Gas Prices Jump Again

2007-03-31

WNLS6 March 31, 2007 04:53 AM EDT

Drivers beware, prices at the pump are on the rise. If you're hitting the road this weekend, you 'll pay a lot more to fill the gas tank. Prices are now at their highest level so far this year. The current prices at the pump...

Driver: "It's ridiculous, this economy is crazy right now."

Driver: "It's 50 bucks to fill up this tank. It was 40 not too long ago."

Even as high as $2.75.

Driver: "You know, you hope it doesn't go much higher. It's kind of getting ridiculous to me."

Everywhere you turn this week, prices at the pump are going up, up, up.

Bill McCullough, AAA Michigan: "It's been a while. I'd say it's been about a year since we've had these kind of numbers."

Bill McCullough tracks gas prices for AAA. He says tensions in Iran are pushing oil prices higher. The question for drivers, though is this just a short bump in the road or a sign that higher prices are here to stay?

Driver: "You never know, but gas prices do tend to go up a bit in the summer when we hit the busy vacation time and everyone starts hitting the roads."

And that vacation travel really begins with spring break this week.

Blake Lynch, driver: "I'm traveling this weekend and it's going to take two full tanks of gas, and that's a big difference."

So for now drivers can expect higher costs.

Driver: "$2.75, that's crazy."

And more pain at the pump on the road ahead.

1 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Summer gas prices should depend on weather, politics

2007-03-31

By RAYMOND L. SMITH Tribune Chronicle

Tribune Chronicle / Raymond L. Smith Charles Toda, 62, of Cortland believes gas prices have been manipulated by suppliers to keep them high enough for the companies to maximize their profits but low enough so most Americans will not begin to seriously look for alternatives to their dependence on internal combustion engines that use oil and gasoline.

As they have watched gasoline prices rise nearly 40 cents per gallon since the beginning of the year, Trumbull residents are expressing concern about how high prices will go this summer.

‘‘It is stupid that prices have gotten so high,'' Warren resident Candi Nelson said. ‘‘The more money we have to pay for gas, the less we will have for other things. We can't keep up.''

Masury resident Bill Perkins tries to keep his gasoline costs down by riding his motorcycle every chance he gets.

‘‘If it is not raining, I'm riding my bike,'' he said.

A gallon of gas cost more than $3 in late August 2005 after fierce hurricanes shut Gulf of Mexico oil drilling rigs and refineries.

While industry experts do not expect gasoline prices to cross the $3 per gallon barrier this year, they believe it will rise as high as $2.75 per gallon. Local prices hovered around $2.66 for a gallon of regular gasoline Friday.

Tom Kloza, one of the founders of the 25-year-old Oil Price Information Service, said prices shouldn't surpass about $2.75, barring some catastrophe at refineries, a weather disaster or Middle East supply disruption.

‘‘By mid-spring, most of the refineries that so far have struggled with winter maintenance or event problems should be back in action,'' he said. ‘‘I would not be surprised to see motorists pay more for their fuel on Easter Sunday than they will pay on Memorial Day weekend.''

During the first weeks of January, gasoline prices averaged just under $2.11 per gallon in Niles, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge survey.

Nationally, AAA said the average for self-serve regular gasoline is now nearly $2.60 per gallon. Last month, the national average was about $2.34 per gallon.

Numerous wild cards remain. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration predicts that the 2007 hurricane season will not have as many hurricanes battering the U.S. shorelines, but the storms that will occur will be powerful.

Kloza said gas prices will increase by 10 cents to 25 cents above the $2.75 area only if there is an early and active hurricane season or some major geopolitical activity occurs.

‘‘Without hurricane landfalls, gasoline prices should drop substantially in the last 100 days of 2007,'' Kloza said.

In December and the first two weeks of January, crude oil prices dropped from above the $60 per barrel area to about $51 per barrel. However, since mid-January, crude oil prices increased above $62 per barrel this week, pushing up gasoline prices.

‘‘The gasoline market has tightened in recent weeks,'' Doug MacIntyre, senior oil market analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Systems, said. ‘‘Prices are increasing because demand is up.''

Other factors pushing prices upwards include a number of U.S. refineries having to shut down or slow operations due to scheduled maintenance and unanticipated problems.

Political problems created by Iran capturing 15 British sailors and marines last week have not affected the production and shipments of oll from the region. However, energy buyers become concern anytime they believe something will affect the amount and cost of oil coming to the U.S.

‘‘Anytime there is an increased risk in future oil, prices tend to be driven up,'' MacIntyer said. ‘‘They do not want to wait until after something happens. So, the companies purchasing oil will begin buying it early, pushing up its costs.

Demand for gasoline has been increasing every year since 1994 when the U.S. used about 7.6 million barrels per day. In 2006 , the U.S. used about 9.24 million barrels a day. It is projected the U.S. will use about 9.46 barrels a day in 2008.

As a result of the 2005 hurricane season and the volatile nature of the oil and gas markets, communities, such as Warren, have adjusted their budgets to account for the volatility of the gasoline market.

‘‘We've adjusted our budget by increasing the amount of money we have available for gasoline and oil for our vehicles,'' city Auditor David Griffing said. ‘‘Because we buy our gasoline through the state purchasing system, we do not pay as much as the typical driver going to the gas station, but we experience the ups and downs that every consumer experiences.''

Warren has about 250 vehicles. In 2006, it spent $469,459 on gasoline, representing about 6 percent of the city's total budget. In 2005, the city spent $364,760 on gasoline, or about 5 percent of its total budget.

‘‘The amount we spend on gasoline is not a large part of the city's total budget, but we try to keep costs down by telling our employees, among other things, to reduce the amount of time they have engines idling.''



rsmith@tribune-chronicle.com

1 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

U.S. toll in March is twice Iraq forces

2007-03-31

By STEVEN R. HURST,
Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 26 minutes ago

The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.

According to the AP count 3,246 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

At least 83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation.

The Iraqi figures were gathered from officials who released them on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give out the numbers.

Additionally, the Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month, about 300 more than the AP tabulation, which is mainly gathered from daily police reports nationwide.

The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly from 2,172 in December, the highest month casualty figure since the AP began keeping records of civilian deaths in April 2005.

However, the number of civilians killed in March was in the same range as for the first two months of this year; 1,604 in January and 1,552 in February, according to the AP count.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi civilian deaths, more than 500 people, where killed in three big bomb attacks in the last week of the month and revenge killings of Sunni men in Tal Afar the night after a Shiite market was bomb in the northwest Iraqi city.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bush calls on Iran to free 'hostages'

2007-03-31

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 56 minutes ago

President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."

It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans. The president said he supports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, now in its second week.

Bush would not comment about Britain's options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq.

"I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said.

Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise."

Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."

Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain.

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Britain also insists the sailors were in Iraqi waters.

In London on Saturday, the political wing of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq said the capture was planned in advance and carried out in retaliation for U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union.

Blair has expressed disgust that the captured service members had been "paraded and manipulated" in video footage released by Iran. He warned Tehran that it faced increasing isolation if it did not free them.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran. The U.N. Security Council has expressed "grave concern" about the incident. The EU has demanded the sailors' unconditional release and warned of unspecified "appropriate measures" if Tehran does not comply - a position the Iranian Foreign Ministry called "bias and meddlesome."

Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, said he's convinced that Iran is prepared to stand its ground and insist that the British violated Iranian territory.

"Iran will seriously continue the case and will put them on trial," Bakhshayesh said. "Only an apology by Britain can stop it. Iran thinks that Britons trespassed to test Iran's reaction, and now London is trying to isolate Tehran instead of apologizing."

But British officials are hopeful that diplomacy can resolve the crisis. The Foreign Office confirmed Saturday that Britain had replied to a letter received earlier in this week from the Iranian embassy. It declined to reveal the nature of either letter.

"We have been exchanging letters with the Iranian government, and we will continue to conduct or diplomatic discussions in private," a spokesman said on the government's customary condition of anonymity.

_____

Associated Press writers Jill Lawless in London and Benjamin Harvey and Katarina Kratovac in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

The Science of Man and Origins of Big Brother

2007-03-31

You Tube
Saturday, March 31, 2007

Jeremy Bentham's theory of the Panoptic Prison as the inspiration of George Orwell's 1984 and current dreams by some to use Internet surveillance to create the perfect panoptic state and bring big brother to life.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=man1united has the full George Orwell 1984 Movie

*Warning some nudity

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Testimony by Giuliani Indicates He Was Briefed on Kerik in ’00

2007-03-31

William K. Rashbaum / NY Times | March 30, 2007

Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik's relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik's appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.

Mr. Giuliani, testifying last year under oath before a Bronx grand jury investigating Mr. Kerik, said he had no memory of the briefing, but he did not dispute that it had taken place, according to a transcript of his testimony.

Mr. Giuliani's testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik's appointment as the city's top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik's entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation's homeland security secretary.

In his testimony, given in April 2006, Mr. Giuliani indicated that he must have simply forgotten that he had been briefed on one or more occasions as part of the background investigation of Mr. Kerik before his appointment to the police post.

He said he learned only in late 2004 that the briefing or briefings had occurred, after the city's investigation commissioner reviewed his own records from 2000. To this day, Mr. Giuliani testified, he has no specific recollection of any briefing or the details of what he was told. But he said he felt comforted because the chief investigator had cleared Mr. Kerik to be promoted.

"He testified fully and cooperatively," a statement from Mr. Giuliani's consulting firm said of the former mayor's grand jury appearance. The statement added: "Mayor Giuliani has admitted it was a mistake to recommend Bernie Kerik for D.H.S. and he has assumed responsibility for it."

Mr. Kerik pleaded guilty last summer to improperly allowing the company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, or its subsidiaries, to do $165,000 worth of free renovations on his Bronx apartment in late 1999 and 2000. The company has denied paying for the work, and has disputed any association with organized crime. But the two brothers who run it have been indicted in the Bronx on charges they lied under oath about their dealings with Mr. Kerik.

There is no evidence that Mr. Giuliani knew about the apartment renovation before promoting Mr. Kerik to police commissioner. But the top investigator who briefed Mr. Giuliani in 2000, the transcript shows, was aware that Mr. Kerik's brother and a close friend had been hired by an affiliate of the company, which for years had been struggling to secure a city license.

For Mr. Giuliani, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president and who has done well in early polls, his history with Mr. Kerik looms as a likely issue in the campaign. His own aides have anticipated that questions are likely to arise about Mr. Giuliani's judgment in, among other things, promoting Mr. Kerik for one of the country's most important national security posts.

Now, Mr. Giuliani, whose private company provides background checks for companies as part of its services, may have to explain his response to the information that was provided to him in 2000.

His company's statement yesterday said that Mr. Giuliani was not concerned that issues surrounding Mr. Kerik would become a liability to his presidential campaign.

The transcript of Mr. Giuliani's testimony was not given to The New York Times by any rival campaign.

In his testimony, Mr. Giuliani suggests he might have been presented with only limited information about Mr. Kerik's issues. And he said the city investigators who did the background check on Mr. Kerik ultimately cleared him to be hired as police commissioner.

Mr. Giuliani testified that the background investigators' approval might explain why he, and aides who were involved, could not recollect any briefing, according to the 101-page transcript of his April 20, 2006, testimony.

"We may have filed it away somewhere that it wasn't as significant," Mr. Giuliani testified. Mr. Giuliani said Edward J. Kuriansky, the commissioner of the city's Department of Investigation, had also forgotten about the briefings until he checked his records days after Mr. Kerik's withdrawal from consideration as homeland security secretary in late 2004.

Mr. Kuriansky did not return phone calls seeking his account of what he remembered telling Mr. Giuliani.

According to the grand jury transcript, a prosecutor for the Bronx district attorney's office told Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Kuriansky and his investigators had compiled a considerable body of knowledge about Mr. Kerik's relationship with the company before his August 2000 appointment as police commissioner.

Mr. Kerik, who was then the city's commissioner of correction, had himself come forward months earlier to tell the investigators that the company had recently given jobs to his brother, Donald, as well as the best man from his wedding, Lawrence Ray, and that he himself had interceded on the company's behalf as it sought a city license, the prosecutor told Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Kerik even told the investigators that his friend Mr. Ray had recently been indicted on federal criminal charges, along with Edward Garafola, a reputed Gambino soldier, the brother-in-law of Salvatore Gravano, the former underboss known as Sammy the Bull.

An Interstate affiliate was at that time seeking a license to operate a waste transfer station on Staten Island. City officials refused to license the transfer station because of the organized crime allegations, which stemmed in part from the fact that the transfer station was bought in 1996 from two organized crime figures.

Interstate is a construction company based in New Jersey that undertakes large public and private projects in the metropolitan area.

The company has long denied the accusation of mob ties, and New Jersey regulators issued a license to the company in 2004, allowing it to do construction work on Atlantic City casinos, after a lengthy review of the same material. That license was suspended after the owners were charged with perjury last summer.

By 2000, Mr. Kerik had known or worked for Mr. Giuliani for close to a decade. Mr. Kerik first came to know Mr. Giuliani when he provided security during his second mayoral campaign. Mr. Giuliani later became godfather to two of Mr. Kerik's children and promoted him to lead the Correction Department. Mr. Kerik was one of two candidates Mr. Giuliani seriously considered to succeed Howard Safir as police commissioner as Mr. Giuliani neared the final year of his administration.

Mr. Kerik served in that post for 16 months, and was at Mr. Giuliani's side on the morning of Sept. 11 when the World Trade Center collapsed.

In their questioning of Mr. Giuliani last April, Bronx prosecutors sought repeatedly to determine how much the mayor remembered being told about Mr. Kerik's problems, and what, if anything, he had done about the information.

Throughout his questioning, Mr. Giuliani said he remembered close to nothing about what he had been told about the broader background investigation of Mr. Kerik or what he had done after hearing it. He testified that he remembered being told something about Mr. Kerik's experience as a security consultant in Saudi Arabia, but little else.

He testified, as well, that he could not remember if he had ever discussed the issues with Mr. Kerik directly.

At one point, a senior Bronx prosecutor, Stephen R. Bookin, asked Mr. Giuliani, "As you sit here today, your testimony is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you don't recall ever being told that a close friend of your correction commissioner had been indicted in a federal case?"

Mr. Giuliani responded: "I don't recall that until 2004. I can't tell you that it wasn't, but I don't - I don't - I don't remember."

The prosecutor also explored whether Mr. Giuliani would find it odd that the city's top investigator, with whom he met almost daily, would not have fully shared what appeared to be rather alarming information with him.

"Do you know of any reason why Mr. Kuriansky, who met with you every day that you were in town, part of your core group as you put it, would not have briefed you on these facts?" the prosecutors asked.

Mr. Giuliani, in the end, replied that the facts about Mr. Kerik might not have been presented to him in as much detail and with as much emphasis back in 2000.

The prosecutor then asked Mr. Giuliani whether, if the information had been presented to him with as much emphasis, he would have appointed Mr. Kerik police commissioner.

"If he told it to me the way you described it to me, no," Mr. Giuliani replied. "If he had told it to me in a different way because, maybe he didn't know all of the facts, or had come to a different conclusion about the facts, then maybe I would have - I can't tell you that."

Mr. Giuliani was a key backer of Mr. Kerik when President Bush nominated him to be homeland security secretary in December 2004. Mr. Kerik withdrew his name a week later, citing possible tax and immigration problems involving his family's nanny.

Several newspapers at the time were already pursuing stories about his relationship with Interstate, which were published in the succeeding days. It is unclear to what extent Mr. Kerik's relationship with the company was made clear to the White House before his nomination.

But Mr. Giuliani testified that Mr. Kerik had assured him that he had briefed presidential aides about the matter.

Mr. Kerik also assured him, Mr. Giuliani testified, that there was no reason for concern when questions later arose as to whether Interstate had paid for the renovations to his apartment.

"He told me that Interstate didn't do the work, that another company had done it legitimately, that he had the checks to show he paid for it," Mr. Giuliani said.

Mr. Giuliani testified that he took Mr. Kerik's word for it and did not ask to see the canceled checks.

Last year, when Mr. Kerik admitted in court that the renovations had actually been largely underwritten by Interstate or its subsidiaries, Mr. Giuliani released a statement that displayed no irritation at having been misled.

"Bernard Kerik has acknowledged his violations," the statement said, "but this should be evaluated in light of his service to the United States of America and the city of New York."

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bush apologizes for poor health care of veterans

2007-03-31

Caren Bohan
Reuters
Saturday, March 31, 2007

President George W. Bush apologized to wounded U.S. troops who endured dilapidated conditions and bureaucratic delays as he toured Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the flagship military hospital.

Bush, in his first visit to Walter Reed since a scandal over health care there erupted in February, met with some patients who had previously been at the outpatient building where the worst conditions were found.

"I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush said. "I apologize for what they went through and we're going to fix the problem."

A Washington Post article that found soldiers wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were living in a run-down building that was infested with mice, mold and cockroaches. Many soldiers also struggled with red tape in trying to get treatment.

"The problems at Walter Reed were caused by bureaucratic and administrative failures," Bush said.

The dilapidated building has since been closed and the patients have been moved to other facilities at Walter Reed.

The reports on Walter Reed provoked an outcry on Capitol Hill. Three senior military officers have lost their jobs and Bush has ordered a wide-ranging review of all U.S. veterans facilities. More than 24,000 soldiers have been wounded and more than 3,600 killed in the two wars.

Bush toured a physical therapy unit where soldiers, many of whom had lost limbs, were exercising on elliptical machines and weight presses.

Bush has often visited wounded soldiers and their families at Walter Reed and at other military hospitals but those meetings were almost always private.

Democrats called Bush's visit a "photo op" and urged him to back off his threat to veto a war-spending bill that has $4.3 billion in health aid for returning soldiers.

Bush plans to reject the Democratic-crafted measure because it includes timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq. He has cited the need to support the troops in calling on Congress to urgently send him a clean bill.

Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is also seeking his party's 2008 presidential nomination, accused Bush of being slow to tackle problems with veterans health care.

"The problems plaguing our military hospital system will not be solved with a photo op," Obama said in a statement. "Our military hospital system is in a state of crisis. Delays and rhetorical band-aids will not move us closer to a solution."

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

1 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

US rejects Iran captives exchange

2007-03-31

 

Faye Turney said her captors had been 'friendly'

US officials have ruled out a deal to exchange 15 Royal Navy personnel captured in the Gulf for five Iranians seized by American forces in Iraq.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack rejected suggestions that a swap could be made.

The five, believed to be members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, were seized in January in the Iraqi city of Irbil.

Britain denies Iran's claims that the UK crew was in its waters when seized on 23 March.

The five Iranians were captured in a raid along with equipment which the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons.

US officials have condemned Iran's actions and publicly supported the UK.

Second 'apology' in full Faye Turney's 'letters'

Mr McCormack said: "The international community is not going to stand for the Iranian government trying to use this issue to distract the rest of the world from the situation in which Iran finds itself vis-a-vis its nuclear programme."

Meanwhile, Iran's ambassador to Russia has said the UK captives could face trial for violating international law.

"It is possible that the British soldiers who entered into Iranian waters will go on trial for taking this illegal action," Gholamreza Ansari told Russian television channel Vesti-24, according to Iran's IRNA news agency.

Earlier, Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned Iran for "parading" the UK crew on television in a way which would only "enhance people's sense of disgust".

In what appeared to be an edited broadcast on an Iranian channel, sailor Nathan Thomas Summers said: "I would like to apologise for entering your waters without permission."

'Sacrificed'

He was shown alongside two colleagues, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, from Shropshire, who was broadcast apologising to Iran earlier in the week.

A third letter, allegedly from LS Turney, was released on Friday in which she said she had been "sacrificed" to UK and US government policy.

UK VERSION OF EVENTS 1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters 2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters 3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters 4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters

The BBC has been able to confirm the names of six of the 15 captured sailors and marines.

Along with LS Turney and Nathan Summers, who is from Cornwall, they are Paul Barton from Southport, Danny Masterton from Ayrshire, Joe Tindall from south London and Adam Sperry from Leicester.

European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Bremen, Germany, called for "the immediate and unconditional release" of the sailors and expressed "unconditional support" for Britain's position.

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett described the latest footage as "quite appalling" and "blatant propaganda".

She also disclosed there was nothing in a formal letter from the Iranians to the UK that suggested they were looking for a solution to "this difficult situation".

'Not harmed'

In the latest video, Nathan Summers says: "Since we've been arrested in Iran our treatment has been very friendly.

"We have not been harmed at all. They've looked after us really well.

"The food they've been serving us is good and I am grateful that no harm has come to us.

IRANIAN VERSION OF EVENTS 1 Royal Navy crew stray 0.5km inside Iranian waters 2 Iran gives set of co-ordinates to back up their claims 3 According to seized GPS equipment, the Royal Navy crew had previously entered Iranian waters at several other points 4 Iran informs Britain of the position where the crew were seized, inside Iranian waters Both versions in more detail

"I would just like to apologise for entering your waters without permission. And that happened back in 2004, and the government promised that it wouldn't happen again."

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said last year US President Bush gave a secret order that Iranian agents believed working in Iraq should be captured or killed because of the coalition's belief that Iran was "fermenting trouble in Iraq".

He said it meant there was a "compelling theory" that the UK sailors were captured as a result of an order "from the highest levels of Iranian government" which would make it a "very different game" for the Foreign Office to sort out.

Earlier, the UN Security Council called on Tehran to allow the UK access to the personnel and urges an "early resolution", including release of the crew, but stopped short of "deploring" Iran's action, as requested by the UK.

The Britons, based on HMS Cornwall, were seized by Revolutionary Guards as they returned from searching a vessel in the northern Gulf.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Europe threatens action as Iran airs new 'confession'

2007-03-31

EU foreign ministers support British position and warn of 'appropriate measures' if 15 sailors and marines not released

Julian Borger, Tania Branigan and Simon Tisdall
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian


A video grab taken 30 March 2007 from the Iranian Al-Alam TV station shows British sailor Nathan Thomas Summers speaking during an interview. Photograph: AFP/Getty
 

The EU threatened to act against Iran last night if it did not immediately and unconditionally release the 15 British sailors and marines it has been holding for more than a week.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany, threatened "appropriate measures" if Tehran did not let the group go, supporting Britain's position that the crew had been in Iraqi waters when they were seized eight days ago. The ministers did not spell out what measures would be taken, but British diplomats hoped they would involve an escalating array of punitive steps.

The tough statement was the kind of direct rebuke Britain had sought in vain from the UN security council on Thursday night when, in the face of resistance from Russia and others, the council only expressed concern but threatened no action. Despite the EU statement, prospects for a quick resolution to the crisis dwindled yesterday after another propaganda video and letter featuring more dubious confessions and apologies by the captives.

The only glimmer of hope for a quick diplomatic solution was a note presented yesterday to Britain's ambassador in Tehran, portrayed by Iranian officials as conciliatory, which bore some resemblance to a letter sent shortly before the end of a similar drama in 2004.

The letter restated that the British naval patrol was in Iranian waters when it was intercepted by boats of the Iranian revolutionary guard, which Britain denies. But unlike previous Iranian pronouncements it did not demand an apology, just a guarantee it would not happen again.

After the delivery of the letter, an Iranian official expressed hope to the Guardian that the crisis would be "resolved soon". But Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, dismissed it, saying it did not suggest Iran was looking for a way out.

Geoffrey Adams, the British ambassador to Tehran, returned to the foreign ministry with a reply last night, but the Foreign Office would not say what it was. British officials have diminishing confidence that the foreign ministry has any control over the guards who captured the British crew. "It's just white noise," said one diplomat about the Iranian note. "Our reaction over the weekend is that we're going to carry on our efforts, but we're not going to react to everything the Iranians do."

An Iranian official said the matter was being handled properly by the foreign ministry and the supreme national security council, and rejected suggestions that any other agencies were trying to influence the outcome. Downing Street is understood to take a rosier view of the note than the Foreign Office, believing it opened a clear channel of communication. Tony Blair stressed the need for calm in a statement, but he also expressed "disgust" at the captives' treatment.

The Iranian captors continued to use the only female captive, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, to broadcast anti-British messages. A third letter in her handwriting claimed she was being "sacrificed, due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments". "It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people," the letter said.

Another captive, Nathan Summers, was also broadcast admitting the British crew had "trespassed without permission".

Responding to the broadcast of the latest video, Mr Blair told reporters in Manchester: "The Iranians have to realise if they continue in this way they will face increasing isolation - we had the UN statement yesterday, the EU today and will be talking to other key allies over the weekend."

Gordon Brown, speaking during a visit to British forces in Afghanistan, told reporters: "Overnight, the UN resolution is calling definitively for their release. That's the unanimous view of the international community."

Opposition politicians stressed the need for a unified front. David Cameron told the BBC: "I think the British government is doing the right thing. They have my support. "

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, stressed that it was impossible to see the full picture: "There's what's being done in public, what's being done in private and what's being done in private by intermediaries."

Interrogation

The captured sailors would not have had special "conduct after capture" training and will have to rely on common sense, military sources say. They would have been advised to say little about their families to avoid greater pressure. But formal training is usually reserved for special forces and pilots, who endure mock interrogations.

Military sources suggested the captives were unlikely to have any sensitive state secrets. "In the main, they should just use their common sense," said one official. Whether training for capture is reviewed as a result of this incident will depend on their eventual debriefing.
Richard Norton-Taylor

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bill O'Reilly Suggests Throwing Mark Cuban in Jail

2007-03-31

Prisonplanet
Saturday, March 31, 2007

Bill O'Reilly suggests that had someone like Cuban attempted to distribute a film like Loose Change during World War Two, FDR would have "thrown his butt in jail".

O'Reilly then whines about how people like Cuban, Sheen and O'Donnell should not be given any airtime or attention, whilst this is his third or fourth segment on the same issue.

O'Reilly lies and suggests The View is losing viewers when in reality it has gained 600,000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm. Geraldo then argues for free speech whilst still suggesting a controlled demolition of WTC7 is "ludicrous".

Related: Neo-Con: 'Execute Rosie For Questioning the Government'

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Detainee Alleges Abuse in CIA Prison

2007-03-31

Josh White and Ann Scott Tyson 
Washington Post
Saturday, March 31, 2007

A high-level al-Qaeda suspect who was in CIA custody for more than four years has alleged that his American captors tortured him into making false confessions about terrorist attacks in the Middle East, according to newly released Pentagon transcripts of a March 14 military tribunal hearing here.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who U.S. officials believe was involved in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and who allegedly organized the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, told a panel of military officers that he was repeatedly tortured during his imprisonment and that he admitted taking part in numerous terrorism plots because of the mistreatment.

"The detainee states that he was tortured into confession and once he made a confession his captors were happy and they stopped torturing him," Nashiri's representative read to the tribunal, according to the transcript. "Also, the detainee states that he made up stories during the torture in order to get it to stop."

Nashiri's allegations came just days after Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, also alleged abuse during a similar hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at this island detention facility, though his claims were submitted on paper and have not been released.

It is impossible to confirm or evaluate Nashiri's allegations regarding his interrogation by the CIA. U.S. government officials often caution that terrorists are trained to allege abuse at the hands of their captors, and portions of the 36-page transcript that appeared to detail the s and methods of the alleged abuse were redacted. But such allegations could call into question the veracity of Nashiri's interrogations and those of other detainees previously held at secret CIA prisons, and could make trying the men at military commissions difficult if the alleged coercion elicited misleading information.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the CIA cited "national security concerns" regarding the s of detention facilities, interrogation techniques and operational details as rationale for the redactions.

Abuse allegations are generally referred to the CIA inspector general's office, which investigates from within. Defense Department and intelligence officials said Friday that allegations made during the CSRT process will be forwarded to the government agency being accused of abuse.

"I'm not going to respond to those sorts of allegations other than to emphasize that the CIA's terrorist interrogation program has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review, producing vital information that has helped disrupt terrorist plots and save lives," said Mark Mansfield, a CIA spokesman.

Nashiri, a Saudi national, is one of 14 detainees who were confined secretly for years and are undergoing a process to determine whether they are enemy combatants against the United States and whether they should be held indefinitely in maximum security at Guantanamo Bay. A spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has interviewed all of the detainees, declined to discuss Nashiri's case.

U.S. officials allege that Nashiri is responsible for assisting the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and for taking a lead role in the Cole bombing. The report of the Sept. 11 commission identified him as "the mastermind of the Cole Bombing and the eventual head of Al Qaeda Operations in the Arabian Peninsula." In addition, Nashiri was named in a New York court as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cole bombing and was sentenced to death in absentia in Yemen for his role in the bombing.

But Nashiri said he "confessed under torture" to those attacks. "From the time I was arrested . . . they have been torturing me," he said through an interpreter in answers to the tribunal officers' questions. "One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way."

Nashiri said, according to the transcript, that he "invented" some information just to "make people happy" during his interrogations. One of those statements was that Osama bin Laden, whom he had met numerous times, had procured a nuclear weapon.

"They were extremely happy because of this news," he said, according to the transcript.

It has long been publicly known that the CIA used controversial interrogation techniques that went beyond those used by the military after the Sept. 11 attacks, including waterboarding (which simulates the sensation of drowning), exposure to extreme temperatures and prolonged forced standing. Detainees who think they have been in secret CIA detention facilities have reported serious abuse there.

John Sifton, a senior terrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch, decried the secrecy and said there is ample evidence that the CIA has used illegal tactics on detainees and is trying to hide it.

"It's a bit disingenuous for the CIA to refer allegations to the inspector general" after the agency itself approved questionable techniques, he said.

Nashiri acknowledged connections to the Cole bombers but said that he was involved in a fishing business with them and that he was unaware of the plot to attack a U.S. Navy warship. He said that he sent money to the men who carried out the bombing for a fishing "project" and that he is "not responsible for them or what they have in their heads."

"The cards are stacked against al-Nashiri," said Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism analyst. "There is too much testimony and evidence suggesting his long-standing role as an al-Qaeda operative and recruiter. Many people involved in the USS Cole have been interrogated, and everyone . . . has implicated Nashiri."

Nashiri said he made himself a millionaire by the age of 19 as a merchant and periodically went to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. He also said he traveled to battlefields throughout the Middle East "to help people by gathering information."

Nashiri denied being a member of al-Qaeda and said he is not an enemy of the United States, though he criticized U.S. foreign policy.

"If you think that anybody who wants the Americans to get out of the Gulf as your enemy, then you will catch about 10 million peoples in Saudi Arabia that have same opinion," Nashiri said, according to the transcript.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Impeach George W. Bush over North American Union agenda says Republican Presidential candidate

2007-03-30

AgoraCosmopolitan | March 30, 2007
Ron Paul / Compiled by Iain Mackenzie

Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul says U.S. President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution, from the Iraq War in the "War on Terrorism" and pursuing a North American Union agenda, without legally required Congressional oversight. Such oversight is legally prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul had outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold.

"I'd be surprised if they win both - I think they're going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort," said Paul.

"If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of "soft fascism," Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

"Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law." said Paul.

"When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

North American Union agenda toward an anti-democratic "New World Order"

Asked what the ultimate agenda was behind the American Union and the push on behalf of the Bush administration to homogenize the US with Mexico and Canada, Paul was clear in his response.

"I think the goal is one world government... we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in."

"I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people," said Paul, noting that Texans in his own backyard were more aware of Bush selling out the country for an North American Union than anyone in Washington.

Ron Paul further says, "Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP). In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous."

According to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of government of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.

Republican Presidential candidate Paul then remarks, "What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union."

Ron Paul elaborates on a prospective anti-democratic NAU "shadow government" which effectively destroys Canada and the U.S. as democracies:

"According to the SPP website, this dialogue will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade."

"Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified."

Mr. Paul further enquires "Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website...".

"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007."

Though the U.S. administration insists that the SPP does not undermine U.S. sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

Mr. Paul then indicates that the cited website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the U.S. taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?

Also alarming says Mr. Paul, are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.

Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the U.S. more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.

This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

British Manufactured Gulf Maritime Border Map

2007-03-30

No such agreed upon border between Iraq and Iran exists, measurements show ship was nearer Iranian coast

Prison Planet | March 30, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

In claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered-up the fact there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters. The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue.

"The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force," claims Murray.

"Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one."

CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT

As illustrated in the Encarta encyclopedia territorial map above, the position of the ship denoted by the red circle is nearer the Iranian border than the Iraq border. The blue circumference touches the edge of the Iranian border.

As the Moon of Alabama blog points out, "That boundary is simply not well defined and Iran and Iraq have fought several wars about the Shatt al-Arab and its waterways. There is no binding or otherwise recognized international agreement about the maritime boundaries."

"If one would use a maritime boundary defined by equidistance from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, as is commonly (see Art.7) done in such cases, the result would be something like this purple line."

CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT

As becomes obvious from looking at the map, taking the equidistant measurement from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, the ship is clearly within Iranian territory.

Iranian news source IRNA claims that this represents Britain's sixth violation and trespass of Iranian territory in the last three years, while also stating that the western media has been complicit in "a wave of propaganda campaign against Iran immediately after Iranian border guards arrested British marines."

Even if you dismiss judging territorial water boundaries by the method detailed above, the fact is that the media parroted carte blanche the British government's version, without even pointing out that there is no recognized and agreed upon Gulf water boundary between Iraq and Iran.

Other highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis have also begun to emerge.

During a BBC Newsnight feature story , it was demonstrated that the Iranian footage of the capture of the British sailors was in large part likely faked and the commentators all but suggested the entire incident was staged or at least constituted "gross negligence" on behalf of the British.

Readers have also pointed out the bizarre coincidence of the fact that immediately before the sailors were captured, they were being accompanied by a BBC film crew onboard HMS Cornwall, who filmed a human interest interview with Faye Turney, who has become the poster child of the whole crisis. The interview was broadcast immediately after the sailors were taken hostage and portrayed Turney in a very humanizing light, with pictures of her loved ones in the background.

With the crisis deepening and tensions being ratcheted up by the bellicose rhetoric of both Blair and the Iranians, this Gulf of Tonkin style incident is starting to look increasingly dubious as the drumbeat for war grows ever louder.

1 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Iran War Underway: US and Britain Funding Right Wing Terrorists For Regime Change

2007-03-30

Infowars.net | March 30, 2007 
Steve Watson

The US and Britain are already at war with Iran, have been at war with Iran for a number of years now and are funding anti-Iranian terrorist groups inside Iran in preparation for the fallout that will occur after overt military action is commenced.

Not my words, the words of high ranking CIA officials, Defense department officials, former UN officials and retired US air force Colonels.

Iran's state news agency, IRNA today listed five previous violations of Iranian territory by British armed forces:

• June 2004: An unmanned reconnaissance plane violated Iranian airspace in northeastern Abadan and was hit by Iranian anti-aircraft guns.
• June 22, 2004: Eight navy personnel in three speed boats entered Iranian territorial waters and were arrested by Iranian coast guards; the arrested were released after three days.
• November 1, 2006: Two helicopters, hovering at a height of 150 meters (492 feet), violated Iranian airspace for a total of 10 minutes.
• January 27, 2007: A helicopter violated Iranian airspace over the mouth of the Arvand river and left the area after a warning from Iranian coast guards.
• February 28, 2007: Three navy boats entered Iranian territorial waters in the mouth of Khor Mousa.

Can we believe Iranian state news? Is Britain and/or the US engaging in covert intelligence gathering in Iran? The answer is we don't have to believe Iranian state news because it is a well established fact that a covert intelligence war is already being waged with Iran and has been ongoing for many years now.

In an article entitled The US war with Iran has already begun , written back in June 2005, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, addressed this very issue and described how intelligence gathering, direct action and the mobilizing of indigenous opposition is all being carried out already by CIA backed US special forces.

Ritter stated:

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase. President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

Ritter goes on to describe how Iranian opposition groups, including the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations, are carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

He also describes how to the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Ritter is not alone in his assertions.

During an interview on CNN a year ago, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations were already 'underway' inside Iran.

"I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way," Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy.

"The secretary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year," Gardiner said. "I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, 'Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.' He said, quite frankly, 'Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans,'" said the retired Air Force colonel.

The full seven minute CNN segment

Around the same time that Gardiner revealed this, RAW story ran an exclusive , which also revealed that, according to counterintelligence officials, covert operations were underway that included CIA co-option and use of right wing terror groups:

"We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while," said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to "convert" the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.

"These guys are nuts," this intelligence source said. "Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them."

The MEK were notorious in Iraq, indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing' that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.

The Just last month after a bombing inside Iran, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

The claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

If this all sounds a little familiar, it's because it is. The fact is that the US has a long history of provocation and covert action inside Iran.

The In 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran's hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force incase the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly "Top Secret" documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

The conspiracy centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be pro-British.

Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.

"If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah's brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics," Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister and leading member of a political party that traces its origins to Mossadegh's National Front, told the Christian Science Monitor on the 50th anniversary of the coup and installation of the Shah. "Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again. That shows they have not learned anything from history."

"For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth," Dan De Luce writes for the Guardian. "Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region."

Alex Jones's latest film Terrorstorm covers the ousting of Mossadegh in depth.

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US again found itself sparring with Iran. Again we find a history of provocation and aggression. In particular, a fierce assault known as Operation Praying Mantis, is renowned. The operation began after a US warship had entered mined Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.

From Wikipedia :

On April 14 1988, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts' hull and nearly sank it. But the crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.

After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Gulf.

The battle, the largest for American surface forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.

The US also attacked and destroyed several Iranian oil platforms in a full out military assault. At the time the Chicago Sun Times reported:

U.S. naval forces on Monday attacked Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf to show the Iranians that "if they threaten us, they'll pay a price," President Reagan said.

In fighting conducted over nine hours, the U.S. forces knocked out two Iranian oil platforms, and then sank or disabled a fast-attack missile patrol boat, two frigates, and three speedboats when Iran attempted to fight back.

Note Reagan's comments. Hence the name 'Operation Praying Mantis' was a reference to the fanning of the wings used to make the mantis seem larger and to scare the opponent.

On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice dismissed Iran's claim for reparation against the United States for breach of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. The court also dismissed a counter-claim by the United States, also for reparation for breach of the same treaty. As part of its finding the court did note that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."

The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner, Iran air flight 665 , between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down.

The On the morning of July 3, the Vincennes crossed into Iranian territorial waters during clashes with Iranian gunboats. Earlier in the day, the Vincennes - along with Iranian gunboats - had similarly violated Omani waters until challenged by an Omani warship.

According to the U.S. government, the Iranian aircraft was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.

According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.

Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up. An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.

George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President said "I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are" in reference to the incident.

The BBC later reported :

It took four years for the US administration to admit officially that the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the skirmish took place with the Iranian gunboats. Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq. In February 1996 the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed, plus the cost of the aircraft and legal expenses.

So we see that Britain and the US have a long history of covert action against and provocation of Iran in their bid to aggressively control the region. Nothing has changed. These facts and past precedents are exactly the reason why we should be questioning our own governments on the authenticity of the current seizure of the British marines by Iran.

Our governments have continually violated Iranian territory covertly for decades and then covered up the fact.

In January Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that he feared a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Just last month former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski also tacitly warned that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation.

During a BBC Newsnight feature story this week, it was demonstrated that the Iranian footage of the capture of the British sailors was in large part likely faked and the commentators all but suggested the entire incident was staged or at least constituted "gross negligence" on behalf of the British.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters. The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue.

It seems that we are once again witnessing the unfolding of ongoing covert military action by our governments against (whether you agree with it or not) a democratically elected foreign government in Iran.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bonaduce Says O'Donnell Should Be Hung On MSNBC

2007-03-30

You Tube | March 30, 2007

Joe Scarborough Attacks Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Walters & ABC For debating a serious issue. Scarborough brings in the political expert Danny Bonaduce, who says that O'Donnell should be 'strung up for treason' and 'aiding and abetting the enemy'. He then goes on to seriously defend that point.

2 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Was The British-Iranian Hostage Crisis Staged?

2007-03-29

Surfing the Apocalypse
Thursday, March 29, 2007

Many of you may be rightly highly suspicious of the timing of all this.

Evidently it appears that there is far more to this so called British hostage capture crisis than what has thus far been reported by virtually all of the MSM.

In a very revealing analytical studio commentary on The BBC's Newsnight programme last night: Diplomatic Editor: Mark Urban demonstrated to Host: Jeremy Paxman: that the video footage released by the Iranians yesterday - of those 15 British service personnel being "captured" - seems to have been FAKED in large part!

He also went on to illustrate how viritually inconceivable it is that such an event (like the alleged "ambush" of British Military personnel by the Iranians) could actually happen: given the fact that the area of water where this event supposedly took place was well within the Radar Scope of HMS Cornwall (not to mention a whole host of other vessels: WHICH WERE ALL MYSTERIOUSLY ABSENT at the moment when the Iranian interception party appeared on the scene!)

From this both he & show Host Jeremy Paxman conclude that The Royal Navy were (at the very least!) grossly negligent in their duty of policing The Shat Al Arab/International Waterways (hence their clamour to blitz the Media with "evidence" of their "innocence".)

It is when one considers the implications of what The BBC are getting at (but not saying directly!) that one realizes this entire thing may have really been a deliberate SET UP: i.e. either a TRAP laid by The British for The Iranians to fall into, or (even more mind bogglingly!) a TRAP laid by The British AND The Iranians (together with everyone else within The NWO Club) for The World to fall into!!!

Watch the requisite report from the aforementioned Newsnight programme, and judge for yourselves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900/4679986.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

2 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Blair and Bush vent anger at Iran's TV footage of hostages

2007-03-29

K. Sengupta & C. Brown / London Independent | March 29, 2007

A genuine confession or humiliation and cynical abuse of international law? These were the questions being asked after the appearance of the British hostage Faye Turney on Iranian television last night.

Film footage of the servicewoman taken prisoner in the Persian Gulf, wearing a black headscarf, as she "admitted" to trespassing on Iranian waters, will become one of the iconic images of the crisis between Iran and the West. It also ignited an immediate international furore with the British Government lodging a vehement protest, demanding that diplomatic access be given to the 15 sailors and marines who have been held for six days.

President George Bush held talks with Tony Blair and said that Britain will receive full support while Mr Blair warned the situation would move into a " new phase" if diplomacy failed to secure the captives' release. Meanwhile US forces were engaged in the largest military operations they have carried out in the region since the Iraq invasion in 2003 - a move described by Tehran as highly provocative.

The television images came on a day in which Britain had announced that it was freezing all relations with Iran and produced information which, it insisted, showed incontrovertibly that the British naval team had been arrested within Iraqi waters.

This was followed by what appeared to be the first conciliatory signals from the Iranian government since the crisis began: a promise that Leading Seaman Turney, at least, would be released soon, and an offer to accept that the Britons may have strayed into their territory by accident.

But last night Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, initially said that Ms Turney was unlikely to be freed immediately and that Britain must first admit that its personnel entered Iranian waters accidentally for the standoff to be resolved. "Unfortunately the British have not admitted their mistake," he told the Associated Press yesterday. He later confirmed that Iran had agreed to a British request for a consular visit with the crew, though he did not specify when.

In 2004, captured British service personnel had been paraded blindfolded in front of the cameras and the British Government had demanded the latest captives must not be put through the same ordeal. Leading Seaman Turney, 26, the mother of a three-year-old girl, was seen describing how she and the others in the British naval party had entered Iranian waters. She said haltingly: "I have been in the Navy nine years. I live in England. I was arrested on Friday March 23. Obviously we trespassed into their waters. They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, good people. They explained to us why we had been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm."

The Al-Alam television station also displayed a letter that Leading Seaman Turney had written to her family in England. In it she said: "We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I would be home with you all right now ... I want you all to know that I am well and safe."

The Ministry of Defence in London stressed that what Leading Seaman Turney had said should be judged in the context of the pressures she had been subjected to while in captivity.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, said: "I am very concerned about these pictures and any indication of pressure on or coercion of our personnel who were carrying out a routine operation in accordance with international law and under a United Nations resolution in support of the Iraqi government. We have comprehensively demonstrated today that our personnel were operating inside Iraqi waters. As we have made clear repeatedly to the Iranian government, such use of these images is totally unacceptable."

Legal and defence experts said the television footage could have been in breach of the Geneva Convention, despite Britain and Iran not being in a state of war. One analyst, Paul Beaver, said: "There are a host of reasons why this could be in breach of the Convention. They have not been charged, and they have not been allowed consular access."

Earlier, Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, gave co-ordinates which he said showed that the party had been seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

There were unconfirmed reports that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had advised against the televising of the prisoners. Diplomatic and military sources in London said there were grave doubts whether much of the Iranian government had any say on the fate of the captives, and that their continuing captivity was part of an internal power play as well as a symbol of Iranian defiance.

The truth, or a forced confession?

"as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters"

Impossible to know whether this is an admission or a forced confession, or whether she even wrote the letter. Faye Turney, nevertheless, uses the cautionary term 'apparently' in the admission that they had strayed into Iranian waters.

"that I am well and safe"

Primary concern here is to send a signal to her family not to worry and that she has not been mistreated, tortured or otherwise abused. Once again there is no way of knowing if this is true. She looked strained in the video footage.

"I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters"

A concession undoubtedly demanded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a symbol of public penitence. The Revolutionary Guards have their own public relations battles to fight inside Iran and this will doubtless help their cause.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Cuban Resolute Against Neo-Con Intimidation

2007-03-29

Billionaire remains determined to bring Loose Change to big screen in face of threats

Prison Planet | March 29, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Despite several attempts on behalf Neo-Con and thugs and their mindless cheerleaders to threaten billionaire Mark Cuban into backing away from a project to mass distribute Loose Change, Cuban has remained resolute in his determination to bring the film to the big screen.

During a radio interview last Friday , Fox bully Bill O'Reilly warned Cuban as well as Charlie Sheen who is set to narrate the movie, that he would be "looking out" for them and that Sheen's career would be "finished" if he went ahead with the project.

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News , Cuban restates his intention to distribute the film and fends off the intimidation of the attack dogs who wish to see the entire venture deep sixed.

Dallas Mavericks owner Cuban quotes JFK in citing the necessity of giving an open forum to controversial subjects.

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

"I happen to think we live in a city of smart and educated people who don't need anyone to censor for them," he said. "They can make up their own minds," states Cuban.

"I do believe that lies in the shadows are far more dangerous than lies you can confront and refute."

Cuban's promise that he would be happy to distribute a film that refutes the evidence presented in Loose Change isn't enough for the debunkers, because they know they cant win an argument when there's a level playing field - for the very simple reason that the facts aren't on their side.

Mark Cuban should be commended for facing down the imposing attempts by Neo-Con apologists for the Bush administration to employ a chilling effect in an effort to shoot down the mass availability of Loose Change.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

The 9/11 Truth Domino Effect

2007-03-29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 29, 2007  
Steve Watson

The leaking of the until now withheld WTC blueprints this week represents a growing trend of truth seeking individuals putting aside politics and coming forth in an attempt to set the record straight on the defining event of the 21st century.

Below is a by no means extensive list with links that represents how this 9/11 truth domino effect is gathering pace in all walks of life.

100 Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report - http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Around 130 Professors Question the 9/11 Commission Report - http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Over 100 9/11 Survivors and Family Members Question the 9/11 Commission Report - http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Over 70 Entertainment and Media Professionals who Question the 9/11 Commission Report -
http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are constructing their site now - http://ae911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice - http://stj911.org/index.html

Pilots for 9/11 Truth - www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Group of scientists, engineers and other professionals - http://physics911.net/

Many highly qualified legal scholars believe that the attacks may intentionally have been allowed to happen or even been actively aided and abetted by elements within the United States government:

John Loftus (Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer; currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services). See http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Loftus

Francis Boyle, PhD, LLD (Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; Boyle was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; Boyle served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Boyle

Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 Falk served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Falk

Burns H. Weston (Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Weston

C. Peter Erlinder, former president of the National Lawyers Guild. See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Erlinder.and http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633.

Mark Conrad (Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign s; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Conrad

Horst Ehmke, PhD (Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice (West Germany)). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Ehmke

William G. Weaver, JD, PhD (Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Weaver

Gerry Spence (famed trial attorney). See http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN/New_Pearl_Harbor.html

William Veale, Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career. See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Veale

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government." 

And of course the most important contributors to the 9/11 truth domino effect are the people.

 

 

 

 

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible

2007-03-29

Associated Press | March 28, 2007
NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a "nuclear 9-11," a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq.

The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. "If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings," he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

"It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb," Richardson said. "We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb-a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide."

Asked why he doesn't support a nuclear-free world like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other Cold War leaders have promoted, Richardson replied, "I'm a pragmatist."

"I believe what the world needs to do is nuclear arms reductions," Richardson said. He recalled that it didn't work when President Reagan and Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev agreed in 1986 to renounce all nuclear weapons "for about 10 minutes."

Richardson worked on securing Russian nuclear weapons when he was energy secretary in the Clinton administration. But he accused the Bush administration of underfunding their programs.

"Meanwhile, we are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq," he said. "Of the many ways in which the Iraq war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous."

In the question-and-answer period after his speech, Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

On the third day, the issue would be global warming. Richardson gave former Vice President Al Gore credit for spreading knowledge about the issue through his Oscar-winning film. But he wasn't encouraging Gore to enter the 2008 race.

"I like Al Gore, he looks very healthy and prosperous," Richardson said with a laugh. "He should stay where he is."

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bush threatens veto on Iraq bills

2007-03-28

President Bush warned money for troops could start to run out in April

US President George W Bush has warned again that he will veto any bill setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

His comments come a day after the US Senate upheld a Democrat-led proposal calling for US combat troops to pull out of Iraq by next March.

Mr Bush said setting "a specific and arbitrary date" would be "disastrous".

He warned that money to support US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would begin to run out in mid-April.

"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible," he said.

Enemies 'plotting'

Two Republicans sided with the Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday to reject a Republican amendment that would have removed the withdrawal clause from a bill on military funding

A bill in the House of Representatives, imposing a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.

Some Democrats want US troops to be brought home now

Both pieces of legislation are tied to more than $120bn (£60bn) in emergency funding for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington, Mr Bush warned Congress that failing to pass the military funding bill would jeopardise US security.

"The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous," he said.

"If the House bill becomes law, our enemies will simply have to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to leave.

"It makes no sense for politicians in Washington DC to be dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away."

We're not holding up funding and in Iraq and he knows that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Mr Bush acknowledged it would take a "sustained, determined effort to succeed" in Iraq but said he was confident it would happen.

He also criticised the Senate funding bill for containing too much "pork" - or spending on special interests unrelated to military funding.

The Democrats have insisted, however, that they will not back down over the demand for a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Responding to Mr Bush's comments, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he was attempting to avoid accountability by threatening a veto on the bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also rejected Mr Bush's remarks.

"Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" he said, addressing the Senate.

"We're not holding up funding and in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"

A final Senate vote on the whole funding bill will take place later this week. It would need the support of a dozen Republicans to pass.

Source BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6504105.stm

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Sheen/O'Donnell Attack Dogs Are Bushite Neo-Cons On The Payroll

2007-03-28

 

Bo Dietl in business with Saudi Royal family

 

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Friday, March 23, 2007

Earlier today we highlighted how one of the attack dogs on the Scarborough hit piece was part of an organization whose President is a paid consultant for Fox News. Matthew Felling, media director for the Center of Media and Public Affairs, is also a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing Neo-Con think tank.

Thanks to information passed on by our readers we have now also discovered that Bo Dietl, a New York detective who savaged Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell about their views on 9/11 on an O'Reilly Factor segment last night, was appointed by Bush senior as Co-Chairman of the National Crime Commission in 1989, and chosen as Security Consultant to the National Republican Party Convention in 1992 and 1996.

Dietl is also CEO of Beau Dietl Associates (BDA), which counts amongst its clients Columbia Pictures, Coca-Cola, Grey Advertising , PaineWebber, Lehman Brothers, Bankers Trust and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Royals are intimately implicated in 9/11. In the hours immediately after after 9/11, dozens of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family fled the U.S. in a secret airlift authorized by the Bush White House, when all other air traffic was grounded.

So for Bo Dietl to do anything other than shill for the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 would be to jeopardize his cozy relationship with the Bushes and risk losing the moola being tossed in his direction by the corrupt Saudi Royals.

Another example of fair and balanced on behalf of Fox News!

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Call for blogging code of conduct

2007-03-28

BBC
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The support for a blogger hounded by death threats has intensified with some high profile web experts calling for a code of conduct in the blogosphere.

The female blogger at the centre of the row has been shocked to discover that hers is not an isolated incident.

It has led her and others to question some of the unwritten rules of blogging.

It could force a re-examination of the way the tight-knit blogging community behaves.

Among those calling for a bloggers' code of conduct is Tim O'Reilly - one of the web's most influential thinkers.

He told BBC Radio Five Live that it could be time to formalise blogging behaviour.

"I do think we need some code of conduct around what is acceptable behaviour, I would hope that it doesn't come through any kind of [legal/government] regulation it would come through self-regulation."

While condemning the bloggers who issued the threats, Mr O'Reilly was keen that the whole blogosphere should not be tarred with the same brush.

"The fact that there's all these really messed-up people on the internet is not a statement about the internet. It is a statement about those people and what they do and we need to basically say that you guys are doing something unacceptable and not generalise it into a comment about this is what's happening to the blogosphere."

Cyber-bullying rife

Ms Sierrra has personally witnessed the usually harmless feuding that is part and parcel of blogging take on an altogether more sinister tone, with threats of a violent and sexual nature gathering pace over the last month.

She agonised over whether to publicise what had happened to her, she told the BBC News website.

Since describing the campaign against her, she has been shocked to discover that cyber-bullying is widespread.

"As well as around 900 comments on my blog and hundreds of comments on other blogs, I have received around 300 personal e-mails and about 70% of them say they have been through a similar thing," she told the BBC News website.

Among the messages is one from a blogger Ms Sierra described as "far more prominent than me" who has been avoiding industry conferences because of persistent online threats.

Ms Sierra herself pulled out of a planned appearance at ETech in San Diego this week.

She believes it is time the technology blogging community sat up and took notice.

"I think there is a culture of looking the other way. When other prominent people look the other way it is creating an environment that allows this type of behaviour," she said.

She also thinks it could be time to re-examine whether the blogosphere needs to be completely uncensored.

"There is an unwritten rule in the blogosphere that it is wrong to delete nasty comments. It suggests that you can't take criticism but now there is a sense that this is nonsense," she said.

Tough on women

Denise Howell, a US lawyer and blogger, believes that the blogosphere is no place for legal requirements.

"The tools of the Live Web have made it easier than ever for ordinary people to communicate and express views in their individual capacities, and to provide platforms, e.g. on their blogs, for others to do so," she said.

"I think anyone who enjoys any aspect of the Live Web would celebrate this fact, and agree its vitality would be impaired if the law expected or required these ordinary people to envelop themselves and their sites in elaborate legal provisos and conditions if they hope to be shielded from potential responsibility for the bad acts of others," she said.

The Kathy Sierra situation is, she said, "forcing bloggers to examine their moral compasses on a number of fronts". But, ultimately self-regulation is the only way forward, she believes.

Although, as a female blogger, she has not personally encountered bullying or sexism, she does think it can be tough to be a woman online.

"Despite my fortunately good experiences, I do think it's harder in some ways for women to blog. For women with families, it's constantly in the back of your mind that you're putting not just yourself but to some extent your family in the public eye," she said.

It has long been accepted that online behaviour differs from the behaviour people would exhibit in the real world due, largely to the anonymity it allows.

Technology blogger Sam Sethi agrees that blogging can bring out the worst in people.

"These young geek guys they feel that that they can say what they want and do it with anonymity. It can bring out the worst character behaviour because they feel that they are hidden.

He agrees with Tim O'Reilly that the time is ripe for bloggers to have a code of conduct and like fellow bloggers, has turned off the facility on his blog that allows for anonymous posts.

"Too optimistic"

"It could be that the time has come to professionalise what bloggers do," he said.

"It is up to the community to agree the rules and then it would simply be a line at the top of the blog to say only show me sites that adhere to this conduct," he said.

For Ms Sierra the reasons behind the campaign against her remain elusive. Other than being a woman, she can see only one other reason for the hatred she has experienced in the last four weeks.

"They thought I was just too damned optimistic," she told the BBC News website.

"These people are interested in rage and they think that if you aren't enraged then you are part of the problem. It seems that they hate my optimism. They think I am poisoning peoples' minds with my positive outlook," she told the BBC News website.

Such nihilism and anger have led her to consider hanging up her blogging software for good.

1 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Bill Maher Discusses Bush's 9/11 Non-Reaction On Olbermann

2007-03-28

Bill Maher is asked if there is one question he would put to Bush, what would it be? Maher says he would confront Bush on why he completely failed to immediately react after he was told America was under attack on 9/11.

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Will US attack Iran?

2007-03-28

India e-News
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 <