Thousands Rally for Lebanon Near White House

A few thousand people, many waving the red, white and green flag of Lebanon, gathered in Lafayette Park this afternoon to show their support for the country at the center of the war between Israel and Hezbollah.

The demonstration, which comes as the Lebanese and Israeli cabinets are poised to vote on a U.N. Security resolution calling for an end to fighting in the month-old conflict, drew participants from across town, across the river and across the country.

"We came with seven buses from Ohio. We drove all night," said Julia Shearson, director of the Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Cleveland.
...
The rally began at noon and speakers addressed the crowd for about 90 minutes before the demonstrators began preparing to march along Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street, across the Ellipse and up 17th Street, encircling the White House. President Bush is vacationing at his ranch in Texas.

Police removed a small group of counter protesters, who did not have a permit but claimed a spot in front of the White House, after they had several heated exchanges with the demonstrators. "It was for safety reasons," said Kristinn Taylor, who organized the small group to oppose the rally that he called "pro-terrorists."

Link

Thousands of Michigan Muslims join protest in Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON -- Busloads of Arab and Muslim Michiganians gathered in Washington, D.C. today to protest U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Weary from long bus and car rides, hopeful that a United Nations-brokered cease-fire will end the bloodshed in Lebanon and Israel, and angry at what they said were hypocritical double-standards in U.S. policy and in media coverage of the conflict, a Michigan contingent that included at least a dozen buses arrived early today.

The travelers said they want to defend their homeland -- and in some cases their own families.

"When you see the bombs falling right in front of your face, it changes your perspective," said Mohamed Kadry, 21, of Dearborn, a college student who said he was visiting his grandparents in a northern Lebanon village when the Israeli military began its campaign on July 12.

Link Here

Is an armament sickening U.S. soldiers?

NEW YORK - It takes at least 10 minutes and a large glass of orange juice to wash down all the pills — morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant, a stool softener. Viagra for sexual dysfunction. Valium for his nerves.

Four hours later, Herbert Reed will swallow another 15 mg of morphine to cut the pain clenching every part of his body. He will do it twice more before the day is done.

Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq, his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil.

There is something massively wrong with Herbert Reed, though no one is sure what it is. He believes he knows the cause, but he cannot convince anyone caring for him that the military's new favorite weapon has made him terrifyingly sick.

Link Here

Israel confirms chopper down

AN Israeli army spokeswoman has confirmed that a helicopter had been shot down over southern Lebanon overnight, without providing details on casualties.

Hezbollah guerrillas claimed to have earlier shot down the helicopter in south Lebanon, with Lebanese security sources and Hezbollah making their announcement.

The Israeli army had no comment to make on the initial report.

The helicopter was shot down in the southern village of Yater, Hizbollah's al-Manar television and the security source said.

Link Here

A Brief Pause for Re-Loading

Saturday, 12 August 2006
"Angry Arab" As'ad AbuKhalil takes a sharp pen to the UN resolution on the war in Lebanon. The measure is presented as a peace plan, but AbuKhalil, like Jeremiah, finds "they have treated the wound of my people carelessly, crying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace."

Chris Floyd

The Ceremony of Innocence is Drowned

Friday, 11 August 2006

In the oceans of newsprint and tsunamis of pixels expended on the London bomb plot stories over the last two days, I don't recall seeing -- anywhere, either in the US or UK media -- that one little word which differentiates honest journalism from the noxious regurgitations of state propaganda: "alleged."

Everywhere, you read that a "bomb plot was thwarted" -- not an alleged bomb plot. Everywhere, you read that the plotters (or most of them) have been captured -- not the "alleged" plotters. Everywhere, whatever line is being laid down by "intelligence officials" and government poo-bahs is accepted uncritically and megaphoned out to the public. Everywhere the presumption of innocence -- one of the bedrock liberties of the "way of life" that we are supposed to be defending -- is gleefully tossed aside.

Now it may be that there was a bomb plot. It may be that those who have been rounded up were indeed planning to blow up airplanes with IPods and Juicy Juice with a nitro twist. Certainly, the state terrorism of the Bush and Blair regimes -- which has killed more than 100,000 innocent Muslims in Iraq alone -- has fomented a whole new wave of hatred and extremism that will inevitably result in non-state terrorist violence directed against the West: an incontrovertible fact confirmed by Bush's and Blair's own intelligence services.

But in the present case, neither the existence of a plot nor the guilt of the alleged plotters have been proven in a court of law. This doesn't mean that the claims of government officials should not be reported or taken seriously. (Although anyone who remembers John Ashcroft's deathless pronouncements from Moscow about thwarting the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla -- among many other hair-raising scare stories in both the US and UK that turned to be far less than meets the eye, albeit politically well-timed -- will retain a healthy skepticism until all the facts are in. This is only natural when dealing with proven liars like the Bush and Blair regimes -- liars who have used mendacious fearmongering over and over to enhance their own weak political standing, and moreover, liars who in this case control all of the information about the case; there are no outside, independent agents making charges, or bearing witness to open incidents -- just the same governments who have lied to us about "intelligence" and "security" issues time and again, telling us about secret plots tracked in secret by secret forces, who now hold the alleged plotters in secret). Nor does the lack of judicial judgment mean that talking heads and scribbling scribes shouldn't speculate wildly to their heart's content about the alleged incident and its implications, if that's what floats their boats (and sells their product).

But it does mean that every now and then they ought to toss in an "alleged" -- if they are interested in retaining at least the form of independent journalism, that is. But not many are concerned with that sort of thing these days. The presumption of innocence -- like the Geneva Conventions -- is just another "quaint" relic of a bygone era.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Jonathan Schwarz is on the case with another aspect of the airport security issue that it is being cruelly neglected by the mainstream media. From A Tiny Revolution:

I doubt anyone will even notice this bigoted aspect of the newest London bombing plot:

Officials were requiring passengers to check everything except personal items like keys, wallets, and passports, which they had to carry in plastic bags. Drinks and other liquid items were banned. Travelers were required to remove spectacles or sunglasses from their cases, and those traveling with infants were required to taste any baby milk in front of security officials.

And what about those who, like myself, have mated with women from Planet Voltran and now have young children who drink nitroglycerin? Will our needs be ignored completely?

Of course they will. Typical.

Chris Floyd

Lebanon 'peace deal'.

Lenin's Tomb

...Since Israel hasn't been able to win, and given a potential domestic crisis for Olmert as a result, it has accepted a resolution that doesn't give it everything it wants, but is so vague that it cannot hinder the assault either. Israeli troops have been ordered to advance to the Litani. That being the case, there is no way they will evacuate quickly without being driven out: one does not try to advance 30 kilometres into another country only to beat a hasty retreat. What is more, the Israelis continue to attack the civilian infrastructure, destroying the power facilities in the port city of Sidon. Among Israel's other attacks was a calculated attack on a convoy of thirty cars fleeing Marjayoun, which killed at least six people and wounded thirty...

continua / continued

LIQUID TERROR: Training People To Act Like Subservient Slaves

Terrorists planned to mix liquids so why are they all being poured into airport bins?
Steve Watson / Infowars.net A

The latest terror plot facade is nothing more than an exercise to assess how subservient the general population has become and a primer to making permanent the panicked and ridiculous freedom crushing security measures we are seeing being rushed into implementation at the moment. Whilst the government is saying there is no going back on these measures and that they will become permanent, the media is bleating about rushing in biometric retina scanners and Orwellian behaviour sensing technology. This is the only way they can do these things without backlash and protest, just have a major terror alert and rush them through. How is it that people can still deny that our governments are forwarding a big brother control agenda? ID cards, Biometric databases, retina scanners, face scanning cameras, behaviour sensing machines. The list goes on. It has been proven over and over that these measures will not help prevent terrorism, the government itself has even admitted this, so why do they relentlessly push them?...

continua / continued

It’s that’s time again – for another ‘terror plot’

William Bowles , I'n'I

"Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world." – Home secretary, John ReidIt’s amazing really that nobody sees the paradox of Reid calling for the abolition of what’s left of our civil rights in order to preserve them but then there’s nothing logical about the 'war on terror’, it is itself a contradiction of terms. As to Reid’s notion of his "fundamental values" well, one assumes these include the wholesale destruction of societies and their peoples and standing by whilst his allies do the same...

continua / continued

What a Relief: Terrorist Babies Have Been Killed!

Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett

Dear George, This is a personal appeal for you to decide. I know that you are "the decider" who will make sensible decisions once you read this letter. The topic is terrorism. The noun "terrorism" is on a lot of peoples’ minds. The Oxford English dictionary informs me that the word means, "use of violence and intimidation especially for political purposes." I recall Nelson Mandela resorting to violence when peaceful requests failed to achieve his political ends of justice and representation for all South Africans. The Palestinians seem likewise to have been radicalised over time after their legitimate political grievances for justice, representation and statehood were ignored. Keeping occupied land, not respecting the dictates of UN Resolution 242 while not withdrawing to the 1967 borders, imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians, building Apartheid walls around the Palestinians, of course are the types of minor irritants that could never in the minds of fair and just people ever constitute any form of violence or intimidation for political purposes –never!...

continua / continued

Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Family of nations. War on terror. From Zappy's Where Date Palms Grow:
Saturday, August 12, 2006

Dracul’s Barbecue It is told that Count Dracul had his enemies impaled on the outskirts of Transylvania to horrify the Turks from ever wanting to invade Transylvania that was back in the fifteenth century.

Last week a neighbor found his son in front of his door, Impaled with a reinforcing steel rod, there were tomatoes and onions on both sides of that Rod. I am going to stop blogging for a while. Zappy, who can blame you. But do our souls go silent as well? What can we possibly tell this father? How can we console him? And when we are done consoling him, how many countless others are there grieving, distraught and in disarray? What do Iraqis have to look forward to? Death? In Iraq these days, it is said those who die are blessed for they do not have to face what else is coming...

continua / continued

Demonstrate today! Stop the U.S./Israeli assault on Lebanon and Palestine!

Eli Stephens, Left I on the News

Event details: Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle. re-event coverage of the march in the Washington Post, entitled "Protest to Encircle White House." As far as the "peace deal" agreed to last night by the U.N. (not by the warring parties!), I believe this headline, describing actions taking place after that vote, pretty much says it all: "Israel nearly triples troops in Lebanon." Actually what also says it all about this one-sided deal is the slogan you'll be chanting today if you go to one of the demonstrations: "No justice, no peace!"...

continua / continued

Bomb Kills 2 U.S. Soldiers in Baghdad

They are just collatoral damage, didn't you know AP

Two U.S soldiers were killed Saturday when their foot patrol was hit by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad, the military said. The deaths brought to 23 the number of Americans killed in Iraq this month. At least 2,600 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The names of the soldiers were not released and no further details were given...

continua / continued

The dog really does wag the tail!

Simon Jones

Just when it became patently obvious that the tail was in complete control of the dog (i.e., Izzy was directing US Middle East policy), the dog has decided to try to reassert control over its nether appendage. Since the days of Raygun, the Jewish lobby in Washington (and every nook and cranny in the US) has wielded more and more power, until with AIPAC, PNAC, 911 and Iraq, it took complete control over US foreign policy, getting Washington to wage open war against Israel's greatest enemy - Islam...

continua / continued

UN Resolution fails to acknowledge that Israel has launched a War against Lebanon

Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was drafted by France and the US in close consultation with the Israeli government. a) The resolution is in blatant violation of the UN charter and international law. It fails to acknoweldge that Israel has launched an all out war on Lebanon in violation of international law. It describes the bombing and destruction of an entire country as as a "conflict between Hizbollah and Israel". The word "war" does not appear in the the text of the Resolution. b) Referring to the two abducted Israeli soldiers, the Resolution states that Hizbollah was responsible for launching "the attack on Israel on 12 July". It denies the fact, amply documented, that an all out war against Lebanon had been in the planning stages well before July 12. c) The historical causes of the war are denied. The abduction of the two Israeli soldiers on July 12, is presented as a just cause for Israeli retaliation...

continua / continued

Miri Eisen, Mother For Peace, Justifies Killing Arab Kids And Arab Bloggers See the Light

Umkahlil

...The Christian Science Monitor writes that the Arab and North American transplant Zionist bloggers aren't seeing eye-to-eye so much nowadays. Pity that they no longer will be used by Zionist propagandists to put a good face on Israel. Like Miri Eisen, a transplanted American, who is hailed as a "Mother For Peace," along with Vichy Palestinian Noni Darwish, who comes on CNN to put a nice face on Israel's slaughter of handicapped Lebanese kids. At least Rosemary Church of CNN International didn't let her get away with it (this is a great video)...

continua / continued

Collective punishment against Lebanese civilians

The Angry Arab News Service

36 collective massacres occurred against the Lebanese civilians since the onset of the Israeli assault (from July 12-August 11). Israel violated all conventions related to the prohibition of collective punishment whereas it perpetrated voluntarily crimes against civilians and their properties, namely Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting collective punishment and Article 48 forbidding military actions against civilian populations and infrastructure. These collective massacres are as follows...

continua / continued

VIDEO: Snow tells O'Reilly Bush never uses terror to scare but doesn't speak for Cheney

What A Wanka, and liar, every word that comes out of Georgies mouth is a lie, if he can actually get two sentences together.

David EdwardsPublished: Saturday August 12, 2006

On Friday's edition of Fox's O'Reilly Factor, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that President Bush has never "tried to frighten anybody" by politicizing terror but that he doesn't speak for Vice President Cheney.

"The Democrats very quickly, Senator Kennedy, Senator Rockefeller, and you heard Howard Dean are basically saying 'hey listen, Bush is going to use this to try to frighten all Americans,' and it's his fault that terror has risen in the world because of Iraq and a number of other miscalculations," O'Reilly said to Snow. "How do you reply?"

"I'm not aware that the president's ever tried to frighten anybody," answered Snow. "However, I believe that some of his opponents have tried to frighten the Americans into believing that we're weak, that we cannot win, that we do not have a plan, and that in general, everybody doesn't like us so we ought to walk away, so they will like us."

"That's not a strategy," Snow said. "That is a PR plan."

O'Reilly pointed out to Snow that although he might not be "aware the president's trying to scare anybody," Vice President Dick Cheney had recently called Lieberman's loss in the Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary "a boon to Al Qaeda."

"Isn't that -- can you consider that scare tactics by the vice president?" asked O'Reilly.

"Well, I'll let the vice president speak for himself," Snow replied. "I speak for the president."

Link Here

Apologists for Immorality

REMIND YOU OF ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION THAT IS NEVER WRONG? JUST ALWAYS WRONG IN ALL ITS FOREIGN POLICY, HEZBOLLAH NOW HAS AN ARMY OF FOLLOWERS. IRAQ IS NOW DECIDEDLY ANTI AMERICAN.
James Zogby

I see no cheering in the Arab World for Israel's behavior and I do not see how any compassionate or sane person can argue that the outcome of an Israeli "victory" will leave Lebanon better or whole.

READ POST

Israelis Are Fast Learners, But US War Backers Are a Lot Slower

AMEN TO THAT

READ MORE: 9/11, Iraq, 2006, Israel, Lebanon, George W. Bush

What a difference a month makes. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon had broad popular support among Israelis when it began. Only 20% now believe Israel's winning, according to a new poll, and support for their Prime Minister and Defense Minister is plunging. Apparently they're catching on quickly.

It's too bad the Administration and the other Americans who urged them into this bloody action are so much slower to understand the situation.

Condi Rice called the violence "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" as Bush and others urged that Israel resist a cease fire and continue the violence. They were eager to use Jews as 'proxy fighters' for their war of Middle East transformation - the same war that has proven so disastrous in Iraq.

Meanwhile, some war-hungry Americans continue to confuse "support for Israel" with a blind faith in the transformative power of violence, even as Israelis die as a result of the policies they support.

"It's our war," William Kristol boasted from the safety of his desk in North America. Most Israelis now seem to be saying, "Then you fight it."

Some of us who support Israel know that being a friend sometimes means cautioning restraint. Israelis, frustrated by years of unresolved conflict and terror, understandably wanted a strong reaction to the seizing of their soldiers.

The American public's response after 9/11 was no different. Strength has to be exercised with judgement and wisdom, however, as we learned too late in Iraq.

Israeli diplomat Daniel Levy understands that "the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy" is the result of neoconservative influence in the White House, and that it was a disaster for Israel. Writes Levy,

"... Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage."

Today's cease fire resolution will satisfy no one. A better one could have been signed a month ago, if the US had been an effective broker. Levy eloquently describes why we were both unwilling an unable to play that role, and the consequences of that failure:

"An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel."

He adds:

"The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem." It won't, of course.

The Israeli people are to be congratulated for coming to their senses so quickly. In a high-speed version of our own post-Iraq mood shift, Ehud Olmert's approval rating has dropped from 75% to less than 50% in a few short weeks. His Defense Minister's numbers are even lower.

It took the American people years to figure out what the Israelis learned in a month: the neocon agenda of brute and unreasoning force leads only to more death and destruction. Those of us who are committed to Israel's survival must now struggle to protect it from any further damage at the hands of its so-called "supporters" here in the U.S.

A Night Light

Link Here

Israel's Tactical Catastrophe: Pushing Middle East Moderates to Embrace Hezbollah

After 9/11, America went after the wrong enemy. In Lebanon, Israel went after the right enemy in the wrong way. Both decisions have left the world a far more dangerous place.

READ MORE

FOCUS | Ashcroft Profiting as National Security Lobbyist

Former US attorney general John D. Ashcroft has emerged as the highest-ranking former Bush administration official to lobby for and invest in companies involved in homeland security. Privacy experts and civil libertarians warn that these types of businesses are fast becoming a de facto branch of the government, beyond traditional oversight.

Link Here

FOCUS | Cindy Sheehan Hospitalized in Crawford

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has been taken to a hospital in Waco Texas. Sheehan who has been on a liquids-only fast for 37 days was suffering from dehydration and exhaustion. Sheehan is in Crawford, again pressuring George W. Bush to meet with her regarding the death of her son Casey Sheehan, a US soldier KIA in Iraq.

Link Here

Teenage Boys Steal Cheney's Security Equipment...

Ahahahahahahaha he cant even protect his own security equipment, let alone protect Americas Security.
LOSER.

Associated Press August 12, 2006 at 03:10 PM
READ MORE: Dick Cheney, Halliburton

Two teenage boys face theft charges for allegedly possessing radios and other equipment belonging to a White House agency.

The 13 year old and 14 year old, both of Bettendorf, were charged with second-degree theft and were under juvenile court supervision, court officials said.

READ WHOLE STORY

Bush Increasingly Able To Escape Media Coverage...

Washington Post Peter Baker August 12, 2006 at 11:28 AM
READ MORE: George W. Bush

On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.

Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.

READ WHOLE STORY

Two Congressional Experts Explain What Has Gone Very Wrong With Congress

Congress is out of order. In the words of two of the most knowledgeable experts in the nation on the legislative branch, "it is broken." This conclusion is not the judgment of out-of-power partisans: Thomas E. Mann, the Senior Fellow in Govt Studies at the Brookings Inst, and Norman J. Ornstein, a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Inst, have been studying - and working with and for - Congress since 1969.

Link Here

Mickey Z.: Why "they" hate us

The only belief of ours that "they" might hate is our propensity to engage in aggression and repression anywhere on the globe.

LinkHere

Allen L Roland: *DEBUNKING THE CHENEY/BUSH MYTHS

Bush's war on terror was a sham from the start . It's objective was never to eliminate the ' evil doers ' ~ its objective was to create an Orwellian ' never ending war ' which would fit nicely into a planned Cheney/Bush neo-conservative agenda and reap profits for all of Bush's corporate cronies and political donors:

LinkHere

Dave Lindorff: Mid East Cluster #%@!

Situational Ethics Quiz: Why are cluster weapons okay for the US, not okay for Hezzbollah, and okay for Israel, as long as they are "careful"?

LinkHere

Rob Kall: Terrorist Bust or Rovian Political Asymmetric Warfare?

Talk about controlling the narrative. Call me a wacko conspiracy theorist. But then explain how making an operation like this so visibly public makes sense in any way other than as a media ploy.

LinkHere

Criminal Administration

A few months from now, after midterm elections, if Democrats regain a majority in Congress-or if Democrats regain the Executive office in three years-almost the entire Bush administration could be standing trial. That's if Michigan Congressman John Conyers has his way. Conyers issued a scathing, nearly 400-page report detailing crimes that Conyers' staff found were committed by members of the Bush administration.

Link Here

Bush Versus the Constitution

David Swanson

Last December, when Congressman John Conyers released a huge report documenting the evidence that Bush and Cheney had lied us into a war, he also introduced a bill (H. Res. 635) to start a preliminary investigation of the matter and make recommendations on impeachment. This showed far more courage, not to mention long hours of work, than any other member of Congress had mustered at that time or since. But it was disingenuous. Impeachment is itself an investigation; a preliminary investigation is redundant. And any investigation is unnecessary when the impeachable offenses are part of the public record. Last week, Conyers released an expanded report, including new superfluous evidence of proven crimes related to the war, plus a lengthy Section 2 focused on illegal spying programs. The evidence of blatant criminality and threat to the Constitution in this new section is devastating...

continua / continued

The UNSC 1701 Resolution: Why No Lebanese Should accept it

The Angry Arab News Service

August 11, 2006The UNSC 1701 Resolution: Why No Lebanese Should accept it. So here is the text of the draft UNSC resolution. "Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons." This paragraph clearly lays the blame on Hizbullah for the Israeli war of aggression. And notice that Hizbullah's capture of the Israeli soldiers is sneakily blamed for "the hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides." Both sides is always brought up when Israeli record of murder and terrorism is being covered by an international agency under US pressures, in order to absolve Israel. And notice that the identify of the victims, and the destruction of Lebanon by Israel is not identified by name: so as to imply that there was damage and destruction in Israel comparable to the damage and destruction in Lebanon. The next paragraph says: "Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers". Again, the root cause is traced to those two soldiers, and "the root cause", in US understanding, is a camouflage to promote Israel's point of view. Notice that the release of the two soldiers is "unconditional". Why? As a free service to Israel for its great behavior and noble conduct? But then the following paragraph says: "Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel". Here, it is old-fashioned, classic racism. That Arab prisoners are just not as cute and not as valuable as Israeli prisoners. For Israeli prisoners, it calls for immediate release, but for Lebanese prisoners, it urges "settling the issue." Settling the issue?" Is that like US settling the Palestinian cause over the years? Or is that like that reference in UNSC 242 to the "refugee" problem? Settling the issue? The next paragraph says: "Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon." Well, well, well. What was missing was the Sanyurah boo hoo hoo points here. Here, the UNSC (with Israel and US) are trying their best, and quite blatantly, to prop up a failed government. A government that has been kept in power only by the efforts of the US/Israel (patrons of Hariri Inc), and the dumb calculations of Hizbullah--and Hizbullah is consistent in dumb political calculations in their domestic alliances and decisions. And this consistent record of dumb decisions by Hizbullah leads to me believe that it may agree to this resolution. But what does this resolution mean when it categorically states that "there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon"? And how do you verify that? I know villagers in South Lebanon who celebrate weddings with RPGs and AK-47s. Will John Bolton go and search those villages? And the Swiss people are armed, with more than the Swiss army knives, and Israeli settlers are armed, so please, spare me that Weberian argument about the monopoly of violence that is being imposed on Lebanon. I mean, the US is supplying the private militia of Dahlan in Palestine, and the criminal militias of Somalia, and the warlords' militias in Afghanistan, and several militias in Iraq, and the Hariri Inc militia in Lebanon, under the guise of the Internal Security Forces. So no more Weber. So that can be tossed out of the window because it will not be verified nor implemented unless you wish to send Ahmad Fatfat to Hizbullah strongholda to ask the party members to surrender their weapons to him. Fat chance. But this sentence is worrisome: "a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation." What does that mean? That vague phraseology is quite troubling because it is as vague as the Balfour declaration when it talks about preserving the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." And what is the mandate and scope of operation? If you want to expand and enhance the scope and mandate, you are in all but name creating a new force. But the dumb and not-so-dumb Lebanese ministers will not see that. They will try to sell this as UNIFIL. No, it is not. Or it does not have to be. But then I get confused when it says this: "Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest." Wait. Wait. Hold on. Before I wake up the children and release the pigs from the barn, you need to explain this one to me, NOW. First you talk about "an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon" and then you talk about at the earliest . Are you kidding me? Which is which, o wise and mild-mannered John Bolton? Is it immediate or is it "at the earliest"? And if you leave Israel to interpret a UN resolution, there is a long trail of unimplemented trail of resolutions soaked with blood. What if Israel decides that the year 2040 is the earliest? Resolution 425 and 426 (calling on Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon) were passed in 1978, and it was in 2000 when Kofi Annan thanked Israel for being so kind for withdrawing from South Lebanon, although Israel continues to occupy Shib`a Farms, Kfar Shuba Hills, and the seven villages, not to mention Palestine and Golan Heights. And then: "Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area. What! Is this an inside joke? Did I miss something here. A UNSC resolution is referring to Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands, and it merely, merely, refers to it as "taking note"? It does not even identify the identity of the occupier for fear of hurting the feelings of the Israeli people? Taking note? I take note of the utter stupidity of this sentence, and I consider it a reason--one of many--why this resolution should be rejected on grounds of principle. And then: "Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties." Well, here notice that the Israeli Army is clearly not planning on withdrawing immediately and completely, and can easily find grounds for staying on Lebanese territory. Also, when the US, here the UN but what is the difference really, talks about "strengthening" the Lebanese Army they only mean strengthening it vis-a-vis the Lebanese people, especially those--fundamentalists, leftists, Arab nationalists, and others--who wish to resist Israeli occupation of their country, and not vis-a-vis Israel. Srenghthening does not entail an air defense system which is the most needed weapon of defense for the country, unless you plan to rely on the elite fighting force of the Lebanese Army which surrendered their weapons today to the Israeli occupation force in Marji`yun, and apologized to the Israeli occupiers for not vacating their barracks earlier to make room for an exhausted and frightened occupation army. This one is Orwellian: "Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Did the august body not notice that the Israeli war of aggression on Lebanon has been posing a threat to international peace and security until TODAY? It has been over a month. But thanks for noticing. Quite callous, I say. Notice this paragraph: Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." They mean to draw a distinction between Hizbullah attacks, which are called "attacks", and yet Israeli attacks are "offensive military operations". Does that mean that the Israeli massacres in Siddiqin, Qa`, Tyre, Marwahin, Srifa, Shiyyah, Qana, and others were merely "military operations"? We need to know to know what to tell the survivors. And when it prohibits Israeli "offensive operations" it clearly permits what Israel will consider "defensive" operations, and all Israeli wars of aggression and occupation have been termed as "defensive" by Israel, as Tariq Mitri pointed out in his speech before the council. And then: "Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon." But Hizbulalh's armed presence has hitherto enjoyed the consent of the Lebanese government and the official statement of the Lebanese government pays tribute to "resistance" and to the legitimacy of all means to liberate occupied Lebanese lands? What about that, o Kofi? The presence of UNSC 1559 is crucial here: it is the crux of the matter, and it shows once again that the first foundation of the international conspiracy against Lebanon was layed by Rafiq Hariri when his interests met with the interests of Israel/US, in pushing for UNSC 1559. Hariri thought that with UNSC he would please US/Israel and would rule as king in Lebanon. Well, that was not meant to be, I am afraid. It is all about UNSC 1559. Then: "Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line. How do you show your respect for a line? Do you bring it flowers? Do you leave cookies and milk on the line every day? Please enlighten me because I never respected "lines" before. And are you implying here that Israel has a great record of respecting lines, anywhere? And then: "Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council." Notice that it says "all parties" when it should have said Israel, because it is Israel that has been attacking humanitarian convoys in Lebanon. But this resolution fails to even once hold Israel responsible for any of its crimes in Lebanon. This is yet another reason why it should be rejected, categorically. Here: "security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area." This is May 17 Agreement all over again. The Lebanese Army in South Lebanon is being turned into a South Lebanon Army. The only duty of the Lebanese Army becomes to protect Israel and its occupation. This "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state" is a clear violation of Lebanese sovereignty. Not that it exists of course, but the Lebanonese advocates shout about it. This is an internal Lebanese matter, and the UN has no business in even referring to the Ta'if Accords which dealt with Lebanese internal reforms. Imagine if the UNSC were to issue an opinion on the US constitution. And don't you like the qualification in the sentence "no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government." Is this like the consent that the "Iraqi government" gives to the US occupation in Iraq? Explain that, please. Here, there is one demand from Lebanon: "provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession." But there is no timetable. When? A year? A decade? When? Why not specify a deadline? This is another tricky one that smells of the May 17 Agreement: "Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved." What is being hinted here? But certainly the end here is quite obscene: "Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973." This is basically the American peace process that has brought you all the peace and prosperity that the people of the region are now enjoying. Go back to sleep.PS Oh, I forgot to say that this resolution, when it comes to the arrangements in South Lebanon, is meaningless. When it talks about preventing Hizbullah from returning to South Lebanon, how do you do that? The resolution talks about the return of all refugees. So Hizbullah fighters are part of the Southern Lebanese refugees. They will return. But will they return with their weapons? Well, it will not be difficult to smuggle them back in. And more bunkers will be built, and more recruitment will take place. If anything, I think that, like the Palestinian Resistance after the Karamah Battle, Hizbullah will receive more recruits than it can accommodate. Stay tuned. The Arab-Israeli conflict continues.

continua / continued

The Pakistan Connection

Pakistani police on Thursday arrested a number of UK Muslims within Pakistan who were also suspected of involvement in the "Liquid Bomb Threat."

British authorities say that they have been investigating the group behind the airplane bombing plot for "about a year." The Scotsman says that the investigation began in 2005.

US authorities were only told about some details two weeks ago, apparently. It may be that the British counter-terrorism community learned its lesson from the loose lips of the Bushies in summer of 2004. I argued then that from what we could tell from open sources, it seemed likely that the Bush administration played politics with information about a double agent in Pakistan who was helping monitor a London al-Qaeda cell. It seems likely that the election-year leak allowed budding terrorists like Mohammad Sadique Khan to escape closer scrutiny, and so permitted the 7/7/05 London subway bombings to go forward.

This time, the MI5 and MI6 and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) may not have told Washington everything.

The Financial Times has an interesting observation I haven't seen elsewhere:

' British security officials suspected the innovative use of liquid explosives smuggled on board could have evaded airport detection devices. They said the method of attack, if used to blow up an aircraft over the ocean on a flight from the US to the UK, could potentially have been used repeatedly because its detection would have been all but impossible after the event.

One official said: “We were very lucky to have acquired the intelligence about the modus operandi of the attacks. If we hadn’t got the intelligence, they probably would have succeeded and there would have been little or no forensic evidence showing how they had done it. The modus operandi could have made waves of attacks feasible.”

British police had liaised closely with US law enforcement agencies for some time, although US officials said they learnt the intelligence pointed to threats against specific US airlines only in the past two weeks. '

So how did we find out about this plot, and the deadly mode of operation, which might otherwise have been so hard to detect? The investigation was kicked off by an arrest in Pakistan "last year." (AP says the arrest in Waziristan was "a few weeks ago", but I think AP is confusing the contribution of some recent arrests to the case with the initial capture of the key informant a year ago).

Most of the investigation was carried out in the UK, but the Pakistanis are said to have provided "an important clue."

AP says:

' A Pakistani intelligence official said an Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border . . . provided a lead that played a role in ``unearthing the plot.''

So this capture takes place roughly June, 2005.

Amjed Jaaved explained at The Nation on June 28 this year that:

' Pakistan has deployed over 80,000 troops in the "no-go tribal areas" (ilaqa ghair) along the border with Afghanistan to forestall inward and outward movement of Al-Qaeda's or other organisations' fighters.

Pakistan lost about 600 soldiers in operations against the militants - Pakistan's loss is more than the total casualties suffered by the coalition and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has handed over 700 Al-Qaeda fugitives to US authorities.

Pakistan's sincere cooperation with the US intelligence agencies is proving more fruitful. Suspected satellite telephone transmissions, e-mails and other internet traffic are being tracked.

'AP reports that ' "two or three local people'' suspected in the plot were arrested a few days ago in Lahore and Karachi. '

So I figure the guy they catch up in Waziristan or Quetta in summer 2005 rolls over on small cells in Karachi and Lahore. The Interservices Intelligence puts these two cells under email and telephone surveillance, and lo and behold they hare having very interesting conversations with some friends in London and Birmingham. The ISI alerts the UK, and there you have it.

Then a few days ago, the Pakistani police pick up two or three cell members in Karachi and Lahore. Why? There are some reports that the arrests in Pakistan precipitated (or were coordinated with) the British arrests, since the officials in the UK were afraid that the UK cell members would go underground once they knew their colleagues in Pakistan were compromised.

The only circumstance that I can imagine that would cause the Pakistani authorities to move in that way is that the Lahore and Karachi cells were planning to do something very violent in the very near future.Dawn, cited at the beginning of this entry, says:

' Officials said intelligence agencies had lately arrested a number of Central Asian militants who had provided information on planned attacks on the US and British interests. A pre-dawn raid in June had led to the arrest of Balochistan chapter chief of Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Usman Kurd.

The officials said clues from these suspects led the authorities to the militants arrested on Thursday.

' The Scotsman is also saying that the UK plotters were "days" from swinging into action.

If this operation is as advertised, then it underlines again the importance of plain old fashioned counter-terrorism and police work. An army of 136,000 men in the field can't stop bombs from going off in Iraq every day. What stopped the liquid bomb plot was something superior, a tool fitted to the task.

John Tirman draws six lessons from the affair.

Billmon.
read more Link Here

Shapiro Guest Editorial: ' What will Israel Do?

by Adam Shapiro

' Each day and night of the week I have been here, I have heard and felt the impact of Israel’s advanced weaponry as it crashes into buildings, roads, bridges and other infrastructure of Beirut. But it is not only concrete and steel that is hit; it is also Lebanese men, women and children, such as the dozens who were killed in the Cheyyah neighborhood a few days ago.

This week, Lebanese, Palestinian and international activists here in Beirut have been meeting and planning a response to Israel’s aggression against Lebanon. Not that we have military technology, or a huge force field to repel the missiles, at our disposal. What we who are unarmed, who believe in strategic nonviolence as a strategy to overcome brute military force, have at our disposal is determination, moral ground to stand on, and a fundamental belief that our human and political rights must be claimed and asserted. This is particularly so in the face of an aggressive force that destroys life and limb and shows no mercy for human rights, human dignity and the ability of people to live on their land.

In order to act, we have come together to bring a civilian convoy of relief aid to villages in the southern part of Lebanon. Some of the villages there have been virtually erased from the map, as Israeli planes and artillery bombard people’s homes, fields and crops. There are still civilians hiding from the daily pounding and remaining in their villages. They stay because they are old, or infirm, or poor, or because they refuse to leave their land. And Israel has prevented aid from reaching these people – international agencies that coordinate their aid relief with Israel have been told they will not be safe if they try to move. The whole area south of the Litani River has been declared a no-driving zone.

Our convoy, and other actions to follow, will challenge Israel’s dictates to the Lebanese people as to what they can and cannot do on their own land. This challenge will be made by those who have nothing with them but food and medicine and by people who will say to the advancing and bombing Israeli army, “Leave our country and stop killing our children.”

The choice is up to Israel. Will it bomb this convoy like it bombed convoys of civilians fleeing their homes in the south just a couple of weeks ago? Will it bomb the hundreds of civilians like it did those who were hiding in a building in Qana? Will it attack this aid effort the way that it has hit international and Lebanese aid agencies? Will it aim its fire at international citizens here to help as it did when it killed foreign UNIFIL observers despite knowing full well who they were?

This will be just the first of many such challenges to Israel. The choice of action is Israel’s, but the world must watch. Because Israel cannot say it did not know, and the world cannot pretend this is not happening in Lebanon.
=======
Adam Shapiro is a co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and is currently in Beirut, Lebanon.

Mr. Shapiro can be reached by email at adamsop a_t_ hotmail dot com. While he is abroad he can also be contacted via mikefbrown a_t_ yahoo dot com '

read more Link Here

Mark LeVine | 101 Uses of Chaos

Mark LeVine writes, "With George Bush still insisting on the need to fight 'Islamic fascism' to the bitter end, Labor Party Defense Minister Amir Peretz imploring Israeli soldiers to turn southern Lebanon 'to dust,' and Iran's Mahmud Ahmedinejad declaring the need to wipe Israel off the map, the hubris, arrogance, and utter disdain for human life that has brought the Middle East to its latest precipice continues to harden the hearts of leaders and peoples alike. And all will be the losers because of it."

Link Here

Jeremy Scahill Mercenary Jackpot

"While the Bush administration calls for the immediate disbanding of what it has labeled 'private' and 'illegal' militias in Lebanon and Iraq, it is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into its own global private mercenary army tasked with protecting US officials and institutions overseas. The secretive program, which spans at least twenty-seven countries, has been an incredible jackpot for one heavily Republican-connected firm in particular: Blackwater USA," writes Jeremy Scahill.

Link Here

AWOL War Resister Sergeant to Turn Himself in Today

Ricky Clousing, a Sergeant in the US Army and a veteran of the Iraq War who has been AWOL for a year, announced today at the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle that he will turn himself in later today at the gates of Fort Lewis and face whatever punishment the military chooses to impose. Clousing said he did not apply for conscientious objector status because he is not certain he would oppose every possible war, such as one fought in self-defense. He said he has spent the past year trying to figure out how to turn himself in, that the military has refused to comment on his status and that he is now choosing to force them to deal with it.

LinkHere

NYT: Experts say US at risk of being hurt by same 'failure of imagination' blamed for 9/11

RAW STORYPublished: Friday August 11, 2006

Experts say that the United States is at risk of being hurt by the same "failure of imagination" blamed for 9/11, according to a front page article in Saturday's New York Times, RAW STORY has found.

"The Department of Homeland Security has taken significant steps since the Sept. 11 hijackings to make it much harder to turn a plane into a flying weapon," write Eric Lipton and Matthew L. Wald for the Times. "But a nearly obsessive focus on the last terror attack may have prevented the federal government from combating new threats effectively, according to terrorism experts and several former agency officials."

"The arrests this week of plotters overseas accused of planning to use an explosive that would be undetectable at airports illustrates the significant security gaps, they said," write Lipton and Wald.

"While the department has hardened cockpit doors and set up screening aimed at detecting guns and knives, the agency has done far too little to protect against plastic and liquid explosives, bombs in air cargo, insuring that airport maintenance workers do not become threats, and even shoulder-fired missiles, experts say," reports the Times.

"The nation is at risk of being hurt by the same "failure of imagination" cited by the 9/11 commission as having contributed to the success of the last attack, several experts argued," the article continues.

FULL TIMES ARTICLE CAN BE READ AT THIS LINK

CNN Anchor: “Might Some Argue That Lamont...Is The al Qaeda Candidate?”...

Friking Wanka, no Wonder I would not turn the Bastards on my box. And they call them selves Journalists, they are just friking Bush Propaganda Machines
Think Progress August 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM
READ MORE: 2006

Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?" Watch it:

READ WHOLE STORY

SCOOP

Aug. 11, 2006 -- SCOOP! Although Universal/Viacom and the MSM are pushing Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" as being "non-political", Ed Rampell reveals exactly where and how the director of "JFK" appears to reference 9/11 skeptics' top conspiracy theory. Read Rampell's revelatory review at Poliwood.

WayneMadsenReport

British and American authorities permitted a man with a liquid bomb to board a U.S.-bound flight in Heathrow on Aug. 6

the pilot foiled secret UK-US attempt to hype an incident en route to or at Boston Logan.

Aug. 11, 2006 -- UPDATED. According to knowledgeable sources in the UK and other countries, the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new "terror" scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement; neo-con and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel, and Britain; and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 "Oplan Bojinka" plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the United States. In the latest plot, it is reported that liquid bombs were to be detonated on 10 trans-Atlantic planes outbound from Britain to the United States.

British and American authorities permitted a man with a liquid bomb to board a U.S.-bound flight in Heathrow on Aug. 6 -- the pilot foiled secret UK-US attempt to hype an incident en route to or at Boston Logan.

The London terror plan was "known" last Sunday by British and American authorities, according to the Indian press. American Airlines flight 109 from London Heathrow to Boston boarded a family of five, however, after the plane left Heathrow authorities determined that the father appeared on a British suspect list drawn up after the 7/7 London transit attacks. At first, the pilot was instructed to fly all the way to Boston where U.S. authorities could claim credit for apprehending the suspect. However, the pilot, fearing for the safety of his passengers and crew, refused and quickly returned to Heathrow without informing the passengers. Once on the ground, it was discovered that the male had in his carry-on baggage the type of combination liquid explosive and electronic device now being hyped by the British and American media.

British sources report that the reason for the delay in informing the airlines and traveling public about the liquid bomb on the American flight was to maximize the beneficial political impact for Blair and George W. Bush, both plummeting in the polls from the situations in Iraq and Lebanon.
Earlier this week, two employees of Murdoch's London tabloid, News of the World, were charged with hacking into the voice and text cell phone messages of three members of the staff of Clarence House, the residence of Princes Charles, William, and Harry. One of those charged with the wiretapping was Clive Goodman, the Royals editor of the News of the World. The same paper earlier tried to politically damage two anti-Iraq war British politicians -- Scottish Socialist Tommy Sheridan and Respect Party MP George Galloway. The paper charges that Sheridan was unfaithful to his wife by going to swinger's clubs. He won a quarter million dollar lawsuit against the paper. Galloway was confronted by Mazher Mahmood, an individual who uses the moniker "Fake Sheik," who posed as a wealthy Arab businessman and tried unsuccessfully to get Galloway to accept cash and make anti-Semitic remarks. In fact, Mahmood was and continues to be a reporter for News of the World, his continued employment approved by Murdoch. Goodman has merely been suspended by Murdoch but he has not been fired.

Murdoch uncovered Prince Charles-Gordon Brown plot to oust Blair. Phony terror plan cooked up to derail political coup plans.

However, what prompted Murdoch and Blair to hype a new global "terror" threat was what Murdoch learned from eavesdropping on the phone calls of Prince Charles' staff at the future king's office, home, and limousine. The eavesdropping revealed that Charles was working with Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who is to the left of Blair, to conduct the same type of political maneuver that John Major used to oust Margaret Thatcher from office. London's left-wing Mayor, Ken Livingston, was also in on the Charles-Brown plan and it was expected that in return for his support, Livingston would get a senior position in a Brown cabinet -- a development that sent shock waves through the neo-con circles in London, Washington, and Jerusalem, including British Home Secretary John Reid and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The Charles-Brown plan was briefed by Blair to Bush during the former's recent visit to Washington. However, because the phony terror plot was known to both leaders -- they decided to be away on vacation when the terror plot was "uncovered." Bush is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas "ranch," while Blair is on vacation in Barbados, staying at Sir Cliff Richard's luxurious villa.

After Blair met with Bush in Washington, he flew to California where on July 30 he attended Murdoch's News Corporation private corporate executive conference at the posh Inn at Spanish Bay golf resort in Pebble Beach. Blair met with Murdoch, Israeli former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Newt Gingrich, and various Fox, Star, and Sky News executives. The final touches were agreed to by Blair and Murdoch on how the fake terror plot would play out in Murdoch's media empire.

Airline terror plot cooked up by Blair, Bush, and Murdoch to save Tony's political ass.

Blair told Bush that a Brown government would move to withdraw British troops from Iraq, break the "special relationship" with the Bush White House, and move closer to the European Union and the United Nations.

The Israeli attack on Lebanon created a rift within Blair's Cabinet with some former Blair loyalists signaling their support for the political coup against Blair. As a result, a suspect passenger was permitted to board an American aircraft at Heathrow with a liquid bomb to lay the groundwork for the media and travel hysteria five days later.

Final touches on fake terror plot were agreed to by Blair and Murdoch at July 30 News Corp/Fox VIP meeting at the Inn at Spanish Bay in Pebble Beach, California.

The wiretapping of Charles' messages also indicated that he has weighed in with various European royal families to discourage them from inviting Bush on state visits to their nations. This, reportedly upset the Bush and Blair regimes, who were working together to improve Bush's image in Europe. The White House's displeasure with the monarchies in Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg, and Norway are a direct result of the Murdoch eavesdropping on Charles' staff.

Murdoch-Bush-Blair perception management hoax: Be afraid, be very afraid.

Not surprisingly, after Galloway tore into a Sky News reporter on a recent televised interview, The Sun, a Murdoch paper, is now reporting that one of the 24 British aircraft liquid bomber suspects now under arrest, Waheed Zaman, met with Galloway "many times." The paper quotes the sister of the suspect. A Galloway spokesman denies that Galloway knows the suspect. What is suspect is the Murdoch media empire that makes up news and commits illegal acts to provide cover for the false flag operations being conducted by Britain, the U.S., and Israel.

Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency has helped provide the cover story for the alleged liquid bombers. Working with British and U.S. intelligence, the ISI says it broke up the plot after arresting terrorist suspects in Lahore and Karachi. However, the ISI claims that the men were affiliated with the Kashmiri terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, a group that is run and funded by the ISI itself.

The disclosure of the Charles-Brown plot has already created a backlash from the neo-cons. The Murdoch media is already floating the rumor that Home Secretary Reid is now Blair's chosen successor, while there will be an effort to scandalize Charles in an effort to convince the British public that it would be best to skip over him and have Prince William assume the throne upon Queen Elizabeth's death or abdication.

British commentators are noting that it is Reid, a noted neo-con, who is chairing national security "Cobra" meetings in Blair's absence. Blair bypassed Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and many political observers believe that Prescott was passed over because of evidence that he was involved in supporting the Charles-Brown coup. Prescott chaired Cobra meetings in the wake of the July 7, 2005 (7/7) London transit bombings.

Meanwhile, Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney used the occasion to boost their sagging popularity by placing their states' National Guardsmen at major airports in their states.

WayneMadsenReport

TIME: When terror imitates the soda commercial

RAW STORYPublished: Friday August 11, 2006

An article at TIME.com notes that a soft drink commercial that mockingly depicts airport security agents confiscating a passenger's soda just so they can drink it themselves can still be seen on cable televison, and, in light of recent events, even the "normally irony-aware people at The Daily Show" haven't tried "stopping" it, RAW STORY has found.

"Comedy writers are always fighting the last war," writes Joel Stein for Time.com. "And people who book commercials on cable channels don't pay a lot of attention."

"PepsiCo, which owns Sierra Mist, says the commercial, which started airing in February, conveniently ended its official run on Sunday-three days before the foiling of the British terrorism plot was announced and 'liquid explosives' became a ubiquitous term," the article continues.

"But cable companies are scheduled to dribble out the spot ads until Tuesday, and neither Pepsi nor the normally irony-aware people at The Daily Show —which was still airing the commercial as of Thursday — are stopping them," writes Stein.

Sierra Mist commercial featuring comedienne Kathy Griffin:

FULL TIME ARTICLE CAN BE READ AT THIS LINK

Sheehan Taken To Emergency Room

Sheehan Treated At Local Hospital Emergency Room

(August 11, 2006)—Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was being treated Friday evening in the emergency room of Providence Health Center in Waco.

Sheehan, who has been on a liquids-only diet for 37 days as part of a fast in protest of the war, was described as being gaunt and pale as she arrived at the hospital.

An assistant said Sheehan, who flew to Central Texas after a trip with other activists to Jordan to meet with members of Iraq’s new parliament, was being treated for exhaustion.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey died in Iraq in 2004 while serving with Fort Hood’s 1st Cavalry Division, returned to Central Texas last week, after purchasing a 5-acre tract in the Crawford area.

She again took up her vigil in the area of the president’s Central Texas ranch, where afternoon temperatures have been at or above the century mark.

Link Here

Lieberman Fighting Hard: Tries To Link Terror Plot With Iraq...

NY Times PATRICK HEALY, JENNIFER MEDINA August 11, 2006 at 05:49 PM
READ MORE: Iraq

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut seized on the reports of a terror plot yesterday to attack Ned Lamont, his Democratic opponent for re-election, saying that Mr. Lamont's goal of withdrawing American troops from Iraq by a fixed date would constitute a "victory" for extremists.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England," Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn. "It will strengthen them, and they will strike again."

READ WHOLE STORY

John Zogby: New Poll Shows 79% Of Dems Are Glad Lieberman Lost…

READ POST

Nagourney Violates Ethics Code and Times Policy, Plays Down a Stunning Revelation

TERRA TERRA TERRA

READ MORE: 2006, New York Times, Karl Rove, Investigations, Dick Cheney

Adam Nagourney broke the ethics rules laid down by his professional association and his own paper in today's New York Times. He also let a shocking (and potentially damning revelation) about the White House slide by with barely a mention. It's time to call journalists out publicly on their ethical violations, whenever they commit them.

I've written before on the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and their written Code of Ethics. While I believe it should be updated and strengthened, it's still a worthwhile tool for monitoring reporters' ethical performance.

Let's take a look at Nagourney's piece, while keeping a running total of the violations he commits against his profession's ethical standard and/or the policies of his own newspaper._________________

Under the heading "Seek Truth and Report It," the Code of Ethics states that journalists must "distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Nagourney's piece is placed in the news section, and is not identified as opinion or commentary.

What, then, is a reader to make of statements like this in a "news article"?

"The developments (a revealed terrorist plot) played neatly into the White House-led effort ... to cast Democrats as timid on national defense."

Do they really? Nagourney could just as plausibly have written that "developments played neatly into Democratic efforts to portray the White House at ineffective at halting terror plots."

Either statement is opinion, not fact. It's therefore a violation of journalistic ethics to inject such strongly biased opinion into a news piece.

Running total: one violation.

"Republicans (argued) that the nation needs tough Republican policies to protect Americans from threats abroad," writes Nagourney. Again, he's stating an opinion as fact: namely, that Republican policies are "tough" and, by inference, that Democratic policies aren't.

Running total: two violations.

"Republicans," writes Nagourney, "suggested that Americans might take a cue from the tougher antiterrorism statutes Britain has enacted." Nagourney fails to describe those "tougher statutes." He also fails to provide the reader with information that would help judge the accuracy of Republican Bill Bennett's statement that some GOP intelligence bills contained "the very types of programs that helped the British thwart these vicious attacks."

We'll give Nagourney a pass on ethics violations here, but note his sloppy reporting.
Nagourney's use of anonymous sourcing also violates the Code of Ethics, as well as his own paper's policy. He writes:

"A senior White House official on Air Force One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, dismissed the notion that there was anything wrong with these kinds of issues being mixed up in a political campaign."

The SPJ's code reads: "identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. ... Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information." And the Times' own editorial policy says this about anonymity:

"We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available."
This story already has a number of named Republican sources, so why was this anonymous source used?

Running total: three violations.

Here's an especially relevant statement of policy: "We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack ... The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source."

"Assessing the source" is critical here. It's fair to assume that this anonymous source is either Karl Rove or someone else in the Administration whose credibility has been publicly damaged.

The only purpose of anonymity is to make this partisan quote more effective. Running total: four violations.

Adds the Times:

"We should avoid automatic references to sources who 'insisted on anonymity' or 'demanded anonymity'; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic.

When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives."

Nagourney offers no explanation for the granting of anonymity to Rove (or Cheney, or whomever) in this case.

Altogether, that makes five ethics violations. Others may quibble with one or two, but even one violation should be grounds for immediate action from Nagourney's employer and his peers.

Right-wingers will continue to insist that the media, and especially the Times, are left-leaning. While I don't believe the press is "liberal," I would welcome critique from any source - provided that it's based on relatively objective measurements like the SPJ's. The goal is an objective press, not to ensure bias one way or the other.

I look forward to a full investigation of this article by the Times' ombudsman and/or editors, and by the Society for Professional Journalists. I await the widespread public censure that will no doubt follow. _________________

Now for the shocker. Paragraph 19 (in a 21-para piece) begins with this sentence: "The White House had been aware for weeks that Britain was moving to shut down this plot." That dramatically increases the possibility that the timing of this announcement was politically-motivated, as was most likely the case with the many terror alerts and arrest announcements during the 2004 political campaign.

Was the timing politically motivated? I don't know. It would be easier to draw our conclusions if a) this revelation were to lead the story, and b) there's was some serious investigative follow-up.

Where's the shoe leather, Mr. Nagourney? Who's out there finding out whether the timing was coincidental, or deliberately designed to enforce the GOP's "national security" PR blitz around the Lieberman defeat?

Surely that story belongs somewhere in the pages of your newspaper. Editors, we'd love to hear an explanation.

A Night Light

Link Here

Bush Admin. Tried To Cut Millions In Bomb Detection Technology...

Associated Press JOHN SOLOMON August 11, 2006 at 10:27 PM
READ MORE: 9/11, Homeland Security

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by theHomeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

READ WHOLE STORY

WAKE UP CALL

***

Bush BBQs With Donors While America Is Under Terror Threat...

All Headline News August 11, 2006 at 10:40 PM
READ MORE: George W. Bush
President George W. Bush helps Republicans raise big money by headlining a barbecue at a ranch near his Crawford, Texas vacation home.

Kathy and Stan Hicky own the Broken Spoke Ranch, where the event took place. The fundraiser has been held annually since the start of Bush's presidency. The barbecue attracted 350 people, and raised $750,000 for the Republican National Committee.

READ WHOLE STORY

Terra! Terra! Terra!

Sploid
August 11, 2006

The alleged U.K. terror plot has been investigated for months by British intelligence, and the idea that the airliner attacks were planned for today seems to be nothing more than political fabrication and media hysteria.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush even planned the terror freakout in a series of phone calls that began last Friday and continued through the weekend. Blair and Bush put the finishing touches on their diabolical operation in a phone call early Wednesday, the Associated Press revealed today.

That's right: While millions of travelers are going through absolute hell today because of the sudden terror "news," it was last week when the U.S. president and U.K. prime minister began their cold calculations on how to get the maximum political benefit from the months-old investigation.

"U.S. President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks," AFP noted this afternoon.

"Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections."
But the American warmongers are hardly alone in needing a "terror boost" for their fading political fortunes. The timing of the hysteria was even more useful to Blair, who was on the verge of being thrown out of Downing Street last night.

"A Scottish MP last night quit the government in protest at Tony Blair's handling of the Middle East crisis, amid warnings from ministers that the Prime Minister's continuing support for American foreign policy could cost him his job," the Scotsman reported this morning.

"Jim Sheridan, Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, became the first to resign from a government post over the war. He quit as parliamentary private secretary to the Ministry of Defense, saying he could no longer accept that Scottish airports were being used to refuel United States planes carrying arms to Israel."

The newspaper made it crystal clear that Blair had mere days left in power, with some 150 members of parliament demanding Blair's enemy Jack Straw call the politicians back to London, even though they're on summer break:

"His resignation came as ministers furious at Mr Blair's handling of the crisis said they would push for an emergency recall of parliament in a maneuver they hoped would trigger the Prime Minister's downfall."

Unlike the theoretical "massacre" of the theoretical terror plot that will soon be exposed in the courts as another make-believe scheme, actual massacres continue uninterrupted in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

At least 2,000 Iraqis were slaughtered in July alone, most in Sunni vs. Shiite violence that has exploded under the U.S. occupation. Baghdad continues to be the capital of death, but the bloodshed happens everywhere, every day, all the time. Today in Najaf, another religious shrine was blown up, leaving at least 35 dead and another 100 hurt.

Morons and Patsies

If the suspected terrorists are anything like the amateur morons arrested recently in Toronto, London and Florida, the "terror plot" will eventually be revealed to be nothing more than idiot fantasies encouraged by the usual intelligence agents.

While Muslim nations will continue be bombed by the United States and Britain, travelers are stranded all over the Western World and England's beleaguered Pakistanis can expect a new round of bogus terror raids, constant police harassment and attacks by neo-fascist skinheads, Bush and Blair can expect a solid boost for their bloodstained political parties.

The only other beneficiaries of today's insanity are the "homeland security" and private-army industries, the defense contractors and the personal-hygiene business -- having taken our corkscrews, pocket knives and fingernail clippers, airport goons are now seizing shampoo, deodorant, hair gel, toothpaste and pretty much everything else in your toiletries kit.

Not that you can even have a carry-on with your toothpaste and other essentials. As of today, British airports have banned all carry-ons.

Miserable passengers have been photographed standing around with nothing more than a clear plastic baggie holding their tickets and passports.

It's the world of the future, and it sucks.

Link Here