Professor-rat's Blurty
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

    Time Event
    12:36a
    Circular saw
    '...the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak....'

    PBS's Bill Moyers, who produced a documentary called "Buying the War" in April 2007. Here is Moyers turning the tables on Russert, asking tough questions about Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press," where he touted the need for a preemptive strike against Saddam's non-existent nuclear weapons program.
    BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story [about nuclear weapons] appeared?

    TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.

    BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

    TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

    BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

    TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the -- This is, you know -- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.

    BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

    TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

    HERES my classic case...

    Infoshop News - When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad
    It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. ..... How hard did Woodward and Bernstein have to fight to get their REAL story of ...
    news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=02/03/02/8080784 - 211k - Cached - Similar pages
    More results from news.infoshop.org »

    Page 129 - ' Veil - secret wars of the CIA'. ' Blowback', 'New York Times', ' Secretary of state'. etc, etc.
    12:42a
    The diet of Worms
    Tim watched "Howdy Doody" and "Gunsmoke" and "I Love Lucy," trudged to school in the snow, worshiped baseball, minded the priests and nuns, and ate hearty: the butcher, he fondly recalls, had a display case that perfectly evoked Buffalo's version of multiculturalism and good health, full of "pork neck bone, smoked pork neck bone, jellied tongue, Polish bacon, slab bacon, double smoked hunter bacon, German-style wieners, Italian sausage, pork roll sausage, hot or mild beef sausage, barley sausage, beer sausage, double smoked hunter bacon . . . chopped ham, smoked hocks, turkey gizzards, smoked turkey parts, chicken feet, chicken liver, chicken fat, fresh ox tails, and ribs of every type." Buffalo itself had "a powerful, simple strength."

    While one would never gloat long over the death of a fellow human being, one does have to wonder whether eating "hearty" growing up in Buffalo might have led to Pumpkinhead's fatal heart attack.
    12:48a
    Lippman by name
    Lippman against nature. Thank Xenu/Marx his Popeishness frowns on all practicing pedagogues these days

    '...Walter's position is far more reminiscent of the CP during the 1930s,
    with Cynthia McKinney functioning for him as the Browder campaign used
    to. CP'ers spent 90 percent of their energy urging "Stop Wilkie" but
    mounted their own campaign to cover their left flank. Very slippery
    stuff, like political vaseline....'
    12:56a
    Lets remind oursalves
    comment by pr
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 09 2004 @ 06:27 AM PDT
    If I may crave yr indulgence here for a second...we all remember the Laura Myleroi stuff right?

    Saddam was the 20th hijacker and so on?

    Here is a weird echo of that and the Judith Miller \' Tubes of death\' stuff as well ...from page 129 \" Veil - the secret wars of the CIA,\" by Bob Woodward...

    \"...It turned out that a small part of Claire Sterling\'s information had come from an Italian press story on the Red Brigade. The story was part of an old small scale CIA covert propaganda operation...( stuff on \' Blowback\' snipped...) \"...Gordon found the sequence particularly telling; from CIA propaganda , to Sterlings book galleys, to Haig\'s reading of the galley\'s,to Haig\'s press conference, then Haigs comments picked up in the NYTimes article by Sterling, then finally in Sterling\'s book...\"

    Claire Sterling was a big influence on CIA chief Casey as well as Secretary of State, Al \" I\'m in charge,\' Haig. She was the Laura Myleroi of her day with the Soviets actually presenting much more of a real and present world terrorist danger than Saddam Hussein.

    Laurie Mylroie is The Neocons\' favorite conspiracy theorist.

    And Woodward has some more on former Secretary of State and \' take charge\' stand up guy, Al Haig...

    In Haig\'s presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as \"dumb, stupid animals to be used\" as pawns for foreign policy. Kissinger took up a post outside the doorway to Haig\'s office and dressed him down in front of the secretaries for alleged acts of incompetence with which Haig was not even remotely involved. Once when the Air Force was authorized to resume bombing of North Vietnam, the planes did not fly on certain days because of bad weather. Kissinger assailed Haig. He complained bitterly that the generals had been screaming for the limits to be taken off but that now their pilots were afraid to go up in a little fog. The country needed generals who could win battles, Kissinger said, not good briefers like Haig.
    On another occasion, when Haig was leaving for a trip to Cambodia to meet with Premier Lon Nol, Kissinger escorted him to a staff car, where reporters and a retinue of aides waited. As Haig bent to get into the automobile, Kissinger stopped him and began polishing the single star on his shoulder. \"Al, if you\'re a good boy, I\'ll get you another one,\" he said.

    — Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Final Days

    Conspiracy just falls a little short sometimes. END

    Thats Lincoln Gordon btw...a senior CIA adviser.
    1:10a
    Woodwards 'blowback'
    Page 129, ' Veil - secret wars of the CIA'

    [ Lincoln] '...Gordon discovered a final irony. It turned out that a small part of Clare Sterling's information had come from an Italian press story on the Red Brigade. The story was part of an old , small-scale CIA covert propaganda operation. Sterling's apparently had picked up some of it in her research. Domestic fallout , or replay of information in the United States called ' blowback ', is one of the nightmares, both for the CIA and journalists, particularly when it receives wide attention or is disputed...'

    No wonder Woodward is such a cynical nihilist these days...no one reads his books!
    1:37a
    Covert pressure
    '...Beyond rehashing sentiments of the Senate intel. committee's purposeful stonewalling and foreshortening of the investigation, Fred Kaplan at Slate
    takes a different read on the line "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the executive branch." Kaplan believes the line addresses the covert pressure the White House placed on the CIA to play up its pro-war intelligence:

    Another intriguing point, made fleetingly in the Senate report's preface, is that the committee reviewed "only finished analytic intelligence documents"--not "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the executive branch."

    In other words (though the authors don't put it in these terms), the committee once again evaded the key question of whether the White House pressured the Central Intelligence Agency into hardening its October 2002 NIE on Iraq.

    Unless this question is addressed, the report is beside the point. Its full, ungainly title is "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information." If those same government officials politicized the intelligence information, then the report only perpetuates the sham. (I am not saying this is the case, only that the committee should have investigated whether it is--should have reviewed those "less formal communications.")
    [Emphasis ours]

    In sum, while Phase II shed light on the "lies," or "misstatements," or "misinformation," or "whatever-you-want-to-call-it," of the administration's public claims in the days leading up to the Iraq war, it still leaves much to be desired in terms of scope and accountability. FROM

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/phase_ii_what_was_missing.php
    2:19a
    Anarkismo - a new world in their ass
    During the Reformation in Europe, as William Manchester so brilliantly described in A World Lit Only By Fire, the demand for conformity in religious expression reached the point where people were burned at the stake for being accused by others (their enemies?) of not attending church. Both Catholics and protestants were known to succumb to such horrors. But it got even worse. There came a time when people began to be burned at the stake for NOT APPEARING PIOUS ENOUGH when ATTENDING church.

    Where they will burn comments - there they will burn people.
    2:21a
    A hermetic cone-of-silence
    Lit only when the revolving door spits someone out - Plats are such Marxists aren't they?

    Once a Trot...

    Peter Good
    Posts: 261 Joined: 18-04-05
    28 March, 2008 - 11:29

    Gosh! This is exciting. Particularly as the AF/NAN is being dragged into the discussion.

    I suppose our own view is that we view organisations with much suspicion. As an affinity group we hold that a small group of guys - sat around a kitchen table - well oiled on good ale - are more capable of creativity and imagination than many an organisation.

    And it's not true that we have "split" from the NAN. We've merely formed an Anarchist faction.

    Like divorces all splits are painful and you should look after each other. FROM

    http://libcom.org/forums/anarchist-federation/af-platformist-split-27032008
    2:32a
    The angina monologues
    Sharia very strict

    MTA - Reporters Without Borders condemns the government’s continuing persecution of cyber-feminists - women who use online publications to defend their rights. Nine were arrested yesterday for organising a meeting in Tehran to commemorate a big demonstration they staged two years ago, on 12 June 2005. They were all released this morning.
    “The authorities have tried yet again to intimidate women who are just demanding their rights,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The way the government is hounding them, and keeping some of them under surveillance, is an indication of its fear of the scale of this movement.”
    Yesterday’s meeting - to mark the second anniversary of the biggest feminist demonstration ever held in the capital - was banned in advance and security forces were stationed outside the auditorium where it was due to take place.

    The nine women arrested included five online journalists: Jila Bani Yaghoub of the daily Sarmayeh and the Canon Zeman Irani (http://www.irwomen.com/) website, Jelveh Javaheri of the Change for Equality (http://www.we4change.info/) website, who was already arrested at the end of 2007, Aida Saadat of the daily Etemad and Change for Equality, Farideh Ghayb of Canon Zeman Irani and Sara Loghmani of Canon Zeman Irani and Change for Equality. Their lawyer, Nasrine Satoudeh, was also arrested.
    The police went to the home of Change for Equality editor Parvin Ardalan, who was given a two-year suspended prison sentence by a Tehran court on 2 May, but she was not there and they were unable to arrest her. The same morning, they also went to the home of Sussan Tahmassebi, who edits the English-language pages of Change for Equality...' MORE

    http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/06/13/
    nine-women-including-five-journalists-arrested-in-latest-attempt-to-intimidate-cyber-feminists/

    MTA - MAKETHEMACCOUNTABLE
    2:46a
    Anarchs blamed for Bolshevik blag gone bad
    '...All the fatal shots in what became known as the "Houndsditch Murders" came from the same Dreyse pistol belonging to Jacob Peters, but as he had left it with the mortally wounded Gardstein to be found by the police, it was assumed to be his and that he was the killer. This was despite the fact that Gardstein had completely different calibre ammunition for a Mauser C96 pistol both on him when he died and in his lodgings, but none at all for the Dreyse. Gardstein's "guilt" was further compounded by the mistaken belief that it was Gardstein who had opened fire at 11 Exchange Buildings from the yard door, on the grounds that it was he who had opened the front door to the police shortly before they were shot.

    Of seven supposed members of the gang captured by the police, five men - including Peters - and two women were put on trial, but they all either had the charges dropped, were acquitted, or had their convictions quashed. Peters later returned home, and after the October Revolution served as deputy head of the Cheka. He perished during the Great Purge in 1938...'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street

    Latvian anarchist my arse. Peters actually spearheaded the first major CHEKIST operations...against anarchists. Yet more police-media bs about anarchists.
    2:54a
    Hawala call to prayer
    Make Them Accountable - Central bank body warns of Great Depression
    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the organisation that fosters cooperation between central banks, has warned that the credit crisis could lead world economies into a crash on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

    A question for Gore Vidal?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

    Get out yr mats and pray to the West
    11:32a
    Yesterday
    All my subpoenas seemed so far away

    The Corner was doing the limited hang-out, Newsweek was running a red-herring. But the past is another country and today the fascist regime is in a world of hurt. Pass the football Dick.
    Bush, Cheney's FBI Interviews Subpoenaed
    By Andrew Tilghman - June 16, 2008, 12:40PM
    At first Rep. Henry Waxman asked politely.

    But today the chairman of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee issued subpoenas for the FBI's paperwork stemming from interviews of Vice President Cheney and President Bush regarding the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. - MORE ON

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/cheneys_fbi_interview_subpoena.php

    Its always the cover-up guys - never the crime(s)
    12:00p
    Take me to the April sun
    Inside the American Gulag [James S. Robbins]
    Now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to affirm a variety of rights of terror suspects held at Guantanamo, a new book is out exposing the harsh realities of Gitmo — the diet on which detainees have gained weight — the soccer fields and basketball courts — the letters home about mild weather and beautiful sunsets — and the detainees who don't want to leave. All of this and more is in Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials by Kyndra Rotunda, an Army Reserve Major and member of the Military Commissions Prosecution Team. Learn more about the place that has been compared to Auschwitz and the Gulag, which houses probably the healthiest, best fed, least inconvenienced prisoners of war (or whatever they are) in human history.

    WHISPERING GLADES

    Take me to the April Sun in Cuba, oh, oh, oh,
    Take me where the April sun gonna treat me
    So right, so right, so right.
    I can almost smell the perfumed nighs
    And see the starry sky
    I wish you comin' with me baby
    12:14p
    Run to the hills
    There’s trouble at the top of the world. Images like the above shocked climate scientists all around the world late last year. Arctic ice has been declining at an alarming rate. The minimum surface cover in September had been in a 7% per decade trend decline since satellite imaging began in 1979. But suddenly in 2007 it took a dive of 20% or so compared with the previous record low in 2005.
    At RealClimate there was some discussion about what would happen in the future. Most, I think, believed there would be some improvement in 2008 but that the trend decline would continue. According to IPCC projections the Arctic sea ice was meant to last until 2080. Just a year earlier two top scientists had projected that the sea ice could disappear completely by 2040. Now glaciologist Jay Zwally in reviewing the 2007 data said that the Arctic could be almost ice free by the end of summer 2012.

    He went on to say that in climate change “the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”

    MORE

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/
    12:26p
    Ghostwriters in the sky
    Yipee yi-aa
    A perfect example of the shadow looming over the ghostwriting-industrial
    complex is Tim Russert's memoir, "Big Russ and Me." This is the
    heartwarming 2004 best seller in which the distinguished newsman pays
    tribute to his wonderful father, a man of great character, grace and
    common decency who taught Russert all the important things in life --
    like how to hire Lee Iacocca's ghost to write a book about how graceful
    and decent your dad is, but not to put the ghostwriter's name right
    there on the cover, because that might make it seem less heartwarming.

    When I read Russert's book, I found his easygoing, straight-talking
    style entirely irresistible -- and not just because the dust jacket said
    that his style was easygoing, straight-talking and irresistible. But
    then, when I got to the very end of the book and found out that Bill
    Novak was Russert's "full partner in writing this book," I recalled that
    Novak was also the author of Iacocca's easygoing, straight-talking,
    heartwarmingly irresistible book. Not to mention the easygoing memoirs
    of Nancy Reagan. And the Mayflower Madam. This got me to wondering
    whether the irresistibly heartwarming sentiments expressed in the book
    were Russert's, Novak's or perhaps some heartwarmingly straight-talking
    sentiments left over from Iacocca's even more irresistible book. Or, God
    forbid, the Mayflower Madam's.

    In saying this, I am not criticizing Russert's decision to hire a
    ghostwriter, as I understand the time constraints on busy newsmen.
    Moreover, having written eight books myself, I realize that any idiot
    can do this kind of work, that there is no disgrace in having a book
    cranked out for you, that any time needlessly wasted writing a book
    could be better spent playing checkers. What bothers me is that when I
    am having the cockles of my heart warmed by the irresistible prose in
    "Big Russ and Me," I would desperately like to know whether Russert or
    Novak is doing the cockle-warming. Since Russert is a phenomenally busy
    man who probably did not have time to write a heartwarming paean to his
    lovable father all by himself, my suspicion is that Novak wrote most of
    the difficult sentences during the week and Russert wrote the easy ones
    on the weekend. Here's an example:

    "Baseball. If there's a more beautiful word in the English language, I
    have yet to hear it."

    I hope for Russert's sake that he wrote that sentence. Otherwise, he
    overpaid - end extract

    NY Times, March 20, 2005
    ESSAY
    Ghosts in the Machine
    By JOE QUEENAN
    2:29p
    Moving on up
    Broadband will cost me a few extra bucks a month so I'm switching. Looking for some Freenet buddies - about five. Send anonymous email to pro2rat@yahoo. Libertarian and democratic socialists only. Libs preferred.
    2:39p
    Barrys electric Kool-aid acid test
    Bill Of Rights OK'd For Destruction By Independence Day
    by dday
    There's not a lot more that can be said about this FISA abomination, but you may want to keep up with developments, so here's the latest.
    House and Senate leaders of both parties said negotiators were near a deal on extending the authority to track terror suspects overseas while protecting the civil liberties of Americans as spy agencies sift through cell phone calls and other electronic communications that did not exist when the surveillance law first came into being.
    Senior Congressional officials said they hoped to seal an agreement early this week and quickly vote in the House and Senate on legislation that expired back in February, though the administration retained the authority to continue spying on terror suspects it already had in its sights. That power begins slipping later this summer.
    Well, actually, no. The "power" would revert back to the FISA court, which has only rejected past warrants for surveillance on the technical grounds that the foreign communications go through a domestic switcher, and all that really would need to be done is a patch treating those calls as foreign communications. Off of that molehill is where we are building this mountain of crap.
    The main sticking point between the House and Senate has been President Bush’s demand that phone companies that cooperated in the wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks be given blanket immunity from legal action by customers who claim their rights were violated by warrantless surveillance. The Senate went along with the plan but the House balked.
    After weeks of talks, lawmakers have worked out a deal that would allow federal courts to settle the question of whether the telecommunications companies should be protected because they were assured their participation was legal.
    No, they're not going to allow federal courts to "settle the question." They're asking courts to rule on whether the Attorney General gave telecom companies a "Violate the 4th Amendment" permission slip. By confining the matter to one of paperwork, district courts will not be ruling on the legality of the spying but merely confirming that the executive branch said it was OK to spy. This is a pretext for a completely outraegous circumstance - the executive branch breaking the law, and then legalizing it by showing that they wrote down that they could break the law.
    This, along with blank check funding for war into the next President's term, is being given a deadline date by the House leadership, which always works out perfectly.
    Lawmakers also have to get more serious this week about finishing up an overdue bill to fund combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure has been slowed by fights over an extension of unemployment pay, new veterans education benefits and general Democratic opposition to Bush administration war policy.
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the matter settled before Congress breaks for Independence Day at the end of next week, suggesting she is ready to bring the issue to a head.

    “We want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president,” she said. “And that will happen before we leave for the Fourth of July. So the timing is sometime between now and then. I feel confident that that will happen.”
    There's even talk that the FISA bill and the war funding bill will be COMBINED. Which would certainly wrap up the craven nature of the action into a nice, neat bow, so there's at least something to be said for it. The fact that the deadline is the date marking the birth of the nation gives it a little layer of irony.

    CQ has a little more, noting that the compromise, which involves allowing district courts to decide the fate of immunity, was worked out WITHOUT the heads of the Judiciary Committees, or any of the party leadership on either side. This is Steny Hoyer and Jello Jay Rockefeller's ballgame. CQ seems to think that this deal is not yet hardened in stone, but I'm not as sanguine. We need to fight this nonsense, of course, but more than anything this legislation is a slap in the face to those who have prolonged this debate until they are satisfied with the civil liberties and privacy protections. You get the feeling that Hoyer wants to say to the caucus "Can't you let me finish off the Fourth Amendment and go away so we can move on to important items like naming more post offices? I made it LOOK like both sides will get their day in court, what more would you have me do?"
    I've previously called for Sen. Obama to step in and put a stop to this nonsense, telling the Hoyer-Rockefeller axis that this undermines his own security goals and debases our ideals as a nation. If he doesn't there really isn't much hope of getting this halted. You can contact him at his Senate website, or at his campaign site.
    dday
    Now what the fucks wrong with getting these all these skuzzbuckets small enough to drown in a bathtub?
    3:19p
    Manifesto of the rebels
    The manifesto of the Kronstadt rebels, ' What we are fighting for', singled out as one of its main targets, the Cheka, which they likened to the Oprichniki of Ivan the Terrible: ' The power of the police-gendarme monarchy passed into the hands of the Communist usurpers who, instead of bringing freedom to the workers, instilled in them the constant fear of falling into the torture chambers of the Cheka, which in their horrors far exceeded the police rule of the Tsarist regime.'

    Page 49 ' KGB - the inside story'

    WIKIPEDIA - The Cheka is reported to have practiced torture. Victims were skinned alive, scalped, "crowned" with barbed wire, impaled, crucified, hanged, stoned to death, tied to planks and pushed slowly into furnaces or tanks of boiling water, and rolled around naked in internally nail-studded barrels. Chekists poured water on naked prisoners in the winter-bound streets until they became living ice statues. Others beheaded their victims by twisting their necks until their heads could be torn off. The Chinese Cheka detachments stationed in Kiev reportedly would attach an iron tube to the torso of a bound victim and insert a rat into the other end which was then closed off with wire netting. The tube was then held over a flame until the rat began gnawing through the victim's guts in an effort to escape. Denikin’s investigation discovered corpses whose lungs, throats, and mouths had been packed with earth.[19][20][21]
    Women and children were also victims of Cheka terror. Women would sometimes be tortured and raped before being shot. Children between the ages of 8 and 16 were imprisoned and occasionally executed.
    3:46p
    Sophie Miserabella
    Hey you know what. I'd still rather be chewed out by Belinda Neal than chewed on by a batshit crazy bitch like Sophie Panopolous/ Miserabalis. Her kid will be LUCKY to turn out a demon. And I hope Joel has had his all rabies shots. RELATED...
    Backlash against NBC's massive Russert coverage has already started (PO)
    You could feel the air sucking out of DC's giant hot-air balloon on Friday (NYT)
    "There was a big power outage in DC this morning, the whole city. The good news is, Homeland Security says it was not terrorism. Whew! Luckily, it was just our lousy energy policy. So that's a relief." --Jay Leno

    "And OPEC said, this week, it will call a meeting of its members to discuss what it calls unjustified oil prices. See, not to bring the price down. They just want to come up with a reason to justify it." --Jay Leno

    "Now, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says he wants to have this meeting. Now, you ever notice, when OPEC nations get together, there's always kings and sultans and crowned princes? See, that's where the term 'royally screwed' comes from." --Jay Leno
    3:59p
    Gerry Mander is killing people
    UP to 100 million people are being added to the world's population each year.
    While available agricultural land will remain limited, that means we will need to feed a lot more mouths from finite resources.
    Meanwhile, over the past 18 months, the global price of staple foods has spiralled upwards - rice has tripled, maize increased by two-thirds and wheat has doubled.
    And worse is likely to come before supply increases and, therefore, prices come down.
    The rapid price rises are due to several factors.
    Population growth, below average harvests, a reduction in global food stocks because of changing climatic conditions, and a burgeoning biofuels sector competing for foods (such as wheat, corn, canola and sugar) have put the stress on food prices.
    On these fronts, there is little governments can do. But there is one area where change can make a world of difference - trade barriers.
    Government restrictions on production and trade in agricultural products - namely, trade distorting barriers such as subsidies, tariffs and quotas (which actually force world farmers to produce less food) - have played their part in global price rises.
    But the answer is simple - let the market operate.
    If the United Nations' stated goal of a 30 per cent increase in global food production by 2030 is to have any hope of succeeding, the paramount objective of food policy must be to encourage a workable system of production, distribution and consumption.
    This means a global re-commitment to agricultural research and development, and investment in improving farm productivity (including new plant varieties such as genetically modified crops), and new farming and irrigation systems.
    Foreign governments must leave their domestic politics at home and, once and for all, abandon their trade distorting subsidies, tariffs and other artificial barriers, which only mire production by sending the wrong market signals to global farmers.
    It is why the world's farming community is actively prevented from responding to the food crisis in a timely fashion.
    Governments need to get serious about reform and genuinely re-ignite the World Trade Organisation's Doha Round of global trade reform.
    Governments must not intervene to impose limits on food exports, nor distort the flow of food stocks to the production of biofuels.
    The only workable policy response is to set up an open, market-oriented system for the production, distribution and consumption of food that enable farmers to respond to genuine market demands and ensure consumer needs are met.
    David Crombie is president of the National Farmers' Federation

    Tech tips for the last days

    http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23872118-15419,00.html

    Kerrie Murphy WILL your website still work during and after Armageddon?
    5:33p
    The central deception
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/061608a.html

    Five years ago this month, an extraordinary battle was taking shape in the shadows of official Washington: a former U.S. ambassador was preparing to go public to challenge a central deception used by the White House to justify invading Iraq – and the Bush administration was readying a fierce counterattack against him.
    Now, after many nasty clashes – which led to the exposure of a covert CIA officer, a criminal White House cover-up, a special prosecutor investigation, the conviction of a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and a subsequent presidential commutation – one key administration insider finally has agreed to testify before Congress.
    Ex-White House press secretary Scott McClellan is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 to answer questions about President George W. Bush’s false claim that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq bought 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger -- and about the later cover-up of this deception.
    McClellan will be asked, too, what he knows about the administration’s role in blowing the cover of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson, whose husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was the one who blew the whistle on the false Niger claim.
    The back-drop for the hearings also will include the unrelenting assaults that Bush’s political and media allies have directed against Wilson, an example of what McClellan has called Washington’s slash-and-burn culture of the “permanent campaign.”
    Although it’s long been established that Wilson was right about the inaccuracy of Bush’s Niger claim – and indeed the administration has admitted that it never should have been inserted into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address – the coordinated Republican attacks on Wilson’s credibility have not abated even to this day.
    Indeed, one of the most striking features of this long-running saga may be that instead of thanking Wilson for his original investigation into the Niger issue in 2002 and recognizing his courage in exposing the use of false intelligence in 2003, Republicans have continued to recite talking points that disparage Wilson and his wife.
    It remains unclear, however, whether McClellan’s testimony will shed significant new light on the “Plame-gate” affair or simply will reiterate what’s already been revealed over the past five years, including what McClellan wrote in his memoir, What Happened: Inside The Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.
    Congressional staffers, who requested anonymity because they were not permitted to discuss details of the hearing, say McClellan will be asked about relevant conversations that took place among the White House principals: Vice President Cheney, then-White House political adviser Karl Rove, Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and President Bush.
    Cheney Suspicions
    The committee wants McClellan, who was deputy press secretary during the early phase of the Iraq War, to elaborate on the roles of Bush, Cheney, Hadley and Rice in the long-running campaign to discredit Wilson.

    Two weeks ago, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent Attorney General Michael Mukasey a letter indicating that Vice President Cheney may have authorized Libby to leak Plame’s identity as part of the anti-Wilson campaign.

    "In his interview with the FBI, Mr. Libby stated that it was ‘possible’ that Vice President Cheney instructed him to disseminate information about Ambassador Wilson's wife to the press,” Waxman wrote, urging the Justice Department to release the FBI’s interview with Cheney.
    (On Monday, Waxman issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for the transcripts of the FBI interviews with both Bush and Cheney.)
    The committee wants to know if McClellan can offer insight into the vice president’s role as well as explain why the administration continued to peddle the Niger story after it was challenged by internal investigations and after the documents asserting the uranium sale were exposed as forgeries.
    Despite those internal findings, the bogus uranium deal was referenced in a Jan. 23, 2003, op-ed by then-National Security Adviser Rice, who claimed Iraq was actively trying "to get uranium from abroad."

    The Niger claim also showed up in Bush’s State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, as what became known as the “Sixteen Words”: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    The White House has never provided a full accounting of how the Niger story, despite warnings from several government agencies that it was unreliable, wound its way from strange-looking documents that surfaced in Italy to become a key element of Bush’s case for war.
    By securing McClellan’s testimony (assuming the White House does not assert a last-minute claim of executive privilege), some Democratic lawmakers hope they can fill in some holes in the narrative – and determine what Bush and his inner circle knew and when they knew it.
    Wilson Speaks Out
    Former Ambassador Wilson’s role in the Niger case began in early 2002 when CIA officials were looking for people with the right connections to check out the claims that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger.

    Wilson, a former senior diplomat in both Iraq and Africa, was selected by the CIA’s counter-proliferation unit where Wilson’s wife worked as a covert officer, who used “non-official cover” to track dangerous weapons in the Middle East. “Non-official cover” assignments are considered some of the CIA’s riskiest.

    After agreeing to undertake the unpaid assignment, Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002, met with a number of high-level contacts and returned with the conclusion that the Niger suspicions were almost surely false. Wilson’s assessment matched with other internal reviews.
    On Jan. 12, 2003, a half month before Bush’s State of the Union, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries," according to a declassified State Department memo.
    Those concerns, according to the memo, were the reason that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the Niger deal when he appeared before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, one week after Bush's State of the Union.
    "After considerable back and forth between the CIA, the (State) Department, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and the British, Secretary Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council did not mention attempted Iraqi procurement of uranium due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement," the memo said.
    In the days after Bush’s State of the Union, Wilson also began questioning why the dubious information was included in the president's address.
    Wilson said he tried to contact the White House through various channels to get the administration to correct the public record.
    "I had direct discussions with the State Department [and] Senate committees," Wilson told me in a later interview. "I had a civic duty to hold my government to account for what it had said and done."
    Wilson said he was rebuffed at every instance and that he received word, through National Security Adviser Rice, that he could state his case in writing in a public forum.
    By early March 2003, as Bush was putting the finishing touches on his plans for invading Iraq, IAEA’s director-general Mohamed ElBaradei also weighed in, dismissing the Niger yellowcake documents as forgeries.
    In that context, Wilson began going public, though not yet disclosing his personal role in traveling to Niger to investigate the issue.
    ”We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by the U.S. - the U.S. government - is just simply stupid,” Wilson told CNN on March 8, 2003. “It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early 1960s. All this stuff is open. It's a restricted market of buyers and sellers.”
    Angering Cheney
    ElBaradei’s finding and Wilson's comment enraged Cheney who had personally pushed for using the Niger claims.
    Cheney appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press" on March 16, 2003, to respond to ElBaradei's assertion that the Niger documents were forgeries.
    “I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said. “[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."
    The White House also reacted against the challenges to the Niger story by distributing an op-ed written by deputy national security adviser Hadley entitled "Two Potent Iraqi Weapons: Denial and Deception," which reiterated the claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
    After the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Wilson continued speaking with journalists about the bogus Niger claim, leading to an article by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that cited Wilson’s fact-finding trip to Africa without mentioning Wilson’s name.
    Kristof accused Cheney of allowing the truth about the Niger uranium to go "missing in action."
    A phone call to the White House from another reporter, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, set off more alarm bells and prompted Libby to ask about Wilson’s February 2002 trip to Niger.
    Carl Ford Jr., head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, responded to Libby in a memo dated June 10, 2003, saying Wilson did undertake a mission to Niger to investigate the yellowcake suspicions.
    “This was the very first time there was written evidence - not notes, but a request for a report - from the State Department that documented why the Niger intel was bullshit," Ford told me in an interview.

    "It scared the heck out of a lot of people [in the administration] because it proved that this guy, Wilson's story was credible. I don't think anybody wanted the media to know that the State Department disagreed with the intelligence used by the White House."
    The War on Wilson
    McClellan wrote in his book that the White House’s behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Wilson heated up in June 2003.
    “The vice president and Libby were quietly stepping up their efforts to counter the allegations of the anonymous envoy to Niger, and Pincus's story was one opportunity for them to do just that,” McClellan wrote.
    Internal White House discussions, involving Bush and Cheney, led to a decision to disseminate parts of a secret October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to selected reporters to counter Wilson, according to testimony from White House officials during Libby’s criminal trial in 2007.
    David Addington, Cheney’s legal counsel, testified that Libby asked him in late June or early July 2003 about whether the president had the authority to declassify documents on his own.
    "The answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's clear the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a national security secret and who can have access to it,'" Addington testified.
    Addington also recalled that Libby was curious about what paperwork might exist at the CIA about a spouse having a role in an official trip, an obvious reference to the White House’s planned attack line against Wilson.
    "If somebody worked out at the CIA and the CIA sent the person's spouse on a trip to do something for the CIA, would there be a record out at the CIA of that," Libby wanted to know, according to Addington.
    Addington said he told Libby "the kind of paperwork would depend on whether you were on the operational side of the CIA, the folks who run spies overseas, if you will, or on the analytical side, the folks at CIA who write reports for policymakers and so forth about what is going on in the world."
    In June 2003, with Bush agreeing to selectively declassify portions of the secret NIE on Iraq, Libby chose New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward as the recipients of the information.
    The journalists were urged by Libby to report that Iraq had, in fact, attempted to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.
    Hearing About Plame
    A week before he met with Libby, around June 16, 2003, Woodward met with two other government officials, one of whom was later revealed to be Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
    According to a subsequent account by Woodward, Armitage told him in a "casual" and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
    Woodward said he also met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and was told that "the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned ‘yellowcake’ and said there was an effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02. This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger."
    Judy Miller’s notes of her meeting with Libby also indicated that Libby mentioned that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. However, neither Miller nor Woodward wrote stories for their newspapers in 2003 about the segments of the intelligence report that Libby leaked to them or about Wilson’s wife.
    The sub-rosa battle, pitting the White House against former Ambassador Wilson, finally came to the surface on July 6, 2003, when Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed revealing his February 2002 trip to Niger and directly challenging Bush’s use of the bogus yellowcake story.
    In the following days, even as the administration was forced to backtrack on the Niger claims by acknowledging that the information should not have been included in Bush’s State of the Union, Bush’s aides and allies stepped up the campaign to discredit Wilson.
    On one front, Libby and Cheney continued to peddle the Niger intelligence as real. On another front, administration officials disparaged Wilson by suggesting that his Niger trip had been a junket arranged by his CIA wife.
    That was the angle that right-wing columnist Robert Novak took in an article on July 14, 2003, that relied on information from Armitage and White House political adviser Karl Rove to report that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA and had a hand in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa.
    After Novak’s column, Libby contacted then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and asked him to contact the editorial department at the Wall Street Journal to leak the NIE to the paper as a way of further undermining Wilson. Libby later testified that Cheney approved the leak to the Journal.
    "The Vice President thought we should still try and get the [NIE] out. And so he asked me to talk to the Wall Street Journal. I don't have as good a relationship with the Wall Street Journal as Secretary Wolfowitz did, and so we talked to Secretary Wolfowitz about trying to get that point across [to the Journal], and he undertook to do so," Libby told a federal grand jury.
    Wolfowitz faxed the Wall Street Journal a set of "talking points" about Wilson that the newspaper's editors could use to discredit Wilson in print, according to Libby's testimony. Wolfowitz also gave the newspaper a portion of the NIE.
    The Journal printed Wolfowitz's talking points verbatim in a July 17, 2003, editorial, which misled its readers about the source of the information.
    According to the editorial, "Yellowcake Remix," the Journal said the data the newspaper received about Iraq's interest in uranium "does not come from the White House" (although that is where it originated, albeit laundered through Wolfowitz at the Pentagon).
    Unintended Consequences
    The administration did grudgingly acknowledge that Wilson was right about the substantive point regarding the bogus Niger claims – CIA Director George Tenet stepped forward to take the fall for not better vetting Bush’s State of the Union. But the war against Wilson never abated.
    Indeed, attacking Wilson as a liar and a blowhard became a favorite pastime of Republican loyalists, the right-wing press corps and even more mainstream pro-war outlets, such as the Washington Post’s editorial pages.
    However, the White House whispering about Wilson’s CIA wife had unintended consequences. Believing that the leak of Plame’s identity violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the CIA referred the case to the Justice Department, which began a criminal probe.
    Initially, the probe didn’t seem likely to go very far because it was under the control of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was considered a staunch Bush ally. Plus, leak investigations rarely nail the culprits.

    So, in early fall 2003, President Bush may have felt safe in announcing his determination to get to the bottom of the Plame leak.
    “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”
    Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to arrange for those secrets to be given to reporters.

    In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the scheme to discredit Wilson got started – since he helped start it – the president uttered misleading public statements that obscured the White House role.
    Also, since the leakers knew that Bush already was in the know, they might well have read his comments as a signal to lie, which is what they did. In early October, McClellan said he had been assured by Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams that they were not involved in the Plame leak.
    That comment riled Libby, who feared that he was being hung out to dry. Libby went to his boss, Vice President Cheney, complaining that “they want me to be the sacrificial lamb,” Libby’s lawyer Theodore Wells said later.

    Cheney scribbled down his feelings in a note to press secretary McClellan: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others.”

    In the note, Cheney initially ascribed Libby’s role in going after Wilson to Bush’s orders, but the vice president apparently thought better of it, crossing out “the Pres” and putting the clause in a passive tense.

    Cheney has never explained the meaning of his note publicly, but it suggests that it was Bush who sent Libby out on the get-Wilson mission to limit damage from Wilson’s criticism of Bush’s false Niger-yellowcake claim.

    Another Turn

    The case took another unexpected turn in December 2003 when Ashcroft recused himself and Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was named as a special prosecutor.

    Fitzgerald pursued the investigation with greater vigor, including compelling testimony from journalists including Judith Miller (who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to talk).

    In October 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. The court proceedings eventually put onto the public record evidence that Bush had authorized the selective leaking of the NIE to undermine Wilson in 2003.
    In his book, McClellan said in early 2006 a reporter asked a question about the allegation that Bush cleared Libby to leak the NIE.
    Aboard Air Force One, McClellan wrote that he repeated the question to the president and was stunned by the response.
    A reporter “asserted you authorized the leak of part of the NIE,” McClellan wrote about the conversation with Bush.
    “Yeah, I did,” Bush responded.
    McClellan wrote: “The look on his face said he didn’t want to discuss the matter any further. Nor did I expect him to, since he had already been advised by his personal attorney Jim Sharp not to discuss any details related to the Libby trial.
    “I was shocked to hear the president casually acknowledging its accuracy, as if discussing something no more important than a baseball score or the latest tidbit of inside-the-Beltway gossip.”
    McClellan wondered whether allowing the NIE leak had somehow caused the same officials to divulge Plame’s CIA status.
    “Questions were also raised about whether the president's action had set in motion the unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity,” McClellan wrote.
    Consequences
    The blowing of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity led to the end of her CIA career in late 2005 as well as the apparent destruction of her spy network that had been tracking dangerous weapons in the Middle East.
    When Libby went on trial in early 2007, the Republican campaign against Wilson and his wife reached a crescendo, including false claims by Republican lawyer Victoria Toensing and others that Plame had never been covert in the first place. [For details on this and other misrepresentations, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Time to Apologize to Plame/Wilson” or Neck Deep.]
    On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to 30 months in jail, but his sentence was commuted by President Bush to spare him jail time.

    Now, five years after the Plame-gate affair began, the House Judiciary Committee finally has secured an agreement from a White House insider, former press secretary McClellan, to give congressional testimony about how and why it all happened.

    Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org
    6:19p
    Dire pox fakes
    Firedoglakes reputation capital, such as it is, rests solely on the Plame coverage imo. Yet after several stories at Consortium news and TPM that would normally have sent the Plamologists into a feeding frenzy there is little to report @fdl.
    In fact they appear to have their heads so far up the Vichy democrat Parties Jackass that they're starting to rival Tammany Hall. The once proud attack poodles now stand deballed, debarked and even defanged. Pretty mangy excuses for a cutting-edge website. Similar vertiginous implosions appear to have been sustained at Infoshop and Antiwar. What, did IQ's suddenly drop this year for some reason?

    Maybe the pentagon has a new weapon - the stupid drug
    6:38p
    Crypts or bloods
    What is encryption?
    Cryptography is the field of technologies for hiding information. It tries to hide, encrypt, the information in such a way that a third party who has access to the hidden, encrypted, data cannot reconstruct, decrypt, the original information. In more practical terms, the encryption methods apply a certain routine to information so that it’s no longer recognizable as it’s original. With the right key, that was determined before encrypting the data and the accompanying routine for decrypting the information, the original information can be recovered.
    Cryptography was first pioneered many centuries ago. It was the work of specialists to create encryption routines for the military mainly. Cryptography remained something mainly for the military for quite long. Up until a century ago almost entirely and only in the last 20 to 30 years has it become mainstream. Nowadays it’s being used all around us; in ATM cards, on ecommerce websites, in game consoles, for the distribution of copyrighted music and film and many more applications. This is all possible due to the rise of the computer and readily available gross amounts of computing power. Considering the computing power available nowadays we’re actually encrypting very little and leaving the door right open to a lot of sensitive data.

    Why do we need to encrypt more?
    If you don’t all ready know it, without encryption there is no such thing as privacy. At least not for your data. It’s all 1’s and 0’s but doesn’t take a genius at all to recognize the data it represents if it’s not encrypted when intercepted. And there are literally thousands of ways to intercept data, but I’ll list some common ways.

    * Internet
    is probably the most dangerous place for your data as concerned with privacy. If you don’t use a encrypted connection with the server, pretty much anybody can get their hands on your full communication. People in your local network, your internet provider, the host of the web-site you’re visiting, proxies you’re tunnelled through even if they are transparent and you don’t even notice or know, any carrier of your traffic which can be pretty much any arbitrary person for all you know because routes are chosen dynamically and you have very little to no influence on that and last but not least someone who specifically targets your communication being either a hacker, the government or who knows who.
    * E-mail
    is pretty much the same story as for internet
    * Instant messaging
    is also just as weak as the whole rest of the internet!
    * WiFi
    is a special case all by itself. Special for the fact that it’s extremely dangerous. This is because the information is just put straight into the air for anybody to receive. With the right antenna this can even be from quite far away. Further away than you can be from the access point. Can you imagine what happens if this is unencrypted, or encrypted with some weak encryption such as wep?
    * USB-sticks
    might get stolen or lost. Just plug ‘m in, thanks to plug ‘n play, no problem. The average grandmother can do that. Even encrypted and supposedly safe USB sticks might very well turn out to be very insecure after all.
    * External hard drives
    as you might have figured suffer from pretty much the same issues as USB-sticks except for that less of them are out there who actually try and protect your data.
    * Personal Computers
    get stolen. But a bigger risk might be that other people use them as well. Maybe you don’t fear your husband, wife or maybe even the kids wandering around through your computer, but what about the friends and family who visit your house. Maybe even friends of friends during a party? And did you ever think about the possibility that you might ever become under criminal or tax fraud investigation. You don’t even have to be guilty to be investigated, that’s the ‘beauty’. But then you say, I’ve got my account protected with a password and I’ve made my files private, isn’t that enough? NO! Plain simple NO! All though it will prevent the occasional access to your files it won’t stop the more determent of mind. If they have full access to the hardware, e.g. stolen computer or you’re under investigation, then it’s very easy, but even with limited access it’s possible. Some years ago at a institution we were able to retrieve a very sophisticated password from a machine with a padlock on the case, the HDD as only boot device and bios password set. And then there still is the malware that endangers your data.
    * Laptops
    are the same as PC’s except for that they are stolen much easier, more often, get in the range of different people more easily and that customs have the right to search them if you travel abroad.

    Encrypting more, doesn’t that sound like a wise decision?
    10:58p
    Permanent campaign
    '...Following the manic preaching of Ayman Zawahiri from his far-off cave, it’s hard not to think of Leon Trotsky. It’s not just the beard and the granny glasses, or the feverish fantasies about the imminent collapse of his enemies and the “betrayals” by those in his own camp.
    Trotsky, with his insistence on ideologically pure “world revolution” in contrast to the more nationally based communism adopted by Joseph Stalin, found himself holed up in Mexico City by the 1930s, frenetically firing off communiqués inconsequential to the actual unfolding of events. He had become irrelevant.

    Like Trotsky, Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have become irrelevant to the unfolding of events in the Middle East, even at a moment when US hegemony faces an unprecedented nationalist-Islamist challenge throughout the region. (That may be the reason Zawahiri reserves so much bile for the likes of Hamas, Hizbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood over their participation in democratic elections, and their willingness to consider truces with their enemies. Vintage Trotsky.) FROM

    http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080614/OPINION/287858162/1080&template=opinion

    Al Quim is obviously in trouble when they start comparing you to a loser like Trotsky. I hope they can get back to what they do best. Blowing up large buildings in the Last Empire.
    11:12p
    Fraud more years
    Empire or Republic?
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080614_empire_or_republic/
    Posted on Jun 14, 2008
    By Robert Scheer
    This piece is excerpted from Robert Scheer’s latest book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America,” and was originally posted on The Nation.
    War doesn’t pay, nor does imperial ambition. This proposition should be evident to anyone who has paid attention to the fivefold increase in the price of oil since George W. Bush took office. The principle of nonintervention is neither liberal nor conservative in orientation, and at the inception of the Republic it was accepted as a commonsense.
    The dominant assumption of our nation’s founders was to avoid “foreign entanglements,” to use Thomas Jefferson’s words of warning. Indeed, the policy of nonintervention was considered by the founders as a basic demarcation between the politics of the Old and New Worlds. Explaining in his farewell address why he, as our first President, followed “our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world,” George Washington cautioned his countrymen to “moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

    What has happened to the American people that these modest yet profound sentiments seem so foreign to the tongues of our politicians and the ears of their constituents? Who among our top leaders, Democrat or Republican, dares warn against the “impostures of pretended patriotism”?

    As Washington warned, it is extremely difficult to unmask “pretended patriotism” when the nation is frightened by enemies real and imagined. But Washington could not have anticipated the sort of mass media society in which government propaganda becomes compelling and inconvenient truths are concealed behind the veil of national security. He certainly did not anticipate the modern militarized state, in which a permanent war footing has been the norm since the onset of the cold war.

    For these reasons, Washington’s concerns needed the updating provided by our other great general turned President, Dwight David Eisenhower. Ike’s farewell address provides a perfect bookend to Washington’s, for it marks a modern President’s recognition that the fears of our first President had been realized. The Empire had come to replace the Republic. The “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned against was merely the logical extension of a stark policy of American intervention into the affairs of nations on every continent and the imperial reach of forward military bases throughout the world. What alarmed Eisenhower most was that the system that had grown up to counter communism (something he saw as a real threat) was self-perpetuating and disconnected from the defensive tasks at hand. Eisenhower predicted exactly what has come to pass. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it the rationale for the cold war, the military-industrial complex soon found another enemy: terrorism.

    The disconnect between the arsenal of the terrorist enemy and that arrayed against it in the post-9/11 years affirms Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex’s “unwarranted influence.” One wonders how lobbyists and politicians maintain a straight face as they argue, as Senator Joe Lieberman has, for $2.5 billion submarines to fight terrorists who lack even a dinghy. I don’t doubt that the lobbyists will continue to make their case and that the money spent toward that end will secure political and pundit support, but the gambit is wearing thin. So too is the effort to manufacture crises with “rogue nations” and to exaggerate the cohesion and power of the “terrorist” enemy.

    The U.S. military budget is roughly equal to those of all other nations combined, and it is inconceivable that any hostile state could emerge in the next twenty years to match the United States in a combat zone, even if no new weapons are added to the U.S. arsenal. Indeed, our major rivals, China and Russia, are moving deeper into the fray of commercial markets rather than the theater of war games.

    The benefits of a substantial cut in military spending would be dramatic, freeing government funds for other purposes, including health and education programs that would make the nation stronger. Neither party wants to raise taxes, and as a result, existing and new programs must compete for a fixed pool of tax dollars. Government funds are further limited because mandatory expenditures, like Social Security and Medicare, will not be cut, for fear of voter resentment. For these reasons, the full range of nonmandated programs, from farm subsidies to children’s health insurance to medical research, are competing with the military budget.

    Therefore, after mandated programs are funded, the military consumes roughly six out of ten dollars. As a consequence, increases in domestic spending must be funded by cutbacks in military spending. That is the most honest way to judge the opportunity cost of the military dollar, as in, two unneeded submarines versus health insurance for 4 million kids.

    There is, however, a greater cost to having a huge permanent military: the vitality of our democracy. As we saw in the run-up to the Iraq War, the fearmongers who seek an expanded military are not above using their enormous lobbying power to influence the debate. The public will not support the military unless it feels its activities are connected with a real threat, so the military and its suppliers and other allies have to exaggerate that threat. Such is the risk of “the total influence--economic, political, even spiritual” of the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned is “felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the federal government.” It is a built-in and well-financed constituency that stresses the military option over the diplomatic one, that exaggerates the strength of the enemy rather than realistically appraises it and that desperately finds new wars to be fought.
    What is going on in our name is irrational, costly and dangerous, but there are powerful vested interests that want to keep it that way. Those interests remain so strong that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has called for cutting a military budget that is the largest since World War II. But without such cuts all the campaign promises about funding domestic programs, from education to healthcare, are an obvious fraud.
    END
    Yes - we must guard against corrupt excessive powers sought or unsought by the military-entertainment complex by randomly selecting leading figures in it for either character or physical assassination. Or both.
    11:54p
    Projecting the Trojan
    Harming the Warthland

    The 1999 RAND Corp. report entitled “Countering the New Terrorism” by Ian O. Lesser, Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt and Michele Zanini is a fascinating short (174-page) review of asymmetric warfare (the application of inexpensive, relatively easy tools and methods against sophisticated targets). Chapter Three on “Networks, Netwar, and Information-Age Terrorism” will be particularly interesting to readers of this column.
    That same year, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) issued its report GAO/T-AIMD-00-7, “Critical Infrastructure Protection: Fundamental Improvements Needed to Assure Security of Federal Operations”. FROM

    http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/2008/061608sec1.html

    << Previous Day 2008/06/17
    [Calendar]
    Next Day >>

About Blurty.com