Ken Lay now facing 'financial ruin'

About time that happened, he can ask Georgie for a HANDOUT, seems appropriate to me.

RAW STORY
Published: February 25, 2000

Former Enron chairman Ken Lay is now facing "financial ruin," according to an article scheduled for the front page of Sunday's New York Times, RAW STORY has learned.

Excerpts from the article written by Alexei Barrionuevo and Kurt Eichenwald:

Once at the pinnacle of Houston's financial and political elite with a fortune worth as much as $400 million, Lay, the former chairman of the Enron Corp., is now facing financial ruin.

While he has talked about his shrinking wealth since Enron's collapse, he has managed to keep up appearances, continuing to live in a full-floor apartment in the city's affluent River Oaks section. But already, according to personal financial records obtained by The New York Times, Lay has fallen out of the ranks of the city's millionaires, with a stated net worth of less than $650,000.

And that financial assessment is probably on the optimistic side. His assets, for example, include $1.9 million held in a trust that is almost sure to be eaten up by legal fees.

In addition, Lay, 63, faces potential liability from lawsuits that were filed against him by shareholders and others after Enron's collapse that would almost certainly force him into personal bankruptcy. Lay may also be forced to forfeit his remaining home, along with some other assets, if he is convicted in the criminal fraud trial that is now taking place in Houston.

Link Here

New York Times, with same facts, changes Iraq conflict from 'civil war' to having 'endangered future'

Iraq 'death squads' fuel 'civil war'

NYT yanks Iraq 'civil war' story;

Gov't bans traffic;

Fox: Upside to civil war?

The Unreal Death of Journalism:

Pallid coverage of the dying is especially routine in U.S. news media when a war is underway and the deaths are caused by the U.S. government.

Link Here

Exit without a strategy

The popular response to Iraq's latest atrocities has been to blame the occupation, not rival sects

Sami Ramadani
Friday February 24, 2006
The Guardian

The shattered golden dome of Samarra is yet another milestone in George Bush's "long war" - in which a civil war in Iraq shows every sign of being a devastating feature. But what sort of civil war? I am convinced it is not the type of war that politicians in Washington and London, and much of the western media, have been anticipating.

The past few days' events have strengthened this conviction. It has not been Sunni religious symbols that hundreds of thousands of angry marchers protesting at the bombing of the shrine have targeted, but US flags. The slogan that united them on Wednesday was: "Kalla, kalla Amrica, kalla kalla lill-irhab" - no to America, no to terrorism. The Shia clerics most listened to by young militants swiftly blamed the occupation for the bombing. They included Moqtada al-Sadr; Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon; Ayatollah Khalisi, leader of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress; and Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader. Along with Grand Ayatollah Sistani, they also declared it a grave "sin" to attack Sunnis - as did all the Sunni clerics about attacks on Shias. Sadr was reported by the BBC as calling for revenge on Sunnis - in fact, he said "no Sunni would do this" and called for revenge on the occupation


None of the mostly spontaneous protest marches were directed at Sunni mosques. Near the bombed shrine itself, local Sunnis joined the city's minority Shias to denounce the occupation and accuse it of sharing responsibility for the outrage. In Kut, a march led by Sadr's Mahdi army burned US and Israeli flags. In Baghdad's Sadr City, the anti-occupation march was massive.
There was a string of armed attacks on Sunni mosques in the wake of the bombing but none of them was carried out by the protesters. Reports suggest that they were the work of masked gunmen. Since then there has been an escalation of well-organised murders, some sectarian, some targeting mixed groups, such as yesterday's killing of 47 workers near Baquba.

But as live coverage of Wednesday's demonstrations on Iraqi and Arab satellite TV stations clearly showed, the popular mood has been anti-occupation rather than sectarian. Iraq is awash with rumours about the collusion of the occupation forces and their Iraqi clients with sectarian attacks and death squads: the US is widely seen as fostering sectarian division to prevent the emergence of a united national resistance. Evidence of their involvement in Wednesday's anti-Sunni reprisals was picked up in the Times, which reported that after an armed attack on the al-Quds Sunni mosque in Baghdad the gunmen climbed back into six cars and were ushered from the scene by cheering soldiers of the US-controlled Iraqi National Guard.

Two years ago I argued in these pages that the US aim of installing a client pro-US regime in Baghdad risked plunging the country into civil war - but not a war of Arabs against Kurds or Sunnis against Shias, rather a war between a US-backed minority (of all sects and nationalities) against the majority of the Iraqi people. That is where Iraq is heading.

Crucial political turning points are going unnoticed, though not by the US ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, who organised the pro-US opposition before the invasion and devised the sectarian formulas put into practice thereafter.

In the run-up to the December elections, Sadr's forces won decisive battles in Baghdad and the south against Sciri, the Shia faction more inclined to work with the US. The defeat of the Sciri forces gave Sadr's Mahdi army a powerful voice in the coalition that won the election, and helped nominate Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister against the US-backed Sciri man, Adil Abdulmahdi. Khalilzad is adamant that Sadr's supporters should not be able to exercise such influence. This is the cause of the political crisis engulfing the Green Zone regime.

For nearly two years, we have been inundated with US and British "exit strategies". So, why do you need a strategy to pack up, end the occupation and let the Iraqi people decide their own future? The "threat of civil war" of course. But that is to ignore the war unfolding in Iraq thanks to the continued occupation.

None of these exit strategies will work for the simple reason that they are based on an unrealisable ambition: to have the Iraqi cake and eat it. All the Bush and Blair strategies are based on maintaining a pro-US regime in Baghdad. Freed from this hated occupation, proud and independent Iraqis will never elect a collection of US- and British-backed proteges.

· Sami Ramadani was a political exile from Saddam's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk

Link Here

Corpses in the Garden

By Charles Sullivan

Knowing what I know about the history of my country, it is often difficult for me to fathom how my fellow countrymen have shaped their views. I have come to believe that they have created a mythical America that is not a real place. The perceived necessity of substituting a fantasy world for the real world suggests there is something terribly wrong with the American psyche

Link Here

Cheney's Vice-like Grip

This is what happens when you put so much power in the hands of a Moron

Bush has granted his deputy the greatest expansion of powers in American history

By Sidney Blumenthal

02/24/06 "The Guardian" -- -- After shooting Harry Whittington, Dick Cheney's immediate impulse was to control the intelligence. Rather than call the president directly, he ordered an aide to inform the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, that there had been an accident - but not that Cheney was its cause. Then surrogates attacked the victim for not steering clear of Cheney when he was firing without looking. The vice-president tried to defuse the furore by giving an interview to friendly Fox News.

His most revealing answer came in response to a question about something other than the hunting accident. Cheney was asked about court papers filed by his former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in the inquiry into the leaking of the identity of the undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. In the papers, Libby laid out a line of defence that he leaked classified material at the behest of "his superiors" (to wit, Cheney). Libby said he was authorised to disclose to members of the press classified sections of the prewar National Intelligence Estimate on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, Cheney explained, he has the power to declassify intelligence. "There is an executive order to that effect," he said.

On March 25 2003 President Bush signed executive order 13292, a hitherto little-known document that grants the greatest expansion of the power of the vice-president in US history. It gives the vice-president the same ability to classify intelligence as the president. By controlling classification, the vice-president can control intelligence and, through that, foreign policy. Bush operates on the radical notion of the "unitary executive", that the presidency has inherent and limitless powers in his role as commander in chief, above the system of checks and balances. Never before has any president diminished and divided his power.

The unprecedented executive order bears the hallmarks of Cheney's former counsel and current chief of staff, David Addington, the most powerful aide within the White House. Addington has been the closest assistant to Cheney through three decades. Inside the executive branch, Addington acts as Cheney's vicar, inspiring fear and obedience. Few documents of concern to the vice-president, even executive orders, reach the president without passing through Addington's hands.

To advance their scenario for the Iraq war, Cheney and co either pressured or dismissed the intelligence community when it presented contrary analysis.

On domestic spying conducted without legal approval of the foreign-intelligence surveillance court, Addington and his minions crushed dissent from James Comey, deputy attorney general, and Jack Goldsmith, head of the justice department's office of legal counsel.

On torture policy, as reported by the New Yorker this week, Alberto Mora, recently retired as general counsel to the US navy, opposed Bush's abrogation of the Geneva conventions. Addington et al told him the policies were being ended, while pursuing them on a separate track.

The first US vice-president, John Adams, called his position "the most insignificant office ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived". When Cheney was defence secretary, he reprimanded Vice-President Dan Quayle for asserting power he did not possess by calling a meeting of the National Security Council when the elder President Bush was abroad.

Since the coup d'etat of executive order 13292, the vice-presidency has been transformed. Perhaps, for a blinding moment, Cheney imagined he might classify his shooting party as top secret.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of The Clinton Wars - sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Link Here

IRS Finds Sharp Increase in Illegal Political Activity

The IRS said yesterday that it saw a sharp increase in prohibited political activity by charities and churches in the last election cycle, a trend that it aims to reverse as the country heads into the midterm elections.

Link Here

Bev Harris's Latest Claims

The Booman Tribune

Friday 24 February 2006

Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has a new article up at her site. She also diaried it at Daily Kos where DHinMI promptly went on the attack.

Harris Claims:

The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time- and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night.

Black Box Voting successfully sued former Palm Beach County (FL) Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to get the audit records for the 2004 presidential election.

After investing over $7,000 and waiting nine months for the records, Black Box Voting discovered that the voting machine logs contained approximately 100,000 errors. According to voting machine assignment logs, Palm Beach County used 4,313 machines in the Nov. 2004 election. During election day, 1,475 voting system calibrations were performed while the polls were open, providing documentation to substantiate reports from citizens indicating the wrong candidate was selected when they tried to vote.

Another disturbing find was several dozen voting machines with votes for the Nov. 2, 2004 election cast on dates like Oct. 16, 15, 19, 13, 25, 28 2004 and one tape dated in 2010. These machines did not contain any votes date-stamped on Nov. 2, 2004.

On the Brink in Iraq

With Iraq perched at the very precipice of an ethnic and sectarian holocaust, the utter failure of the Bush administration's policy is revealed with starkest clarity. Iraq may or may not fall into the abyss in the next few days and weeks, but what is no longer in doubt is who is to blame: If Iraq is engulfed in civil war then Americans, Iraqis and the international community must hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney responsible for the destruction of Iraq.

Link Here

Afghanistan prison 'quietly expanded'

RAW STORY
Published: February 25, 2006

An Afghanistan prison that currently holds up to 500 terror suspects in "primitive conditions, indefinitely and without charges" has "quietly expanded," according to a front page story set for Sunday's New York Times.

Excerpts from the article by Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt:

#
Pentagon officials have often described the detention site at Bagram, a cavernous former machine shop on an American air base 40 miles north of Kabul, as a screening center. They said most of the detainees were Afghans who might eventually be released under an amnesty program or transferred to an Afghan prison that is to be built with American aid.

But some of the detainees have already been held at Bagram for as long as two or three years. And unlike those at Guantбnamo, they have no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as "enemy combatants," military officials said.

Privately, some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guantбnamo to challenge their detention in United States courts.

While Guantбnamo offers carefully scripted tours for members of Congress and journalists, Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the international red cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there. The prison may not be photographed, even from a distance.

Link Here

DRIVING BAN IN BAGHDAD

A car bomb exploded in a Shiite holy city and 13 members of one Shiite family were gunned down northeast of the capital Saturday in a surge of attacks that killed at least 30 people despite heightened security aimed at curbing sectarian violence following the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine.

At least one more Sunni mosque was attacked in Baghdad on Saturday after two rockets were fired at a Shiite mosque in Tuz Khormato, north of the capital, the previous night. Shooting also broke out near the home of a prominent Sunni cleric as the funeral procession for an Al-Arabiya TV correspondent slain in sectarian violence was passing by. Police believed the procession was the target.

Read Whole Story

Seven Soldiers Charged For Making Gay Porn Videos...

Associated Press ESTES THOMPSON February 25, 2006 at 11:46 AM
he Army has recommended that seven 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers be discharged following allegations they engaged in sex acts shown on a gay pornographic Web site.

Three soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money. Four others received nonjudicial punishments, according to a statement released by the military Friday.

READ WHOLE STORY

William F. Buckley: It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley
The National Review

Friday 24 February 2006

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "The bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted - to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.

A problem for American policymakers - for President Bush, ultimately - is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail - in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

Link Here

Washington Told to Justify Port Deal in Court

By Jon Hurdle Reuters
Friday 24 February 2006

The Bush administration was ordered by a US federal judge on Friday to explain why it did not give New Jersey officials documents and information Washington had about a deal allowing an Arab company to take over management of a container terminal in Newark.

US District Court Judge Jose Linares signed an order demanding to know why the government did not carry out a full investigation into the change of ownership of the container terminal at Port Newark.

The judge set a hearing for Wednesday and said in the order he would issue a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, pending a full investigation, unless he was satisfied with Washington's answers.

The judge asked in the order that federal officials explain why New Jersey officials were not given the same documents and information that Washington used to approve the deal, under which state-owned Dubai Ports World would take over management from the British company P&O.

On Thursday, the State of New Jersey sued the federal government to block the deal on the grounds it violated the 10th Amendment, which says states control anything not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution.

Earlier, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine urged the governors of states with ports affected by the deal - Louisiana, New York, Florida, Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania - to join the lawsuit.

Democrat Corzine issued the invitation in letters to each governor, saying the lawsuit "will seek to enjoin this sale of vital assets to a foreign nation without our states having had the opportunity to determine the extent of the threat to the safety of our citizens."

The latest developments came as a second lawsuit was filed in New Jersey over the controversial deal.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the change of management of its container terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey.

The authority, jointly owned by the states of New York and New Jersey, said the deal violates the terms of P&O's lease.

The transaction is part of a $6.85 billion deal under which the United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World DPW would manage terminals at six major US ports.

The plan has sparked protests from federal and local lawmakers and officials who fear the ports' security will be hurt if they are managed by a company whose owner has been accused of having links with terrorist groups.

The Port Authority said it has a right to review changes in port management under the existing lease agreement. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court in Newark, urged the court to declare that the purchase of P&O requires consent of the Port Authority under the lease, that the container terminal is in breach of its lease, and that the lease is terminated.

The suit names P&O Ports North America, and Port Newark Container Terminal LLC as defendants.

US lawmakers opposed to the takeover have cited links between UAE and al Qaeda but President George W. Bush has defended the deal, calling the UAE an ally in his war on terrorism.

"The Port Authority has been deprived of its right to conduct a thorough review of the purchase ... of the identity, qualifications, experience and reputation of the purchasers ... and of the proposed impact that the change may have on the control and ownership," the lawsuit said.

Link Here

Who Benefits?

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches

February 24, 2006

The most important question to ask regarding the bombings of the Golden
Mosque in Samarra on the 22nd is: who benefits?

Prior to asking this question, let us note the timing of the bombing.
The last weeks in Iraq have been a PR disaster for the occupiers.

First, the negative publicity of the video of British soldiers beating
and abusing young Iraqis has generated a backlash for British occupation
forces they’ve yet to face in Iraq.

Indicative of this, Abdul Jabbar Waheed, the head of the Misan
provincial council in southern Iraq, announced his councils’ decision to
lift the immunity British forces have enjoyed, so that the soldiers who
beat the young Iraqis can be tried in Iraqi courts. Former U.S.
proconsul Paul Bremer had issued an order granting all occupation
soldiers and western contractors immunity to Iraqi law when he was head
of the CPA…but this province has now decided to lift that so the British
soldiers can be investigated and tried under Iraqi law.

This deeply meaningful event, if replicated around Iraq, will generate a
huge rift between the occupiers and local governments. A rift which, of
course, the puppet government in Baghdad will be unable to mend.

The other huge event which drew Iraqis into greater solidarity with one
another was more photos and video aired depicting atrocities within Abu
Ghraib at the hands of U.S. occupation forces.

The inherent desecration of Islam and shaming of the Iraqi people shown
in these images enrages all Iraqis.

In a recent press conference, the aforementioned Waheed urged the Brits
to allow members of the provincial committee to visit a local jail to
check on detainees; perhaps Waheed is alarmed as to what their condition
may be after seeing more photos and videos from Abu Ghraib.

Waheed also warned British forces that if they didn’t not comply with
the demands of the council, all British political, security and
reconstruction initiatives will be boycotted.

Basra province has already taken similar steps, and similar machinations
are occurring in Kerbala.

Basra and Misan provinces, for example, refused to raise the cost of
petrol when the puppet government in Baghdad, following orders from the
IMF, decided to recently raise the cost of Iraqi petrol at the pumps
several times last December.

The horrific attack which destroyed much of the Golden Mosque generated
sectarian outrage which led to attacks on over 50 Sunni mosques. Many
Sunni mosques in Baghdad were shot, burnt, or taken over. Three Imans
were killed, along with scores of others in widespread violence.

This is what was shown by western corporate media.

As quickly as these horrible events began, they were called to an end
and replaced by acts of solidarity between Sunni and Shia across Iraq.

This, however, was not shown by western corporate media.

The Sunnis where the first to go to demonstrations of solidarity with
Shia in Samarra, as well as to condemn the mosque bombings.
Demonstrations of solidarity between Sunni and Shia went off over all of
Iraq: in Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, Kut, and Salah al-Din.

Thousands of Shia marched shouting anti-American slogans through Sadr
City, the huge Shia slum area of Baghdad, which is home to nearly half
the population of the capital city. Meanwhile, in the primarily Shia
city of Kut, south of Baghdad, thousands marched while shouting slogans
against America and Israel and burning U.S. and Israeli flags.

Baghdad had huge demonstrations of solidarity, following announcements
by several Shia religious leaders not to attack Sunni mosques.

Attacks stopped after these announcements, coupled with those from Sadr,
which I’ll discuss shortly.

Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, shortly after the Golden
Mosque was attacked, called for “easing things down and not attacking
any Sunni mosques and shrines,” as Sunni religious authorities called
for a truce and invited everyone to block the way of those trying to
generate a sectarian war.

Sistani’s office issued this statement: “We call upon believers to
express their protest ... through peaceful means. The extent of their
sorrow and shock should not drag them into taking actions that serve the
enemies who have been working to lead Iraq into sectarian strife.”

Shiite religious authority Ayatollah Hussein Ismail al-Sadr warned of
the emergence of a sectarian strife “that terrorists want to ignite
between the Iraqis” by the bombings and said, “The Iraqi Shiite
authority strenuously denied that Sunnis could have done this work.”

He also said, “Of course it is not Sunnis who did this work; it is the
terrorists who are the enemies of the Shiites and Sunni, Muslims and non
Muslims. They are the enemies of all religions; terrorism does not have
a religion.”

He warned against touching any Sunni Mosque, saying, “our Sunni
brothers’ mosques must be protected and we must all stand against
terrorism and sabotage.” He added: ‘The two shrines are located in the
Samarra region, which [is] predominantly Sunni. They have been
protecting, using and guarding the mosques for years, it is not them but
terrorism that targeted the mosques…”

He ruled out the possibility of a civil war while telling a reporter, “I
don’t believe there will a civil or religious war in Iraq; thank God
that our Sunni and Shiite references are urging everyone to not respond
to these terrorist and sabotage acts. We are aware of their attempts as
are our people; Sistani had issued many statements [regarding this
issue] just as we did.”

The other, and more prominent Sadr, Muqtada Al-Sadr, who has already
lead two uprisings against occupation forces, held Takfiris [those who
regard other Muslims as infidels], Ba’thists, and especially the foreign
occupation responsible for the bombing attack on the Golden Mosque in
Samarra.

Sadr, who suspended his visit to Lebanon and cancelled his meeting with
the president there, promptly returned to Iraq in order to call on the
Iraqi parliament to vote on the request for the departure of the
occupation forces from Iraq.

“It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of Imam Al-Hadi, God’s
peace be upon him, but rather the occupation [forces] and Ba’athists…God
damn them. We should not attack Sunni mosques. I ordered Al-Mahdi Army
to protect the Shi’i and Sunni shrines.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, urged Iraqi Shia not
to seek revenge against Sunni Muslims, saying there were definite plots
“to force the Shia to attack the mosques and other properties respected
by the Sunni. Any measure to contribute to that direction is helping the
enemies of Islam and is forbidden by sharia.”

Instead, he blamed the intelligence services of the U.S. and Israel for
being behind the bombs at the Golden Mosque.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that those who committed the
attack on the Golden Mosque “have only one motive: to create a violent
sedition between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to derail the Iraqi
rising democracy from its path.”

Well said Mr. Blair, particularly when we keep in mind the fact that
less than a year ago in Basra, two undercover British SAS soldiers were
detained by Iraqi security forces whilst traveling in a car full of
bombs and remote detonators.

Jailed and accused by Muqtada al-Sadr and others of attempting to
generate sectarian conflict by planting bombs in mosques, they were
broken out of the Iraqi jail by the British military before they could
be tried.

Link Here

Iran in gas deal with European firms

Saturday 25 February 2006, 12:57 Makka Time, 9:57 GMT

Shell plans to produce liquefied natural gas

Iran will next week grant Total, Shell and Repsol upstream development contracts in the Gulf's giant South Pars gas field, an Iranian state oil firm says.

Iran intends to use phases 11 and 13 of South Pars, which sits on the world's biggest reservoir of natural gas, to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The Islamic Republic hopes to export its first LNG shipments in 2009.

A spokesman for the Pars Oil and Gas Company said on Saturday: "The signings will be late this week."

The Iranian working week starts on Saturday and ends on Wednesday or Thursday, depending on the institution.

Total is planning to develop phase 11 of South Pars to produce LNG, gas super-cooled to liquid for loading onto tankers, in a project called Pars LNG.

Shell and Repsol are planning to do the same with phase 13, a project called Persian LNG.

Billion dollar deal

Akbar Torkan, managing director of the Pars Oil and Gas Company, was quoted by the Abrar-e Eqtesadi financial daily as saying the contract to develop phase 11 would be worth $1.2-$1.4 billion.

The phase 13 deal would be worth $1.5 billion, he added.

Although it sits on the world's second biggest reserves of natural gas, Iran has been very slow to develop exports.

Qatar, which draws its gas from the same Gulf reservoir, is a long-established LNG exporter.

Iran has been reported to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after failing to convince the world that its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful.

However, Iran has struck a defiant tone on its oil and gas industry, saying industrialised countries would never dare to embargo hydrocarbons from Opec's number two exporter while oil prices remain high.

Torkan also told the ISNA students news agency that Pars Oil and Gas Company had tendered phases 19-21 of South Pars.

Reuters Link here

Pit Boss:Blair's Dark Kingdom

Friday, 24 February 2006
Britain's New Statesman magazine has put together a powerful package of stories detailing how the government of George W. Bush's beloved disciple, Tony Blair, is "persecuting innocent people, tearing up our freedoms and undermining the judiciary." The basis of the stories is a new, blistering report from Amnesty International on the degraded state of civil liberties in the UK today.

The first NS story, Shamed, by Martin Bright, gives an overview of the Amnesty report. Two other stories are not available on the NS website, but your good Uncle Burlesque has kindly provided you with the texts.

The first of these, When Even Actors Aren't Safe, details the remarkable story of Rizwan Ahmed, who played a leading role in the award-winning new film, Road to Guantanamo. Ahmed played one of the Tipton Three, young Britons who were railroaded into Bush's concentration camp and held there for years, despite a plethora of evidence for their innocence. (I first wrote about them in March 2004: The Pentagon Archipelago: Trapped in a Net of State Terrorism). Ahmed was returning home to Britain after the film's celebrated showing at the Berlin Film Festival when he was nabbed at a UK airport and given the treatment. He was lucky not to have ended up in Guantanmo himself.

The other story, Squandering a Precious Heritage, is from Philippe Sands, one of Britain's leading human-rights lawyers (who, ironically, serves in the same law chambers as one Cherie Booth, better known to the world as Mrs. Tony Blair). Sands has also written an important new book, Lawless World, detailing the reckless destruction of the system of international law built up after World War II.

In many respects, Blair's Britain is actually more publicly draconian than Bush's America. Of course, this is partly due to the fact that Blair still feels bound to codify his degenerate practices -- to actually put them into law -- while Bush has decided that a president can blithely ignore any and all laws: so what's the point of changing them? (Heck, let those anti-torture, anti-aggression, Geneva Convention-type things stay on the books; they look real good on paper, and you don't have to obey them nohow.) But there is a fertile and sinister cross-pollination between these two oh-so-Christian "leaders" as they drag their nations down into a dark pit of lawlessness, repression, militarism and stinking fear.

Link here

Arabs Tell Rice Violence Like Iraq's Could Spread

As violence spread across Iraq during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the Middle East this week, kings, presidents and prime ministers told her that they were concerned that sectarian violence could spread across the Middle East.

"It came up pretty much everywhere," said a senior State Department official traveling with Ms. Rice.

During this trip, Ms. Rice met with leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and the other Persian Gulf states.

One of the senior officials traveling with Ms. Rice said the Arab leaders, in their conversations with her, were particularly concerned that "outsiders could stir up trouble in Lebanon and perhaps the Palestinian territories."

Link Here

Venezuela cuts US airline flights

Venezuela is cutting flights by US airlines as relations between the two countries continue to deteriorate.

From 1 March, flights by Delta and Continental Airlines will be cut by up to 70%, and American Airlines flights will also be affected, officials say.

They accuse the US - which imposed a similar ban on Venezuela 10 years ago - of failing to give Venezuelan carriers equal access to American soil. Relations between the two countries have long been strained. They have hit new lows in recent weeks after a tit-for-tat expulsion row over allegations of spying, and a fierce exchange of words between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Safety issue

Continental Airlines has been running a daily service from Venezuela to Houston, and weekly flights to New York. Delta Airlines currently flies daily to Atlanta, and American Airlines to Puerto Rico and Miami. Venezuela's National Aviation Institute said in a statement: "We have exhausted all avenues with the US aeronautical authority.

"We have been forced to reduce the frequency of flights of US airline companies from the US."

Link Here

Pentagon denies Wolfowitz approved Guantanamo interrogation tactics

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon denied that former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz approved interrogation techniques used on war-on-terror detainees as claimed in a recently released
FBI email.

"To make any suggestion that Paul Wolfowitz was involved in approving individual interrogation plans is simply wrong," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

Reference was made to Wolfowitz in an exchange of email between FBI officials in May, 2004 over agents' concerns about aggressive interrogation tactics used by military interrogators on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In one email, an FBI official whose name was blacked out suggested talking to the bureau's Behavioral Assessment Unit about what he indicated were two specific examples of abuse.

Link Here

Tampa Tribune: U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris Got Illegal Donations

The Cow, they should have locked her up in 2000
Tampa Tribune
Harris Got Illegal Donations
Feb 25, 2006

Link here

TAMPA - A defense contractor who pleaded guilty Friday to bribing a California congressman told federal authorities he also funneled illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris of Longboat Key, who's running for the U.S. Senate.

The contractor, Mitchell Wade, former chief executive of MZM Inc. in California, pleaded guilty to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California and receiving more than $150 million in Defense Department contracts in return.

He also pleaded guilty to making about $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions to two other Congress members - identifiable from court papers and election records as Harris and Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia, both Republicans - in hopes of receiving federal appropriations.

The Harris contributions were made to her 2004 campaign for re-election to the House. At the time, MZM, its officers and its political action committee were Harris' largest single source of campaign funds.

A NEW bombing hit the Shiite holy city of Karbala in Iraq today,

Holy city hit with bomb blast

A BOMB in the Shiite holy city of Karbala in Iraq has killed at least four people and fuelled sectarian tensions amid growing bloodshed.

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded

No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 8:29 p.m. EST (01:29 GMT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

"As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down," President Bush said last month. (Full story)

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.

"Level one" means the battalion is able to fight on its own; "level two" means it requires support from U.S. troops; and "level three" means it must fight alongside U.S. troops.

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

The battalion is still deployed, and its status as an independent fighting force could be restored any day, Pentagon officials said. It was not clear where the battalion is operating within Iraq.

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

Overall, Pentagon officials said close to 100 Iraqi army battalions are operational, and more than 100 Iraq Security Force battalions are operational at levels two or three. The security force operations are under the direction of the Iraqi government.

The numbers are roughly the same as those given by the president last month when he said 125 Iraqi combat battalions were fighting the insurgency, 50 of them taking the lead.

"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," Bush said. "That's progress."

CNN's Mike Mount contributed to this report.

Link Here

White House 'Discovers’ 250 Emails Related to Plame Leak

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report

Friday 24 February 2006

The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.

The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.

Sources close to the probe said the White House “discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them over to Fitzgerald last week. The sources added that the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI investigators when he was interviewed about the leak in early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s undercover status to reporters.

Cheney was not under oath when he was interviewed. He told investigators how the White House came to rely on Niger documents that purportedly showed that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country.

Cheney said he had received an intelligence briefing on the allegations in late December 2003, or early January 2004, and had asked the CIA for more information about the issue.

Cheney said he was unaware that Ambassador Wilson was chosen to travel to Niger to look into the uranium claims, and that he never saw a report Wilson had given a CIA analyst upon his return which stated that the Niger claims were untrue. He said the CIA never told him about Wilson's trip.

However, the emails say otherwise, and will show that the vice president spearheaded an effort in March 2003 to attack Wilson’s credibility and used the CIA to dig up information on the former ambassador that could be used against him, sources said.

Some of the emails that were turned over to Fitzgerald contained references to Plame Wilson's identity and CIA status, and developments related to the inability of ground forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the start of the war in March 2003.

According to sources, the emails also contained suggestions by senior officials in Cheney’s office, and at the National Security Council, on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

Last month, Fitzgerald disclosed in court documents that he discovered from witnesses in the case that some emails related to Wilson and his wife, written by senior aides in Cheney’s office and sent to other officials at the National Security Council, had not been turned over to investigators by the White House.

“In an abundance of caution,” Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby's defense team states, “we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”

Sources close to the case said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales withheld numerous emails from Fitzgerald’s probe citing “executive privilege” and “national security” concerns. These sources said that as of Friday there are still some emails that have not been turned over to Fitzgerald because they contain classified information in addition to references about the Wilsons.

Attorneys representing Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak, were in court Friday arguing that Fitzgerald should be required to turn over classified material, including highly sensitive Presidential Daily Briefs, to Libby’s defense team.

The defense hopes that the classified materials will establish that Libby was dealing with more pressing matters facing the White House and that he simply did not intend to mislead the grand jury when he testified that he did not disclose Plame Wilson’s name to reporters.

In another development in the leak case Friday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said another administration official, who does not work at the White House, also spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson. This individual, according to sources close to the case, works at the National Security Council.

Walton said that Libby’s defense team was not entitled to be told of the individual’s identity because the person is not charged with a crime in the leak. However, the person is said to be one of several people in the administration who is cooperating with the probe.

Link Here

The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S

Bush Admin. won't reconsider port deal

Federal judge rules Admin. must justify deal;

Was for 21 ports;

Dole won't lobby.

Iran: Hit us, we'll hit Israeli nuke site

Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility.

Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area.

Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries.

Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills is - according to foreign reports - home to Israel's Jericho missile base. Both Israeli and international media have published commercial satellite images of the Zakhariya and Dimona sites.

Abasi, a senior lecturer at Tehran University, was quoted in the Roz internet news site, identified with reform circles in Iran.

Iranian affairs experts believe Abasi's statements are part of propaganda battle being wages by all sides - including Israel and Iran - in the lead up to next months United Nations Security Council debate on Iran's nuclear program.

At this stage, the possibility that sanctions will be leveled at Iran are extremely low.

Head Of 9/11 Commission: Deal "Never Should Have Happened"...

Associated Press DONNA DE LA CRUZ February 24, 2006 at 11:28 PM
READ MORE: George W. Bush

The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports. The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."

Opponents, including the agency that runs New York and New Jersey ports, took their case to court, while the company, Dubai Ports World, stepped up efforts to change the minds of congressional critics.

READ WHOLE STORY

Judge Deals Blow To Libby In Leak Case...

The Washington Post Carol D. Leonnig February 24, 2006 at 11:31 PM
READ MORE: Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, CIA, Valerie Plame, Halliburton

Vice President Cheney's former top aide is not entitled to know the identity of an anonymous administration official who revealed information about CIA operative Valerie Plame to two journalists, a federal judge ruled in a hearing yesterday.

To defend himself against criminal charges, however, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby does have the right to copies of all the classified notes he took as Cheney's chief of staff from spring 2003 to spring 2004, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. Libby sought the notes to refresh his memory about matters he was handling while discussing Plame with reporters and when questioned by investigators about those conversations.

READ WHOLE STORY

Fox News: "All-Out Civil War In Iraq: Could It Be A Good Thing?"...

Media Matters February 24, 2006 at 05:52 PM
READ MORE: Iraq, Fox News

Only on Fox: "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
Summary: Fox News featured two onscreen captions during a segment on escalating violence in Iraq that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"

A segment about escalating sectarian violence in Iraq on the February 23 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto featured onscreen captions that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"

READ WHOLE STORY

Did The White House "Authorize" Leaks to Woodward?

Did the Bush administration "authorize" the leak of classified information to Bob Woodward? And did those leaks damage national security?

The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) made exactly that charge tonight in a letter to John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence. What prompted Rockefeller to write Negroponte was a recent op-ed in the New York Times by CIA director Porter Goss complaining that leaks of classified information were the fault of "misguided whistleblowers."

Rockefeller charged in his letter that the most "damaging revelations of intelligence sources and methods are generated primarily by Executive Branch officials pushing a particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of intelligence agencies."

Later in the same letter, Rockefeller said: "Given the Administration's continuing abuse of intelligence information for political purposes, its criticism of leaks is extraordinarily hypocritical. Preventing damage to intelligence sources and methods from media leaks will not be possible until the highest level of the Administration cease to disclose classified information on a classified basis for political purposes."

Exhibit A for Rockefeller: Woodward's book, Bush at War.

Here is what Rockefeller had to say:

In his 2002 book Bush at War, Bob Woodward described almost unfettered access to classified material of the most sensitive nature. According to his account, he was provided information related to sources and methods, extremely sensitive covert actions, and foreign intelligence liaison relationships. It is no wonder, as Director Goss wrote, "because of the number of recent news reports discussing our relationships with other intelligence services, some of these partners have even informed the C.I.A. that they are reconsidering their participation of some of our most important antiterrorism ventures."
I wrote both former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet and Acting DCI John McLaughlin seeking to determine what steps were being taken to address the appalling disclosures contained in Bush at War. The only response I received was to indicate that the leaks had been authorized by the Administration. The CIA has still not responded to a follow-up letter I sent a year and half ago on September 1, 2004, trying to pin down which officials were authorized to meet with Mr. Woodward and by whom, and what intelligence information was conveyed during these authorized exchanges.


Were leaks of classified information "authorized" to Woodward? Rockefeller's letter says exactly that. And among other things, it is well known and has been reported long ago that one of Woodward's sources for both of his books about the Bush presidency was then-VicePresidential chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who is portrayed in quite a flattering manner in both.

Rockefeller said in his letter that the President's directing of administration officials to co-operate with the administration-friendly Woodward was only one example of such "authorized leaks".

Rockefeller said elsewhere in his letter:

On February 9th, the National Journal reported that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury that he was 'authorized' by Vice President Cheney and other White House superiors to disclose classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate to the press to defend the Administration's use of pre-war intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq...
This blatant abuse of intelligence information for political purposes is inexcusable, but all to common. Throughout this period leading up to the Iraq war the Administration selectively declassified or leaked information related to Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes, the alleged purchase of uranium, the non-existent operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and numerous other issues.


The White House is declining tonight to comment on Rockefeller's letter, as is Woodward. (If either of them does at some point have something to say, either to me, or elsewhere, I will update this post accordingly.)

Did the leaks to Woodward damage national security? Michael Scheuer, the CIA's former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, wrote in his book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror:

After reading Mr. Woodward's Bush at War, it seems to me that the U.S. officials who either approved or participated in passing the information--in documents and via interviews--that is the heart of Mr. Woodward's book gave an untold measure of aid and comfort to the enemy.
What was not known by Scheuer at the time was that officials on the "Seventh Floor" of the CIA were literally ordered by then-CIA director George Tenet to co-operate with Woodward's project because President Bush personally asked that it be done. More than one CIA official co-operated with Woodward against their best judgment, and only because they thought it was something the President had wanted done or ordered.

One former senior administration official explained to me: "This was something that the White House wanted done because they considered it good public relations. If there was real damage to national security--if there were leaks that possibly exposed sources and methods, it was not done in this instance for the public good or to expose Watergate type wrongdoing. This was done for presidential image-making and a commercial enterprise--Woodward's book."

Woodward himself perhaps lends credence to that possibility.

On page 243 of his book Plan of Attack, Woodward wrote:

[O]n December 18, my wife, Elsa Walsh, and I attended a huge White House Christmas party for the media hosted by the president and his wife. The Bushes stood for hours in a receiving line as a photographer snapped pictures with the first couple.
When we reached the front of the line, the president remarked that my book Bush at War was selling well. "Top of the charts," he said, and asked, "Are you planning to do another book?" He then stretched out his arms and indicated with his body language that there might be a story there, that it should be done.


Without any irony, Woodward didn't seem to understand how far he had come from meeting Mark Felt in the middle of the night in a parking garage.

Did Woodward disappoint Bush with his next book? I like to speak no opinions. My saying is: I blog, you decide.

Link Here

As the Darkness Closes In

No one can tell if the widespread and totally unchecked violence spreading across Iraq will turn into a declared civil war. But for months the world has held its breath, knowing that such a war was bubbling just beneath the surface. The undeclared sectarian war was already obvious to everyone. Reality is catching up with fantasy, as the neo-cons and other right wingers learn a hard lesson: History isn't the pawn of bright ideas.

Here are the facts reality faces us with: Iraq was a militaristic country ruled by arms. Its male citizens almost universally own guns and often machine guns. They were attacked by armed force, and they live in an unstable region where violence is the most common form of political expression. Killing your political enemy is a daily occurrence. These facts, which have been true for two generations, didn't stop the administration and its neo-con theorists from believing in the fantasy of American troops embraced in the streets, after which a liberated Iraqi people would transform into a free market of democracy-loving consumers ready for Coca-Cola, the Internet, and F-16 fighters.

In the New York Times on Feb. 19 Francis Fukuyama wrote a detailed epitaph and mea culpa for the neo-con beliefs that got us into this immoral and unwinnable conflict.

As intelligent as his article was, every single point had been made in advance by the vast majority of Iraqi experts that the administration arrogantly ignored. We are now isolated and hated as never before. Our allies mistrust us. We have on our record the blot of starting a preemptive war, a blot that will never be erased. The Iraq we have created is weak, divided, and open to destabilizing influence from all sides (the influx of terrorists from other countries is only the beginning -- witness Syria's stranglehold on Lebanon).

The red states believe that the U.S. went into Iraq to bring democracy and prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Many still believe that, while cynics say this is all about oil. Both sides are mistaken: this was about a right-wing world view that thought it could alter the course of history with the mere wave of a hand. There was no follow-up plan after the Iraqi invasion toppled Saddam because the neo-con world view said none was needed. It also said that the Middle East was ready for democracy. And that the U.S. was a shining model of peace despite our horrific arms buildup.

As the darkness closes in even further, we must accept history for we cannot escape it. It's inevitable that the administration will limp along for three years talking to itself about how right it was. As Iraqi society collapses, the neo-cons will have to live with the truth, which is that they never cared a straw for the Iraqi people. They only wanted to prove that their ideology must prevail. How ironic that their arch-enemy, Communism, spent seventy agonizing years doing exactly the same thing.

Link Here

Update 3: Report: Attack Foiled on Saudi Oil Refinery

02.24.2006, 08:41 AM

An explosion occured Friday at a major oil refinery in Baqiq, eastern Saudi Arabia, a Saudi oil official said.

The pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Arabiya TV reported the authorities foiled an attempt to bomb the refinery with two vehicles packed with explosives. The channel did not give a source for the report, which appeared on its scrollbar.

Earlier Al-Arabiya quoted its reporter in the kingdom as saying shots as well as an explosion were heard, and they may have been part of an attempt to attack the refinery. >>>cont

Link Here

United Arab Emirates Donated At Least $1M To Bush Library

POSTED: 7:37 am CST February 24, 2006

HOUSTON -- A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

The UAE owns Dubai Ports World, which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports.

A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight. Dubai Ports World offered Thursday night to delay part of the takeover to give the Bush administration more time to convince lawmakers the deal poses no security risks. >>>cont

Link Here

Port Authority sues over Dubai control of NJ port

Jersey authority sues over ports

Deal delayed;

Pentagon: 'Terrorists win';

Was for 21 ports;

Dole won't lobby.

Art For Girls

Memos Detail 74 CIA Landings in Canada

CIA planes have landed in Canada 74 times since the 9/11 terror attacks, underscoring fears that the United States is ferrying suspected terrorists through its neighboring country en route to foreign prisons for torture, according to newly declassified government documents.



Link Here

US Marines Probe Tensions among Iran's Minorities

The intelligence wing of the US marines has launched a probe into Iran's ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along the border with Iraq and friction between capitals. Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the marines told the Financial Times that the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq.

Link Here

UAE Terminal Takeover Extends to 21 Ports

21 ports Hmmmmmmm not 6

By Pamela Hess
United Press International

Friday 24 February 2006

Washington - A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.

At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a US company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.

"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.

"The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns," said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.

The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the US attorney general and the Senate committee's legal counsel a finding on the administration's interpretation of the 1992 amendment.

Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.

"Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media," he wrote.

According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.

Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.

Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.

Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 US service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in US ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.

"It's very important we strengthen bonds ... especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It's important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination," he said.

The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a "dirty bomb."

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A "risk analysis" is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship's history, the cargo's history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the US government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.

None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.

Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.

"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans - that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.

"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.

In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the US customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.

CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier "precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the US with negligible or no inspection."

"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.

Link Here

Bill Moyers | Restoring the Public Trust

Bill Moyers speaks on the issue of money and politics: Watching these people work is a study of the inner circle at the top of American politics. It is a Dick Cheney world out there - a world where politicians and lobbyists hunt together, dine together, drink together, play together, pray together and prey together, all the while carving up the world according to their own interests. It is time to fight again. It's not their government, it's your government.

Link Here

Gates of hell are open

The threat of a large-scale civil war in Iraq is imminent,

reports Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov

Link Here
February 25, 2006

IN a land of daily bloodshed and bombings, it took another explosion this week to hammer home what many in Iraq and among its Arab neighbours have already accepted: a civil war is already being fought in the nation the US liberated.

It was an audacious attack even by the brutal standards of the new Iraq. When the giant dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the holiest Shia shrine in the country, fell just before 7am on Wednesday, the inter-Islamic battles of the past 12 months reached a new nadir.

The toppling of a sacred site urged into the open the Shia fighters who had previously battled the Sunni uprising in the back lanes of towns and villages.

The Shias now have a lightning rod to make their rebellion public. The gates of hell, slightly ajar for a year, have been flung wide open.

Since at least March 2005, a secret campaign has been fought in communities that co-existed for more than 30 years under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. Sectarian killings have been commonplace - a dozen Shia Muslims one day, about as many Sunnis the next.

Just as had happened across the global ethnic killing fields of the past three decades; Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon and Kosovo, the bodies were strewn where they fell, their homes and villages seized by those who slayed them.

When the dictator Saddam strode the land, the Sunni minority walked with him, enjoying power and spoils that far outweighed their numbers. The Shias of Iraq, by far the largest ethnic group, mostly stayed silent, waiting for their turn to wield the levers of power - which was finally delivered to them in December.

It is now high noon for the Shias who, within weeks, will dominate the new Government legitimised by the December 15 election, which realigned Iraq along traditional sectarian lines. Shia parties won 128 of 275 seats, while the ruling Sunnis were relegated to third in the pecking order, behind the Shias and the second largest ethnic bloc, the Kurds of the north.

Continues....

That is a bloody good question.. Isn't it though..?

Did the White House "Authorize" Leaks to Woodward?
Murray Waas
Link Here

Did the Bush administration "authorize" the leak of classified information to Bob Woodward? And did those leaks damage national security?

The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) made exactly that charge tonight in a letter to John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence. What prompted Rockefeller to write Negroponte was a recent op-ed in the New York Times by CIA director Porter Goss complaining that leaks of classified information were the fault of "misguided whistleblowers."

Rockefeller charged in his letter that the most "damaging revelations of intelligence sources and methods are generated primarily by Executive Branch officials pushing a particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of intelligence agencies."

Later in the same letter, Rockefeller said: "Given the Administration's continuing abuse of intelligence information for political purposes, its criticism of leaks is extraordinarily hypocritical. Preventing damage to intelligence sources and methods from media leaks will not be possible until the highest level of the Administration cease to disclose classified information on a classified basis for political purposes."

Exhibit A for Rockefeller: Woodward's book, Bush at War.

Here is what Rockefeller had to say:

In his 2002 book Bush at War, Bob Woodward described almost unfettered access to classified material of the most sensitive nature. According to his account, he was provided information related to sources and methods, extremely sensitive covert actions, and foreign intelligence liaison relationships. It is no wonder, as Director Goss wrote, "because of the number of recent news reports discussing our relationships with other intelligence services, some of these partners have even informed the C.I.A. that they are reconsidering their participation of some of our most important antiterrorism ventures."

I wrote both former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet and Acting DCI John McLaughlin seeking to determine what steps were being taken to address the appalling disclosures contained in Bush at War. The only response I received was to indicate that the leaks had been authorized by the Administration. The CIA has still not responded to a follow-up letter I sent a year and half ago on September 1, 2004, trying to pin down which officials were authorized to meet with Mr. Woodward and by whom, and what intelligence information was conveyed during these authorized exchanges.


Were leaks of classified information "authorized" to Woodward? Rockefeller's letter says exactly that. And among other things, it is well known and has been reported long ago that one of Woodward's sources for both of his books about the Bush presidency was then-VicePresidential chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who is portrayed in quite a flattering manner in both.

Rockefeller said in his letter that the President's directing of administration officials to co-operate with the administration-friendly Woodward was only one example of such "authorized leaks".

Rockefeller said elsewhere in his letter:

On February 9th, the National Journal reported that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury that he was 'authorized' by Vice President Cheney and other White House superiors to disclose classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate to the press to defend the Administration's use of pre-war intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq...

This blatant abuse of intelligence information for political purposes is inexcusable, but all to common. Throughout this period leading up to the Iraq war the Administration selectively declassified or leaked information related to Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes, the alleged purchase of uranium, the non-existent operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and numerous other issues.


The White House is declining tonight to comment on Rockefeller's letter, as is Woodward. (If either of them does at some point have something to say, either to me, or elsewhere, I will update this post accordingly.)

Did the leaks to Woodward damage national security? Michael Scheuer, the CIA's former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, wrote in his book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror:

After reading Mr. Woodward's Bush at War, it seems to me that the U.S. officials who either approved or participated in passing the information--in documents and via interviews--that is the heart of Mr. Woodward's book gave an untold measure of aid and comfort to the enemy.

What was not known by Scheuer at the time was that officials on the "Seventh Floor" of the CIA were literally ordered by then-CIA director George Tenet to co-operate with Woodward's project because President Bush personally asked that it be done. More than one CIA official co-operated with Woodward against their best judgment, and only because they thought it was something the President had wanted done or ordered.

One former senior administration official explained to me: "This was something that the White House wanted done because they considered it good public relations. If there was real damage to national security--if there were leaks that possibly exposed sources and methods, it was not done in this instance for the public good or to expose Watergate type wrongdoing. This was done for presidential image-making and a commercial enterprise--Woodward's book."

Woodward himself perhaps lends credence to that possibility.

On page 243 of his book Plan of Attack, Woodward wrote:

[O]n December 18, my wife, Elsa Walsh, and I attended a huge White House Christmas party for the media hosted by the president and his wife. The Bushes stood for hours in a receiving line as a photographer snapped pictures with the first couple.

When we reached the front of the line, the president remarked that my book Bush at War was selling well. "Top of the charts," he said, and asked, "Are you planning to do another book?" He then stretched out his arms and indicated with his body language that there might be a story there, that it should be done.

Without any irony, Woodward didn't seem to understand how far he had come from meeting Mark Felt in the middle of the night in a parking garage.

Did Woodward disappoint Bush with his next war? I like to speak no opinions. My saying is: I blog, you decide.

One can skip a read of the book, and go simply to the index, in making their own judgments:

Here are some entries:

Bush, George W.: absence of doubt in, 139-40, 420
Bipartisan solidarity of, 189, 200.
Importance of showing resolve and, 81, 116, 152, 320-21, 406, 418-19, 437
legacy of, 90, 165
morality of, 86-132, 272, 313-14
on freedom, 88-89, 93, 152, 258, 276, 405, 424, 428
optimism of, 91, 93, 313-14
patience of, 162-63, 165, 271
as a strong leader, 91, 430

Cross-Posted at www.whateveralready.blogspot.com

How To Win Hearts And Minds

Man, oh man.

No Justice, No Peace
by Bob Herbert
The New York Times
February 23, 2006

Link Here

If you talk to Maher Arar long enough, even on the telephone, you'll get the disturbing sense that you are speaking with someone whose life has been shattered like a pane of glass.

"Sometimes I have the feeling that I want to go and live on another planet," he told me. "A completely different planet than planet Earth. You know?"

Mr. Arar, thanks to the United States government, went through the almost incomprehensible agony of being tortured. Now he is trying to live with the aftermath of torture, which is its own form of agony.

On Sept. 26, 2002, Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was taken into custody by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York. He was locked in chains and shackles and accused of being "a member of a known terrorist organization."

There was no evidence to support the accusation, and no evidence has ever come to light. Nevertheless, as part of the hideous U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, Mr. Arar was shipped off to Syria, where he was kept in an underground rat-infested, grave-like cell, and tortured. (When I visited him in Ottawa last year, he told me how he had screamed and wept and begged both God and his captors for mercy.)

After 10 months, he was released. No charges against him were ever filed.

I called Mr. Arar last week after a federal judge in Brooklyn threw out a lawsuit in which Mr. Arar had sought damages from the U.S. government for his ordeal.

"I don't feel like I am the same person," he said. "I feel that my brain or my inner soul does not want to think about what's going on. My soul is trying to distract itself from reality."

The reality, he said, is that his life has been all but completely destroyed. He is fearful. He has become psychologically and emotionally distant from his wife and two young children. He has nightmares. He can't find a job. He spins dizzily from one bout with depression to another. And some former friends who are Muslim will no longer associate with him because "they're afraid to be the next target."

"I mean, you can tell, no one wants to hear about me," he said. "After 9/11, everyone branded with the terrorism label -- they're doomed."

Mr. Arar, now 35, made a comfortable living as a software engineer before he fell into the demonic embrace of the rendition program. Now no one will hire him. "They put it in a nice way," he said. "They've said to people: 'Listen, we believe he's innocent. But, you know, we don't want to hire him.' "

Mr. Arar's own psychological difficulties have compounded the external challenges he faces. "I was invited to go and speak in Vancouver, which is west of here," he said. "But I can't take the plane anymore. Psychologically I am so scared to fly. So I couldn't go."

He said he frequently lacks the confidence or motivation to perform even minor tasks, and often feels overwhelmed by the thought of something as ordinary as a scheduled meeting with the principal at his 9-year-old daughter's school.

He said his 4-year-old son, Houd, panics whenever he thinks his father is about to go out. "He always wants to come with me," said Mr. Arar. "He insists, and he cries if I can't take him. He's afraid that if I go, I won't ever come back."

So the nightmare that began with rendition continues with no end in sight. Mr. Arar is grateful that his wife was able to land a job last year with a political party. "It's not much money," he said, "but had she not found a job we would be in a very, very miserable situation. We're just barely surviving."

Unexpected emotional support has come from ordinary Canadians; strangers frequently come up to Mr. Arar on the street and shake his hand. "They might say, "We're behind you,' or, 'We support you,' " he said. "It means a lot to me."

The rendition program is one more example of the way the United States, using the threat of terror as an excuse, has locked its ideals away in a drawer somewhere. We don't even give them lip service anymore. A person like Mr. Arar is not seen as having any rights. He's not even seen as human. He was carted away in accordance with official U.S. policy, and treated like an animal.

"They are doing this to people and it is wrong, wrong, wrong," said Mr. Arar. "This is an evil practice, and I want them to acknowledge it. I want them to acknowledge that what they did to me was wrong."