The Osterley Times

Friday, May 05, 2006

Blair Considers Blaming Prescott As Labour Lose

Labour yesterday suffered their worst election results since the Falklands war in 1982, with the party losing 210 local councilors.

Blair is attempting to take control of the news by announcing an immediate reshuffle, with the inevitable rumours that Prescott may be about to lose his job.

Tessa Jowell, said: "The headlines of the last two weeks have made it very difficult for us and created a noise that has made it very difficult to get over our local election message. I am very sorry if local activists feel that they have been let down."

This is, of course, a nonsense.

Most of us, myself included, have deserted Labour because of the lurch to the right the party has taken under Blair's management.

We want a Labour party that represents Labour values. Charles Clarke's announcement that he intends to consider all foreign nationals who have served a jail term as candidiates for deportation was a step too far for many Labour supporters.

We have been seduced by Blair to accept more right wing policies as a way of appeasing the "middle ground" and ensuring continuing Labour victories. However, many of us are coming to the conclusion that we don't want to be any part of a Labour party that is simply operating Tory policies under a Labour name.

I have no great faith that these results will change the way that Blair governs, but one would hope that the party in general would take stock of how far they have wandered from the path that got them elected in the first place.

Attempting to deflect the blame on to Prescott will be a catastrophic error should Blair go ahead with it.

Prescott is Tony Blair's last contact with the Labour grassroots. Prescott's crime, that he had an extra-marital affair, is amongst the most menial one could imagine.

Should Blair sack Prescott, which it's being hinted this morning that he will, he will finally sever his links with the party; and from there Blair's fall will be a swift one.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Cohen's Pathetic Attack on Colbert

First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy.

Alert! Funny people never have to tell you they are funny, you get to know it because they make you laugh.

The "I am a funny guy" statement is the first line of Richard Cohen's attack on Stephen Colbert for daring to accept the White House invitation to address the White House Correspondents Dinner and for doing the kind of routine that he is famous for and, indeed, the kind of routine that we can only presume he was asked along to do.

One would think to listen to Cohen that no-one at the White House knew what Colbert's character was about. But then, it's the Bush White House, so that's always a possibility.

Cohen says:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask.

Because he just ripped the President a new asshole, Mr Cohen. But then, you knew that didn't you? That's why you're trying this trick of attacking Colbert whilst simultaneously dismissing him as unimportant.

He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others.

Oh, he told them, and you heard him; that's why you're soooo pissed off.

Of course the irony is lost on you that you post this crap in the Washington Post where no-one has a chance to blog back. The difference, Mr Cohen, is that if you said that on the blogs your readers also have a magaphone and they could have shouted right back at you.

But let me also explain why a "funny" guy like yourself might not have caught the humour behind Colbert's performance.

The butt of the joke never gets the joke! And you, my friend - and those who think like you - were the butt of the joke.

Click title for Cohen's pathetic article. It is funny. But not for the reasons he imagines.

An Inconvenient Truth

Watch the trailer for Al Gore on global warming. The Republicans continue to say that it doesn't exist. These people are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Kick Blair in the Ballots!

Today I stepped into a polling booth and left for the first time in my life having not voted for the Labour Party.

Since the Iraq War I have told myself that I would not vote for Labour as long as Blair remained party leader, however, when push came to shove during a General Election I somehow felt as if I was being churlish, risking four years of the Tories simply to prove to myself that I held anti-war credentials.

Especially as the Tories supported Blair's position for the war. Indeed, had the Tories behaved like a proper party of opposition, Blair would have lost the vote to the biggest backbench rebellion ever recorded in the history of Parliament, Blair would have stood down, the next leader would have had to explain to Bush that Britain joining the US in Iraq was now officially off the table.

How different things would be had the Tories taken that stance.

However, after a glance at this morning's paper I finally felt the bile rise and thought, bugger it, I'll vote for the Independent for no other reason than he came to my door and asked me for my vote. He wants to concentrate on local issues and, as it's a local election, I thought fine, "Let's kick Blair in the Ballots".

There were several things in today's paper that swayed me, but foremost in my mind was Clarke's proclamation that all overseas nationals who are in jail would face deportation at the end of their sentence.

US readers might remember I talked here about the trouble that Clarke had got himself into. Brief recap:

The charge against the Home Secretary is that he allowed 1,023 foreign prisoners, including murderers, rapists and sex offenders, to walk free when legislation demanded that deportation be considered.

His problems were compounded when it was revealed that 288 of them were released after the Home Office was alerted to the problem.

For a Labour Party playing to the middle ground (in Britain this actually means playing to the right wing, slobbering readers of the Daily Mail) this has the potential to be catastrophic. Nothing incites the Mail readers more than the subject of immigration; and when it's immigrants who have committed crimes the Mail readers become incandescent in their outrage.

So Clarke's response has been to move even further to the right, now calling for expulsion for ALL overseas nationals jailed for ANY offence. Imprisonable offences in this country include shoplifting, owning a dog which is dangerously out of control, stealing electricity, giving a false name on train if travelling without a ticket and others too ludicrous to ever contemplate that they could possibly warrant someone's deportation.

Now Clarke has been trying to make up for lost time by rounding up anyone that he thinks he perhaps should have previously been considered for deportation and the stories this action produces do not make happy reading:

Ernesto Leal was just 13 when he arrived in Britain in 1977 as a refugee from the persecution of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet's brutal regime.

Along with his four siblings, the teenager was brought up and educated in Scotland, integrated into UK culture and, with his passport stamped "indefinite leave to stay", he regarded himself as British.
About three years ago, Ernesto Leal was sentenced to 30 months in prison for grievous bodily harm with intent, after a brawl in a pub that he maintains was the result of a racial incident.

On the judge's advice, he served 18 months of his sentence, mostly in an open prison and was eventually released several months ago on probation.
All that changed on Monday when, more than a year after his release from prison, he was arrested by 30 police officers at his London home and taken to Belmarsh detention centre where he was issued with a deportation order to Jamaica because it was stated he was "a threat to the public".

"Why he is being sent to Jamaica nobody knows," said his sister Sonia Leal, 36, yesterday.

If these are the kind of people Clarke is sending out of the country then he should resign. He's fucking about with real people's lives with no more noble motive than taking the heat off his own fat arse.

That such actions can be being taken by a Labour Home Secretary fills me with shame.

The article I've linked to describes a man who's lived here since the age of thirteen, who's father was persecuted by Pinochet for Christ's sake, who was brought to this country by United Nations and who was sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers as the Labour movements sympathetic response to his persecution.

And now we have a Labour Home Secretary who wants to kick him out the country because he got into a fight in a pub?

These people are frauds in Labour clothing. They share neither our values nor our instincts.

Even Michael Howard, the most repressive Home Secretary I can think of, would have blanched at taking such a course of action.

But Blair cares more about the opinions of the Daily Mail readers than he does about the rights of the children who suffered under Pinochet.

Fuck him. I hope he gets slaughtered at the polls.

Success is not the transition to death by electric drill

It has long been clear to all bar its most stubborn advocates that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been the mother of all foreign policy disasters. Three years ago this week, President Bush flew on to the USS Abraham Lincoln to announce that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended". In a display of premature triumphalism that quickly came to symbolise the hubris and folly of US policy, the banner over his head declared: "mission accomplished".

But judging failure and holding those responsible to account has been complicated by a lack of clarity about what exactly that mission was. So many justifications for war have been offered that its supporters have found it relatively easy to respond to the collapse of one by seeking refuge in another. It is only comparatively recently that they have run out of places to hide. The WMD case was beginning to unravel even before Bush declared victory. As the most recent US state department report demonstrates, terrorism is a greater threat than ever. There has been no "democratic domino effect" sweeping across the Middle East. And even the claim to have liberated Iraqis from a cruel and despotic regime now seems increasingly forlorn.

The failure to achieve these war aims would be bad enough in view of the enormous cost in blood and treasure, but there is now considerable evidence to suggest that in most respects the invasion has made a bad situation worse.

Click title for full article.

Cheney has no regrets over Iraq invasion

The Archbishop of "Truthiness", Vice President Dick Cheney, has said that he has "no regrets" over the invasion of Iraq and still believes that the US did the right thing.

Displaying the "finger on the pulse of public opinion" instincts that see him enjoying an approval rating of 18%, the man who once voted to keep Nelson Mandela in jail said, "In the end, you can argue about the quality of the intelligence and so forth, but ... I look at that whole spectrum of possibilities and options, and I think we did the right thing."

It now transpires that most of the suspect "intelligence" emanated from Mr Cheney's own office.

To give us some further indication of the mindset of the man now occupying the number two position in the Bush administration, Mr Cheney confesses to Vanity Fair magazine that his first thought on visiting Moscow's Red Square in the 1980s was: "'Well, I guess we're at ground zero of any American nuclear strike."

Ah, the kind of warm, fuzzy feelings that would go through any diplomat's heart faced with such architectural beauty.

Moreover, Mr Cheney now seems to be adopting the Tony Blair tactic of wearing one's unpopularity as if it was a badge of the deepest honour.

"My image might be better out there, this caricature you talk about might be avoided, if I spent more time as a public figure trying to improve my image, but that's not why I'm here," he said.

Quite right. That's not why he's here. He's here to boost Haliburton's profits and to ensure regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

So far he's only achieved the first two. So get out his way... or he'll shoot you in the face.

Click title for full article.

'You lost, I won,' Moussaoui tells America as jury spares 9/11 plotter death penalty

There will no doubt be great consternation on the right that a jury has decided not to put Zacarias Moussaoui to death for his role in the 9-11 massacres in New York.

It is certainly an unexpected outcome.

The jury's decision came as a surprise to legal commentators, who had expected that the magnitude of the toll from the September 11 attacks would sway the jury towards a death sentence.
It was thought that the highly emotional content of the trial, which included painful testimony from dozens of relatives of those killed on that day and the dramatic cockpit recording of Flight 93, which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, made execution a near certainty.
The decision is also bound to disappoint the Bush administration, which had manoeuvred for the trial to be held in Virginia because the state allows the death penalty and because the court house is only a few miles away from the Pentagon, which was also attacked on that day.
But, in the detailed verdict read out yesterday, it appeared that the jury did not accept the prosecution's main argument - that Moussaoui, who was already in jail at the time of the September 11 attacks, had caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans because he misled FBI investigators, and so prevented them from thwarting the al-Qaida plot to strike a blow to the heart of the United States.
Instead, the jury concluded that Moussaoui, a French citizen who came to the US to learn to fly jet airliners, played a minor role, if any at all, in the attacks.
The decision was praised by Rosemary Dillard, who lost her husband in the attacks, and who said she was proud that the jury had risen above raw emotion provoked by Moussaoui's courtroom outbursts. "He's a bad man, but this is a fair society and I think all the families agree that the judgment of the jury shows that we treat terrorists with respect no matter how disrespectful they are, and that means a lot," she said.

I must say that I am in total agreement with Rosemary Dillard. In this instance, the US jury got it completely right.

An eye for an eye is no way for a modern society to function. Speaking as a European, I find the death penalty repugnant and am delighted that, on this occasion, it was rejected.

If killing people is wrong, and I've yet to find anyone who argues the opposite, then it is wrong whether done by an individual or the state.

As he left the courtroom, Moussaoui shouted: "America, you lost. I won."

He's wrong. On this occasion America won, by proving her nobility.

Click title for full article.

UN draft on nuclear Iran tabled

The US continues to insist that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon without producing a scintilla of evidence to back their case.

They are currently trying to push a chapter seven resolution through the United Nations demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment. Chapter seven resolutions carry the threat of war.

Bush said, "The Iranians must understand that we won't fold, that our partnership is strong, that for the sake of world peace, they should abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions."

US Ambassador John Bolton said: "The key to this lies in Iran's hands."

He added: "If they give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a lot of things are possible. If they continue to bluster and to threaten and obfuscate and try to throw sand in our eyes, then we're onto a different circumstance."

You'll notice that both Bolton and Bush speak of Iran's desire to obtain a nuclear weapon, and speak as if this is simply a given.

There is so far no proof that Iran is seaking a nuclear weapon. Indeed, Iran say that such a weapon is against the beliefs of Islam.

Bush and Bolton are continuing to present Iran's uranium enrichment, which is their right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as proof that they desire to obtain the nuclear bomb.

As with Iraq, we are being asked to accept the Bush regime's darkest suspicions as if they were facts. And, as with Iraq, we should always remember that the US overall aim is for regime change. The facts are, once again, being fixed around this policy.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Hebron Clash

Video of IDF soldiers confronting Israeli and Palestinian peace activists during nonviolent demonstration. This video is provided by Gush Shalom.

You'll see from the video that the IDF are completely out of control. Possibly the most trigger happy army in the world. We also get a glimpse at a "settlement". The use of that phrase makes it sound like a couple of caravans nestled around an open fire.

As we see here, the Israelis are actually building cities on Arab land. And all with the acquiescence of the US. Or, if not it's acquiescence, then at least the absence of it's condemnation.

UN to slate Iran nuke programme 'soon'

There's a breaking story that the UN are to issue a Chapter Seven resolution against Iran no later than this Thursday demanding that Iran cease all uranium enrichment.

The daily said that the draft resolution expresses "serious concerns" that Iran has not complied with its international commitments and calls on its government to stop producing enriched uranium and return to the negotiating table.

Citing unnamed officials, the newspaper said that the resolution did not contain a fixed deadline for compliance or threats of sanctions if Iran failed to comply.

But Burns told journalists in Paris on Tuesday that if Iran failed to comply with the resolution, a second resolution would be introduced imposing sanctions on Tehran.

These sanctions are likely to include travel restrictions on members of the Iranian government as well as restrictions on the sale of so-called dual-use nuclear technology "that could be used by Iran to develop its (nuclear weapons) capability," he said.

However, the International Herald Tribune reported that Russia and China, two permanent members of the Security Council, were resisting the move to pressure Iran and could hamper efforts to rein in the government in Tehran.

The last paragraph gives the hint that this is a non news story. I simply don't buy that China and Russia will agree to this latest US/UK request.

Am I the only person to be completely befuddled as to what George Bush is actually doing at the UN?

There's no way, whilst Iran are complying with the IAEA, that the Russians and Chinese are going to agree to any of this nonsense.

Georgie should simply give it up. It's going to become embarrassing soon.

Colbert Roasts Bush Part 3.

Part 3.

Colbert Roasts Bush 2

Part Two.

Colbert Roasts Bush Part 1

I've finally managed to locate the entire Stephen Colbert speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

BBC is criticised for misleading coverage of Middle East

The BBC have been criticised for their coverage of the Israeli/Palestine dispute, although the report concedes that there is "no deliberate or systematic bias."

However, the real suprise for Mr. Angry of Golders Green is that the BBC is felt to be presenting the Middle East in a way that favours Israel.

The complaint is that the BBC does not give enough historical context to their reports:

"There was little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives".

It then complains that too often the BBC goes with a story because they have dramatic pictures to accompany it. This is more likely to happen in Israel rather than in Gaza or the West Bank, where the BBC do not even have a correspondent:

"When the Israelis suffer it is usually from a terrorist attack... which necessarily constitutes a newsworthy event... In recent years, many more Palestinians have been killed but usually in circumstances which are less dramatic and give rise to less striking images," the report said.

Its international influence means the BBC and its coverage are "important prizes" in a conflict where "the media themselves are part of the contest ground", the report added.

Whilst I think this complaint against the BBC is fair, she is by no means the worst offender.

Newpapers often talk of suicide bombings occurring "after a period of relative calm". When one reviews the Arab press one often finds that dozens of Palestinians have been killed during this "calm" period.

Likewise, the Israelis have been very successful in promoting Hasbara. For instance, when did the Occupied Territories become the Disputed Territories? When did the West Bank become Judea and Samaria? When did illegal settlements start being referred to as "Jewish neighbourhoods?" When did the cold blooded murder of people who have never been tried before any court of law become "targetted assasinations"?

The list is endless. However, newspaper and TV coverage - although undeniably important - matter much less than the US governments decision to only see events in the Middle East through an Israeli prism.

I was struck by this description of the relationship from Dov Weisglass talking about how he and Condaleeza Rice usually react when Israel mistakenly kills innocent Palestinians whilst attempting a targetted assasination.

If something happens - an unusual military operation, a hitch, a targeted assassination that succeeded or one that didn't succeed - before it becomes an imbroglio, she calls me and says, `We saw so-and-so on CNN. What's going on?' And I say, `Condy, the usual 10 minutes?' She laughs and we hang up.

Yes, you read that correctly. Before they've even finished scraping the innocent bodies from the street, Condi has "laughed and hung up".

Ten minutes later, after I find out what happened, I get back to her and tell her the whole truth. The whole truth. I tell her and she takes it down: this is what we intended, this is how it came out. She doesn't get worked up. She believes us. The continuation is damage control."

You'll notice that Condi takes Israel at their word every time. "She believes us."

What possible chance is there of the US acting as "honest brokers" when they are so blatantly on one side of this dispute?

It is time for the Israelis to recognise Israel.

Today is Memorial Day in Israel and tomorrow Israel will celebrate her 58th anniversary as a modern state.

Happy birthday, Israel.

However, with the present pain being inflicted upon the people of Palestine, for daring to elect Hamas as their leaders, isn't it about time that Israel took the same step that she is demanding from the Palestinians?

The US and Israel demand that Hamas recognise Israel's right to exist. But surely, in order to ask anyone to do this, Israel should first define the area over which she is claiming sovereignty.

It is impossible for anyone to recognise Israel whilst she refuses to recognise herself by failing to define what she claims to be her borders.

Israel is the only country in the world to hold such a position.

Surely now, as she approaches middle age, it is time to end such coyness and for Israel to state, once and for all, what land she thinks is hers.

Only then could the Arab states give an honest answer as to whether or not they agree with Israel's definition of what land Israel claims to be Israel's.

How can anyone recognise a country when they don't know where it is? Or, more importantly, where it ends?

From 1967 onwards the US has been complicit with Israel in maintaining this international abnormality. Indeed, they have often used it as a club with which to beat the Arab nations for "failing to recognise" a country that fails to recognise itself.

Nor are the reasons for this failing hard to understand.

Israel refuses to define her borders because she is unwilling to state how much of the land that belonged to the Palestinians before the 1967 war that she now wishes to claim as her own.

This is because, under law, the amount of land that Israel is allowed to retain is nil.

International law is very clear on this issue. Resolution 242 begins by, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

Resolution 446, "Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity".

Resolution 446 states this because Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention says, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

So this ambiguity exists only because the US and Israel seek to contravene international law.

It is time for this ambiguity to end.

I am genuine in wishing Israel a happy birthday. I also wish her peace on this historic day. But she will only know true peace when she obeys the same international laws that she, and the US, demand that the rest of the world comply with.

Those same international laws demand that Israel give up the occupied territories and return to her 1967 borders.

As she approaches her sixtieth year, it is time for Israel to recognise herself and, more importantly, the limitations of her borders.

Iraqi, 15, 'drowned after soldiers forced him into canal'

An Iraqi teenager drowned after being forced by British troops to go into a canal "to teach him a lesson" after he had been found looting a court martial heard yesterday.

The soldiers watched as Ahmed Jabar Karheem, 15, who was unable to swim, began to struggle when he was ordered into the Shatt al-Basra canal in May 2003. After the boy disappeared below the surface, the soldiers drove away. His body was recovered two days later.

"Karheem was in obvious distress as he was unable to swim," Orlando Pownall QC, prosecuting, told the court martial in Colchester. "His head bobbed to the surface and then disappeared. One of the soldiers who was at the bank of the canal made as if to remove his clothing in order to rescue Karheem but then returned to the Warrior tank, which drove away."

Lance Corporal James Cooke, 22, Guardsman Joseph McCleary, 24, and Guardsman Martin McGing, 22, of the Irish Guards are charged with manslaughter with their commander, Colour Sergeant Carle Selman, 39, of the Coldstream Guards. All four deny the charges.

This case appears to highlight the total chaos that followed the "liberation" of Iraq. Lacking any plan to stabilise the country it would appear that an enormous amount of leeway was allowed to individual soldiers who became judge and jury over the Iraqi people and took advantage of their newly found powers with inevitable results.

This case does not highlight "a few bad apples", it highlights the total lack of any post war plans and the inevitable chaos that emanated from this.

At the time, Rumsfeld seemed to revel in this chaos saying stupid things like, "It's untidy, and freedom's untidy. Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things."

It was much more than "untidy". It was chaos. And it was chaos that was caused by Rumsfeld's lack of planning for a post war situation.

We are now beginning to get glimpses of what that chaos actually meant for the individuals caught up in it.

For some, it meant death.

All of those deaths can be laid at Rumsfeld's door. In any post-war situation there is the possibility that soldiers, high on adrenaline, will behave in ways which contravene the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war.

It is for their superiors to ensure that this does not happen and that order is maintained.

In the case of Iraq, that order broke down. This resulted, not only in cases like that detailed above; it, ultimately, gave us the horrors of Abu Ghraib.

The man in charge of the Iraq war was Donald Rumsfeld. The responsibility for all of this is his.

He should be fired.

Not only for his lack of post war planning; which was, in itself, a sackable offence. More importantly, by choosing to say things like, "Freedoms untidy", he appeared to be attempting to rationalise the chaos and to make it appear the after-war norm.

By choosing to define the after war "norm" in such terms, he created the circumstances in which such abuse could flourish.

Sack him.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Once more unto the breach

The current 'crisis' regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions is nothing more than a facilitator for war. By Scott Ritter.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has just released a report concerning Iran's nuclear programme, in which it notes that Iran has failed to comply with the UN security council's demands to cease its nuclear enrichment programmes. The IAEA report finds that Iran has, in defiance of the security council, in fact carried out a successful test to enrich uranium to the low levels needed in the production of nuclear energy. The IAEA also found that Iran had failed to provide a level of cooperation and transparency necessary for the IAEA to exclude the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme being carried out under the guise of civilian nuclear energy activities.

While the IAEA's report has underscored Iran's disturbing disregard for responding to the concerns of both the IAEA and the UN security council, it does not certify Iran as a clear and present danger, requiring a strong and immediate response from the international community. And yet the IAEA report has generated rhetoric from both the United States and Europe that seems well beyond that which the content of the report seems to merit. The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has joined US officials in condemning the Iranian government for its failure to halt its nuclear enrichment efforts, and has called for the UN security council to "increase the pressure on Iran". Many officials in Europe have echoed the UK position, believing, it seems, that such action represents a manifestation of President George Bush's stated objective of resolving the Iranian matter "diplomatically and peacefully".

Just how naive can Europe be? While public sentiment against the US-led invasion (and ongoing occupation) of Iraq remains high, manifesting itself in the reduction of the original "coalition of the willing" to pathetic levels, Europe ("old" and "new") continues to behave as if the current conflict with Iraq and the potential of future conflict with Iran remain two separate and distinct issues.

It is shocking to see European officials, skilled in the heavily nuanced world of EU diplomacy, accept without question the sophomoric equivocation by the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice that "Iran is not Iraq". This phrase has been used repeatedly by Rice to deflect any query as to whether or not there are any parallels between the current US "diplomatic" stance on Iran and the "diplomacy" undertaken in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has widely been acknowledged as representing little more than a smokescreen behind which the Bush administration prepared for a war already decided upon.

Iran may not be Iraq, but these two nations are inextricably linked through the Machiavellian machinations of a US national security strategy that not only embraces the legitimacy of pre-emptive war, but also the notion of America's inherent right to pursue a policy of "regional transformation" in the Middle East, a policy that has as its core operational thematic pre-emptive military action to remove the regimes of so-called "failed" and "rogue" states. In the 2006 version of this national security strategy, Iran is named 16 times as the leading threat to the national security of the United States. I would hope every European diplomat has read this document, and takes its contents to heart. The national security strategy of the United States, circa 2006, can leave no doubt as to what the true intent of the Bush administration is regarding Iran: regime change. The current "crisis" regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions represents nothing more than an emotionally-charged facilitator for war.

Europe continues to act as if the American policy objective of regime change is nothing more than the irresponsible blathering of rightwing media pundits. The self-delusion that encompasses this way of thinking holds that Europe's stance vis-á-vis Iran serves more as a brake toward conflict, than the accelerant it actually is. As such, the European nations taking the lead on the Iranian issue - the UK, France and Germany - will meet on May 2 in Paris with representatives from Russia, China and the United States as a precursor for a meeting of the security council on May 3. The United States has already made clear its intent to introduce a draft resolution under Chapter VII of the UN charter, elevating Iran's obstinacy to the level of a clear and present danger to international peace and security, and paving the way for the imposition of stringent economic sanctions against Iran. The United States will be lobbying quite hard for such a resolution, and is looking to a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Paris group in New York on May 9 as the time and place for bringing this issue to a head.

While such measures appear on the surface to represent sound, measured diplomatic responses, the reality is that once the United States introduces a Chapter VII resolution, even in draft form, war with Iran is all but assured. Russia and China, both permanent members of the security council with veto powers, have made clear their collective objection to any Chapter VII action against Iran. However, by endorsing the transfer of the Iranian issue from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the security council, as well as the original security council "warning" against Iran, both Russia and China have played into the hands of US policy-makers, who have and will continue to use these actions as a clear endorsement of their position that Iran and its nuclear programme represents a threat to international security.

If the Russians and Chinese balk over the imposition of Chapter VII-linked measures against Iran, as they have indicated they will, then the Bush administration will simply declare that the security council has become impotent and irrelevant in dealing with threats that it has itself declared to exist, and, as such, the United States, not wanting to have its own national security interests so hijacked, will have no choice but to move forward void of any security council endorsement or authorisation. This model of action directly parallels that undertaken by the US and UK regarding Iraq, and has been strongly alluded to in recent statements made by Vice-President Cheney, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, and Rice.

The United States has positioned itself masterfully in this regard. But the sense of urgency being pushed by the Bush administration does not match the reality painted by its own director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, who recently testified before the US Congress that Iran was, at best, 10 years away from having a nuclear weapons capability. As such, there is no need for the security council to pursue this matter under the guise of a Chapter VII resolution. In fact, there is no need for the security council to be engaged on this issue at all, at least at this time.

The one real hope of side-stepping this mad rush towards war with Iran lays in a statement made by the Iranian government, offering to deal openly and transparently with the concerns listed in the IAEA's report within a matter of weeks, if the Iranian nuclear issue is transferred away from the security council and back to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The best thing the Europeans could do at this time would be to join ranks with the Russians and Chinese to take up the Iranian offer, defusing a very tense and dangerous situation that, as it currently stands, seems to be spinning close toward yet another needless war in the Middle East.

Click title for source article.

Iraqis Begin Duty With Refusal

George Bush's plans to build a new Iraqi army has hit an unexpected obstacle with newly recruited Sunni Muslims refusing to serve outside their home areas.

Such was the level of anger that some newly graduated students started ripping off their uniforms during a graduation parade and throwing their clothes on the floor.

Apparently, the men only joined the Iraqi army because the present, mostly Shia, Iraqi armed forces have been acting brutally towards the local Sunni population. The men thought that if they signed up they could be a counterbalance to this problem.

Recruiting Sunnis into the army has been a key goal of U.S. policies to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces. Sunday's ceremony for the first group out of a total of 5,000 men recruited from Anbar represented major progress in that effort. But army commanders worry that if the men serve in their own home towns, they could be co-opted by insurgents.

While the fracas fell well short of outright mutiny -- there were no reported injuries, and the soldiers ate a meal in an orderly manner later that day -- a video clip of the graduation aired on the al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya television networks throughout Monday gave the impression of a near-riot.

However, US commanders appear to have very little sympathy for their plight.

Negard said the soldiers knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. "They're recruited for national service, and they know this," he said. "They're prepared from the beginning to serve where the needs of the Iraqi army go."

"Diversity is good for the force," he said. "The bottom line is, when they're under fire and they're training, there are no signs of sectarianism."

The official line was rejected by the new recruits:

But it isn't yet clear which way the opinion of the soldiers will swing. Another volunteer, Falah Hussein, said the soldiers' officers have met with them and asked for four days to try to work things out.

"If there is no solution, we are going home," he said.

This is further proof were any needed that Iraq is starting to fracture and that Bush's plans for a united Iraqi Army may simply be pie in the sky.

The best laid plans of mice and mice, eh? Everything Georgie touches seem to turn to shit.

Click title for full article.

Sir, No Sir!

Sir! No Sir! - Trailer (2006)
Students, doves, and hippies are the faces history gives to the Vietnam protestors, but it was the soldiers themselves who manned the front lines of dissension.
1 min 2 sec

The War Tapes

In March 2004, just as the insurgent movement strengthened, several members of one National Guard unit arrived in Iraq, carrying digital video cameras.

THE WAR TAPES is the movie they made with Director Deborah Scranton and a team of award-winning filmmakers. It's the first war movie filmed by soldiers themselves on the front lines in Iraq.

THE WAR TAPES follows three men: Sergeant Steve Pink, Sergeant Zack Bazzi, and Specialist Mike Moriarty. Steve is a young carpenter with a dark, irreverent sense of humor who joined the Guard for college money. Zack is an inquisitive, ironic traveler and university student. Mike is a husband and father of two, driven to fight by honor and redemption. You will see Operation Iraqi Freedom through their eyes.

On The Line

Apolitical college student Brian DeRouen turns activist after attending an annual protest at the U.S. Army's controversial Fort Benning, Ga., School of the Americas, a training program for Latin American soldiers which has long been linked with atrocities in that region, in "On the Line: Dissent in an Age of Terrorism." The feature documentary uses DeRouen's experience, which eventually includes conviction for trespassing and a prison term, to explore the gray area where national security and civil liberties collide. On-camera interviews with actors Martin Sheen and Susan Sarandon, Dead Man Walking author Sister Helen Prejean, Former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho and others add different perspectives.

More info at ontheline.com

Blood For Oil?

The Middle-East holds 70% of the world's oil reserves while North America and Europe will run out of oil in 2010 at their current rate of production. Current technologies might provide alternatives to oil for energy but not to oil for plastics.

In the wake of Vice-President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force, is it a coincidence if George Bush targeted Iraq in its so called "war-on-terror", a country known to possess the second largest oil reserves in the world? Is it another coincidence if U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Central Asia are based near Central Asian oil and natural gas? Was invading Iraq and Afghanistan really meant to reduce terrorist threats against the United States or was it a ploy to guarantee that the average American can go on for a little while consuming 4 times more energy that the average European or 32 times more energy than the average African?

When I Came Home

Today in America, over 300,000 veterans are homeless. Nearly half of them served in Vietnam.

In 2002, filmmaker Dan Lohaus set off across the country to document the lives of homeless Vietnam veterans and to listen to their stories. From big cities to small towns, these veterans recounted what had led them from the war to the streets. Many told Lohaus that they had come back to America haunted by their memories of Vietnam, only to fight a new war at home.

Blood of My Brother

This is a film about the tension between Sunnis and Shias and the udercurrent that leaves many of us thinking Iraq could descend into civil war.

Click to play.

Israeli Arabs to remember Nakba with traditional procession

As Israeli Jews celebrate Independence Day tomorrow, the Israeli Arab community will be marking its own holiday, the Nakba.

The Nakba, which means catastrophe in Arabic, will be commemorated with a traditional procession organized by the committee for the uprooted villagers on the land of Um Alzinat, a Mount Carmel village abandoned in 1948.

The term Nakba refers to the outcome of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, during which about 700,000 Palestinians fled from villages and cities in the area, which eventually became the State of Israel.

They were never allowed to return, and their land was seized by the government and given to Jewish immigrants.

Marchers in the procession, sponsored by the Israeli Arab Follow-up Committee, will carry posters inscribed with the names of some 530 Arab villages that were uprooted or abandoned in 1948.

The march will culminate with a large gathering of Arab MKs and representatives of the uprooted residents as well as Jewish and Arab organizations.

The committee of the uprooted villagers said this year's events will focus on the continued Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. It will also address the ongoing policy of damaging holy sites in the abandoned villages. The villagers are demanding a return to their homelands.

Every single word of the above is taken from an article in Ha'aretz newspaper. Imagine how differently the US public would view this dispute if American newspapers were anywhere near as honest as their Israeli counterparts.

The only point I would query them on is whether the Arabs "fled" or were driven from their land, but the article at least acknowledges the enormity of what happened to them. A fact that appears to have been almost airbrushed from the American reading of this moment in history.

Click title for full article.

US counts cost of day without immigrants

I have no doubt that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will be up in arms.

A million immigrants have marched across America demanding that they be accepted as citizens. Carrying signs that read, "Pick your own lettuce today, whitey" they marched through Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Houston and San Diego.

The mood at the first of two demonstrations in Los Angeles was celebratory, with protesters streaming along Broadway in the heart of downtown towards City Hall. "I'm here to support the people who work here and to demand full rights for all immigrants," said Ricardo Meneses, who came to the US from Mexico 15 years ago. "We all come here to look for work. The only thing we can do now is demonstrate peacefully." Mr Meneses, who described his job as an "agent", said he was forgoing a day's income by attending the demonstration. "What does it matter?" he asked.
Around him the predominantly Latino demonstrators blew whistles and banged drums, emotions and noise levels rising every time a police helicopter appeared overhead. Banners in English and Spanish raised the issues of the day: "The US is made by immigrants," read one; "This is not democracy, it's hypocrisy," said another, referring to a bill passed by the House of Representatives in December that would criminalise undocumented migrants as well as spending money to tighten border security.
A Latino protester wore a T-shirt reading "The sleeping giant has awoken", referring to an immigration protest at the end of March which attracted half a million people to the streets of Los Angeles. The scale of that protest and others around the country shocked organisers, police and politicians, and helped to move the debate on immigration to the top of the agenda.

Every time the subject of immigration comes up, I am reminded of how far right wingers have strayed from the ideals that made the US great, as encapsulated by the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Iran hits out at 'dangerous' US

One of the most obvious problems with George Bush's Presidency and his style of governance is that it is so blatantly open to the charge of hypocrisy. He often asks that others adhere to international laws that he, himself, has explicitly rejected.

Well, now he's been called on it. By, of all country's, Iran.

Iran have written to United Nations complaining about US intentions to attack Iranian nuclear sites which, the Iranians remind the UN, are out with of international law.

In the letter to Mr Annan, Iran's ambassador to the UN criticised US President George W Bush, who has refused to rule out even a nuclear strike on Iranian targets.

"These are in obvious contravention of international rules and the principles of the United Nations."

The letter referred specifically to a report in the New Yorker by journalist Seymour Hersh, which suggested US military planners were considering a "bunker-busting" nuclear strike.

Mr Bush has refused to rule out military action, but has repeatedly insisted that the dispute should be resolved diplomatically.

The Iranian letter was delivered at the start of a busy week of diplomacy for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Mr Bush discussed the Iranian issue during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, officials said.

Along with China, Russia has been reluctant to pressure Tehran into concessions, and is opposed to the suggestion of sanctions or military action.

Foreign policy officials from the US, UK, Russia, China and France are to meet in Paris on Tuesday to discuss how to approach the Iranian issue.

I've always said that Bush has made an error by trying to force this issue through the United Nations, as Iran is well within her rights to enrich uranium under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and Russia and China are not going to agree to any sanctions that the Americans propose.

The problem for Bush, a president who thinks he can make the rules up as he goes along, is that he has now taken this issue to a forum where people play by the rules and care about the rules.

And, by making the kind of threats he has been making, the person who is actually outside of international law at the moment is George W Bush.

He has also threatened to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and it is said he is planning to develop a new range of bunker busting nuclear weapons. All of which is in direct contravention of the same nuclear non-proliferation treaty that he is currently demanding that Iran comply with.

As things currently stand, Iran are in compliance, George Bush is not.

Enjoy your trip to the UN, Georgie.

Click title for full article.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Brits 'should be forced to vote'

The Institute for Public Policy Research group have just come to the conclusion that voting should be made compulsory in the UK as a way of stemming the low turnouts at recent elections.

Ben Rogers, IPPR associate director, said compulsory voting was the only way to stop the "haemorrhaging of turnout".

He added: "We are comfortable with compulsion in other walks of life, such as jury duty or the requirement to educate our children. Surely our democracy is valuable enough to deserve a similar level of backing."

I'm puzzled as to how compelling people to do something that they obviously don't want to do will ensure a more representative government. Especially if those people aren't interested in politics. No doubt the logic is that this will force the electorate to take a more active interest in the political process. But I think they've rather put the cart before the horse.

And when one considers that two million people took to the streets of London alone to protest against the Iraq war, it can hardly be said that people's interest in politics is waning.

I think they have come up with a solution that ignores why people express apathy in the British political process.

Since Tony Blair came to power he has assiduously courted "the middle ground" in the firm belief that, much as "Guardian readers" like myself (yes, that is how today's Labour leader describes his traditional Labour supporters) moan about his right wing ways, come election day we will have nowhere else to go and will have to bite the bullet and vote for him.

Now, Cameron is playing for the same middle ground for the Tories, working on the same principle as Blair, that come election day the Norman Tebbit's of this world will have no other option than to vote Tory.

In this way both the major parties have become practically identical. It is almost impossible to listen to either of them talk and find any substantive area of difference.

And it is this which is turning off the voters.

Before the last election I tried an online poll in which you answered various questions and they then told you which party best represented your beliefs. I'm not kidding when I say I had to lie to it to get it to tell me to vote Labour.

That's how far Blair has taken the Labour Party from it's roots.

The answer is not compulsion, the answer lies in having political parties who's beliefs represent the beliefs of the electorate. Most people in the UK feel that politics does not concern them or their lives.

Compulsion will only add resentment to something that, at the moment, merely bores them.

Address their needs and watch how quickly people will return to the habit of voting. The problem here lies with the political parties, not with the electorate.

Gaza Staggers as US/EU Policy Kicks In.

There's a very disturbing article referred to in My Occupied Territory outlining the very real hardship that is currently befalling the Palestinians as the result of the US and EU's disgraceful decision to end aid to the Palestinians because of the election of Hamas, and Israel's decision to withhold tax receipts that legally belong to the Palestinian Authority.

People are currently being turned away from hospitals because of a lack of medicines.

Mazen al-Aloul, chief nurse at Shifa, said employees were depressed about not getting their salaries.
"We suffer serious shortages in everything, but most importantly ... dealing with difficult illnesses like cancer and kidney failure," he said.
"We know America stands with Israel but we urge Europe, the mother of democracy, to lift the siege on our people," he said.

Nor was any of this unexpected. On April 16th I pointed out that this was now the official US and EU policy towards the Palestinians.

The rationale to all this was explained by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.'

We appear to have decided to starve them into submission for having dared to vote for a government that we do not approve of.

Also, Israel's decision to close the border has meant trading in the Gaza Strip has ground to a halt.

Outside the hospital, Gaza's normally bustling markets are almost deserted.
"Everyday we open our shops, clear the dust, sit down to drink tea and coffee and leave in the afternoon," said Mohammad Zaki, owner of a clothes shop.
"It has never been this bad."

Even taxi drivers said they would soon stop working.
"We understand we are being punished for electing Hamas but this has gone too far. People may soon explode," taxi driver Khamis Karem said.

What is currently being done to the Palestinians in our name is little short of disgraceful. Nor will it lead to the collapse of the Hamas leadership, which is the supposed aim of our barbarous treatment of these people.

If this continues, the Gaza Strip will explode.

Terrorising civilians with the aim of changing the actions of a government is an almost textbook definition of terrorism.

Or do the rules change when it's us who are doing the terrorising?

Powell wanted more troops in Iraq

In a development that can only increase pressure on Donald Rumsfeld to resign, Colin Powell has stated that before the Iraq war he argued for a larger military presence in Iraq to deal with the aftermath of the war and to help to establish order.

"I don't think we had enough force there to impose order," he said on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby program.

"The aftermath turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had anticipated," said Powell, adding he had favored a larger military presence to deal with the unforeseen.

"I made the case to General (Tommy) Franks, to (Defense) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld and to the president that I was not sure we had enough troops," Powell said. But he said the military leaders felt they had the appropriate number.

Condaleeza Rice, the supposed "intellectual" who has never articulated an original thought in her life, claimed not to remember specifically what Powell was referring to. As usual though, she could be relied upon to trumpet the official party line.

Rice added that there would have been "potentially a lot of problems with a very, very big footprint of coalition forces at the time of the liberation of Iraq."

Yeah, cos they managed to avoid problems with a smaller force. Is she on smack?

She is actually the best illustration of this administrations total detachment from reality. They seem to believe they can make things true simply by stating them to be so.

Any sane, rational, person can see that one of the most important things the occupying force was required to provide the people of Iraq was order. The failure to provide order has provided the framework in which the insurgency has thrived.

And that failure was caused by a lack of boots on the ground.

It was Rumsfeld who argued that a smaller army was the way forward, and he did so against a wall of military opposition.

He has been proven wrong. But more important than this, he appears to have no plan for ending the carnage that is currently taking place in Iraq other than to insist on more of the same.

He is out of his depth, and unable to admit any of his shortcomings.

He should be fired.

Millions Expected to Join Walkout.

Something unprecedented in the whole of American history is due to take place today.

For the first time ever, America's immigrant workers are to withhold their labour to make the point that the US cannot function without them.

"It will be tens of millions from coast to coast, from Los Angeles to New York," Javier Rodriguez, a spokesman for the March 25 Coalition, told CNN. "You can expect L.A. to be at a standstill almost totally. You will not have truckers. You will not have taxi drivers, garment workers, hotel workers, restaurant workers -- half of the teacher force will not be going to school."

The strike, called "A Day Without Immigrants" is the natural progression to the pro-immigrant rallies which stunned the US through the sheer size and scale of the demonstrations.

"We're going to see something that's never occurred in the history of this United States -- a day in which immigrants withhold their labor, withhold their consuming power -- they don't go to school, they don't go shopping, they don't go selling," Lopez said.

About 7.2 million illegal immigrants hold jobs in the United States, making up 4.9 percent of the overall labor force, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center. Undocumented workers make up 24 percent of farmworkers and hold 14 percent of construction jobs, the study found.

Other estimates put the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States at more than 11 million.

The protests began in March in opposition to a congressional bill that would make felons of illegal immigrants and wall off more than a third of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border. The bill passed the House of Representatives in December but has stalled in the Senate.

There have been warnings that the proposed strike may damage rather than aid their cause, with people like Sen. Trent Lott saying, "I do think that these big demonstrations are counterproductive, and they hurt with a guy like me, who is trying to look at this in a way that is responsible."

I have to say that I give them my full backing.

Even here in the UK, there is a horrible bias against immigrants, with most people unaware that without them this system would cease to function; as they are the invisible people collecting our litter, cleaning our hospitals and driving our cabs.

I've also never understood why most people find it so hard to admit that poor people seeking a better life by migrating are, in reality, only doing what any of us would do were we to find ourselves in similiar circumstances.

Click title for full story.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush continues to insist that he is above the law, ruling more as a King than any other President who has preceded him.

But what's really astonishing, for a President who's popularity is bombing in the polls at 32%, is that he's getting away with it with so little resistance. Indeed, he's getting away with it with a press that are largely supine.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

The US system depends on a delicate balance between the Presidency, Congress and the courts. Bush is destroying that balance.

As we saw during the scandal of his use of illegal wiretapping, this man believes the law is what he says it is.

It's as near to a dictator as I think I'll see in an American president during my lifetime.

One can only hope that come the mid-term elections Bush will lose the House and a proper system of checks and balances will be returned to American politics.

On that day, it is my profound wish that the US will do the decent thing and impeach this man.

It is important that a line is drawn in the sand to warn future US Presidents that their power is not absolute.

Click title for full article.