I Heart Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter calls Cheney a "disaster" for U.S

Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:42pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy.

Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said.

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."

Asked to comment on Carter's remarks, Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Republican vice president, said, "We're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric."

Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981 and won the 2002 Nobel Peace prize for his charitable work, is a strong critic of the Iraq war and has often been outspoken in his criticism of President George W. Bush.

In a newspaper interview in May, Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in international relations.

Carter did have kind words in the BBC interview for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush," Carter said, referring to Rice's former role as White House national security adviser.

"Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails," Carter added.

Hawai'i Forever

Having just returned from Maui, I'm feeling especially homesick for the Islands. When I'm there, I feel like I should be apologizing for what the white man (and other colors of men) have done to the place. Although I try to put the burdens of civilization aside, I'm sure I could read it on the faces of the locals as I cruised around in my convertible rental car. I couldn't help but to feel looks of disdain aimed at my bleached blond hair and red, sunburned face. Maybe it's just me...but I doubt it. I wanted to shout at them all: "I'm one of the good guys!" But I'm a little lost and have no idea who I am really.

Here's one good guy who passed on in 1997, way before his time at 38 years old. (A strange expression, I suppose it was exactly his time.) Israel Kamakawiwo'ole (Braddah Iz) left a legacy of music that celebrates the Islands, the Aloha Spirit and calls for restoring the Islands to their rightful owners: reinstating the Hawaiian Nation.

This song, "Hawai'i '78", from his 1993 album, "Facing Future" asks "What if those who fought for the land could see it now?"

Hawai'i '78

Ua mau ke ea o ka `âina i ka pono `o Hawai'i
Ua mau ke ea o ka `âina i ka pono `o Hawai'i
(Being perpetuated is the sovereignty of the land to righteousness, to balance: Hawai`i

If just for a day our king and queen
Would visit all these islands and saw everything
How would they feel about the changes of our land
Could you just imagine if they were around
And saw highways on their sacred grounds
How would they feel about this modern city life?

Tears would come from each other's eyes
As they would stop to realize
That our people are in great, great danger now
How would they feel?
Would their smiles be content, then cry

Chorus:
Cry for the gods, cry for the people
Cry for the land that was taken away
And then yet you'll find, Hawai'i.

Could you just imagine they came back
And saw traffic lights and railroad tracks
How would they feel about this modern city life
Tears would come from each other's eyes
As they would stop to realize
That our land is in great, great danger now.

All the fighting that the King has done
To conquer all these islands, now these condominiums
How would he feel if he saw Hawai'i nei?
How would he feel? Would his smile be content, then cry?

(E hana hou i ka hui)

Ua mau ke ea o ka `âina i ka pono `o Hawai'i

David, The First Rule Of Lying Is: NEVER BLINK!

Petraeus & Crocker get their stories straight.

General Dave says things are improving in Iraq. He's been saying that for 4 years already and one has to wonder if he's completely lost touch with reality in addition to being just another pro-war stooge for the Bush Administration. Watching him on C-SPAN, I could almost see it in his mind: "We can't leave now if we're going to attack Iran next."

Watch a video documenting Petraeus's 4 years of optimism about the status of Iraq here at firedoglake.com.

ThinkProgress.org made a handy chart which shows Petraeus's heavy-handy hawking for the surge through more than half of August.

These Washington Post articles give an altogether different persepctive, that of the Iraqi people. "According to a new poll based on face-to-face interviews between Aug 17th and 24th, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqi adults, and conducted by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK, 7 in 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas and nearly half want coalition forces to leave immediately.

Poll numbers show that ordinary Iraqis are significantly more likely to say "things are going badly" than in the early days of the increased U.S. military presence in March."

"The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends."

So, who do we believe? The 2 Stooges of the Bush Administration or 2000 Iraqis, who are, inconceivably, STILL fearing for their lives and living without clean water or dependable electric service?

Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act (Again)

Thankfully, reason still prevails in some part of our government.

"A federal judge struck down a key part of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday in a ruling that defended the need for judicial oversight of laws and bashed Congress for passing a law that makes possible "far-reaching invasions of liberty."

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, allowing the government time to appeal. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We are reviewing the decision and considering our options at this time."

The ruling handed the American Civil Liberties Union a major victory in its challenge of the post-Sept. 11 law that gave broader investigative powers to law enforcement.

The ACLU had challenged the law on behalf of an Internet service provider, complaining that the law allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court supervision required for other government searches. Under the law, investigators can issue so-called national security letters to entities like Internet service providers and phone companies and demand customers' phone and Internet records.

In his ruling, Marrero said much more was at stake than questions about the national security letters.

He said Congress, in the original USA Patriot Act and less so in a 2005 revision, had essentially tried to legislate how the judiciary must review challenges to the law. If done to other bills, they ultimately could all "be styled to make the validation of the law foolproof."

Noting that the courthouse where he resides is several blocks from the fallen World Trade Center, the judge said the Constitution was designed so that the dangers of any given moment could never justify discarding fundamental individual liberties.

He said when "the judiciary lowers its guard on the Constitution, it opens the door to far-reaching invasions of liberty."

Regarding the national security letters, he said, Congress crossed its boundaries so dramatically that to let the law stand might turn an innocent legislative step into "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

He said the ruling does not mean the FBI must obtain the approval of a court prior to ordering records be turned over, but rather must justify to a court the need for secrecy if the orders will last longer than a reasonable and brief period of time.

A March government report showed that the FBI issued about 8,500 national security letter, or NSL, requests in 2000, the year prior to passage of the USA Patriot Act. By 2003, the number of requests had risen to 39,000 and to 56,000 in 2004 before falling to 47,000 in 2005. The overwhelming majority of the requests sought telephone billing records information, telephone or e-mail subscriber information or electronic communication transactional records.

The judge said that through the NSLs, the government can unmask the identity of Internet users engaged in anonymous speech in online discussions, can obtain an itemized list of all e-mails sent and received by someone and can then seek information on those communicating with the individual.

"It may even be able to discover the web sites an individual has visited and queries submitted to search engines," the judge said.

Marrero's lengthy judicial opinion, akin to an eighth-grade civics lesson, described why the framers of the Constitution created three separate but equal branches of government and delegated to the judiciary to say what the law is and to protect the Constitution and the rights it gives citizens.

Marrero said the constitutional barriers against governmental abuse "may eventually collapse, with consequential diminution of the judiciary's function, and hence potential dire effects to individual freedoms."

In that event, he said, the judiciary could become "a mere mouthpiece of the legislature."

Marrero had ruled in 2004, on the initial version of the Patriot Act, that the letters violate the Constitution because they amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. He found free-speech violations in the nondisclosure requirement, which for example, disallowed an Internet service provider from telling customers their records were being turned over to the government.

After he ruled, Congress revised the Patriot Act in 2005, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed that Marrero review the law's constitutionality a second time."

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 7, 2:15 AM ET

Kucinich For President

US Democratic hopeful Kucinich meets Assad, blasts Bush

US Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, on a Mideast visit that included a stop in Syria, said the country lambasted by the Bush Administration deserves credit for taking in more than a million Iraqi refugees.

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

He also praised Syria for taking in Iraqi refugees.

"What most people are not aware of is that Syria has taken in more than 1.5 million Iraqi refugees," Kucinich said. "The Syrian government has actually shown a lot of compassion in keeping its doors open, and being a host for so many refugees."

Kucinich said he would ask UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to follow up on the "dire conditions" in southern Lebanon, especially Israeli cluster bombs leftover from the war that have killed more than 30 and injured at least 200 since the fighting's end.

"There has to be a commitment to cleaning up these cluster bombs," Kucinich said.

Cheney In '94: Invading Iraq Would Create Quagmire

If anyone still needed proof that what's happening in Iraq today has NOT taken the Neocons in the Bush Administration by surprise, watch this video of Cheney speaking about the issue of invading Baghdad in 1994.

This shows that they knew what would happen, which certainly strengthens the argument that they planned this fiasco. Why? Reports about Peak Oil. The idea of gaining control of Iraq's oil reserves. Strengthening control in the region, and in the global economy.

So, how many dead Americans is that worth? A lot, say the Neocons. I don't agree. I think a better solution would be to loosen the grip on our balls that the oil industry has, go green, and try planning for a lasting civilization instead of Armageddon.

Here's a great post from March 2006 called "The End of Civilization" by Dave Eriqat at CounterCurrents.org. It speaks to the Bush Administration's preparations for Armageddon.

Some say ignorance is bliss. But if you don't, then look at these issues more closely. Write to your representatives in congress and tell them what you think of the direction they're taking us.

Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP

I love that Hillary said this. Although Senator Dodd thinks it's "tasteless", I think it's true. I believe that 9/11 was (at the very least) "allowed to happen" and so with that in mind, it seems likely that there will be another such attack, especially if the Republicans are nervous about getting votes in NOV 2008. Of course, if you also believe (as I do) that the elections are being manipulated with the help of Diebold's electronic voting machines, then we don't really need another 9/11.

"She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.

A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark. "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

By Alexander Mooney, CNN Washington Bureau

updated 5:34 p.m. EDT, Fri August 24, 2007

Separation of Oil & State

OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL "campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. Oil companies and their employees donated over $25 million to candidates in the US during the 2004 campaign, and they've already invested over $13 million in the 2006 elections. The next step to ending our collective addiction to oil is reducing oil's influence over our representatives and demanding political independence from Big Oil."

"It’s time to ensure that our representatives represent us, not the oil companies."

PriceOfOil.org speaks to you if you're tired of big oil running the show. It offers several ways to take action by raising your voice to congress.

Separate Oil & State

Separation of Oil & State is a campaign to get oil money out of politics. It's important that we demand that our representatives stand up for the future of energy, not for the dinosaurs of the oil industry. Type in your zip code an Oil Change International to find out how much oil and gas money your reps are taking and then send an email to them. My senators are representatives are below.

How much oil donation money have your congressional representatives received? Mine are below.

Sen. Bill Nelson- FL
This representative has taken $124,855 from the oil and gas industry since 1990.

In 2006, they received at least $72,700.
In 2004, they received $9,250.
In 2000, they received $11,250.

Sen. Mel Martinez- FL
This representative has taken $138,847 from the oil and gas industry since 1990.

In 2006, they received at least $3,500.
In 2004 they received $135,347. (Wow, that's a lot.)
In 2000, they received $0.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL- 20FL
This representative has taken $4,000 from the oil and gas industry since 1990.

In 2006, they received $0.
In 2004 they received $4,000.
In 2000, they received $0.

Iraq Today

More Than 50 Iraqis Are Dead in Northern Attacks
The deadliest strike blasted a police station in a residential area in Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, according to police and hospital officials.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information, said 25 policemen and 20 civilians were killed. The officials also said 57 civilians and 23 officers were wounded.

Jassim Saleh, 41, who lives about 500 yards from the blast site, said he saw an explosives-laden truck carrying stones ram the police station. But other reports described it as a fuel tanker.

"It was a horrible scene. I can't describe it," he said. "The bodies were scattered everywhere. I was injured in my hand and a leg, but I took three wounded people to the hospital in my car."

14 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Helicopter Crash
Fourteen U.S. soldiers were killed Wednesday when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a nighttime mission in northern Iraq, but the military said it appeared the aircraft was lost by mechanical problems and not from hostile fire.

It was the Pentagon's worst single-day death toll in Iraq since January and indicated how forces are relying heavily on air power in offensives across northern regions after rooting out many militant strongholds in Baghdad and central regions.

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

Iraq PM Bristles as Tensions Grow With U.S.
BAGHDAD/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki reacted sharply on Wednesday to U.S. criticism of his government's slow progress toward reconciliation, and U.S. President George W. Bush, after earlier lukewarm comments, restated his support for Maliki.

U.S. officials voiced increasing frustration this week with Maliki's failure to advance political reform despite an increase in the number of U.S. troops to give breathing room to his fractured Shi'ite-led coalition.

Armored vehicles slow to reach US troops
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon will fall far short of its goal of sending 3,500 lifesaving armored vehicles to Iraq by the end of the year. Instead, officials expect to send about 1,500.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that while defense officials still believe contractors will build about 3,900 of the mine-resistant, armor-protected vehicles by year's end, it will take longer for the military to fully equip them and ship them to Iraq.

Yahoo's Iraq page

Iraq Veterans Photographed by Nina Berman

Sgt. Joseph Mosner, 35, bears facial scarring from a bomb explosion. Photo: Nina Berman/Jen Bekman Gallery

Words Unspoken Are Rendered on War’s Faces
By HOLLAND COTTER
Published: August 22, 2007

One of the more shocking photographs to emerge from the current Iraq war was taken last year in a rural farm town in the American Midwest. It’s a studio portrait by the New York photographer Nina Berman of a young Illinois couple on their wedding day.

The bride, Renee Kline, 21, is dressed in a traditional white gown and holds a bouquet of scarlet flowers. The groom, Ty Ziegel, 24, a former Marine sergeant, wears his dress uniform, decorated with combat medals, including a Purple Heart. Her expression is unsmiling, maybe grave. His, as he looks toward her, is hard to read: his dead-white face is all but featureless, with no nose and no chin, as blank as a pullover mask.

Two years earlier, while in Iraq as a Marine Corps reservist, Mr. Ziegel had been trapped in a burning truck after a suicide bomber’s attack. The heat melted the flesh from his face. At Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas he underwent 19 rounds of surgery. His shattered skull was replaced by a plastic dome, and a face was constructed more or less from scratch with salvaged tissue, holes left where his ears and nose had been.

Ms. Berman took this picture, which is in the solo show at Jen Bekman Gallery, on assignment for People magazine. It was meant to accompany an article that documented Mr. Ziegel’s recovery, culminating in his marriage to his childhood sweetheart. But the published portrait was a convivial shot of the whole wedding party. Maybe the image of the couple alone was judged to be too stark, the emotional interchange too ambiguous. Maybe they looked, separately and together, too alone.

“Marine Wedding,” the portrait’s title, was not Ms. Berman’s first encounter with wounded Iraq war veterans. She photographed several others beginning in 2003, and 20 of her portraits were published as a book, “Purple Hearts: Back From Iraq” (Trolley Books, 2004), with an introduction by Verlyn Klinkenborg, a member of the editorial board of The New York Times. These pictures, accompanied by printed interviews with the sitters, have been traveling the country, and 10 are now at Bekman.

None are as startling as “Marine Wedding,” even when the disability recorded is more extensive. Former Spc. Luis Calderon, 22, of Puerto Rico, had his spinal cord severed when a concrete wall he was ordered to pull down — it was painted with a mural of Saddam Hussein — fell on him. He is now a quadriplegic, though this is not immediately evident from his portrait. Nor can we see from the photograph of Spc. Sam Ross, 20, of Pennsylvania, that he lost a leg in a bomb blast, which also caused permanent brain damage.

Almost all the veterans in Ms. Berman’s pictures look isolated, even if someone else is present. And a sense of loneliness comes through in their brief interviews. Mr. Ross, separated from his family, lives by himself in a trailer. Mr. Calderon, who waited months for veterans’ benefits, says he feels abandoned by the military; because he was not wounded in combat, he has not been awarded a Purple Heart.

Spc. Robert Acosta, 20, a Californian who lost a hand in a grenade attack, says he is psychologically unable to resume his former social life: “I don’t like dealing with the questions. Like, ‘Was it hot?’ ‘Did you shoot anybody?’ They want me to glorify the war and say it was so cool.”





Spc. Robert Acosta, 20, lost his hand and use of his leg in an ambush outside Baghdad. Photo: Nina Berman/Jen Bekman Gallery

Mr. Acosta’s interview has the only overt anti-war sentiment in the Bekman show, and there are few words of bitterness or recrimination. Mr. Ross calls combat in Iraq the best time of his life. Randall Clunen of Ohio remembers the excitement of search missions in Iraqi homes as a peak experience. Sgt. Joseph Mosner, at 35 the oldest in this group, was 19 when he enlisted. “There was no good jobs,” he said, “so I figured this would have been a good thing.” He still thinks so, despite his severe facial scarring from a bomb explosion.

Sgt. Jeremy Feldbusch, left brain-damaged and blind by an artillery attack, once had plans for medical school. but says: “I don’t have any regrets. I had some fun over there. I don’t want to talk about the military anymore.” He claims, as do others, that he has no political opinions.

Ms. Berman adds no direct editorial comment to the presentation. She has said in interviews that she started photographing disabled veterans soon after the war began mainly because she didn’t see anyone else doing so. In what may be the most intensively photographed war in history, the visual documentation has been selective. The fate of the injured veterans was not a public issue until news reports about substandard treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

This background provides the context for Ms. Berman’s photographs, which are themselves tip-of-the-iceberg images. No matter what the viewer’s political position, the images add up to a complex and desolating anti-war statement. Mr. Acosta makes that statement outright: “Yeah, I got a Purple Heart. I don’t care. I don’t need anything to prove I was there. I know I was there. I got a constant reminder. I mean like all the reasons we went to war, it just seems like they’re not legit enough for people to lose their lives for and for me to lose my hand and use of my legs and for my buddies to lose their limbs.”

And “Marine Wedding” speaks, as powerfully as a picture can, for itself.

“Nina Berman: Purple Hearts” continues through Aug. 30 at Jen Bekman Gallery, 6 Spring Street, between the Bowery and Elizabeth Street; (212) 219-0166, jenbekman.com





A detail from a studio portrait of a young Illinois couple on their wedding day, titled, "Marine Wedding." Photo: Nina Berman/Jen Bekman Gallery

He Can't See the Forest for the...oh...never mind...

Looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, in spite of the black lens caps.

Keeping in step with the Bush Administration's "Fox in the Hen House" approach to filling key positions, our nation's top forestry official, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, is a former timber industry lobbyist. Also keeping in step with much of the Bush Administration staff, Rey has a date with a judge.

Judge: Bush Official Faces Contempt
By Jeff Barnard
The Associated Press

Tuesday 21 August 2007

Grants Pass, Oregon - A federal judge in Montana has ordered the Bush administration's top forestry official to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court for the U.S. Forest Service's failure to analyze the environmental impact of dropping fish-killing fire retardant on wildfires.

If found in contempt, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, could go to jail until the Forest Service complies with the court order to do the environmental review.

Noting that Rey had blocked implementation of an earlier review, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Malloy in Missoula, Mont., ordered Rey to appear in his court Oct. 15 unless the Forest Service completes the analysis before that time.

Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh said the agency was working on the analysis, but he could not say whether they would meet the new deadline, because it was two months away. Rey did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, an environmental group based in Eugene, filed the lawsuit in 2003, a year after more than 20,000 fish were killed when toxic retardant was dropped in Fall Creek in central Oregon.

In 2005, Malloy ruled that the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to go through a public process to analyze the potential environmental harm of using ammonium phosphate, a fertilizer that kills fish, as the primary ingredient in fire retardant dropped on wildfires.

In February 2006, the judge gave the Forest Service until Aug. 8 this year to comply, noting that if they needed more time, they were to contact the plaintiffs well in advance, and not come to him just before the deadline. The request for an extension was filed on the final day.

"It seems as if the government is playing a not too funny game, betting that the court will be forced to grant the additional time and hoping the irony of the timing will be overlooked," the judge wrote.

Andy Stahl, the group's executive director, said it asked the judge to specifically hold Rey responsible. A former timber industry lobbyist, Rey has been reshaping Forest Service policies to make it easier to log on national forests.

"I'm sure this order has got the government's attention," said Stahl. "I think they have to take a hard look at their 100-year war against wildfire and explore alternatives that will allow us to live with fire, and that is what they don't want us to do."

Stahl said the Forest Service appears to be immune legally from fines, but not from jail time to pressure them to complete the environmental review.

"You can throw them in jail to coerce future good behavior," Stahl said.

Close The Door On AIPAC Already

September 2004 Poll: Should AIPAC Register as the Agent of a Foreign Government?
The Question: A tax-exempt organization that lobbies Congress on behalf of Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (also known as AIPAC), has been under investigation by the FBI for allegedly receiving classified information from a Pentagon official and using this information on behalf of the government of Israel. In view of this investigation, do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that AIPAC should be asked to register as an agent of a foreign government and lose its tax-exempt status?
Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,004 likely voters from 9/8/04 through 9/9/04.

August 2005 Indictment
Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen are accused of passing U.S. national security information to a foreign government agent (Israel)

June 2007 Trial Delayed Again
The federal case, which is being handled by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, was supposed to go to trial on June 4, 2007 but was postponed until the fall, the latest of several delays.

Is It Time to Rein in AIPAC?
©2007 William Hughes
August 15th

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “AIPAC,” is the nine ton elephant in the room! It is the ultra-engine that drives the Israel Lobby. After the Walt/Mearsheimer Report came out in March, 2006, its cover was blown. Now, Grant F. Smith’s latest book, Foreign Agents: AIPAC From The 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal is hitting the streets. It is a searing indictment of AIPAC in the Court of Public Opinion and should be read by every American who cares about the fate of the Republic.

Foreign Agents reveals the controversial history of the influential lobbying organization. It comes on the heels of Smith's insightful tome, Deadly Dogma, an exposé of the Neocons, where he evidenced their lethal "Clean Break" scheme to destabilize Iraq. In this new book, Foreign Agents, Mr. Smith argues that AIPAC, a corporation, should be required to register as a foreign agent for Israel. He accuses it of morphing into a “secretive political intelligence-gathering and covert operations powerhouse...and Israeli-controlled entity in America.” Naturally, AIPAC disagrees with him.

Read William Hughes' entire review of Grant F. Smith's Foreign Agents here.

Crimes and Felonies: The AIPAC Spy Story
Felony Indictments. The End of AIPAC? The indictment of Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen is potentially the story of how AIPAC will fall. Rosen was not a mere employee, but widely believed to be the man who built AIPAC into the $60 million powerhouse it is today. The greatest fear among AIPAC supporters is that convictions could lead to the requiring AIPAC to register as foreign agents. AIPAC closely coordinates policy with the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC and the Israeli government, making it an agent of a foreign government. AIPAC should not be allowed to keep its 501(c)(3) tax-deductible charitable status, but should be required to register as a lobbyist for a foreign agent. This would greatly cripple its role in US politics.

José Padilla: The Bush Admin's Poster Child of Terrorism

I first heard about José Padilla's case when I read How Would A Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald uses Padilla as one example of the Bush Administration's illegal detaining of American citizens in the War On Terror.

Arrested in April 2002, Padilla was named "The Dirty Bomber" and declared an "enemy combatant" by George Bush and held for 3 1/2 years before charges were ever brought against him.

On Thursday, over 5 years after he was originally detained, a federal jury in Miami unanimously found José Padilla guilty of "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas."

According to Greenwald, "That Padilla was finally tried in a court of law is hardly a cause of celebration. The only reason why, after almost four years, the administration finally charged Padilla with crimes was because it wanted to avoid a looming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges.

By finally indicting him, the administration was able to argue, successfully, that the Court should refuse to rule on that question on the ground that the claims were now "moot" by virtue of the indictment. As a result, a ruling by a very right-wing appellate panel in the Fourth Circuit, which held that the President does have these imprisonment powers, still remains valid law, and the administration still claims the authority to imprison U.S. citizens with no charges. "

So, bad news there. I'm worried about use of Presidential Authority to imprison US citizens without even charging them with a crime. And so I'm holding out for the hope that Padilla's conviction will be appealed, the Bush Administration's illegal behavior will be reexamined, and the Fourth Circuit appellate panel's ruling will be reversed. Although there is the question of whether Padilla is more fall guy than terrorist, I'm focusing on the Bush Administration's abuse of power and total ineptitude, as opposed to Padilla's complicity. Because, in theory, it could be any one of us in his shoes.

Regardless of whether Padilla does or does not belong behind bars for being a terrorist, the Bush Administration gathered intelligence on him illegally, detained him illegally, planned to put him away forever and ended up sabotaged by their own disregard for the law in building a case against him. And all the while, it couldn't produce enough evidence to convict him of more than "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas", which will likely be appealed. What happened to "The Dirty Bomber"? How did we go from blowing up Chicago with a radiological bomb to a disgruntled gangbanger who allegedly attended a "Death to America" training camp? Allegedly. They found his fingerprints on an application? That's all the evidence they have on this dangerous criminal mastermind? Are you kidding me? And there are how many more of these cases waiting in the wings at Guantanamo Bay?

This is a big problem. I would like the Bush Administration to stop using the War on Terror as an excuse to bypass the Bill of Rights. Padilla's case is a perfect example of why this should never happen. I maintain that our government should not have the power to detain us illegally or spy on us. If you agree, then speak up to your representatives. Our congress still doesn't get it. For example, on August 5, President Bush signed S.1927, a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill gives more authority to the National Security Agency and other agencies to monitor emails, phone calls, and other communications that are part of a foreign intelligence investigation.

We're going in circles, spiraling toward a police state under the cover of security while practicing ineptitude and forgoing the country's basic premises.

Back to Padilla, here's a history and some thoughts by David Cole, The Nation's legal affairs correspondent and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The Real Lesson of the Padilla Conviction
posted August 18, 2007

José Padilla's conviction by a federal jury in Miami has already become something of a Rorschach test. Critics of the Bush Administration have argued that the conviction proves that the ordinary criminal justice system works for trying terrorists, and that therefore President Bush did not need to assert the truly extraordinary power of detaining an American citizen arrested on US soil in military custody for more than three years. Meanwhile, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has hailed the conviction as "a significant victory in our efforts to fight the threat posed by terrorists and their supporters."

Both sides are wrong. In fact, Padilla's criminal conviction was a stroke of luck for the Administration. It took a huge gamble in his case, trying him on very weak evidence in the hope of avoiding a Supreme Court test of the President's asserted power to hold American citizens arrested here as "enemy combatants." For the moment, the bet has paid off--at least until an appeal overturns it. But do we really want the Administration gambling on our national security?

The gamble began in 2002, when the Administration took Padilla, arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, into military custody, denied him access to a lawyer and interrogated him for extended periods of time under circumstances that would render anything they learned from him unusable in a trial against him. It continued the gamble when it "disappeared" high-level Al Qaeda suspects into CIA secret prisons, or "black sites," where it subjected them to waterboarding and worse in an effort to coerce information from them. There, too, the Administration allegedly gained intelligence about Padilla--but that information will also never be admissible in a court of law because of the brutal way in which it was obtained.

The short-term decisions to gather information in illegal ways made it impossible to bring Padilla to trial on the Administration's press conference charges that he was pursuing plans to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb," or, somewhat less dramatically, to explode an apartment building by leaving the gas on and setting it afire. Instead, it was relegated to trying him in Miami as part of a hazy conspiracy that involved no plans to commit any specific terrorist or violent act.

The charges in Miami were that Padilla had attended a terrorist training camp sometime before 9/11. Vast stretches of the three-month trial concerned a conspiracy of two other men to provide support to jihadist fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. Of 3,000 tape-recorded phone calls introduced into evidence, only two concerned Padilla. The main piece of evidence against Padilla was a "mujahadin data form" that appeared to place him at a terrorist training camp--but prosecutors never offered any evidence that Padilla had used that training to further terrorist activity.

In the end, the prosecution succeeded, as the jury found Padilla guilty of attending the training camp and of one count of conspiracy to maim, murder or kidnap overseas. But given how weak the evidence was, the case could easily have come out the other way--and may not withstand appeal.

If what the Administration says about Padilla is true, this should not have been a close case. But because the Administration obtained its evidence against him through unconstitutional means, it was never able to tell the jury what it really thinks Padilla was up to--planning serious terrorist attacks within the United States, not just training abroad and seeking to support Muslims in Chechnya.

And Padilla is only the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of people at Guantánamo whom the government accuses of much more serious crimes, including the masterminding of 9/11 itself. Those men may never be tried at all, because of the way the Bush Administration chose to treat them and their fellow suspects.

Our national security should not rest on a wager that we can convict terrorists on weak charges that do not even speak of their most serious crimes. Had it chosen to follow the rule of law at the outset, the Bush Administration could have brought many real terrorists to justice by now. Instead, it is left to declare a major victory when it manages to convict a marginal player for crimes that do not even come close to those the Administration claims he actually committed.

Thanks For The Memories, Suckers!

Karl Rove is credited for winning 4 elections for George Bush, and is hailed as the brain of the White House. But what did he really do? "Bush's Brain" manipulated public opinion and exploited his base, giving fundamentalist religious extremism a voice in the process. The country became more divided than ever- more volatile, more scared. Under his advice, the standard for leadership in 21st century America started low and quickly became a joke. Now, after tearing the country apart and leaving it for dead, he's finally joining the long list of Bush staffers who've jumped ship. Mission accomplished!

Here's a hot editorial by Bill Moyers from his August 17th program on the subject of Karl Rove's timely departure from the White House.

"...What struck me about my fellow Texan, Karl Rove, is that he knew how to win elections as if they were divine interventions. You may think God summoned Billy Graham to Florida on the eve of the 2000 election to endorse George W. Bush just in the nick of time, but if it did happen that way, the good lord was speaking in a Texas accent.

Karl Rove figured out a long time ago that the way to take an intellectually incurious draft-averse naughty playboy in a flight jacket with chewing tobacco in his back pocket and make him governor of Texas, was to sell him as God's anointed in a state where preachers and televangelists outnumber even oil derricks and jack rabbits. Using church pews as precincts Rove turned religion into a weapon of political combat -- a battering ram, aimed at the devil's minions, especially at gay people.

It's so easy, as Karl knew, to scapegoat people you outnumber, and if God is love, as rumor has it, Rove knew that, in politics, you better bet on fear and loathing. Never mind that in stroking the basest bigotry of true believers you coarsen both politics and religion.

At the same time he was recruiting an army of the lord for the born-again Bush, Rove was also shaking down corporations for campaign cash. Crony capitalism became a biblical injunction. Greed and God won four elections in a row - twice in the lone star state and twice again in the nation at large. But the result has been to leave Texas under the thumb of big money with huge holes ripped in its social contract, and the U.S. government in shambles - paralyzed, polarized, and mired in war, debt and corruption.

Rove himself is deeply enmeshed in some of the scandals being investigated as we speak, including those missing emails that could tell us who turned the attorney general of the United States into a partisan sock puppet. Rove is riding out of Dodge city as the posse rides in. At his press conference this week he asked God to bless the president and the country, even as reports were circulating that he himself had confessed to friends his own agnosticism; he wished he could believe, but he cannot. That kind of intellectual honesty is to be admired, but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator. On his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them was a hail mary pass, while telling himself there's no one there to catch it."

Evidence Against Jose Padilla: "Very Light On Facts"

This post by Lewis Koch at FireDogLake.com illustrates the absurdity of the evidence presented in the case against Jose Padilla.

By Lewis Z. Koch with Christopher Austin
Posted August 1, 2007





Federal prosecutors have based all of their evidence against Jose Padilla on one document with his signature and his fingerprints. Message to each juror being, “We are from the Justice Department – would we lie to you?”

In the 10 weeks that this conspiracy trial has taken place, where Padilla, Hassoun and Kifah are charged with conspiracy to murder, kidnap or maim people outside the United States, there have been some remarkably creative plays on many vague words, innocuous syllables, virtuous letters, said to reform in crafty variances of pure evil. You – ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the press, the citizens tuning in at home or abroad – are supposed to be convinced of their guilt based on intuition, guesswork.

You – we – are supposed to believe that phrases and words like “playing football”, “eating cheese” and paying $3,500 for “zucchini”, were code for nefarious, illegally evil terrorist deeds and actions for which these three should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Indeed, there was no sting operation which managed to collar these men inside a house with stockpiled weapons, documented plans or poisons. Instead of Semtex, they netted an endless pile of syntax.

The prosecution would have us all believe that words, perhaps millions of surreptitiously tape recorded words, have suspicious, duplicitous terrible hidden meanings. The Feds have 300,000 taped phone calls. Two hundred and thirty of those conversations form the core of the prosecution’s case, of which 21 make reference to Padilla. Of those tapes, Padilla’s voice is heard in only seven of them, and not a single time is Padilla discussing violence. The prosecution hasn’t produced one weapon used for murder, not one blindfold to be used in a kidnapping, not one knife to be used in a maiming.

The government has not allowed the jury or the public to view eighty-seven video tapes of Padilla being questioned in solitary confinement where we could see him, blindfolded, his ears muffled. This could prove that he was or wasn’t handed a piece paper or told to scribble his name in exchange for an extra ten minutes in the exercise yard. Why hasn’t the prosecution shown those tapes?

It doesn’t matter that the Feds have brought in their translators, a CIA operative-in-disguise, and one expert in terrorism whose expertise seems available only to governments. The case boils down to 300,000 telephone conversations with the jury listening only to a teeny-weeny,itsy-bitsy portion of the transcriptions. The prosecutions have made their selections. Here’s one of mine.

Here is part of one phone call on one day, August 2, 1997, never before revealed.

[I have edited out the actual conversations between Adham Hassoun and his family. My original intention was to dramatize the mundane nature and personal content, but after receiving a comment from a friend of Hassoun, who complained "Enough of the family already!", I came to realize how insensitive that was. My apologies to the family.]

There you have the subject matters of another part of those 300,000 telephone taps: gaining weight, the need for more vacation time, fava beans and marriage, brides and the hope for twelve children.

Judge Cooke said at the beginning of the trial that the evidence was thin. Her exact words were, “Very light on facts.”

Poll Shows Iraqis Oppose Foreign Oil Ownership

Poll: Iraqis Oppose Oil Privatization
Published by Steve Kretzmann August 6th, 2007 in Iraq

Iraqis oppose plans to open the country’s oilfields to foreign investment by a factor of two to one, according to a poll released today. Iraqis are united in this view: there are no ethnic, sectarian or geographical groups that prefer foreign companies.

The poll also finds that most Iraqis feel kept in the dark about the oil plans – with fewer than a quarter feeling adequately informed about a proposed new law to govern Iraq’s oil sector.

This poll is the first time ordinary Iraqis have been asked their views on the contents of the oil law, which has been debated by Iraqi political parties for over a year. The US government is pressing Baghdad to pass the oil law by September, as one of its “benchmarks”. [1]

At the centre of the oil law is a proposal to give multinational oil companies such as Conoco, Chevron and Exxon the primary role in developing Iraq’s oilfields, under contracts of up to 30 years.

Yet 63% of poll respondents said they would prefer Iraq’s oil to be developed and produced by Iraqi public sector companies rather than foreign companies, with 32% of those indicating a strong preference. Only 10% strongly preferred foreign companies, and 21% moderately.

Only 4% of Iraqis feel they have been given ‘totally adequate’ information for them to feel informed about the oil law. A further 20% describe information provision as ‘somewhat adequate’, and 76% as inadequate.

Read the entire article here.

Deeper Into Madness

Fear is still ruling our decisions. The concept of giving up liberty to protect our freedom continues. What will we have left after the dust settles? How bad will it get?

House approves foreign wiretap bill, 227-183
The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. See the role call here.

Bush Signs Terrorism Law
President Bush on Sunday signed into law an expansion of the government's power to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects without the need for warrants.

On August 5, President Bush signed S.1927, a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill gives more authority to the National Security Agency and other agencies to monitor emails, phone calls, and other communications that are part of a foreign intelligence investigation.

Democrats Capitulate to President Bush as Congress Gives Government Broad New Powers to Conduct Warrantless Surveillance on American Citizens

+++++++++++
Remind your congressmen that several of our founding fathers have long ago weighed in on the dangers of valuing security over liberty, and of using war to override the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

The FISA court never refused any warrants; it was a rubber-stamp court. It was a bureaucratic step, but an important one. Its presence reminded us what was good about the United States of America. Without it...not so much.

Click here to make your voice heard if you oppose the expansion of Warrantless Wiretapping.
+++++++++++

King George W: James Madison's Nightmare
In 1795, James Madison wrote of war's far-reaching and corrosive effect on public liberty. He could well have been warning us about our own King George, just the sort of imperial president that Madison and other founders of our nation feared most.

Robert Scheer details how James Madison (as well as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) predicted that America's new experiment in representative government could be threatened. George Bush is currently endangering the foundation of America by doing exactly what the founding fathers warned against: emphasizing security over liberty and getting bogged down in "foreign entanglements".










The view from Jemmy and Dolley Madison's west-facing Montpelier estate in Virginia.

I Heart Harry Potter

The latest, and last, Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, sold 8.3 million copies (worth around $250 million) in its first 24 hours - the fastest selling book of all time.

I went to Borders on the day it was released to pick up the copy that I had pre-ordered months ago. They opened at midnight as they did for the last book, and the store was packed. I got there at 12:10 and found it to be a weird cross between an after-hours party, a comic/fantasy convention, and the Christmas shopping season. There were glo-sticks and goth chicks, people dressed in character, and young kids that you don't expect to see out after midnight standing in lines that snaked through the whole store. I gave my name to a girl sitting at a table by the door. Once she confirmed my order, she gave me a purple wrist-band, a glow-stick and a poster of the book's cover art featuring the "soft geometry" pastels of illustrator Mary GrandPré. Then she pointed to the end of the long line of other nerds who had reserved copies. There were a lot of people in a separate line who hadn't reserved a copy; they were the "blue" line, and had to stand off to the side. I pulled up behind a kind of plump and disinterested-looking goth chick and a younger guy came up behind me. He had brought some reading material for the line. We chatted a little, comparing this year with last year's turn out, which I had missed. We talked about HP somewhat. I chatted with another guy a little about comics, and I was out of there 30 minutes later. By that time, the place had the feel of a club that was winding down, thinning out, people looking tired.

How cool is Joanne 'Jo' Rowling (aka J.K. Rowling), the author, for inspiring this massive book-release frenzy? Ten years ago, she developed the story of the boy wizard and his years at the school of wizardry after the idea fell into her head while waiting out a train delay. Since then, the last 4 of her 7 books have set records for the number of first print copies as well as for the record time in which they've sold.

There are a lot of records and firsts and milestones, but my favorite accomplishment is making the list of "Banned Books" repeatedly. The Harry Potter series tops lists such as "favorite challenged books" and "most frequently challenged books of the 21st century". What makes this even more lovable is that if you look at the lists of banned or challenged books, the most recurrent themes are sex, homosexuality, or offensive language, none of which can be found in any of the Harry Potter books. There are some G-rated 'sex' references, like teenagers making out, (or is that PG?) There's not a hint of gay activity, and the strongest example of profanity is the word "effing". Rowling's comments about the 2006 decision: "Once again, the Harry Potter books feature on this year's list of most-banned books. As this puts me in the company of Harper Lee, Mark Twain, J. D. Salinger, William Golding, John Steinbeck and other writers I revere, I have always taken my annual inclusion on the list as a great honour. 'Every burned book enlightens the world.' - Ralph Waldo Emerson"

The banning or challenging of Harry Potter books for their references to witchcraft is a blatant example of something ridiculous, I'm just not sure what. Close-mindedness? Fear? Paranoia? Is it because they're scared of some of the real things that imagination has brought into being? That we live in a world where fantasy novels can be feared and banned doesn't surprise me. We live in a world where the truth is more terrible than the lies that we eagerly swallow. No wonder some people take Harry and his world a little more seriously than they're meant to. A friend of mine who is an evangelical Christian argues that while the Lord of the Rings series, for example, is ok, the world of Harry Potter is strictly prohibited because, apparently, anything having to do with the world of witchcraft originates from Satan. As a secular, progressive-minded gay man who enjoys good escapist fantasy, I see this as an actual handicap on his part. I've tried to convince my friend that if he would read the books, he'd find a general theme of good vs. evil (just like Lord of the Rings) and that the protagonist is as fine a role model, if not better, than most of what you find in modern entertainment.

Anyway, other than being banned, Harry Potter books are just great reads. J. K. Rowling is a beautiful writer; she has a knack for pacing, for detail, for characterization and has a fun sense of humor. Her writing flows over you like a warm blanket on a cold night and it appeals to young and old readers alike. Whether it's because you like fantasy, or stories about finding your place in the world; challenging what you know to be wrong; standing up for what you feel is right; the power of love; the arrogance of power; struggling against oppression, racism, and slavery; denouncing torture and murder; and many other themes unworthy of banishment, you'll find yourself staying up way past your bedtime with Harry and his world.

Spy Vs. Spy: FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants

In an ABC News "Blotter" report by Justin Rood posted on July 25, 2007, we find the USA trying to boost its counterterrorism efforts by recruiting Americans to spy on each other.

"The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.

According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

The FBI said the push was driven by a 2004 directive from President Bush ordering the bureau to improve its counterterrorism efforts by boosting its human intelligence capabilities.

The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.

To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.

The total cost of the effort tops $22 million, according to the document.

The bureau has arranged to use elements of CIA training to teach FBI agents about "Source Targeting and Development," the report states. The courses will train FBI special agents on the "comprehensive tradecraft" needed to identify, recruit and manage these "confidential human sources." According to January testimony by FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, the CIA has been working with the bureau on the course.

The bureau apparently mulled whether to adopt entire training courses from the CIA or from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which like the CIA recruits spies overseas. But the FBI ultimately determined "the courses offered by those agencies would not meet the needs of the FBI's unique law enforcement." The FBI report said it would also give agents "legal and policy" training, noting that its domestic intelligence efforts are "constitutionally sensitive."

"It's probably a good sign they are not adopting CIA recruitment techniques wholesale," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, an expert on classified programs. U.S. intelligence officers abroad can use bribery, extortion, and other patently illegal acts to corral sources into working for them, Aftergood noted. "You're not supposed to do that in the United States," he said."

+++++ +++++ +++++

If these totalitarian excesses are too little too close to home for you, then check out the film The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen), an Academy Award-winning German film marking the feature film debut of writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.

We Do What We Want and We Want What You've Got

Here are two articles on the issue of Iraqi Oil and the American determination to gobble it all up.

The first shows how the US government is pressuring Iraqis to pass legislation that eventually puts their own natural resources into the hands of American oil companies. Of course, President Bush spins this as an opportunity for Iraq to determine its own future, but the truth is that the main objective of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law is to secure trillions of dollars for US Big Oil over the next 30 years.

The second is a time line that paints a vivid picture of how the USA has been trying to get its hands in Iraq's oil since early 2001. In this context, the motivation behind the American invasion and occupation of Iraq are clear.

According to their site, Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) "is a think tank for research, analysis, and action that brings together scholars, advocates, and activists who strive to make the United States a more responsible global partner. FPIF provides timely analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs and recommends policy alternatives. We believe U.S. security and world stability are best advanced through a commitment to peace, justice and environmental protection as well as economic, political, and social rights. We advocate that diplomatic solutions, global cooperation, and grassroots participation guide foreign policy."

Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil
by Erik Leaver and Greg Muttitt | July 17, 2007

"The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It's their asset," declared President George W. Bush in a press conference on the White House lawn in June 2006. He had just returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion. "We talked about how to advise the government to best use that money for the benefit of the people," he clarified.

But by January 2007, the euphemism of "advice" had been dropped, as passage of an oil law became a "benchmark," an instruction to the Iraqi government.

Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy Bush invokes in nearly every speech on Iraq, the U.S. government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq's oil industry since at least 2002. At different times, the Iraqi government has been threatened that passing the oil law was a pre-condition for partial reduction of Saddam Hussein's debts, for the provision of reconstruction funds, and even for the continued survival (through U.S. military support) of the al-Maliki government itself. (Read the complete text, including all end notes for the articles above and below, here.)














Oil Pressure: A History of U.S. Involvement in Iraq's Oil Development
by Erik Leaver and Greg Muttitt | July 17, 2007

Feb.-March 2001: White House Energy Taskforce produces a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."3

December 2002-April 2003: U.S. State Department Oil and Energy Working Group brought together influential Iraqi exiles, U.S. government officials, and international consultants. The result of the project's work was a "draft framework for Iraq's oil policy" that would form the foundation for the energy policy now being considered by the Iraqi Parliament. The final report noted that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.4 Later, several Iraqi members of the group became part of the Iraqi government. The Group included future Iraqi Oil Minister, Bahr al-Uloum.

January 2003: The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips, and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.5

January 2003: Phillip Carroll, a former chief executive with Royal Dutch-Shell, and a 15-member "board of advisers" were appointed to oversee Iraq's oil industry during the transition period. According to the Guardian, the group's chief executive would represent Iraq at meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).6 Carroll had been working with the Pentagon for months before the invasion—even while the administration was still insisting that it sought a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis—"developing contingency plans for Iraq's oil sector in the event of war."

Carroll, in addition to running Shell Oil in the United States, was a former CEO of the Fluor Corporation, a well-connected oil services firm with extensive projects in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and at least $1.6 billion in contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

One month after the invasion, Carroll took control of Iraq's oil production for the U.S. Government. He was joined by Gary Vogler, a former executive with ExxonMobil, in Iraq's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

Mr. Carroll made it clear to Paul Bremer, the U.S. occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that, "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while he was involved."7 Carroll leaves his job seven months later.

March 2003: Iraqi Oil Ministry was one of the few structures the invading forces protected from looters in the first days of the war.

April 2003: During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon.8

April 2003: President Bush called for UN sanctions against Iraq to be dropped. The request sounds innocuous enough, but it masks an urgent U.S. desire for a free hand to start pumping Iraqi crude once again to raise funds for rebuilding the country.9

April 2003: USAID Solicits Bid to Draft Economic Reorganization Plan for Iraq. The U.S. Agency for International Development asks BearingPoint, Inc to bid on a sole-sourced contract for "economic governance" work in Iraq. The contract document was written by Treasury Department officials and reviewed by financial consultants. The confidential 100-page request, titled "Moving The Iraqi Economy From Recovery to Sustainable Growth," states that the contractor will help support "private sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases, and management contracts, especially in the oil and supporting industries."10

May 22, 2003: UN Security Council passed a resolution ending sanctions on Iraq. Significantly, the resolution gave the United States decision making power over how the oil funds would be used with regard to relief, reconstruction, disarmament, and "other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq."11

May 22, 2003: President Bush signed Executive Order 13303 providing full legal immunity to all U.S. oil companies doing business in Iraq in order to facilitate the country's "orderly reconstruction."

June 22, 2003: Iraq ships crude oil for the first time since the start of the war. Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, broached the politically sensitive issue of how oil revenue should be spent, proposing that some of the money be shared with Iraqis through a system of dividend payments or a national trust fund to finance public pensions. "Iraq's resources cannot be restricted to a lucky or powerful few," Bremer said. "Iraq's natural resources should be shared by all Iraqis."12

July 2003: Bremer appoints the members of the Iraqi Government Council. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a member of the State Department's energy working group, is tapped as Iraq's oil minister. Al-Uloum soon proposed a privatization program, and endorsed production sharing agreements as the route to that goal.13

October 2003: Carroll was replaced by Robert McKee, a former ConocoPhillips executive. According to the Houston Chronicle, "His selection as the Bush administration's energy czar in Iraq" drew fire from Congressional Democrats "because of his ties to the prime contractor in the Iraqi oil fields, Houston-based Halliburton Co. He's the chairman of a venture partitioned by the ... firm."14

The administration selected ChevronTexaco Vice President Norm Szydlowski to serve as a liaison between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Now the CEO of the appropriately named Colonial Pipeline Company, Szydlowski continued to work with the Iraq Energy Roundtable, a project of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored meetings to "bring together oil and gas sector leaders in the United States with key decision makers from the Iraq Ministry of Oil."15 Terry Adams and Bob Morgan of BP, and Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips would also serve as advisers during the transition.16

November 2003: McKee quietly ordered a new plan for Iraq's oil. The drafting would be overseen by a "senior adviser," Amy Jaffe, who had worked for Morse when he was the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Jaffe now works for James Baker, the former Secretary of State, whose law firm serves as counsel to both ExxonMobil and the defense minister of Saudi Arabia. The plan, written by State Department contractor BearingPoint, was guided, says Jaffe, by a handful of oil -industry consultants and executives.17

December 19, 2003: BearingPoint releases "Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry," a report on the Iraqi oil industry favoring foreign participation as the most efficient way of developing the sector.18

March 2004: CPA names new Iraq Oil Advisers: Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP.19

March 2004: Iraq's interim constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) passed in March 2004 by Iraq's Governing Council, sets forth that CPA laws, regulations, and orders are to remain in force after the transfer of sovereignty unless a duly enacted piece of legislation rescinds or amends them.20

June 2004: U.S. handover to the Iraq Interim Government. Mike Stinson becomes an adviser to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.21 Thamir al-Ghadban is named as Iraqi Oil Minister.

November 2004: International oil companies launched voluntary efforts to train Iraq's oil workers and provide technical assistance, hoping to generate goodwill and eventually get access to the country's huge oil reserves. Companies from the United States, Britain, and Russia—including ChevronTexaco Corp., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Lukoil—are paying to send Iraqi oil workers out of the country to teach them the latest techniques in developing and managing oil fields.22

December 22, 2004: Iraqi Finance Minister Mahdi, in a joint press conference with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National Press Club, announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law to open the oil sector to foreign private investment. Mahdi explained, "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."23

Early 2005: New Government, old oil minister, al-Uloum reappointed to position of Minister for Oil. Ahmed Chalabi, head of the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress, was appointed chair of the Energy Council. In 2002, Chalabi said, "U.S. companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."24

May 2005: Approximately 30 international oil companies signed Memoranda of Understanding with Iraq, generally for the training of Iraqi staff, consulting work, and studies.25

August 30, 2005: Bush says U.S. troops would continue fighting in Iraq in order to protect the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.26

October 15 2005: The national referendum for the Iraqi constitution passes, containing an outline for oil revenue sharing and development.

December 2005: Iraq enters into agreement with the International Monetary Fund committing Iraq to draft a new petroleum law by the end of 2006 to allow foreign investment in the country's oil industry. The arrangement was signed before the new Iraqi government had been appointed and one week after the December 2005 elections thus denying Iraqi voters a chance to react through the ballot box.

February 2006-June 2006: USAID contracts with BearingPoint to draft Iraq's oil law to provide "legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment."27

March 15, 2006: Gen. John Abizaid, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq, said the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.28

May 2006: Iraq's new oil minister, Hussein al-Sharistani, began drafting legislation to govern Iraq's oil sector. Following his appointment, Shahristani announced that one of his top priorities would be to pass a law allowing privatization through parliament by the end of 2006.

July 2006: U.S. Government and oil companies get a copy of the draft oil law.29

September 2006: International Monetary Fund and World Bank receive a copy of draft oil law.30

October 17, 2006: President Bush signs the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (PL No: 109-364) which states in SEC. 1519,"No funds ... in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

February 2007: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, "has been in intense talks with Kurdish leaders in the north to overcome their objections to the draft. Iraqi officials say Mr. Khalilzad's negotiations were crucial to winning unanimous cabinet approval."31

February 18, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was submitted to the Iraqi Cabinet (Council of Ministers).32

February 26, 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was passed by the Iraqi Cabinet and was submitted to the Iraqi Parliament (Council of Representatives).33

April 19, 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.34

May 9 2007: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney travels to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.35

June 12, 2007: U.S. Admiral Fallon, head of the Central Command, warned Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a closed-door conversation to pass the oil law by July.36

July 3, 2007: Iraq cabinet approves amended oil law draft and resubmits to the Iraqi Parliament.37

July 12, 2007: The White House released its Initial Benchmark Assessment Report. Benchmark #3, "Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources" is found to be not met. The report notes, "The effect of limited progress toward this benchmark has been to reduce the perceived confidence in, and effectiveness of, the Iraqi Government. This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our current plan and strategy, under which we have assigned a high priority to this subject, and the process overall has continued to move forward."38