But since Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation in Israel and most western countries, western donors held back their usual $30m (£16m) monthly support and Israel stopped transferring its usual $60m in monthly customs receipts.
The result has been to put Hamas under financial pressure at a time when its leaders have been detained, including some like Mr Duaik who are regarded as more moderate. Since March the 160,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority have not been paid and in the past week strikes have begun amid a sharp economic decline.
In Gaza, where Hamas is strong, there has been a descent into lawlessness and militancy severe enough to prompt one well-known Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, to write in a Palestinian paper this week asking militants to stop firing rockets into Israel and to end the chaos. "We have lost our sense of direction," he wrote.
Comment on this Article
Israeli panel: Ex NY Mayor Giuliani is 'best' presidential candidate for Israel
Haaretz
05/09/2006
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the "best" candidate in the 2008 race for Israel, a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by Haaretz has determined.
Giuliani is followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Ranking bottom of the list is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
As part of a new project, The Israel Factor: Ranking the presidential candidates" the panel will rank the candidates every month, up until the 2008 election, awarding them marks out of 10 on a series of questions that will determine which candidates are "best" for Israel.
Comment: Let us just reiterate that there is NO special relationship between America and Israel. No high-ranking members of American political life in any way owe their allegiance to Israel. Just remember that, ok? And ignore what is in front of your face.
Comment on this Article
GOP secretly channeled millions to Lieberman
Issue Date: www.insightmag.com - Sept. 5-11, 2006, Posted On: 9/5/2006
The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.
A senior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove's strategy to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bush contributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman's campaign for re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a "Republican-leaning" senator.
"Joe [Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball," the source said. "That doesn't mean that this was a wasted investment."
Mr. Rove has been responsible for the White House's effort to ensure a GOP majority in Congress for the last two years of Bush's presidency. Internal party polls show the GOP could lose between 30 and 40 seats in the House as well as its majority in the Senate. A Democratic majority in the Senate would require the GOP to lose at least six seats.
The source said that under Mr. Rove's direction, the GOP has abandoned its Senate candidate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, who has dropped to about five percent in the polls. Mr. Schlesinger has failed to win the support of any national Republican and has virtually no contact with the White House.
In contrast, Mr. Lieberman, who has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was deemed a major component of the GOP strategy in November. Mr. Lieberman is expected to win the general election after losing the Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. However, the race with Mr. Lamont has been tightening considerably.
"The more he [Lieberman] spits, the more that he [Bush] kisses," Mr. Schlesinger said. "I don't understand that. I guess a kiss is not just a kiss."
In July, the Republican National Committee provided the Republican Party in Connecticut with $120,900, the eighth largest contribution that month. The RNC has raised $70 million, with a special fund designated to help keep its congressional majority.
"I'm staying out of Connecticut because, you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut," President Bush said on Aug. 21. "And, plus, there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources."
Mr. Lieberman has raised most of his money from outside Connecticut. The veteran senator has turned his re-election campaign into a test of patriotism and support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
The source said that under Mr. Rove's plan, Mr. Lieberman would vote with the GOP on national security issues and help provide the party with a 50-50 split on major legislation. The deciding vote would then be cast by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Republican Party leaders plan to make national security the leading issue on the agenda in Congress when members return from the August recess. GOP leaders intend to vote on issues that relate to counterterrorism, border and port security, and national security.
"Republican leaders will be more than happy if their Democratic colleagues erect procedural hurdles against these efforts to fight terrorist organizations," Mike Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in an analysis. "The best floor strategy would be to give all of these anti-terrorism initiatives a unique identity by bundling them together into one robust legislative package. Call it Patriot Act II. There's no better way to give the voters a single opportunity to assess the anti-terrorist agenda and judge their elected officials accordingly."
Comment on this Article
Prime Minister Olmert Welcomes AJC Solidarity Mission to Israel
September 5 2006 – Jerusalem
The prime minister was emphatic that Israel's deterrence capability remains strong. "When you attack one Israeli, you attack the entire country," is the key lesson for the region, said the prime minister.
"You have always demonstrated solidarity and friendship with Israel," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, welcoming the American Jewish Committee Solidarity Mission to Israel.
Olmert, who broke away from budget meetings in order to speak to the large AJC delegation at his office, reviewed the developments that led to Israel's military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and explained why he is convinced, notwithstanding the post-war debate in Israel, that Hezbollah indeed was weakened, and over the long-term Israel's security situation will improve as a result of the war.
"The situation in Lebanon is changed forever," said Olmert. "For the first time in 35 years the Lebanese army is down south, the Hezbollah is hiding."
The second main result of the war, he continued, is "the world today is more awakened to the dangers coming from Iran."
For more than ten years Hezbollah was allowed by the international community to acquire significant amounts of rockets, and other sophisticated advanced weaponry, from Syria and Iran, "preparing to strike at a time to be determined by Iran," said the prime minister, adding his hope that the international community will act to stop the Iranian threat.
Olmert said that after Hezbollah crossed the northern border, killed several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two, as well as fired rockets, "I felt it was time for Israel to face it, to change the equation so that we won't have to face it again."
The prime minister was emphatic that Israel's deterrence capability remains strong. "When you attack one Israeli, you attack the entire country," is the key lesson for the region, said the prime minister.
The meeting yesterday at the prime minister's office was the opening session of the AJC mission, which brought to Israel more than 120 AJC members across the U.S., as well as several U.S. Christian leaders, a former deputy prime minister of Sweden, and Jewish students from Europe and Latin America. This is the second AJC Solidarity Mission to Israel since the war broke out in mid-July.
Comment on this Article
America's 'War On Terror' - A Sadistic Joke
Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith
The Nation
Tue Sep 5, 2006
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority--perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all "anti-terrorism" package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
American prohibitions on abuse of prisoners go back to the Lieber Code promulgated by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The first international Geneva Convention dates from the following year.
After World War II, international law protecting prisoners of war and all noncombatants was codified in the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified by the US Senate and, under Article II of the Constitution, they thereby became the law of the land.
Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law.
The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 "torture memo." Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised
President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in
Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, "substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
Noting that the statute "prohibits the commission of a 'war crime' by or against a US person, including US officials," he warned that "it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges." The President's determination that the Geneva Conventions did not apply "would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."
Unfortunately for top Bush officials, that "solid defense" was demolished this summer when the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva Conventions were indeed the law of the land.
The Court singled out Geneva's Common Article 3, which provides a minimum standard for the treatment of all noncombatants under all circumstances. They must be "treated humanely" and must not be subjected to "cruel treatment," "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," or "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.
Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."
The Coming Debate
Bush officials have not acknowledged that one of their real motives for gutting the War Crimes Act is to protect themselves from being prosecuted for their own crimes. But so far they have apparently offered only one other reason for tampering with the law: The existing law, especially the Geneva language prohibiting "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," is too vague to enforce. (Perhaps the Bush Administration should declare the US Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" as too vague to enforce as well.)
Fidell noted in an August 9 Washington Post article that military law includes many terms like "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer" that may appear vague but that are nonetheless enforceable. The Army Field Manual bars cruel and degrading treatment. When Attorney General Gonzales recently testified at a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that "outrages upon personal dignity" was too ambiguous, Senator John McCain stated that top military lawyers see no problem in complying with Common Article 3.
The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act and rejecting the Bush amendments, in contrast, are multiple and overwhelming:
1. Commitment to the Geneva Conventions protects US service people from future retaliation.
As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has argued, abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put US soldiers at greater risk, would "reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions" and would "undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict [Afghanistan] and in general."
2. The War Crimes Act will prohibit "torture-lite" in the future.
According to Scott Horton, the proposed legislation is "designed to provide an OK to certain techniques which fall just short of torture that are being used by the
CIA," including "waterboarding, longtime standing and hypothermia," techniques that have been "linked to severe injuries and fatalities."
3. The War Crimes Act will prohibit future
Abu Ghraib-type outrages.
The Bush Administration's legislation would remove the prohibition on "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Repealing the War Crimes Act, the Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith reported, is decriminalizing the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear that shocked the world at Abu Ghraib prison.
Derek P. Jinks an assistant law professor at the University of Texas, author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions, said in an August 9 Washington Post article that the "entire family of techniques" used to degrade, humiliate and coerce prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo "is not addressed in any way, shape or form" in the Bush Administration's proposal. Retired Army Lieut. Col. Geoffrey Corn, until recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General, said in the same article, "This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting'" the Geneva Conventions.
This "rewriting" could have very concrete ramifications in practice. The international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia deemed acts like placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and threatening them with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" to be humiliations, degrading treatment and outrages. The proposed changes to the War Crimes Act would indicate that it is not a crime for Americans to conduct such acts.
4. Gutting the War Crimes Act will promote the perception of the United States as an outlaw country.
As a letter signed by sixteen members of Congress recently said, such legislation "would harm the reputation of the United States as a leader promoting and protecting human rights." What would be more deserving of scorn than a country that lets potential war-crime defendants repeal the very law under which they might be prosecuted?
5. The Bush legislation unfairly exempts high government officials from the very war crimes charges they are leveling against lowly "grunts."
Since the start of the Iraq War there have been more than thirty prosecutions under the military law that prohibits war crimes, with many more pending. But they have all prosecuted low-level military personnel. Gutting the War Crimes Act would leave the military "bad apples" at the bottom subject to prosecution but would let the civilian "bad apples" at the top evade all responsibility.
As Horton points out, the Uniform Code of Military Justice already incorporates the Geneva Convention rules, but it does not apply "to Donald Rumsfeld or Stephen Cambone or to people in the White House." The point of the War Crimes Act is that it "spreads the application of the Geneva Conventions the next level up to civilians, and particularly to civilian policymakers." From the beginning, the "prosecutorial focus" of the War Crimes Act "was intended to provide deterrence at that level." Repealing it undermines the fundamental principle of equal justice under law.
6. Preserving the War Crimes Act is part of reasserting the rule of law in America.
The War Crimes Act has been a central focus of the Bush Administration's scorn for all Constitutional limits on the power of the President and the executive branch. It was the idea that the President could by fiat declare US and international law null and void that animated the Gonzales torture memo. It was this denial of constitutional limits that the Supreme Court resoundingly rebuked in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A rebuff to the Bush Administration's attack on the War Crimes Act is a reassertion of those constitutional limits.
The War Crimes Act can be a bridge to a more just and peaceful world. The incorporation of the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on war crimes into national law affirms America's commitment to international law. It embodies an implementation of the global heritage of the Nuremberg trials, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. It embeds that tradition within our own national law.
In the wake of World War II, Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, observed that "the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Making statesmen responsible to law is what the War Crimes Act is all about.
Defending the Law
The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act are conclusive (except perhaps to those who might face criminal prosecution under them). Indeed, the Administration's decision to gut the War Crimes Act is a gift to those who want to see American statesmen held accountable to national and international law. It suggests that the Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of many of its actions. And it shows in the sharpest relief why the War Crimes Act is needed.
But, at least for the moment, Bush's Republican allies still control both houses of Congress; they are in a position to slip a repeal of the War Crimes Act into any piece of legislation they choose. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, senior member of the House Committee for Homeland Security, told The Nation, "The Bush Administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to quietly excuse and even codify cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody, at secret CIA prisons abroad and even the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition [the outsourcing of torture and other cruel treatment to other countries]."
While the Administration has been lining up its ducks, the campaign to save the War Crimes Act has just begun. The advocacy group Just Foreign Policy has started an online campaign to save the War Crimes Act. "This is not an obscure point in the law. What's at stake here is whether, for example, the abuses of prisoners by sexual humiliation that shocked us at Abu Ghraib are clearly illegal under US law," national coordinator Robert Naiman observes. "If we found these actions outrageous, we are obligated to tell our members of Congress to protect the law that bans them."
Markey adds, "Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."
Comment on this Article
Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate
Reuters
06/09/2006
In a speech laced with quotes from Osama bin Laden, President Bush said on Tuesday that five years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda wants to set up a violent, radical Islamic caliphate based in Iraq and vowed he would not let this happen on his watch.
In the speech and an updated national security strategy report on combating terrorism, Bush renewed a push to bolster support among Americans weary of the Iraq conflict by portraying it as part of a broader war on terrorism.
White House officials denied the president's report and speech were driven by election-year politics, in which Bush is accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, and said the report had been the product of months of work.
In remarks to the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said Islamic radicals would like to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in order to "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a mortal threat to the American people."
"If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
"I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either," he said.
Bush, in an unusual move, quoted extensively from bin Laden's videotaped messages and writings, and compared him to global menaces like Russia's Vladimir Lenin and Germany's Adolf Hitler.
He cited in particular a letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002. The White House released a text of this letter.
'CAN DESTROY THE FREE WORLD'
In the letter, bin Laden wrote that an objective of al Qaeda should be to launch a media campaign to try to drive a wedge between the American people and their government and tell them that "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed to serve the interests of big investors, "especially the Jews."
Bush said al Qaeda intends to create many bases worldwide "from which they can plan new attacks and advance their vision of a unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world."
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader war on terrorism spurred by the September 11 attacks.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry said in response that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror ... A new document may get the administration through the next news cycle, but it will not win the war on terror. We need to change course, not more of the same," Kerry said.
Bush also charged that Iran is the world's most active state sponsor of international terrorism and must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
He said the international community had made a "reasonable offer" to Iran and added: "We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, the world's free nation will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."
White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend told reporters she was concerned Americans were growing complacent about the threat of terrorism because there has been no large-scale attack in the United States since September 11.
All 435 House seats, 34 of 100 Senate seats and 36 governorships are at stake on November 7. Democrats need to pick up 15 House seats and six Senate seats to reclaim majorities.
Comment: Al-Qaeda wants to set up a violent regime in Iraq? Too late! Bush got there first!
Note also:
"White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend told reporters she was concerned Americans were growing complacent about the threat of terrorism because there has been no large-scale attack in the United States since September 11."
Hmmm....a Bushite is "concerned" that Americans are "complacent" about (do not believe in) the terrorism threat that their government says is real, because theere has been no "large-scale attack in the US" since 9/11.
You know what's coming next, don't you.
Comment on this Article
Troops acting 'like terrorists?'
John Ivison
National Post
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
OTTAWA - Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend.
The resolution is one of 104 proposals on international affairs from local riding associations that will be presented at the convention. Others suggest Canada withdraw from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, while one riding association proposes a freeze on trade with Israel until the "occupation of Palestinian lands" is ended.
The Afghan mission was the subject of a number of proposed resolutions, all calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops. "The Canadian occupation is propping up a regime composed of barbarous warlords who are little better than the Taliban," says one riding association.
The resolution comparing Canadian troops to terrorists, put forward by the Nanaimo-Cowichan riding association in British Columbia, says Canada's goals "cannot be achieved by violence when the 'enemy' cannot be distinguished from ordinary citizens" and calls for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from that country.
Its release comes as the bodies of five Canadian soldiers were returned home after being killed in the Kandahar region on the weekend.
A spokesman for Jack Layton said the NDP leader would not comment on the language used in the resolution or indicate whether he intended to vote for it.
"These resolutions have not been debated yet and have absolutely no status at this time," Karl Belanger said.
Jean Crowder, the NDP MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan, also refused to comment on the resolution before it has been debated at the convention.
Last week, Mr. Layton called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops, claiming Afghanistan is "not the right mission for Canada." At that time, he said New Democrats support the Canadian Forces and are proud of the work they do.
Mr. Layton's call to bring the 2,300 troops home has been criticized by both Conservatives and Liberals, particularly since he reiterated it following the death of four Canadians in Afghanistan. Yesterday, he issued a statement expressing his condolences to the bereaved families that made no mention of his desire to withdraw combat troops.
The resolution by Ms. Crowder's riding association singles out NDP MP Peter Stoffer, who supports the mission in Afghanistan.
"This is not an acceptable position when world peace hangs in the balance. A combat role in Afghanistan is a no-win situation both for Canada and for the Afghani people. Its only dubious value is to curry favour with the militarist government of George W. Bush," it says.
Mr. Stoffer said yesterday delegates are free to express their opinions.
"But I absolutely fundamentally disagree with the statement. The people who did it are not only very naive but very antagonistic in their point of view," he said. The NDP draft policy resolutions appeared briefly on the party Web site last week before being taken down. However, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor obtained a copy and posted them on his Web site yesterday.
The resolution about Israel calls for the end to "military aid and economic trade," claiming "there can be no lasting peace in Palestine/Israel or the surrounding region without social justice."
The Trinity-Spadina riding association in Toronto called for the NDP to support the right of return for all refugees, an end to Israeli settlements and "occupation" of Palestine lands, "a halt to armed aggression, the bulldozing of homes, destruction of olive groves and farms and the assassination of political leaders and activists by the Israeli state."
It said the NDP should campaign for an end to the "rule of apartheid laws that make Palestinians and Israeli Arabs second- and third-class citizens under occupation" and added it is opposed to the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets.
Despite the widespread criticism, Darrell Bricker of pollster Ipsos Reid said the anti-war stance may pay electoral dividends for the NDP -- and the Conservatives.
"If this issue drives the next vote, Layton could pull enough anti-war votes from the Liberals to help elect Tories," he said. He said the Liberals are in a difficult position on Afghanistan because they launched the mission, and at least two of the leadership candidates -- Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison -- are in favour of its extension to 2009.
Comment on this Article
Former soldiers begin anti-Bush demonstration in Washington
AFP
Tue Sep 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - Former soldiers and parents of Americans fighting in Iraq opened anti-war, anti-Bush "Camp Democracy" in the heart of Washington, a demonstration planned to last several weeks.
After spending early August near President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and the end of the month at his family retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, the protesters set up camp in the US capital between the Congress building and the White House.
Started by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, "Camp Democracy" will welcome pacifists, Democratic lawmakers, union leaders, environmentalists, feminists and those fighting for immigrants' rights.
Five tents will be open until at least September 21 for panels, protests and press conferences.
"We're told all the time we're out there fighting for democracy. No one knows more than we do that this war has nothing to do with democracy," Michael McPhearson, a member of Veterans for Peace, told reporters. McPhearson fought in Iraq in 1991 and has a son who has just returned from there.
"This administration does not want to have a discussion, especially with those of use who have lived the nightmare of what this war is really about," said Charlie Anderson, who fought in Iraq in 2003.
Comment on this Article
We've spent half a trillion dollars on this... How the "War on Terror" industry justifies its existence by turning innocent people into "terrorists"
Video
Brasscheck.com
The 9/11, the Spain train and the London underground bombing were real. That much we know.
What we don't know, is who was responsible for them. In all three instances, the suspects died and/or got away scott free. There have never been charges, arrests or trials for any of these crimes.
What we do know is that there hasn't been a single credible arrest in the US and the UK on "terror plot" charges since September 11. The news media feeds us screaming headlines when arrests are made, but when the smoke clears and the charges are proven to be preposterous and are dropped, no one reports the rest of the story.
The so called "War on Terror" has already cost the US over half a TRILLION dollars - and that doesn't include the war in Iraq or increases in the military budget.
WATCH THE VIDEO
Comment: This is a must watch... Only the facts expose Bush and the gang for the Hoaxters they really are. You'll get a few real laughs out of this one!
Comment on this Article
Britain forced to send more troops to Iraq
Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Steven Morris
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
Britain is to reinforce its military presence in Iraq in a move that reflects increasing concern about the threat to its troops and the inability of local forces to take over responsibility for the country's security.
The decision was announced by the Ministry of Defence as the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, on her first visit to Iraq, warned that it was making "very slow" progress on security. Separately, a leading international thinktank warned that the conflict in Iraq was producing highly trained and motivated jihadists ready to commit terrorist acts in Europe and elsewhere.
The 360 extra British troops will be deployed in southern Iraq to reinforce the 19 Light Brigade which takes over from the 20 Armoured Brigade, at present based in Basra, later this year, the MoD said. They will include soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, based in Cyprus, Royal Engineers, Royal Marines and Military Police.
The MoD said the engineers would help counter the threat from improvised explosive devices, which have killed 19 British soldiers patrolling in "snatch" Land Rovers over the last 16 months. A Royal Marine boat troop will be deployed to step up security on the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which borders Iran. The extra military police will train local Iraqi forces.
At a joint Baghdad press conference, Mrs Beckett distanced herself from comments by the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, who said all 7,200 British troops in Iraq could be gone by the end of 2007, by which time Iraqi security forces would have taken over their responsibilities.
She said the president was only offering a personal opinion and "not setting a deadline". Withdrawal would depend on the capability of Iraqi forces to take over from British forces.
She said: "Coalition forces can't go now because that would create a security vacuum." She added that Iraq was making "very slow" progress on security, describing it as "two steps forward, two steps sideways".
A Foreign Office official said one of the biggest concerns was the growing involvement of Iran, which was pouring billions of pounds into Iraq, extending its influence there. Tehran enjoys a close relationship with some of the leading parties in the Shia-led Iraqi government coalition.
British officials also say Iranian elements are backing Shia militia which have infiltrated Iraqi security forces in the south of the country and are supplying equipment for increasingly sophisticated improvised roadside bombs.
In London, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned of the threat posed by jihadists experienced in fighting foreign troops in Iraq.
"The fear is that some jihadists will survive US-led counter-insurgency efforts and relocate to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Europe, and possibly the United States, better trained and motivated to perpetrate and direct terrorist operations," it warned in its latest annual strategic survey.
It added: "Events in Iraq [have] also prompted jihadists to refine and propagate urban warfare techniques, and they may choose to apply them robustly to cities elsewhere." The institute concluded: "In taking stock of counter-terrorism five years on from September 11, a grim picture emerges."
One of two British soldiers killed near Basra on Monday when a roadside bomb hit his Land Rover was named yesterday as Gunner Stephen Wright, 20, of the Royal Artillery. His father, Stephen Leigh, from Leyland, Lancs, said: "I don't want to get into why the army are there or whether they should be ... but it's hard that he's a victim of this conflict".
Meanwhile, a British soldier killed on Monday by a suicide bomber in the Afghan capital, Kabul, was named as Private Craig O'Donnell, 24, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. His parents said he was looking forward to setting up home with his girlfriend Jessica and to the birth of their first child at Christmas.
Comment on this Article
Britain to hand over security responsibility to Iraqis
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-05 22:07:30
BAGHDAD, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Visiting British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said on Tuesday that Britain was determined to hand over security responsibility to Iraqis.
"It is absolutely key that responsibility be transferred to the elected government of Iraq," Beckett told reporters after a meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih.
"There has been responsibility that has been transferred already and we hope and believe that that is a process that will continue," she said.
For his part, Salih said that by the end of this year, security control of nearly nine of the 18 provinces will be handed over to Iraqis, and command of Iraqi armed forces will be handed over to Iraqis this week.
Beckett arrived here Monday night on an official visit to Iraq, the first since she took up the post in May.
In July, British forces handed over control of Iraq's southern Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces, while Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said last month that another southern province, Dhi Qar, would follow suit in September.
Comment on this Article
Bush vows not to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 03:56:41
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday not to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and he urged the Iranian leadership to "make a different choice."
"I am not going to allow this to happen. And no future American president can allow it, either," Bush said in a speech on the war against terrorism.
"Their choice is increasingly isolating the great Iranian nation from the international community. It is time for Iran's leader to make a different choice," Bush said.
The United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. Iran has said that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes only.
The United Sates is now seeking to impose sanctions on Iran for its refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution demanding Teheran stop uranium enrichment.
Comment on this Article
U.S., EU share position on Iran's nuke issue
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 11:07:02
VIENNA, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- The United States and the European Union share the same position on Iran's nuclear issue,
While both the United States and the EU hope to resolve the issue in a diplomatic way, they have also reached consensus that the next step against Iran must involve sanctions, said Ambassador Gregory Schulte.
The United States is "waiting for the new explanation from Iran," Schulte told the Austria News Agency. If Iran would not stop its "discomforting activities," the UN Security Council should discuss the sanctions against Iran, he said.
Schulte stressed the common stand with the EU ahead of Wednesday's talks between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. The talks are considered by many a final chance to compromise on enrichment, which Tehran has vowed not to give up.
Observers see the Solana-Larijani meeting as the prelude to Thursday's conference of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain -- plus Germany.
The flurry of diplomacy followed Tehran's rejection of UN resolution 1696 which had called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program by Aug. 31.
On their informal conference on Saturday, the EU foreign ministers decided to maintain the serious talks with Tehran in efforts to solve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy.
Comment on this Article
Russia possible to join sanctions on Iran
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-06 04:43:49
MOSCOW, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Russia still has a possibility to join sanctions on Iran, presidential aide Igor Shuvalov
"But we think so far that actions concerning Iran must be cautious," Shuvalov was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.
"While applying economic sanctions or military operations to Iran, one must be aware of the fact that they will consolidate the Iranian people around the government and strengthen their support to the uranium enrichment program," Shuvalov said.
"When 60 million Iranian citizens decide to support the non-peaceful uranium enrichment program, that would be very dangerous indeed," he said.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in late July, urging Tehran to suspend by Aug. 31 all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, or face prospect of sanctions, which was refused by Tehran.
Comment on this Article
The State Of The World - Think You're Safe?
Tropical Storm Florence in open Atlantic
By JENNIFER KAY
Associated Press
Tue Sep 5, 2006
MIAMI - Tropical Storm Florence formed Tuesday in the open Atlantic, becoming the sixth named storm of the 2006 hurricane season, and was likely to grow.
Florence had top sustained wind near 40 mph, 1 mph over the 39 mph threshold for a tropical storm, and it was expected to slowly intensify to hurricane strength, according to the
National Hurricane Center.
"Our forecast does have it becoming a hurricane by Friday morning - minimal hurricane, Category 1," said Mark Willis, a meteorologist at the hurricane center.
Hurricanes have sustained wind of at least 74 mph; Category 1 storms have top sustained wind of up to 95 mph.
It was still too early to tell if it would hit the United States, Willis said.
At 11 a.m. EDT, the storm was centered 935 miles east of the Lesser Antilles and was moving west at about 12 mph, forecasters said. Its tropical storm-force wind extended 115 miles from its center.
Florence developed at the peak of the hurricane season over warm Atlantic water, the source of energy for storm development, Willis said.
"It's nothing like we saw last year, but the waters are still warm enough to favor tropical storms and hurricanes and intensification," Willis said.
The storm follows on the heels of Tropical Storm Ernesto, which was briefly the season's first hurricane before hitting Florida and North Carolina last week as a tropical storm.
At least nine deaths have been attributed to Ernesto, and the aftereffects were still being felt Tuesday with about 60,000 people - some 15,000 homes and businesses - remaining without power in New York's Westchester County.
In Huntington, N.Y., a tree that was believed to be about 550 years old was weakened by the storm and fell Sunday. It was believed to be the oldest black oak in North America and once stood 90 feet high.
In North Carolina, the overflowing Northeast Cape Fear River began to recede Monday, although forecasters said it probably would not be back to its normal level until the end of the week. About 140 people were evacuated in Duplin and Pender counties.
Last year's Atlantic storm season set a record with 28 named storms and 15 hurricanes, including Katrina, which devastated the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts.
The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season has not been as rough as initially feared. The National Hurricane Center lowered its Atlantic storms forecast in August to between 12 and 15 named storms and seven to nine hurricanes. Forecaster William Gray downgraded his expectations for the season Friday to 13 named storms and five hurricanes, which would be a slightly below-average season.
Comment on this Article
Strange "Fire Balls" seen in ND skies
Sep 4 2006 11:18PM
KXMBTV
If you were looking up in the sky tonight, you couldn't miss them.
Three large balls of fire.
So what were they?
According to a Bismarck man, they were mostly likely three parts of the same meteor.
Here's what one of them looked like... a lot like a comet.
But William Pearce, who holds his PHD in Astronomy and teaches at Bismarck State College says this was probably just one peice of three from the same meteor.
It's not every day you see meteors falling from the sky.
But Pearce says most of the time, they break up as they're falling into the atmosphere.
No worries according to Pearce.
Once they are in the atmosphere, they fall very quickly.
The fireballs seen about 8:30 this evening are already on the ground.
Pearce says it's even possible the peices burnt up before ever reaching the ground.
Comment on this Article
Rajasthan scientists excited about rare meteor
Tuesday, September 5, 2006 (Jaipur)
At the Geological Survey Institute in Rajasthan, scientists are excited about a six kg meteor that landed near two shepherds in a small village in Chittorgarh district on August 29.
Each year, about 500 meteors reach the earth, but only five or six of these actually reach the hands of scientists for scientific studies.
Usually meteors that land on the surface of the earth are stony meteors. It's only in 8 per cent of the cases that scientists find a meteor made up of iron and nickel like this one.
"The meteor is exciting because of its rarity. If I go to sell it in the international market, I will get $1 billion. This is rarer than gold and diamonds," said Dinkar Srivastava, Director Petrology Department, Geological Survey of India.
Solar system
Scientists are especially interested in the study of meteors because they are made up of matter that originally went into the making of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago.
This particular meteor is believed to have broken away from the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars.
"From this, we can study the minerals that went into the making of our solar system. From where this meteor has come, man cannot even dream of reaching there," said Dr R S Goyal, Director, Geological Survey of India.
The Geological Survey of India is now contacting international institutes so that space scientists from all over the world can study the meteor, which perhaps carries with it many secrets of our solar system.
Comment on this Article
Serb move may trigger new war
Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
The prime minister of the Serbian half of Bosnia has called for a referendum enabling the Serbs of Bosnia to secede, an act that could trigger a new war and spell the end of the state of Bosnia.
The remarks by Milorad Dodik came during an increasingly dirty campaign characterised by ethnic and nationalist mudslinging ahead of general elections in three weeks. They also suggested Serbia may be plotting to annex large tracts of Bosnia if Belgrade loses the southern province of Kosovo in the next six months. Talks are under way between Serbia and Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leadership, and are likely to result in independence, bitterly opposed by Belgrade.
In an interview published in the Belgrade media, Mr Dodik, prime minister of what is known as the Serbian Republic, comprising 49% of Bosnia, said a referendum on independence for his mini-state was "inevitable" since Bosnia-Herzegovina had no long-term future.
As a result of the wars of the 1990s in Kosovo and Bosnia in which Serbia tried and failed to maximise its territorial gains, Kosovo is under UN administration and poised to obtain independence from Serbia, while Bosnia is also in the final year of international governorship and struggling to become a functioning country.
Comment on this Article
Pakistan agrees peace pact with pro-Taliban tribal fighters
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian
The Pakistani army and pro-Taliban tribal militants signed a peace pact yesterday aimed at ending months of ambushes, assassinations and pitched battles along the volatile Afghan border.