The Osterley Times

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Bush versus Bush

Jon moderates a debate between Bush second term and Bush first term. Why are deadlines only good when entering wars?

McCain appears in The Daily Show

Jon Stewart takes on McCain and winds hands down, destroying most of McCain's talking points.

Part 1.

Part 2.

Potentially Habitable Earth-Like Planet Found

For the first time astronomers have discovered a planet outside our solar system that is potentially habitable, with Earth-like temperatures, a find researchers described Tuesday as a big step in the search for "life in the universe."

The planet is just the right size, might have water in liquid form, and in galactic terms is relatively nearby at 120 trillion miles away. But the star it closely orbits, known as a "red dwarf," is much smaller, dimmer and cooler than our sun.

There's still a lot that is unknown about the new planet, which could be deemed inhospitable to life once more is known about it. And it's worth noting that scientists' requirements for habitability count Mars in that category: a size relatively similar to Earth's with temperatures that would permit liquid water. However, this is the first outside our solar system that meets those standards.

"It's a significant step on the way to finding possible life in the universe," said University of Geneva astronomer Michel Mayor, one of 11 European scientists on the team that found the planet. "It's a nice discovery. We still have a lot of questions."

What will the creationists make of this?

Hearing on Tillman, Lynch Incidents: Kevin Tillman's Opening

Pat Tillman's brother Kevin tells of the way his brother's death was manipulated to support wars in Aghanistan and Iraq.

Private Jessica Lynch

A couple days after her rescue, The Washington Post had reported that before she was captured by the Iraqis she "fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers...firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition" According to the Post account, which was based on anonymous sources citing battlefield reports, Lynch kept firing "even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds." By her own account, none of that happened. She never fired her weapon and was knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed, waking up hours later in an Iraqi hospital. As she put it in her testimony today, the story depicted her as "the little girl Rambo from the hills of West Virginia who went down fighting. It was not true." She blamed the media for perpetuating the myth. "They should have found out the facts before they spread the word like wildfire."

"The American people are capable of determining their own heros...and the don't need to be told elaborate lies...The truth of war is not always easy. The truth is always more heroic than the hype."

Bush and Cheney Chide Democrats on Iraq Deadline

Why does anyone still listen to what Bush and Cheney have to say about the Iraq war? They have been wrong with almost every pronouncement they have made for the last four years and yet still their comments are reported as if they are tablets of truth being handed down from the mound.

They are now rounding on the Democrat attempt to fix a withdrawal timetable to the Iraq war spending bill, a timetable that is approved by a majority of Iraqis and a majority of Americans.

“Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement,” Mr. Bush said Tuesday morning before leaving for New York. “That’s their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it’s wrong for our country.”

Mr. Cheney was even tougher as he spoke to reporters after a private weekly lunch for Republican senators. He lashed out at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who delivered stinging comments of his own on Monday, portraying Mr. Bush as being in denial about the war and saying Mr. Cheney had tarnished his own office.

“What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” said Mr. Cheney. “And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation.”

I notice that Cheney is now subtly attempting to link American defeat in Iraq as something that has transpired because of the Democrats as opposed to four years of a mismanaged war fought with too few troops as a result of Republican intransigence.

And it's also interesting to notice that Bush continues to insist on the lie that the Democrats are responsible for his decision to veto any bill that includes a timetable for withdrawal.

However, the Democrats - buoyed by public support - don't look like they are going to back down on this. And why should they? The war is lost. How many more young men and women of the US and Iraq need to die before Bush and Cheney and their ilk will accept this fact?

While acknowledging that Mr. Bush would send the bill back, they said they were determined to force him to formally reject legislation that provides more money for the military than sought by the White House, but puts conditions on its use.

“For the first time, the president will have to face up, will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said. “And he doesn’t want to face that reality.”

Bush is despatching Petraeus to Capitol Hill in an attempt to persuade lawmakers to allow more time for the troop increase in Iraq to work, but he's unlikely to change many minds which are, by now, almost certainly made up.

Bush and Cheney are also ignoring the fact that the Baker report also recommended a withdrawal of combat units by the end of the first quarter of 2008, about the same time envisioned in the legislation.

So there's really nothing very controversial about what the Democrats are proposing, as a bipartisan study group - led by James Baker - has already recommended precisely what the Democrats are proposing.

“The president sends out his attack dog often,” said Mr. Reid. “That’s also known as Dick Cheney.”

Defending the legislation up for a vote this week, he said, “We believe the troops should get every penny they need and we have put our money where our mouth is with supplemental appropriations, but we believe there must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq.”

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” Mr. Reid said.

And therein lies the rub. Bush and Cheney represent extremist positions that go against the wishes of both the American and the Iraqi populations, and they do so whilst both of them have personal approval ratings that are shockingly low.

And yet both these men continue to frame their arguments within the bounds of "What the American people want". That's simply intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.

Click title for full article.

Clinton loses black leaders to Obama charm offensive

There was a time when Hillary Clinton could have taken the support of New York state's black population for granted. That, thanks to Barack Obama, is all changing; and Hillary will now have to spend time and money shoring up her own doorstep as Obama makes headway into areas of the electorate that Hillary could once have regarded as sure bets for her.

And, as roughly one in five Democrats who vote in New York state are black, this presents Hillary with a considerable problem.

Signs that black elected officials in the state are drifting into the Obama camp come as his campaign continues to build momentum. In the first quarter of this year he matched Mrs Clinton in raising funds, while a new poll released on Monday showed him dead-even with her nationally for the first time.

Loyalty among black leaders in the state can be traced back to the high popularity of President Bill Clinton in the African American community, but the sudden rise of Mr Obama appears to be stirring a degree of ethnic pride and excitement that is straining those old assumptions.

"I would have supported Hillary if it were not for Barack Obama," Adam Clayton Powell IV of the state assembly told The New York Times. "He can identify with my African American community in a way that no other candidate can." Jeffrion Aubry, also an assemblyman, concurred: "His presence as a legitimate politician at a national level brings a certain pride. It makes you have to make a choice."

Obama himself has rather cleverly played down the issue of colour, whilst no doubt being highly aware of the areas in which it helps him.

Senator Obama, meanwhile, told the National Action Network last week that he did not expect people to choose candidates only on ethnic lines. "I don't care whether they are white or black or they are male or female - if there is somebody who has been more on the forefront on behalf of the issues you care about and has more concrete accomplishments on behalf of the things you're concerned about, I'm happy to see you endorse them. But I am absolutely confident you will not find that," he said.

The ability of Obama to draw votes from the African American community may also prove crucial to the campaign in other states like South Carolina, where the African American vote is likely to determine the outcome on election day.

So, he's matched her ability to raise money dollar for dollar, and now he's making inroads into communities that Hillary could once safely call her own. And he's doing all this at a time when a polls are showing him him dead-even with Hallary nationally for the first time since the campaign began.

The young Senator is taking some very big strides. I find myself smiling and wishing him well.

Click title for full article.

Illegal migrants' right to work wins support of public in poll

You see them in the car parks of Tesco's. They are collecting litter. Doing the jobs that other Brits don't want to do.

John Reid caused a storm when earlier this month he referred to them as, "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits." This is, of course, a nonsense. He is confusing asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant cannot claim benefits for the simple reason that, were he to do so, his illegality would be exposed and he would be deported.

However, a recent opinion poll commissioned by Strangers into Citizens shows that the British public has a much more humane attitude towards immigrants, even illegal ones, than the political debate by the all three parties in this country would lead one to believe.

An opinion poll commissioned by Strangers into Citizens - a campaign to give employment rights to illegal immigrants -shows that 66 per cent of people in the UK would accept refused asylum-seekers and those who had overstayed their visas if they worked and paid taxes. The poll was conducted last weekend by ORB with a sample of 1,004 adults across the UK.

"This poll makes clear that just talking tough will not be enough to fob off the UK public on immigration," said Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. "They want the political parties to get real and respond in a way that is workable and fair to migrants who are living as members of our society."

"Strangers into Citizens" is calling for the Government to allow a pathway for long-term illegal workers in this country to earn a living legally. They will hold a rally at Trafalgar Square on Monday 7 May to call for all immigrants who have been in this country for four years to be allowed a work permit for two years. It would become a route to "leave to remain" indefinitely while they work and pay taxes.

The campaign challenges the Home Office policy of stepping up the removal of illegal immigrants, who have either overstayed their visas or been refused asylum.

I think this is a fascinating statistic as it shows that the general public have the ability to rise above the very narrow level of discourse allowed on this subject by both Labour and the Tories, who are both attempting to outwit each other with how tough they can be in order to win over the readers of the Daily Mail.

The general public actually have a more keenly aware sense of fairness than the men and women seeking their votes, and it would appear that they are able to transcend the political noise surrounding this subject and come up with answers that are more complex than those being proposed by their political leadership.

Austin Ivereigh, the co-ordinator of the campaign, said: "We are not calling for a general 'amnesty' but a six-year pathway to citizenship for long-term migrants. It is certainly not issuing a 'green light for unprecedented migration'."

He said one-off naturalisation programmes had been introduced in Spain, Germany and the US as part of a wider strategy of border enforcement. "It may not stop illegal immigration - that is a matter for border controls - but they do bring thousands out of limbo, recognise realities, clear asylum logjams, bring huge benefits to the state and shrink the underground economy on which people-trafficking and exploitative employers thrive," said Mr Ivereigh.

I think the best phrase used by Ivereigh is "recognise realities". For the truth is, were our political classes to achieve their supposed goals of removing all illegal immigrants, the country would come to a shuddering halt. For these are the people doing the jobs that most Brits simply don't want to do.

And thank God that London has had the good sense to elect a Mayor who is not afraid to speak out on supposedly controversial subjects like this and reject the government's tired party line.

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said: "Migrants contribute hugely to the economic, civic and cultural life of London and the UK. To have a substantial number of them living here without regular status - because of deep-rooted failings in the immigration system - is deeply damaging to London as well as to them."

The British public do not agree with Reid or Cameron on this subject. They have no difficulty with failed asylum seekers or people who have overstayed their visas if only the system would change in order to allow these people to properly contribute taxes to the country in which they now live.

The British sense of fairness is spoken of so often that the term is actually a cliche, however, it's satisfying to notice that - on this subject on which the political classes are in complete agreement - that sense of fairness has taken the British public in the totally opposite direction.

Click title for full article.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Office Of Special Counsel To Investigate Rove Activities

Bush may yet come to wish that he had simply fired Alberto Gonzales.

The Office of Special Counsel are to launch a wide ranging investigation into the key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part. "We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."

Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity. The decision by Bloch's office is the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.

The question of whether there was improper political influence over the firing of the US Attorney's is something that George Bush said had never been proven against Alberto Gonzales, which is why he yesterday said that his confidence in his Attorney General had "increased" after one of the most inept displays by any Attorney General in front of a Committee in living memory.

Now Bush will get to discover whether there was indeed any political impropriety in the actions of not only his Attorney General, but he'll also discover whether Karl Rove had any involvement in any illegality.

All administrations are political, but this White House has systematically brought electoral concerns to Cabinet agencies in a way unseen previously.

For example, Rove and his top aides met each year with presidential appointees throughout the government, using PowerPoint presentations to review polling data and describe high-priority congressional and other campaigns around the country.

Some officials have said they understood that they were expected to seek opportunities to help Republicans in these races, through federal grants, policy decisions or in other ways.

A former Interior Department official, Wayne R. Smith, who sat through briefings from Rove and his then-deputy Ken Mehlman, said that during President Bush's first term, he and other appointees were frequently briefed on political priorities. "We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results," Smith said.

This is the first time in the history of the 106-person Office of Special Counsel, that it has ever launched such a wide enquiry. This office was set up primarily to enforce The Hatch Act, a law which prevents parties using their office for political purposes. This was the reason Rove and others gave for having separate email accounts, saying that they couldn't use White House accounts for party business. Some five million of these emails are claimed to be missing.

The Office of Special Counsel say they will be looking into the firing of David C. Iglesias and a PowerPoint presentation that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year.

That presentation listed recent polls and the outlook for battleground House and Senate races in 2008. After the presentation, GSA Administrator Lorita Doan encouraged agency managers to "support our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses.

Doan said she could not recall making such comments.

The Los Angeles Times has learned that similar presentations were made by other White House staff members, including Rove, to other Cabinet agencies. During such presentations, employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans.

The White House are claiming that, "It is entirely appropriate for the president's staff to provide informational briefings to appointees throughout the federal government about the political landscape in which they implement the president's policies and priorities."

When one thinks of Attorney's fired shortly after they had said that they were not willing to prosecute Democratics, then I'm not sure how long that line of defence is going to hold for.

It's hard to argue that you were just giving out general information when your staff are left feeling that - if they want to keep their jobs - then they must help Republicans to get re-elected.

Click title for full article.

Bad Impressions

Jon Stewart on Bush's ridiculous claim that Gonzales did well.

Matt Cooper on The Daily Show

The Unaccountables

Whilst looking into the veracity of claims made by CACI and Titan that none of their employees were ever charged with acting illegally during the scandal at Abu Ghraib, for actions that were highlighted in this film, I have come across some interesting facts.

In the Taguba report into incidents at Abu Ghraib it turns out that two civilian employees were named as persons "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib".

I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of MI personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF).

Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability.

In the case of Steven Stephanowicz, the Taguba Report found that he:

• Made a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses.

• Allowed and/or instructed MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by “setting conditions” which were neither authorized and in accordance with applicable regulations/policy. He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.

In the case of John Israel, he was found to have:

Denied ever having seen interrogation processes in violation of the IROE, which is contrary to several witness statements.

This clearly raises the question of what exactly these civilian contractors are doing in Iraq. Especially as some of them are being used as interrogators, and - as civilian contractors - they do not come under the military code of conduct, and - as it’s not clear which laws can be applied to a non-military person who commits a crime on foreign soil - they are unlikely to be prosecuted in criminal courts in the United States.

Especially as:

Under a June 2003 order of the Coalition Provisional Authority, civilian contractors are protected from prosecution in Iraq for crimes committed as part of their official duties.

Therefore, these people appear to be operating with completely immunity from any laws.

Of course, this leads me to wonder if that's not the very point if civilian interrogators. The very fact that they are able to work outside of any law.

Earlier this year one of the civilian contractors went on record to challenge the notion put out by the Bush regime that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was the work of a few bad apples:

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq, all in the name of acquiring the intelligence necessary to bring an end to the insurgency. The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong.

His contention is that this was official US policy, and I'm left wondering if that's why Bush and Rumsfeld employed civilians for such a task. Publicly, Bush and Rumsfeld could claim that the US Army did not engage in torture, knowing all the while that such work was being carried out by sub contractors, civilian contractors who were immune from almost any law.

That's a terrifying thought. It's also strange to note that civilian interrogators are also being used in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. This represents a really large loophole the Bush administration have allowed themselves for evading military procedures.

I have Googled in an attempt to find of any prosecution faced by Stephanowicz or Israel, but can't find anything which states whether or not any action was ever taken against them.

Indeed, in this article into the subsequent Fay Report - which CACI are claiming exonerates Stephanowicz and it's other employees - it states:

No criminal charges have been filed against the six civilians cited by the Fay panel, which in August referred those cases to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. The Justice Department would not comment except to say the matter is not closed.

It should also be noted that others did not share CACI's reading of what the Fay report stated:

While the involvement of intelligence soldiers, as well as civilian contractors, was reportedly significantly greater than previously disclosed, many of the allegations had been described before, sometimes in less detail.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has any information of what happened regarding their prosecution. There's certainly nothing coming up on my radar.

Gonzales’s Testimony Satisfied at Least One Person, His Boss

There are times when Bush's gall simply leaves one speechless. He has an ability to look at failure and declare success which suggests that he is either myopic or that he actually doesn't care what the rest if the world thinks, relying on the fact that he's "the decider" and he's deciding that reality is what he says it is.

What other possible explanation could there be for him stating that Alberto Gonzales appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.”

How could anyone's confidence in the Attorney General be increased by a performance that other Republicans described as "disastrous" according to National Review Online. Even Charlie Black, a strategist close to the White House said:

“It sounds like he walked into a firing squad without a gun,” said Charlie Black, a strategist close to the White House, after discussing the testimony with several other Republicans. Of the Republican senators, Mr. Black said, “They just think this was amateur hour, and they should not be expected to defend it.”

That wasn't how the myopic resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue saw things. He thought, “The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer.”

What planet is Bush living on that he can make that statement? The Attorney General's memory loss was astonishing, so much so that even Republican members of the panel found his inability to remember a meeting that he attended a mere five months ago - where it is said he decided to fire eight US Attorney's - simply unbelievable. They balked at the logic that, although he claims to have no memory whatsoever of the meeting, he claims he can remember making the decision to fire the Attorney's, he just can't remember attending the meeting where the decision is thought to have taken place, though he insists he remembers making the decision. However, even though he has no memory of most of this, he is sure that no wrongdoing took place.

It was a performance of quite staggering ineptitude. His performance was, as Specter politely put it, "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

This is not what Bush saw. I did say at the time that I thought this was probably how he would try to play it.

But we shouldn't be surprised. This is typical of Bush. We've seen all this before with Rumsfeld. People call for the resignation of a member of his government and the resignation call alone is almost certain to signal that Bush will fight to keep them. Because, according to his own uniquely childish and immature logic, Bush believes that he must show that he is "the Decider" and he will prove this by refusing to be forced to make a decision simply because other people are calling for him to do so. And he will stick to this insane logic even if it is hurting his government as he does so.

The first sign that he might employ this tactic came when he sent forth Dana Perino to state, "He is our No. 1 crime fighter. He has done so much to help keep this country safe from terrorists."

The logic Bush appears to be clinging to here is that, as the Democrats can't prove that illegality occurred, then Gonzales has committed no wrong. I can see where he's coming from. However, this ignores the fact that the man we are talking about is the Attorney General. The No. 1 enforcer of the law in the land. Imagine what any jury would make of any suspect who took to the witness stand and said, "I don't recall" 70 times. Would a jury find such a suspect credible if he behaved in this way? Especially if he was doing so whilst discussing a meeting that took place a mere five months ago. A meeting at which the suspect remembers making an important decision, although he claims to have no memory of the meeting itself?

Such a person would be laughed out of court, possibly towards a jail cell. At the very least his astonishing memory loss would be thought grounds for charges of obstructing the course of justice.

And if that is how we would view such behaviour from any suspect in any case, we surely ask that similar standards are applied when the man in the witness box is the chief law officer of the land?

However, it is now being stated that Bush did not even see this performance that he is now so vigorously defending.

Ms. Perino said the president had been traveling but had received updates from aides and had seen some of it on television news reports.

His decision has been greeted with incredulity from other Republicans:

One senior Republican Congressional aide at work in Washington on Monday, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, called Mr. Bush’s statement that his confidence in Mr. Gonzales had grown after his testimony “curious”; another senior Republican aide asked, “Was he watching the same hearing as everyone else?”

Bush has obviously made a decision here based on the logic that if he gives any ground by firing Gonzales then Karl Rove will be the next person in the firing line.

However, Bush should never have had to even make that decision. The Attorney General should have offered his resignation.

“I will stay as long as I can be effective, and I can be effective,” Mr. Gonzales said in response to questions about his plans.

The President had stated that he was leaving it up to the Attorney General to regain the confidence of Congress, something that I'm assuming he appears to believe the Attorney General has done, although there is scant evidence of that on the ground.

“If the attorney general’s hearing performance increased the president’s confidence in his ability to lead the Justice Department, then he’s setting the bar fairly low,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a statement on Monday.

This is typical Bush behaviour. It reminds one of his confidence in an appallingly inept Secretary Of Defence who he clung to despite a civil war erupting in Iraq which Rumsfeld claimed not to be able to even see.

Likewise, Bush now clings to Gonzales. I wonder if Republicans facing re-election in 2008 will find his faith in this man a blessing or a curse?

Click title for full article.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America

Anything They Say posted a link to this family singing about Why God Hates Americans. It reminded me that Louis Theroux did a wonderful documentary about these foul people.

I guarantee that you will watch this with your mouth open.

Iraqi Premier Orders Work Stopped on Wall

The idea of building a wall in Baghdad to separate Sunni and Shia residents from each other, was always the most manifest expression of the failure of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. People who had lived together side by side as neighbours for generations were suddenly so polarised that the US military were insisting that this was the only way to maintain security.

Now Maliki, the Iraqi Premier, has spoken out insisting that the building of the wall should stop, saying it reminded people of “other walls.”

The announcement, which he made in Cairo while on a state visit, appeared intended to allay mounting criticism from both Sunni Arab and Shiite parties about the project.

“I oppose the building of the wall, and its construction will stop,” Mr. Maliki told reporters during a joint news conference with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. “There are other methods to protect neighborhoods.”

However, the US Military are saying that they will continue "dialogue" with the Iraqis over the best way to ensure security, whilst pointedly refusing to say that the construction of the wall will cease.

Mr. Maliki did not specify in his remarks what other walls he referred to. However, the separation barrier in the West Bank being erected by Israel, which Israel says is for protection but greatly angers Palestinians, is a particularly delicate issue among Arabs.

In Baghdad, the wall would surround the Adhamiya neighborhood, a Sunni Arab enclave bordered by Shiite areas. Adhamiya often comes under mortar attack and suffers incursions from those neighborhoods. However, it has also been a stronghold of militant Sunni Arab groups, and the wall would have helped the Iraqi security forces to control their movements.

Earlier on Sunday, the spokesman for the American military in Iraq sought to allay criticism of the project and explain its intent by saying that it was meant to be only a temporary barrier to improve security.

However, that is not what the military were saying last week.

However, American military officials said last week in a statement that the Adhamiya wall was “one of the centerpieces of a new strategy.” They also said that the wall was aimed at separating Sunni Arabs in Adhamiya from Shiites to the east.

The wall has proven unpopular right across the spectrum with both Sunni Arab and Shiite groups protesting at it's existence.

The Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party and the Shiite group linked to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr both announced that they opposed dividing Baghdad by sect. In sharp statements, they said the wall would increase sectarian hatred and fuel efforts to partition the country.

“Surrounding areas of the capital with barbed wire and concrete blocks would harm these areas economically and socially,” the Islamic Party said in an e-mail message to news organizations. “In addition, it will enhance sectarian feelings.”

Abu Firas al-Mutairi, a representative of the Sadr movement in Najaf, which has supported Mr. Maliki, said: “The Sadr movement considers building a wall around Al Adhamiya as a way to lay siege to the Iraqi people and to separate them into cantons. It is like the Berlin Wall that divided Germany.”

“This step is the first step toward dividing the regions into cantons and blockading people there,” he added. “Today it happens in Adhamiya. Tomorrow it will happen in Sadr City,” referring to the Shiite slum in Baghdad that is a stronghold of Mr. Sadr.

The wall is simply a symbol of the American inability to restore order to Iraq's streets, and it would represent the failure of the US and Iraqi government to engage in dialogue with the warring fractions.

Only dialogue between the various groups will have any chance of restoring peace. There are even online petitions insisting that this is the only way to save Iraqi lives.

Bush has famously refused to follow the advice of the Baker Report which called on dialogue with all sides including Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria, who Bush insists are interfering in the conflict. Indeed, by seeing Iran as the reason for all the US's ills in Iraq, Bush is emulating the man that he supposedly "liberated" Iraq from.

Bizarrely, US policy in Iraq is now very similar to that of the Baath party whom President Bush used to denounce so fervently. The US and the Baath both see the not-so-hidden hand of Iran as being behind the Shia militias and political parties. The Baath is by far the most anti-Iranian party in Iraq.

It also seems impossible to imagine that Bush will manage to stabilise Iraq whilst he simultaneously tries to destabilise Iran and Syria. That's simply an insane proposition.

Someone needs to tell him that, rather than building walls, he should be following Baker's non-partisan advice and start talking.

Click title for full article.

Related Articles:

Friedman appears to get it.

Hillary to appoint Bill 'cheerleader for America' role as roving ambassador

Hillary Clinton has, at last, answered the question of what Bill's role should be were she to win the battle for the White House; she intends to make him a roving Ambassador with a remit to repair America's tattered image around the world, a role for which he would be superb.

And America's reputation throughout the world has never been more in needing of repair than it is now after the last four years of Bush's smug, arrogant rule when the world has, in effect, been told to "shove it" whilst Bush stampedes over international law and insists that the world will bend to his will.

Indeed, Bush has so tarnished America's image worldwide that China is now viewed more favourably than the United States in a majority of countries surveyed.

Indeed, Bush's unpopularity worldwide is so toxic that his re-election led to many people having a negative view of Americans rather than merely their leader.

More than half of people surveyed in a BBC World Service poll say the re-election of US President George W Bush has made the world more dangerous. Only three countries - India, Poland and the Philippines - out of 21 polled believed the world was now safer.

The survey found that 47% of the 21,953 people questioned now see US influence in the world as largely negative, and view Americans negatively as well.

"This is quite a grim picture for the US," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which carried out the poll with GlobeScan.

"Negative feelings about Bush are high and are generalising to the American people who re-elected him."

The Bush presidency has been disastrous for America's image abroad and for America's image as a superpower. Before the invasion of Iraq America was seen as omnipotent, capable of using it's astonishing military muscle to shape any situation where it chose to intervene.

Four years of impotence in the face of an Iraqi insurgency has altered that world view. The irony is that, by invading Iraq against world opinion, Bush has only succeeded in making the US look less powerful than it was before. And the longer he insists on "staying the course" - or whatever euphemism he is currently using to describe that policy - the more America's image is sapped.

So a return to Bill Clinton as part of America's worldwide image would do wonders to heal the damage that the Bush presidency has wrought. Clinton, unlike Bush, always worked on the principle that the US should act unilaterally only when she must, preferring multilateral action whenever possible. Bush, famously, shunned this suggestion and acted unilaterally almost as a matter of principle.

It was on this rock that the Bush presidency fractured and broke. Clinton was far cleverer than Bush in that he pretended to listen to the world and then pursued US interests when necessary.

Bush made a point of not listening, insisting that the opinion of the rest of the world was a thing of no consequence.

It is hard for Americans who do not travel to understand the depth of visceral hatred that Bush engenders in Europe, so much so that during his visit to London a few years ago he was forced to travel by helicopter as this was the only way to safely keep him from the baying crowds.

Clinton never had that problem when he was president, where Europeans loved him. So Hillary's idea is certainly a good one. Though, to be fair, the Bush presidency has done so much harm to America's reputation abroad, that's it's hard to think of anyone - with the possible exception of Dick Cheney - who could do any worse.

Click title for full article.

Goldsmith refuses to stand aside over 'cash-for-honours'

There really are times when the gall of New Labour simply leaves one speechless. And the behaviour of the Attorney General is always a source of open mouthed bewilderment.

He was the man who thought the Iraq war was illegal - according to his staff - until the US and UK failed to win a second UN resolution, whereupon he instantly changed his mind and found the war to be legal after all - based on resolutions referring to Saddam's presence in Kuwait, a decade and a half after Saddam had been driven from Kuwait. It was so outrageous that several of his staff instantly resigned. So he's a man who is known to bend his opinions to suit his masters when needed.

Now, we find the Cash for Honours scandal lapping at the front of the door of Ten Downing Street and Goldsmith has been asked to stand aside from making any decisions over whether any members of the government, of which he is a member, should be charged and Goldsmith is refusing.

It's such a textbook conflict of interests that it is almost surreal that he thinks it is acceptable that he should get to make the final decision over whether or not friends of his have broken any laws. But, bizarrely, that is what he is claiming.

Lord Goldsmith insisted he would judge the case for a prosecution "objectively, on the evidence, independently from government". He was unable to stand aside because the law requires his consent before certain charges are brought and because he is the only figure accountable to Parliament for the actions of the CPS.

"It is normal for me to be consulted in sensitive and complex cases," he told Sky News. "I can assure you and everyone else that, if I am consulted, any decision will be taken objectively, on the evidence, independently of government, because my first duty is to the law, not to party politics.

Coming from the man who refused to allow his reasoning for why the Iraq war was legal to even be seen, this is bordering on comedy.

We are now expected to believe that an Attorney General - who has previously adjusted his opinions to suit the prevailing political winds - can put aside personal feelings and impartially decide whether or not his friends should face prosecution. Prosecutions that may very well mar Tony Blair's last days in office. Tony Blair, his mate, the man he once shared a flat with.

It's beyond satire.

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "He is a politician and he is a peer, he was made a peer by Tony Blair. None of that is wrong but he should not be involved in this decision. It should be made independently by members of the Crown Prosecution Service," he said.

Angus MacNeil, the Scottish National Party MP whose complaint triggered the investigation, said Lord Goldsmith's role in the case was "completely indefensible ... It is simply untenable for him to have any role in this case, and he must step back from that now."

The Liberal Democrats are to table parliamentary questions to Lord Goldsmith about what contacts he has had with Lord Levy.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the party leader, said: "He will do much better for himself and for the credibility of this whole process if he makes sure he takes independent advice and acts upon that independent advice."

There is no need even to make a case as to why there might be a conflict of interests here, as it's so blindingly bloody obvious.

Goldsmith is obviously beyond shame if he feels that he can brazen this one out.

Click title for full article.