And here is something interesting .....

"British Bankers May Be Extradited to U.S."

By JANE WARDELL, Associated Press Writer

Tue Feb 21, 12:30 PM ET

LONDON - Three British bankers may be extradited to the United States to face Enron-related fraud charges, the High Court ruled Tuesday in a judgment marking the first test case of controversial laws introduced to speed up the transfer of suspected terrorists.

David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby, former executives at Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC unit Greenwich NatWest, had argued that because the majority of the alleged offenses took place in Britain any trial should be held here and that their deportation to the United States would contravene European human rights laws.

However, the High Court ruled that it would be "unduly simplistic to treat the case as a domestic English affair" and dismissed the trio's application for a full hearing of the case.

The three had already appealed to a lower court, seeking to overturn a British government decision to grant the request from the U.S. government for their extradition in May.

Outside the court, Mulgrew said he was "shocked and bewildered" by the verdict.

"It's an historical verdict, but historical for all the wrong reasons," he said, flanked by Bermingham and Darby.

Shami Chakrabarti, a spokeswoman for the civil rights group Liberty, said the case highlighted the misuse of the 2003 extradition act, which drastically reduced the evidence required from U.S. officials seeking to extradite suspected felons.

"This is a sovereign government trading away the rights and freedoms of its people as another supine step in this so-called special relationship," she said.

"It smacks of politics rather than justice."

The judges did agree to the trio's request to certify that the case raised issues of general public importance — the first step toward seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords, Britain's highest avenue of appeal.

Lawyers for the trio must lodge an appeal within 14 days.

The three men, all British citizens, were charged in the United States in 2002 with bilking National Westminster Bank of $7.3 million and each face seven counts of wire fraud.

They allegedly advised NatWest in 2000 to sell part of an Enron business it owned for less than the stake was worth, in a scheme allegedly devised with Andrew Fastow, former finance chief of the collapsed energy-trading company Enron Corp., and his colleague, managing director Michael Kopper.

The three men then left NatWest, bought into the firm themselves and sold it off for a much higher fee, each pocketing about $2.6 million in the process, according to prosecutors.

Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001 after revealing that it inflated its profits and filed false accounts to hide debts.

In their appeal, the three claimed that Britain's Serious Fraud Office, not the American authorities, should investigate the case and that any subsequent trial should take place in Britain.

Being forced to stand trial in Enron's home state of Texas would be unjust and incompatible with European human rights law, the men argued.

They also argued that the extradition order was legally flawed because the lower British District Court had wrongly accepted the argument by U.S. authorities that, once it had decided to prosecute in America, the British authorities should give way.

Lord Justice John Laws and Justice Duncan Ouseley, however, dismissed that argument.

"The fact that the defendants could be prosecuted here — and that there would be consequential advantages and disadvantages from the prosecution and defense perspectives — does not amount to an exceptional circumstance," they said in their judgment.

The three men were also ordered to pay legal costs, including about $76,800 to the U.S. government.

Other costs to the Serious Fraud Office and the British government have yet to be assessed.

When Britain signed an extradition treaty with the United States in 2003, the government said it was all about speeding up the process of bringing terrorists to justice.

Few expected to see senior executives in the dock as well as the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical preacher convicted on domestic terrorism charges and who United States authorities still want to extradite on similar charges.

The Institute of Directors, a business group, said Tuesday's ruling set a worrisome precedent for trans-Atlantic business.

"The problem that arises out of this and the extradition treaty is that U.K. executives may be deterred from investing or operating in the U.S.," it said.

"It threatens trans-Atlantic agreements if you can be extradited without prima facie evidence."

Legal experts also cried foul because the treaty is not reciprocal.

The United States has signed it, but the Senate has not yet ratified it while groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union lobby against it.

"This is a wake-up call for anyone doing business in the States — especially in financial services," said Clare Canning, head of commercial litigation at law firm Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.

"A trial in the States can mean huge costs and damage to reputation, even for an innocent defendant."

And then, of course, there are all these new economic opportunities that George W. Bush's version of the WHITE HOUSE is telling us will accrue to us as a result of GLOBAL WARMING ...

Which the Bush boys and girls .....

The SPINNERS down there in the White House .....

Will soon be telling us .....

Was invented by George W. Bush .....

As an economic BOON ...

For OUR America .....

And here is some of that ECOMONOMIC BOON in action ...

Right here in OUR America ...

As I write these words ....

"Power slow to come back - Widespread damage challenges 1,500 workers from throughout Northeast and Canada to restore the grid"

By LARRY RULISON and KENNETH C. CROWE II, Staff writers
Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- National Grid said Monday it was doing all it could to restore power to the 11,000 area homes and businesses that remained without power for a fourth consecutive day following the massive windstorm that blew through the region Friday.

The storm, which National Grid said was the worst in five years in New York, ripped through the state, hitting much of the utility's service territory from the southwest portion of the state to the northeast.

Northern Saratoga, Warren and Washington counties were among the hardest-hit.

The company said it had to pull employees from sister companies in New England and from neighboring utilities such as Consolidated Edison Inc. to restore electric service to its customers across the state, especially those hardest-hit in Saratoga and Warren counties.

Company spokesman Alberto Bianchetti said Monday that about half the 1,500 workers deployed to repair damaged poles and wires across the state were not National Grid employees but were contractors, including some from Canada, and employees from other utilities with which it has agreements to provide workers after storms.

Despite frustrations voiced in the business community that power in some communities had not been fully restored, National Grid said a lot of the repairs being done first were to high-voltage transmission lines away from commercial and residential areas.

"We had more than adequate staff to respond to the storm," Bianchetti said.

"We're doing a lot of work that is not visible to the public."

D. Joy Faber, a Con Ed spokeswoman, said pulling workers from other utilities is common in the power industry, especially after weather-related emergencies.

"It's a reciprocal agreement that many utilities participate in," she said.

Saratoga Springs Mayor Valerie Keehn said she knew that some business owners were angry that National Grid had not yet fully restored power downtown, but she believed the company was doing all it could given the severity of the storm.

"I know there are some frustrations," she said.

"I just have no reason to think they weren't doing everything they could."

From a high of about 210,000 customers without electricity, repair crews had restored power to about 195,000, with fewer than 11,000 still in the dark, according to National Grid.

Some 1,300 of those customers were in the town of Greenfield in Saratoga County.

More than 328,000 customers lost service statewide.

The crews were raising more than 200 downed utility poles and hundreds of wires.

"We're making good progress."

"Most of the work will be done by Tuesday, but we will be working on Wednesday," Bianchetti said.

Up north, the Adirondacks were slowly lighting up Monday.

About 100 bucket trucks were assigned to repair duty there.

"Things are looking better."

" It looks like a lot of the areas that were off are coming back," said Johnsburg Supervisor Bill Thomas, who also is chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors.

The American Red Cross Adirondack Saratoga Chapter will continue to have shelters open at the Johnsburg Central School in Johnsburg and at its offices at 74 Warren St. in Glens Falls.

Saratoga Springs was among the hardest-hit municipalities.

Neighborhoods around Eureka Avenue, Walnut Street and Washington Avenue and Pine Road still were without electrical service Monday afternoon.

The Saratoga Spa State Park remained closed Monday.

Officials with the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation will meet this morning to evaluate the damage in the park and what cleanup has to be undertaken.

The park was closed Friday afternoon shortly after George Green, a 53-year-old state Department of Transportation employee, was killed by a falling pine tree while driving down the Avenue of the Pines.

At least 30 trees in the park were knocked down by the windstorm, during which gusts measured as high as 77 mph.

"They're going to have to come in with a lot of tree-cutting equipment and access the damage," said Catherine Jimenez, a State Parks spokeswoman.

The tree that crashed down on Green's pickup truck was inspected last June and November and was determined not to be hazardous, Jimenez said.

State Parks inspects the pine trees along the Avenue of the Pines as part of a maintenance program to protect the historic boulevard.

The Saratoga Automobile Museum, which is in the park, announced it would reopen Wednesday.

The Hall of Springs, Home Made Theater and the Gideon Putnam Hotel were accessible from the park's Route 50 entrance for people to attend events.

The city's Public Works Department is anticipating it will take up to two weeks to clean up after the storm.

"There's a lot of debris out there."

"We probably had 60 trees down throughout the city."

"Lots of pines," said Public Works Commissioner Thomas McTygue.

Like many property owners, the city also is dealing with frozen pipes that resulted from below-freezing temperatures and no heat.

The Canfield Casino in Congress Park and the Saratoga County Arts Council building at Springs Street and Broadway have frozen pipes.

The storm's arrival at the start of the Presidents Day holiday weekend hurt businesses.

"We're recovering."

"It's a slow-moving process," said Dawn Oesch, president of the Downtown Business Association and owner of the Candy Gram of Saratoga.

"Everyone had a problem losing patrons."

"Then people getting in extra product."

"They lost that because of the power outage."

Officials are starting to review the response to the storm.

They want to see what can be improved to protect residents in the future.

"We're going to be reflecting on it for awhile," Mayor Keehn said.

"We're going to have lots of opportunities to talk about what went right and what went wrong."

Friday's high winds also knocked out power to nearly 60 Stewart's Shops in Saratoga County and surrounding areas.

Company President Gary Dake said most of the stores had power restored by Saturday morning, but others took longer.

A number of the stores were forced to throw out ice cream and milk due to lack of refrigeration.

In addition, some front doors were damaged when 60 mph winds ripped them off the hinges.

But the biggest problem from the storm was damage to gas pumps, registers and refrigerators caused by fluctuating power.

On Monday, the company's Route 9N warehouse and packaging plant was operating on half-power provided by generators.

"We're hoping to be back up this afternoon," said Gary Warren, vice president of manufacturing.

Maureen Murphy, consumer services manager at Price Chopper supermarkets, said five stores were closed for a few hours due to lack of power, including the downtown market on Church Street in Saratoga Springs.

There was minimal product loss, she said.

"We were lucky," she added.

In Ballston Spa, a Quiznos sandwich shop was closed for nearly 24 hours by the outage.

Most perishable food was saved, but the store lost about $1,700 in potential sales that day, said owner Stephen Baker.

The shop has been open five months.

The power went off at noon Friday, he said.

"There was a crack of thunder and a couple of minutes later everything went out," he said.

Rulison can be reached at 454-5504 or by e-mail at lrulison@timesunion.com.

Business writer Alan Wechsler contributed to this story.

Poor curious George .....

Victimized by a corollary of the PETER PRINCIPLE .....

Which has to do with rising to the level of your incompetence ...

And boy oh boy ...

Has George W. Bush ever achieved that dubious distinction ....

And in spades, to boot .....

First, George had a "foreign policy" of God only knows what .....

And actually, that may be placing an unfair burden on God .....

Assuming that even God could fathom what is going on in George's head ...

When he likely does not know, himself ...

George's original foreign policy was to walk around doing the TEXICAN STRUT ...

And stick guns in everybody's faces ...

And to tell them that George W. Bush was DA MAN .....

And all people did was to laugh at him ...

And shoot right back ...

And so ...

The TEXICAN STRUT apparently went back into the closet again, where it really belongs .....

Now, George says that his foreign policy has shifted to one of "We'll treat you fairly ...."

But what in God's name is that supposed to mean?

"We'll treat you fairly ....."

Well ...

HHHhhhmmmm .....

WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU SPEAKING TO HERE, GEORGE?

WHAT SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE YOU SELLING US OUT TO HERE, GEORGE?

AND WHY?

"Lawmakers Undeterred by Bush Veto Threat"

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates said President Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports.

In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done.

"We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday the UAE company, Dubai Ports, "is a reputable firm that went through a congressionally approved vetting process."

He said the U.S. has "the necessary safeguards to make sure that the security of our country is in place" and that rejecting the deal would send "a dangerous signal to people overseas that America plays favorites."

"The president wants this deal to go forward because it was followed by the book and he wants Congress to understand that," Bartlett said on CBS' "The Early Show."

He told Fox News Channel that Bush felt strongly that "we need to be adding strategic partners" in the Mideast.

But Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides.

"Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company is set to be completed in early March.

It would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports.

It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily.

The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover.

He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

"We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado.

He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said.

"But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal.

Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base.

In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Will Lester, Terence Hunt, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

end quotes

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said.

"But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

NOW ....

Look at those two statements above, coming from the lips of George W. Bush .....

"THE CONGRESS NEEDS TO KNOW THAT OUR GOVERNMENT ...."

OUR GOVERNMENT?

The Congress needs to know?

I actually must be confused here, me .....

Because I actually thought that OUR government included OUR United States Congress .....

Section 1 of Article I of what used to be the United States Constitution, anyway .....

SO ...

Ah, George ...

WHO THEN IS OUR GOVERNMENT ....

IN YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS, HERE?

EH?

And that brings us to our next story in here this morning .....

Which must be one about OUR GOVERNMENT ...

Since this guy Bernacke is one of George's crew ....

And George's CREW really is OUR GOVERNMENT ...

Despite some empty words on a flimsy sheet of paper entitled Constitution of the United States of America ....

"What's Complicating Bernanke's Balancing Act"

By James C. Cooper

Tue Feb 21, 9:38 AM ET

Ben Bernanke just passed his first test as Federal Reserve Board chairman[/u].

On Feb. 15-16, he held his own during a Capitol Hill grilling by both houses of Congress.

But that challenge pales in comparison with those that await him.

The toughest will be shaping monetary policy in a global economy.

Globalization makes it harder than ever to find the right level of interest rates to foster solid economic growth while keeping inflation at bay.

That complication increases the chances the Fed could make a policy mistake by pushing rates too high or leaving them too low.

Correcting the error could cost the economy dearly later on.

Globalization and its impact on monetary policy is not just about how worldwide competition suppresses prices of U.S. products.

More and more, prices of everything from steel to corporate bonds to even labor are determined by market forces overseas, not just those in the U.S.

Bernanke stressed the importance of flexibility in policy decisions, saying that policymakers must keep "an open mind about the many factors, including myriad global influences, at play" in the economy.

Against this global backdrop, measures of labor market tightness or constraints on output capacity traditionally used by the Fed to gauge wage and price pressures have become increasingly less reliable.

That is, in a global economy, the inflation potential of, say, January's 4.7% jobless rate or last month's nearly 81% utilization rate for industrial capacity is much harder to interpret.

Moreover, an increasingly pervasive international capital market complicates the Fed's search for a neutral interest rate that neither stimulates nor restricts economic growth.

Some economists even argue that, because of a lack of investment opportunities outside the U.S., the neutral rate might even be lower than the current policy stance.

Bernanke himself has explored this view, but that interpretation would imply that the Fed already may have overtightened.

Right now, that seems unlikely.

If anything, strong economic data for January, especially the powerful 2.3% rise in retail sales and a hefty 0.7% gain in manufacturing output, imply that rates may be too low.

THE GROWING SCOPE OF GLOBALIZATION is evident in the government's December report on international trade.

The full-year tally for the volume of U.S. trade -- shown as the sum of foreign-made goods and services bought in the U.S. and American-made products purchased overseas -- stood at $3.3 trillion for all of 2005.

That volume has doubled in only 10 years.

Heading into 2006, trade volume accelerated.

Both exports and imports posted strong advances in December -- 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively -- and the growth rates of both sped up in the final three months of the year.

During the past two years, the sum of U.S. exports and imports grew at an annual rate of 13.2%, the fastest two-year increase since 1988, when the dollar's plunge fueled an explosion of exports.

Given the resilience of U.S. demand, the continued strength in China and emerging Asia, and the gathering momentum in Japan and the euro zone, trade volumes will swell further this year.

Clearly, one alarming symbol of the new globalization is the growing imbalance in world trade, illustrated by the ever-widening U.S. trade deficit.

The gap for goods and services hit a record $725.8 billion in 2005, based on preliminary data.

The gap has ballooned to 5.8% of GDP in only the past eight years.

THAT DRAMATIC WIDENING illustrates how economies are becoming increasingly dependent on one another for rising living standards.

For example, China looks to foreign markets, especially in the U.S., to generate funds to develop its economy.

Cheap imports boost the purchasing power of U.S. consumers, and emerging Asian nations benefit as China outsources some of its production of materials and parts.

Most important, the U.S. and other nations get China's surplus savings to help finance their investment and growth.

One result is that the Fed has less control over the cost of capital, its primary tool in keeping the economy running smoothly.

With the world outside the U.S. awash in excess savings looking for a place to be invested, heavy global demand for U.S. securities is at least one of the factors holding down long-term interest rates.

More broadly, overall financial conditions are no tighter now than when the Fed began lifting rates in June, 2004, despite the Fed's hikes in short-term rates, totaling 3 1/2 percentage points.

Not only do long-term rates remain low enough to support both housing and corporate borrowing, but the credit markets see less risk in lending now than when the Fed first started tightening.

That's implied by the interest rate spread between corporate bonds and riskless Treasury bonds, which is narrower now than it was then.

And banks continue to be aggressive in seeking out new borrowers.

The Fed's January survey of bank senior loan officers shows that banks continue to ease the terms and conditions on commercial and industrial loans to businesses.

Also, the survey indicated that banks are still not toughening up their lending standards on mortgage loans, despite reports of the Fed urging them to do so.

RELATIVELY EASY FINANCIAL CONDITIONS are one factor stoking U.S. demand in early 2006.

Consumers got off to an explosive start this year, taking advantage of January's balmy weather and the redemption of all those holiday gift cards.

The 2.3% jump in retail sales from December to January was the largest monthly gain since October, 2001, when sales were boosted by generous incentives by carmakers right after September 11.

The data mean that consumer spending and overall economic growth are rebounding with gusto this quarter, after the fourth quarter's weak showing.

In fact, the strong start suggests that the Fed's latest forecasts for growth and inflation in 2006 might be too low.

Those numbers also imply that a lot of that demand will be going abroad, placing additional pressure on the trade deficit and the need for foreign capital to finance it.

Two other globalization issues might also create problems for the Bernanke Fed.

One is the growing threat of protectionism.

Congress seems likely to consider the bill by Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) to impose a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports, perhaps within the next month or two.

That would effectively raise import prices and nudge up overall inflation.

The other is the likelihood of a renewed decline in the dollar.

The economic fortunes of both Japan and the euro zone are turning up.

More Japanese and euro zone savings will be staying at home, even as both economies attract more foreign investment.

That leaves fewer global funds going to U.S. assets, which would cause the dollar to weaken.

Given the new global interdependency across economies, a full-blown dollar crisis seems unlikely, but a renewed dollar decline would generate some additional inflation pressures in the U.S. via higher import prices, giving the Fed yet another global issue to work around.

And then ...

There is IRAQINAM ....

The real jewel in the crown of George W. Bush's former foreign policy scheme ...

Where he was out there on the world stage doing the TEXICAN STRUT ....

As if that would impress anyone ...

AT ALL ....

"Shrine attack brings reprisals and fear"

By ZIAD KHALAF, Associated Press
Last updated: 8:15 a.m., Wednesday, February 22, 2006

SAMARRA, Iraq -- A large explosion Wednesday heavily damaged the golden dome of one of Iraq's most famous Shiite shrines, sending protesters into the streets and triggering reprisal attacks against Sunni mosques.

It was the third major attack against Shiite targets in as many days.

Shiite leaders called for calm, but militants attacked Sunni mosques and a gunfight broke out between Shiite militiamen and guards at a Sunni political party in Basra.

Army Capt. Jassim al-Wahash said about 500 soldiers were sent to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad to prevent clashes between Shiites and Sunnis.

A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, told reporters 29 Sunni mosques had been attacked nationwide.

He urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."

No group claimed responsibility for the early morning attack on the Askariya shrine in this city 60 miles north of Baghdad.

But suspicion fell on Sunni extremist groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Interior Ministry said four men, one wearing military uniform and three in black, entered the mosque early Wednesday and detonated two bombs, one of which collapsed the dome and damaged part of the northern wall of the shrine.

A government statement said "several suspects" had been detained and some of them "might have had been involved in carrying out the crime."

Police believed some people might be buried under the debris after the 6:55 a.m. explosion but by late afternoon no casualties had been found.

The shrine contains the tombs of two revered Shiite imams, both descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, and is among Iraq's most sacred sites for Shiite Muslims.

The attack on such a major religious shrine threatened to enflame sectarian passions at a time when talks among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on a new government have bogged down.

Major Sunni groups also joined in the condemning th attack.

The Sunni clerical Muslim Scholars called the bombing a "criminal act," and a Sunni political alliance blamed "evil people" for trying to divide Iraq.

In Baghdad, National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie pointed to religious zealots such as al-Qaida terror network and Ansar al-Sunnah, telling Al Arabiya television that the attack was an attempt "to pull Iraq toward civil war."

The country's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, especially the major ones in Baghdad.

He called seven days of mourning, his aides said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces sealed off all streets leading to the main Sunni mosque in Baghdad, Abu Hanifa, in the mostly Sunni Azamiyah neighborhood.

The Sunni Endowment, a government organization that cares for Sunni mosques and shrines, condemned the blast and said it was sending a delegation to Samarra to investigate what happened.

Shiite leaders in surrounding countries, including Iran's most influential cleric body, the Qom Shiite Seminary, were also quick to respond.

"Ayatollahs in Qom have condemned the explosion and announced one day of public mourning," Hashem Hosseini, head of the seminary, told the state-run television.

Following the blast, U.S. and Iraqi forces surrounded the shrine and began searching houses in the area.

Five police officers responsible for protecting the mosque were taken into custody, said Col. Bashar Abdullah, chief of police commandoes in Samarra.

Large protests erupted in Shiite parts of Baghdad and in cities throughout the Shiite heartland to the south.

In Basra, Shiite militants traded rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire with guards at the office of the Sunni-led Iraqi Islamic Party.

Smoke billowed from the building.

Merchants in the holy city of Najaf closed their shops, and about 1,000 people marched through the streets waving Iraqi flags and shouting religious slogans.

In Baghdad's Sadr City, thousands of Shiites, some brandishing Kalashnikov rifles, marched through the streets shouting anti-American slogans.

All mosques in the Shiite city of Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad began broadcasting "Allahu akbar," or "God is Great" from loudspeakers and urged people to turn out in the streets.

All markets, shops and stores closed, police Maj. Muhammad Ali said.

About 3,000 people marched the Shiite city of Kut, chanting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and burning U.S. and Israeli flags.

Crowds hurled stones at two Sunni mosques in Basra.

In the capital, the biggest attack against a Sunni mosque occurred in the Baladiyat area of eastern Baghdad, where about 40 Shiite militiamen sprayed the building with automatic fire.

One street vendor was killed in another mosque attack.

Radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr cut short a visit to Lebanon and left by road for Syria, where he was expected to travel back to Iraq, Lebanese officials said.

In Samarra, thousands of demonstrators gathered near the shrine, waving Iraqi flags, Shiite religious banners and copies of the Muslim holy book, Quran.

"This criminal act aims at igniting civil strife," said Mahmoud al-Samarie, a 28-year-old builder who was among the crowd.

"We demand an investigation so that the criminals who did this be punished."

"If the government fails to do so, then we will take arm and chase the people behind this attack."

Religious leaders at other mosques and shrines throughout the city denounced the attack in statements read over loudspeakers from minarets.

President Jalal Talabani condemned the attack and called for restraint, saying the attack was designed to sabotage talks on a government of national unity following the Dec. 15 parliamentary election.

Talabani urged religious and political leaders to speak out strongly against the attack.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari urged all Iraqis to condemn the attack and urged both Muslim and Christian leaders abroad "to redouble their efforts to help the Iraqi government stop these saboteurs."

The shrine attack followed a devastating car bomb late Tuesday in a Shiite corner of Baghdad, killing 22 people, according to police.

The day before, 12 died in a suicide attack on a bus in the capital's heavily Shiite district of Kazimiyah.

Sunni Arabs have also accused the Shiite-led Interior Ministry of targeting Sunni civilians under the pretext of fighting the mostly Sunni insurgents.

Extremists from both communities have staged tit-for-tat kidnappings and assassinations.

Tradition says the Askariya shrine, which draws Shiite pilgrims from throughout the Islamic world, is near the place where the last of the 12 Shiite imams, Mohammed al-Mahdi, disappeared.

Al-Mahdi, known as the "hidden imam," was the son and grandson of the two imams buried in the Askariya shrine.

Shiites believe he is still alive and will return to restore justice to humanity.

An attack at such an important religious shrine would constitute a grave assault on Shiite Islam at a time of rising sectarian tensions in Iraq.

The shrine contains the tombs of the 10th and 11th imams, Ali al-Hadi who died in 868 A.D. and his son Hassan al-Askari who died in 874 A.D and was the father of the hidden imam.

The golden dome was completed in 1905.

Samarra has been among the most difficult cities to pacify in the Sunni heartland.

In 2004, the city fell under the control of extremists, and al-Qaida flags could be seen flying over some buildings in the city.

U.S. forces regained control but the city remains tense.

Last April, an explosion blew away part of a wall on top of another Samarra landmark, the spiral minaret from a 9th-century mosque.

Witnesses said two men climbed the 170 foot tall minaret, then returned to the ground before the blast scattered rubble on the stairs that spiral up the outside of the structure.

Well ...

It looks like the BUSHCO PRIME is out to make a fight of it, here ....

And it looks like OUR Congress is ready to tell him to "BRING IT ON, GEORGE, BRING IT ON" .....

And bring a lunch, George, because you just might need it ....

"Bush Port Defiance Fuels Bipartisan Anger"

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush's marquee issue, the war on terror, is being turned against him by Democrats and rebelling members of his own party in an election-year dustup over a deal that allows an Arab company to manage major U.S. ports.

People in both parties are suggesting it's another case of Bush seeming to be tone deaf to controversy — on top of government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

The storm is forcing the president to choose between losing face with the Arab world and embarking on what would be his first veto battle with the GOP-led Congress.

And it has enabled Democrats to seemingly outflank him on a key GOP issue: national security.

Has Bush lost his way politically — or at least his touch?

"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site.

No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors.

"I think somebody dropped the ball."

"Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House."

"I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.

At issue: Bush's strong defense of an arrangement that would put a government-owned United Arab Emirates company in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The deal transferring port management from a British firm to Dubai Ports World has already been approved by both companies and an administration review panel.

Despite Bush's assertion that UAE has been one of the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois threatened legislation to put the deal on hold.

Bush, in turn, vowed to cast his first veto — if necessary — to stop any such attempt.

"It's a strange thing for Bush to have slipped into, given the savvy you expected from this administration, with a vice president who spent over a decade on Capitol Hill," said Princeton University political scientist Fred Greenstein.

"It seems as if his people would have seen that there was potential for trouble, and at least done their homework on the Hill."

Although a veto showdown could still be avoided, port-deal opponents were optimistic they could muster the two-thirds majorities needed to override one.

"This deal doesn't pass the national security test."

"I think it is a mistake," said Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., chairman of a House subcommittee on terrorism threats.

Bush learned about the arrangement himself only in recent days amid increasing news coverage, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

While Bush had struck a defiant tone on Tuesday in back-to-back sessions with reporters on Air Force One and outside the White House, McClellan on Wednesday acknowledged Congress should have been briefed earlier "given all the attention that has been focused on this and given the fact that it has been mischaracterized."

The phrase "tone deaf" to describe Bush's interaction with Congress was uttered by lawmakers as politically different as Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.

The Dubai Ports deal "is not a national security issue," suggested GOP consultant Rich Galen.

"It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light."

With Bush's ratings stuck at about 40 percent, the incident is one more major distraction to his efforts to focus on his second-term domestic agenda.

Syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham was among the conservatives criticizing the deal, asking on her Wednesday program, "How do we know people they're hiring are passing background checks?"

The dispute brought to mind a 1999 flap when conservatives admonished the Clinton administration for acquiescing on Panama's awarding of a contract to a China company, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., to run ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.

But then, almost all the criticism was from Republicans.

Now, it's bipartisan.

"I think there are certain things you have to be really worried about."

"And one of them is port safety," said Robert O. Boorstein, a senior national security aide in the Clinton White House.

"You have to call it an incredible tin ear that this administration could do that, with nobody stopping and saying, 'excuse me?'," said Boorstein, now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

Well .....

Has the BUSHCO PRIME indeed lost his way politically?

I would say yes to that, myself .......

And outside of possessing a real good "SMOKE AND MIRRORS CREW" to do illusions for him, which is the essence of American politics today, I don't think the PRIME himself ever had a real good grasp of reality ...

Since he was the one believing his own "SMOKE AND MIRRORS" crap ...

As though that somehow could force "OBJECTIVE REALITY", the "reality" that does shoot back, to bend to the PRIME's will ....

Oh, well ....

History is full of such leaders ....

And the now-defunct nations that they took into obscurity with them ...

"Secret pact on ports detailed - Documents show Dubai company at center of uproar agreed to security, but Congress readies hearings"

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said.

Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders.

It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements.

If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential."

Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions -- described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies -- reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged Wednesday that President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House.

He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through.

Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP.

"We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun."

"The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible."

It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify the person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States.

Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale.

It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the President to delay the takeover, which is set to be completed in early March.

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently.

The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated.

McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns.

"Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

In a rare admission of error, McClellan also said, "We probably should have briefed Congress about it sooner."

According to The New York Times, the Bush administration decided last month that the deal did not involve national security and so did not require a more lengthy review.

The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt.

On Wednesday, Kimmitt said the company, Dubai Ports World, had been thoroughly investigated and that on Jan. 17, the committee members unanimously approved the transfer.

end quotes

Well, America ...

It looks like more RAMPANT CHENEY-ISM is going on here with this deal ....

LOAD UP YOUR CANNONS, BOYS, AND JUST START BLAZING AWAY ...

AT WHATEVER ....

AND THEN, WE'LL SEE IF WE HIT SOMETHING ...

AND THEN ...

WE'LL COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF STORY ...

THAT WILL JUSTIFY WHY WE PULLED THE TRIGGER IN THE FIRST PLACE .....

"Senator Challenges Ports Deal Procedure"

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee angrily accused the Bush administration Thursday of ignoring the law by refusing to extend an investigation of a United Arab Emirates company's takeover of significant U.S. port operations.

Bush, talking to reporters at the conclusion of a Cabinet meeting earlier Thursday, said that "people don't need to worry about security."

"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government," Bush said, "the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

Clashing with a Treasury Department official on a mission to calm a political uproar, Sen. Carl Levin said the law has language specifically requiring a longer review than the one that an interagency committee conducted, if a business deal could affect national security.

"Is there not one agency in this government that believes this takeover could affect the national security of the United States?" the Michigan Democrat asked at a committee briefing.

Chairman John Warner, R-Va., in a very unusual procedure on Capitol Hill, allowed reporters to question the administration witnesses.

The Treasury official, Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt, and officials from other agencies said a multiagency group spent three months reviewing the port deal and said that all concerns about security were satisfied.

"We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of" the three-month review, Kimmitt said.

Levin insisted that the law that established the multiagency panel specifically said that any such review should be lengthened by 45 days if it could have an impact on national security.

Levin, raising his voice at the briefing, told Kimmitt, "If you want the law changed, come to Congress and change it but don't ignore it."

Kimmitt responded, "We didn't ignore the law."

"Concerns were raised."

"They were resolved."

Warner then jumped in to assure Levin that he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prepare a memorandum on the administration's interpretation of the law.

Levin also questioned the UAE's past record on terrorism matters, saying the country backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for al-Qaida.

He said the UAE has an "uneven history" as "one of only a handful of countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan."

He added that millions of dollars in al-Qaida funds went through UAE financial institutions.

Levin at one point noted that a special commission that investigated the terror attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 concluded that "there's a persistent counterterrorism problem represented by the United Arab Emirates."

"Just raise your hand if anybody (at the witness table) talked to the 9-11 commission," commanded Levin.

There was no response among the handful of administration representatives.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., also was critical, calling the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several of our critical ports would be turned over to foreign country.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and chairman of the committee, emphasized UAE's cooperation in the war on terrorism, noting that it allows a large number of port calls by U.S. military and commercial ships and that it had made its airfields available to the U.S. military.

But when a round of questioning began, Warner sharply asked Kimmitt whether the reviewing agencies considered UAE's role's in the transfer of money to al-Qaida and of nuclear components to rogue nations.

Kimmitt said those factors were taken into account.

Under secret conditions of the agreement with the administration, the Dubai company promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of the $6.8 billion deal, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

The president said he was struck by the fact that people were not concerned about port security when a British company was running the port operation, but they felt differently about an Arab company at the helm.

He said the United Arab Emirates was a valuable partner in the war in terror.

Critics in Congress, even before Thursday's hearing, had noted that the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously operated at those ports, is a publicly traded company while Dubai Ports World is effectively controlled by the government there.

Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Clinton have said they will introduce legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operations in the United States.

Bush said his administration would continue talks with members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — who have rebelled against the takeover.

He said the briefings were "bringing a sense of calm to this issue."

"This wouldn't be going forward if we weren't certain our ports would be secure," Bush said.

In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts.

It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents.

Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements.

If White House officials negotiating the deal had predicted the firestorm of criticism over it, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions over the sale were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential."

Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions are evidence the administration was concerned about security.

"There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction," King said.

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added:

"These new revelations ask more questions than they answer."

In Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the agreement was thoroughly vetted in a review process that took approximately three months.

"This is supposed to be a process that raises security concerns, if they are there, but does not presume that a country in the Middle East should not be capable of doing a deal like this."

She described the United Arab Emirates as "a very good ally" and said "if more details need to be made available then I'm sure they will be."

end quotes

"The more people learn about the transaction ....."

"That has been scrutinized and approved by my government,"

Bush said, "the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

Well, America ....

There we have it once again ...

This statement about HIS GOVERNMENT .......

IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, GEORGE ....

NOT YOURS .....

You are merely its chief executive officer ...

SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS .....

Just like the rest of us ....

And so ......

And speaking of the British ...

One of George W. Bush's valuable allies in HIS WAR ON TAY-RIZM ....

"Far-right UK party to print Muslim cartoon"

By Chris Johnson and Kate Holton Wed Feb 22, 12:38 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The far-right British National Party (BNP) said on Wednesday it would distribute leaflets showing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad, a move Muslim groups said would provoke protests and was "playing with fire."

A spokesman for the tiny fringe party, which has no seats in parliament but a handful on local councils, said its use of the image was not intended to cause offence, but illustrated how Islam and Western values did not mix.

The party says it is not racist, but its leader Nick Griffin and another activist are due in court on race-hate charges in October.

The cartoon is one of 12 which first appeared in a Danish newspaper and were later reprinted in other European countries, sparking violent protests across the Islamic world.

Many Muslims believe it is blasphemous to depict the Prophet.

At least 50 people have been killed during demonstrations around the world, and a Pakistani Muslim cleric last week offered rewards amounting to more than $1 million to anyone who killed any of the Danish cartoonists.

The cartoons have not been published by the mainstream press in Britain.

The content of the leaflets can already be seen on the BNP's Web site and the leaflets will be circulated ahead of local elections in May.

The leaflet asks "Which Do You Find Offensive?"

"A cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban or Muslim demonstrators calling for terrorist attacks on Europe and the 'extermination' of non-Muslims?"

"PLAYING WITH FIRE"

"By showing you just how mild and inoffensive the cartoon is, we're giving you the chance to see for yourself the huge gulf that exists between the democratic values that we share, and the medieval views that dominate Islam, even supposedly 'moderate' versions," the leaflet said.

The party spokesman said the BNP wanted the cartoon to provoke debate.

"We published the cartoon not to offend individual Muslims -- that's most important -- but to make a stand for freedom," he said.

The move drew immediate condemnation.

"The BNP are playing with fire and there can be no doubt they are doing this in order to try to raise tensions and provoke conflict," the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said.

"We would urge all British Muslims to not fall into the trap laid by the far right," added MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala.

"British Muslims should refuse to be provoked and continue to keep all protests peaceful and firmly within the law."

Around 15,000 Muslims staged a peaceful protest against the drawings in London last week.

A demonstration earlier in the month provoked outrage after masked men held up placards calling for the beheading of those who insult Islam, and praised the London bombings last July which killed 52 people.

Ian McCartney, chairman of the ruling Labor Party, condemned the leaflets as "straight out of the Nazi textbook."

The BNP commands a fraction of the support of far-right parties elsewhere in Europe but has several seats on local councils, mainly in poorer areas with large ethnic populations.

And jumping from the British ....

To Saudi Arabia .....

One of George W. Bush's valuable allies in HIS WAR ON TAY-RIZM ....

We have from them .....

"Saudis Reject U.S. Plan to Isolate Hamas"

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

2 hours, 22 minutes ago

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia on Wednesday became the second Arab ally in as many days to reject the U.S. strategy of financially isolating Hamas if the militant group does not moderate its policies as leader of the Palestinians.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat nearby, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said through a translator, "We wish not to link financial assistance to the Palestinian people to issues other than their dire humanitarian needs."

A day earlier, Rice had stood by as Saud's Egyptian counterpart said it was premature to cut off aid to a Hamas-led government.

Saud and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the world should not "prejudge" Hamas, whose sweep in Palestinian elections last month stunned Washington and threw the Israeli-Palestinian peace process into new turmoil.

Earlier Wednesday, Rice pledged to a group of Egyptian democracy activists in Cairo that the United States would continue applying pressure on Egypt's government to meet its promises of reform.

"One good thing about having the president stand for election and ask for the consent of the governed is that there is a program," Rice told a group of dissidents, editors and professors.

The session followed a breakfast with President Hosni Mubarak, who according to his spokesman reiterated to Rice that Egypt will not bow to U.S. efforts to cut off international aid to the Palestinian government.

Mubarak "emphasized the importance of giving Hamas enough time to assess the current situation and define its positions according to the demands of President Mahmoud Abbas," said presidential spokesman Suleiman Awad.

Awad said U.S.-Egyptian ties were "strategic and deep," but added, "Egypt's decisions are made inside Egypt, not in any other capital or place, despite its interest in advice from its friends."

Rice did not give any details of what she and Mubarak discussed.

Mubarak has pledged a variety of domestic reforms that have yet to come to pass.

Several of the activists told Rice that Mubarak is setting up a false choice between his autocratic rule and the leader of Egypt's Islamic political movement, the Muslim Brotherhood.

The activists did not agree, however, on how Rice should react to the Brotherhood, which is banned in Egypt.

Rice has refused to meet with and Muslim Brotherhood members and they were not represented at Wednesday's meeting.

"Eliminating the Muslim Brothers is totally non-democratic," said Tarek Heggy, a writer and former petroleum executive.

"The issue is how can we compete with them."

Rice made a point of telling the group that she found at least one of the cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad that have inflamed the Muslim world to be "offensive personally."

But she said the violent reaction to publication of the cartoons was "wrong and in some cases manufactured."

A sometimes heated press conference with Gheit in Cairo illustrated the difficulties the Bush administration is meeting in seeding political freedom in the Middle East.

Rice was asked whether the United States intended to impose a "democracy of torture" and human rights abuses.

That, the reporter suggested, is what the United States has wrought in Iraq.

Others wanted to know why the United States is focused only on Iran's nuclear ambitions instead of on the nuclear weapons held by Israel, and whether the Bush administration might bomb Iran.

"Our aspiration is not that people will have an American-style democracy."

"American-style democracy is for Americans," Rice said.

"But that there will be a democracy that is for Egypt or for Iraq or for any other people on this Earth, because democracy is the only form of government in which human beings truly get to express themselves."

And continuing to leap through time and space in here as if it were nothing at all, which it is not, here in CYBERSPACE ....

We leap from Saudi Arabia to IRAQINAM ....

Which is one of George W. Bush's valuable allies in HIS WAR ON TAY-RIZM ....

Where they have a DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQINAM, thanks to "CON-JOB CONNIE" and George W. Bush ....

Which certainly allows those folks over there to truly get to express themselves, BIG TIME ....

And with guns and Rocket Propelled Grenades, to boot ...

And here is some of their "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" in action, right now .....

Boy ....

Isn't democracy as spread throughout the world by "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice and George W. Bush just the most wonderful and splendid thing the world has ever seen ....

"Mosque Attack Pushes Iraq Toward Civil War"

By ZIAD KHALAF, Associated Press Writer

22 February 2006

SAMARRA, Iraq - Insurgents posing as police destroyed the golden dome of one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines Wednesday, setting off an unprecendented spasm of sectarian violence.

Angry crowds thronged the streets, militiamen attacked Sunni mosques, and at least 19 people were killed.

With the gleaming dome of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine reduced to rubble, some Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame.

The violence — many of the 90 attacks on Sunni mosques were carried out by Shiite militias — seemed to push Iraq closer to all-out civil war than at any point in the three years since the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Many leaders called for calm.

"We are facing a major conspiracy that is targeting Iraq's unity," said President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.

"We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war."

President Bush pledged American help to restore the mosque after the bombing north of Baghdad, which dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to keep Iraq from falling deeper into sectarian violence.

"The terrorists in Iraq have again proven that they are enemies of all faiths and of all humanity," Bush said.

"The world must stand united against them, and steadfast behind the people of Iraq."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair also condemned the bombing and pledged funds toward the shrine's reconstruction.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, called the attack a deliberate attempt to foment sectarian strife and warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq."

No one was reported injured in the bombing of the shrine in Samarra.

But at least 19 people, including three Sunni clerics, were killed in the reprisal attacks that followed, mainly in Baghdad and predominantly Shiite provinces to the south, according to the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group.

Many of the attacks appeared to have been carried out by Shiite militias that the United States wants to see disbanded.

In predominantly Shiite Basra, police said militiamen broke into a prison, hauled out 12 inmates, including two Egyptians, two Tunisians, a Libyan, a Saudi and a Turk, and shot them dead in reprisal for the shrine attack.

Major Sunni groups joined in condemning the attack, and a leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."

The country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, and called for seven days of mourning.

But he hinted, as did Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi, that religious militias could be given a bigger security role if the government cannot protecting holy shrines — an ominous sign of the Shiite reaction ahead.

Both Sunnis and the United States fear the rise of such militias, which the disaffected minority views as little more than death squads.

American commanders believe they undercut efforts to create a professional Iraqi army and police force — a key step toward the eventual drawdown of U.S. forces.

Some Shiite political leaders already were angry with the United States because it has urged them to form a government in which nonsectarian figures control the army and police.

Khalilzad warned this week — in a statement clearly aimed at Shiite hard-liners — that America would not continue to support institutions run by sectarian groups with links to armed militias.

One top Shiite political leader accused Khalilzad of sharing blame for the attack on the shrine in Samarra.

"These statements ... gave green lights to terrorist groups."

"And, therefore, he shares in part of the responsibility," said Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the former commander of its militia.

The interior minister, who controls the security forces that Sunnis accuse of widepsread abuses, is a member of al-Hakim's party.

The new tensions came as Iraq's various factions have been struggling to assemble a government after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections.

The Shiite fury sparked by Wednesday's bombings — the third major attack against Shiite targets in as many days — raised the likelihood that Shiite religious parties will reject U.S. demands to curb militias.

The Askariya shrine, also known as the Golden Mosque, contains the tombs of two revered Shiite imams, who are considered by Shiites to be among the successors of the Prophet Muhammad.

No group claimed responsibility for the 6:55 a.m. assault on the shrine in Samarra, a mostly Sunni Arab city 60 miles north of Baghdad, carried out by four insurgents disguised as police.

But suspicion fell on Sunni extremist groups.

The top of the dome, which was completed in 1905, collapsed into a crumbly mess, leaving just traces of gold showing through the rubble.

Part of the shrine's tiled northern wall also was damaged.

Thousands of demonstrators crowded near the wrecked shrine, and Iraqis picked through the debris, pulling out artifacts and copies of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, which they waved, along with Iraqi flags.

"This criminal act aims at igniting civil strife," said Mahmoud al-Samarie, a 28-year-old builder.

"We demand an investigation so that the criminals who did this be punished."

"If the government fails to do so, then we will take up arms and chase the people behind this attack."

U.S. and Iraqi forces surrounded the Samarra shrine and searched nearby houses.

About 500 soldiers were sent to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad to prevent clashes.

On Al-Jazeera television, Sunni politician Adnan al-Dulaimi pledged that the violence would not discourage Sunnis from working to form a new government and claimed the Samarra attack was not planned by Sunni insurgents but "a foreign hand aiming to create differences among Iraqis."

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said 10 people were detained for questioning about the bombing.

The Interior Ministry put the number at nine and said they included five guards.

In the hours after the attack, more than 90 Sunni mosques were attacked with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, burned or taken over by Shiites, the Iraqi Islamic Party said.

Large protests erupted in Shiite parts of Baghdad and in cities throughout the Shiite heartland to the south.

In Basra, Shiite militants traded rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire with guards at the office of the Iraqi Islamic Party.

Smoke billowed from the building.

Shiite protesters later set fire to a Sunni shrine containing the seventh century tomb of Talha bin Obeid-Allah, a companion of Muhammad, on the outskirts of Basra.

Protesters in Najaf, Kut and Baghdad's Shiite slum of Sadr City also marched through the streets by the thousands, many shouting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and burning those nations' flags.

Tradition says the Askariya shrine, which draws Shiite pilgrims from throughout the Islamic world, is near the place where the last of the 12 Shiite imams, Mohammed al-Mahdi, disappeared.

Al-Mahdi was the son and grandson of the two imams buried in the Askariya shrine.

Shiites believe he is still alive and will return to restore justice to humanity.

And this following is just one of those interesting things that comes down the pike in here, every now and then ....

"Gladiators fought by the rules: forensic research"

22 February 2006

LONDON (Reuters) - Gladiators may have fought and died to entertain others in the brutality of the Roman arena but they appear to have abided by a strict code of conduct which avoided savage violence, forensic scientists say.

Tests on the remains of 67 gladiators found in tombs at Ephesus in Turkey, center of power for ancient Rome's eastern empire, show they stuck to well defined rules of combat and avoided gory free-for-alls.

Injuries to the front of each skull suggested that each opponent used just one type of weapon per bout of face-to-face contact, two Austrian researchers report in a paper to be published in Forensic Science International.

Savage violence and mutilation, typical of battlefields 2,000 years ago, were out of order.

And the losers appear to have died quickly.

Despite the fact that most gladiators wore helmets, 10 of the remains showed the fighters had died of squarish hammer-like blows to the side of the head, possibly the work of a backstage executioner who finished off wounded losers after the fight.

The report confirms the picture given of battles in the arena by Roman artwork, which suggests gladiators were well matched and followed rules enforced by two referees.

Kathleen Coleman of Harvard University, who was historical consultant for Ridley Scott's film "Gladiator," agreed with the findings of the report.

"The fact that none of the gladiators' skulls was subjected to a repeated battering does seem to confirm that discipline was exercised in gladiatorial combat and its aftermath," she was quoted by New Scientist magazine as saying.

The scientists, Karl Grosschmidt of the Medical University of Vienna and Fabian Kanz of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, used special X-ray scans and microscopic analysis to investigate the gladiators' deaths.

The bones were uncovered in 1993 and are thought to date from the second century AD.

And from ancient Rome ..

Where the gladiators apparently had some ethics ...

We jump forward in time to now ...

To where our policiticans have none at all ....

"EPA seeks shroud on pollution data - Federal agency's proposal to scale back reporting requirements for companies that produce toxic materials sparks opposition"

By MATT PACENZA, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, February 17, 2006

When Susan Falzon of Friends of Hudson talks to residents who live near cement plants or paper factories, they often ask her how they can learn more about the pollutants facilities emit.

Falzon always directs them to the federal government's Toxics Release Inventory.

The TRI is a searchable database of the chemicals industrial and commercial facilities release into the air, water or landfills.

Her advice soon may be different.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency last month proposed a big change in how companies report pollution data.

If the Bush administration gets its way, companies will tell the public a lot less about pollution by reporting less often on fewer chemicals.

In the Capital Region, 16 facilities would no longer have to report anything to the EPA about the toxic substances they emit, according to analysis from OMB Watch, a Washington D.C.-based open government group.

Environmentalists and elected officials, including Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, are urging the feds to back off.

They say the TRI has helped communities and researchers investigate threats to local health and safety while encouraging companies to cut pollution.

"We're learning every day about the relationship between toxic chemicals and all kinds of illness," said Falzon.

"Now is not the time to restrict information."

The proposal is designed to reduce the paperwork burden on companies and would save 165,000 work hours each year, according to the EPA.

The agency points out that most information would still be public, except for relatively small amounts of chemicals from certain facilities.

Advocates aren't buying the burden argument.

They point out that the EPA's own data shows it costs companies just $430 to $790 for each chemical they report on.

Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1987, in the wake of the release of the deadly chemical methyl isocyanate in Bhopal, India, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

The TRI data, available at http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer, is heavily used by researchers, community groups, journalists and even state and local officials.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation on Tuesday urged the EPA to maintain the current system.

"The DEC believes that changing the reporting requirements under TRI undermines its effectiveness as a tool for trend analysis, making it less useful for the public," the department said in a written statement.

For most chemicals, the EPA wants to raise the minimum amount that would have to be reported from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds.

That would mean no public accounting at all for 26 chemicals that are only released at those smaller amounts.

The agency also recommends reducing how often companies have to report pollution, switching from an annual system to every other year.

The proposed change even applies to a category of the most troubling chemicals --categorized by the ungainly name of "persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic" compounds -- including lead and mercury.

About 2,700 pounds of mercury pollution would no longer be made public under the proposal, according to an analysis from OMB Watch.

Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, is using the TRI data in a project that investigates whether people who live near industrial facilities are more likely to develop certain illnesses.

He was flabbergasted to learn about the proposal this week.

"The idea that you would reduce the reporting threshold, in particular with lead and mercury, is absolutely asinine," Carpenter said.

Those who oppose the TRI change argue that making such data public has reduced pollution, because companies have worked to not be identified as dirty.

Between 1988 and 1994, the amount of pollutants released dropped 44 percent, according to one study.

"No one wants to be on the top 10 polluter list," said Judith Enck, an environmental policy adviser to the attorney general.

"Public awareness can drive better environmental polices, and that has been case here."

Last month, Spitzer was one of 12 attorneys general, from California to New Hampshire, who sent comments to the EPA urging the agency to keep TRI as is.

The agency reported Wednesday it has received 65,000 comments on the proposal.

If TRI is changed, Enck said the attorney general's office will strongly consider suing to overturn the new rule.

Matt Pacenza can be reached at 454-5533 or by e-mail at mpacenza@timesunion.com.

TOXIC LIST

The following area companies would no longer have to report the toxic chemicals they release under a pending Bush administration proposal:

Rensselaer Cogen; Rensselaer

Allied Healthcare Products; Stuyvesant Falls

Clemente Latham Troy Plant; Troy

Passonno Paints; Watervliet

Surpass Chemical Co.; Albany

Crowley Foods Inc.; Albany

Saratoga Spa & Bath; Latham

Emsig Manufacturing Corp.; Hudson

Peckham Materials Corp.; Athens

North East Treaters of New York; Athens

Hussmann Corp. ;Gloversville

Nu-Gro Technologies ;Gloversville

Hudson Inds. Corp.; Johnstown

RH Crown Co.; Johnstown

Simco Leather Corp.; Johnstown

Source: OMB Watch

Our GOOD, LOYAL, friends, the Saudis.

Boy, jeffmoskin ....

Talk about "Candid Camera" .....

And a picture worth a thousand words .....

And talking about a picture of "UNRAVELING POLICIES" .....

"Troubles in Mideast stir hatred for U.S. - America feels wrath amid recent events, a sign of unraveling policies"

By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press
First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt -- It may seem bewildering to Americans who see themselves as helping Iraq.

The rush to blame the United States for the shrine bombing is a sign not only of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, but the tense state of West-Mideast relations overall.

From riots over the prophet drawings to the United Arab Emirates ports dispute to Hamas' election win, little is going right for the United States in the Arab world.

Even a supposed friend -- a top Iraqi Shiite leader, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who President Bush once praised at the White House -- took a poke after Wednesday's attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra, saying the U.S. ambassador "gave a green light to terrorist groups."

The outcry, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on a troubled visit to the region, is a sign of just how much America's Mideast policy has unraveled in recent months.

Some of that was predictable and even positive in an odd way: the Bush administration has achieved some success at promoting democracy here.

It could have expected that determined foes like Iran and Syria would fight back hard -- as they are.

But other, unforeseen problems have cropped up.

One is the widespread Mideast belief that the Iraq war is going badly, and that the United States -- having invaded against Arab wishes -- is now responsible for the growing sectarian violence.

With Iraq veering closer to civil war, many feel like Dr. Nabil Salim, a political science professor at Baghdad University who says U.S.-led forces share blame for the shrine bombing "because they are in charge of security in the country."

"... And they are not doing a good job of improving internal security or controlling borders."

Beyond Iraq, there have been other controversies undermining U.S. stature here that no one could have foreseen.

First was the "culture war" fight over the drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, and the serious misunderstandings it exposed on each side.

Countries like Iran and Syria found the perfect chance to kick back at America -- the symbol of the West -- allowing violent riots that accused Europe and the United States of seeking to destroy Islam.

Those protests then spread.

Then there was the Islamic militant group Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections, leading to more tension over American support for Israel.

Old friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia told Rice this week they won't go along with U.S. hopes for a total aid ban to a Hamas-led government.

Next -- almost incredibly to many in the region -- there was the dispute over the United Arab Emirates and whether it can be trusted to keep U.S. ports safe.

It may have stemmed from understandable American fears about security after Sept. 11.

But many here see the UAE as the model of Arab modernity -- the one country actually doing things right.

They saw American fears as simple anti-Arab bias.

That dispute won't be simply or cleanly resolved, either, because America needs places like the UAE:

Who else will allow the United States to base spy planes on its territory, or keep freighters to Iran from carrying the building blocks of nuclear weapons?

Even Abu Ghraib still causes a stir here.

When new pictures of Iraqi prison abuse emerged this month, Egyptian critics promptly used them to accuse Rice of hypocrisy for citing Egyptian human rights woes.

The problem is that the Middle East is in fact deeply troubled -- torn among authoritarian governments, a genuine thirst for democracy and feelings of powerlessness and rage toward the West that lead people toward extremism.

Complicating it all are sectarian tensions, mostly Shiite-Sunni, that are easily exploited by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq is seemingly determined to cause not just civil war in that country, but internal Muslim divisions across the region.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah -- no friend of the United States -- hinted at just that Thursday when he told huge Shiite crowds in Lebanon:

"Let's not blame each other."

"We shouldn't give them that opportunity."

"We should limit the accusations to the American occupation, its agents and the "takfiri" (Sunni extremist) murderers."

"Toward those our rage should be directed."

In the end, it may never be known who actually blew up the shrine:

Many Shiites did immediately blame "takfiri" -- Sunnis so extreme, like al-Zarqawi, that they believe Shiites are infidels.

Many Sunnis in turn immediately blamed extremist Shiites, saying they blew up the shrine to appear more like victims and strengthen their political hand.

end quotes

Are ALL of George W. Bush's mercenary forces over there in IRAQINAM present and accounted for, I wonder?

And all of the explosives, too?

CUI BONO from all this on-going violence?

Besides the stockholders of these mercenary companies that George W. Bush and his crowd have in the field over there in IRAQINAM?

And the American "economy", of course ....

And the REPUBLICAN PARTY, of course ......

The REPUBLICAN PARTY benefits big-time from all this on-going and escalating violence ....

Which means money in the bank ...

For them and theirs .....

And for a look at the REPUBLICAN PARTY's latest "RECRUITMENT EFFORTS" ...

Now that the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections are looming large on the horizon ....

Click on this URL now:

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

The curious thing is that the stock of Exxon/Mobil, who just declared $36 BILLION in profits, has been pretty stagnant for a year.

Go figure.

Or maybe the "insiders" anticipated the big jump in oil prices as soon as it was clear that BushCo was going to invade Iraq.

Years ago now, I worked on a project for a large California engineering company that was in cahoots with an oil company and a railroad company ......

The project itself was related to getting more oil out of fields where the overburden pressure was depleted .....

And so ...

The oil left in them was difficult to recover ....

And at that time, it was economically unfeasible .....

The cost of a barrel of oil had to go up quite a bit ....

And there was no doubt back then, circa 1980 or so, that it was going to do so ....

And these were very patient people .....

Make a buck today ...

And tomarrow will take care of itself ....

And it has ...

In spades ...

For someone, anyway ...

Now, why the stock of this huge oil company with record profits is stagnant is an interesting thing to consider .....

And it is something that most of us are likely unaware of .....

And so ....

Thanks for making mention of it in here, jeffmoskin .....

Strange times we live in ....

Strange times, indeed ...

And so ....

And speaking of strange times ...

And BIG TALKERS ....

And REAL HIGH ROLLERS ....

In the REPUBLICAN-controlled State of New York .....

Who George W. Bush and his WATER CARRIER George Pataki would have us believe are good for OUR economy .....

We have ......

"Developer piles up unpaid bills - Troy business owners cite thousands in bad debt; property taxes overdue"

By TIM O'BRIEN, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

TROY -- Sandy Horowitz, the developer who bought five downtown buildings with grand plans to remake Troy, is establishing a pattern of unpaid bills and upset businesses.

"He owes me money."

"Thousands," said Dean Osterhout, co-owner of American Seal Decorating Center.

"He has pretty much walked away from me."

"He won't respond to me."

Osterhout said he was thrilled when Horowitz came to the city in 2003 and was hailed as a Hollywood producer who would turn Troy into a blockbuster.

"In the end, I got burned," Osterhout said.

He is far from alone.

Horowitz owes money for everything from paint to property management, business owners said this week.

The developer could not be reached for comment Wednesday and Thursday despite repeated messages left for him at his Troy office, his Long Island office and on his cell phone.

Fred Peters, owner of Interstate Cleaning and Maintenance, said Horowitz owes his firm $13,000.

"Apparently the gentleman owes a lot of people a lot of money," Peters said.

"He owes me a lot of money, and he is totally jerking me around."

Peters' firm cleaned the Hendrick Hudson, Keenan and Cannon buildings, all owned by Horowitz.

"I'm in the midst of putting mechanic's liens on the properties," he said.

Rick LaJoy, general manager of Mercer Property Management, said his firm also severed its relationship with Horowitz and is owed money.

"It was high enough; I believe we have litigation started," he said.

Bill Mooradian, owner of Mooradian's Furniture, declined to discuss the specifics of what Horowitz owes him.

"He has had dreams bigger than his wallet," Mooradian said.

"You'll get enough of the story without me."

"I'm not sure where legally we're allowed to comment on his payment records."

Kevin Aubin of Northeast Management Group of Albany filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court last year, claiming Horowitz owes his company nearly $70,000 for janitorial work, general construction and labor costs.

Horowitz has countersued.

Aubin said he loaned Horowitz $55,000.

"No one feels dumber than I," he said.

"The damage he's going to do to downtown Troy when he falls apart, it's going to be big."

Ed Martin, chief executive of Lusco Paper Co., said he had to battle to get Horowitz to pay for $1,500 worth of office products.

"We had difficulties collecting our money."

"He did finally pay us," Martin said.

It took 392 days and a trip to small claims court, Martin said.

"That's the indication I got also when we had problems, that he owed everybody," Martin said.

Chuck Campbell, vice president of Albany Elevator Inc., said Horowitz was in arrears but has paid.

He said the developer, initially known for his hands-on involvement in every detail of his buildings, has been less personally involved lately.

"He got a little too big in the area, and he lost his personal hand control," Campbell said.

"He purchased a lot of buildings."

City Comptroller Deborah Witkowski said the developer owes the city $170,877.28 in unpaid taxes on four of five properties he owns.

"He's got so many things open, it's not even funny," Witkowski said.

The state Department of Taxation and Finance issued a tax warrant January 23 for unpaid sales tax for the Troy Coffee Company, Horowitz's firm which owns the Ilium Cafe inside the Cannon Building.

The company owes $4,259.74 for nonpayment of sales tax, spokesman Tom Bergin said.

Upon arriving in the city, Horowitz bought the Cannon Building, the Hendrick Hudson Hotel, the Keenan Building, a brownstone that was the former home of the Rensselaer County Chamber of Commerce on Second Street and another brownstone on River Street.

They are among the city's biggest landmarks, and Horowitz said at the time he was thrilled by Troy and its potential.

"I thought it was an incredible opportunity," he told the Times Union at the time.

"I was like a kid in the candy store."

end quotes

And it was something to behold ...

This guy had politicians twining all around his legs like cats looking for a bowl of cream .....

And newspaper editors were fawning all over him ....

And it was going to be a MIRACLE for Troy, New York .....

Well ...

Maybe it still is ...

A MIRACLE if they survive this debacle .....

BUT ...

They say suckers are born every minute ...

And this was Troy's hour for that, anyway ....

And so .....

I think I am finally beginning to understand exactly who George W. Bush is referring to when he says "his government" ......

Meaning the government that he personally answers to .....

Which is not OUR government at all ......

Back in the sixties, we had talk of the "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" .....

And now ...

We have ...

"THE ARABIAN CANDIDATE" .....

As president of OUR America .....

These Arab OIL HIGH-ROLLERS come to Saratoga in the State of New York each year to spend big money on race horses at the annual sale up there .....

And maybe they take home some American politicians too .....

Stuck to their wallets like leeches ....

Almost impossible to remove .....

"Adviser says White House set on ports deal"

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."

Opponents, including the agency that runs New York and New Jersey ports, took their case to court, while the company, Dubai Ports World, stepped up efforts to change the minds of congressional critics.

The president's national security adviser said the White House would keep trying to persuade lawmakers -- there's more time since the company offered to delay its takeover -- but the administration wouldn't reconsider its approval.

"There are questions raised in the Congress, and what this delay allows is for those questions to be addressed on the Hill," Stephen Hadley said.

"There's nothing to reopen."

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.

"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said.

"There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said.

Kean acknowledged the UAE is now being helpful by allowing the United States to dock ships in its country's waters, and helping the U.S. with intelligence.

"From our point of view, we don't want foreigners controlling our ports," Kean said.

"From their point of view, this is a legitimate company that had a legitimate bid and won, and here are all these congressmen saying all these things about not wanting this company."

"It looks to them like it's anti-Arab."

"I think this deal is going to be killed," Kean said.

"The question is how much damage is this going to do to us before it's killed."

Kean's comments threatened to overshadow moves by the company and the White House to appease critics by delaying the takeover.

"Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is to deal with the United Arab Emirates," said Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.

"This just proves that no real investigation was ever conducted, and it's unfortunate that he and the other 9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the government approved this."

The former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

"The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999.

The U.S. operations generating the protests represent about 10 percent of a global $6.8 billion acquisition by the state-run company.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced the Bush administration for approving the deal through a secretive review process designed to protect national security in big corporate mergers.

Lawmakers led by King and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., plan to introduce legislation next week that would put the deal on hold while the government conducts further investigation.

Hoping to forestall such legislation, Dubai Ports said Thursday night it would postpone its action indefinitely to give Congress more time to look at the deal.

Said Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

"We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward."

"So, a slight delay would be helpful in that regard."

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said much of the criticism has an anti-Arab bias.

"We are at war against terrorists, not any religion or ethnicity."

"Some politicians seem to have forgotten that."

"... Such alarm, verging almost on hysteria, harms our efforts to have the broadest coalition possible against worldwide terrorism," Domenici said.

House GOP leaders plan to meet Tuesday to decide whether they will still support immediate legislation to hold up the sale.

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, a member of the leadership, said he is "beginning to get what I want, which is to slow down this process so we can take a look at it."

Lobbyists for Dubai Ports went to Capitol Hill Friday to brief staffers.

Lawmakers said the company's delay was a positive step, but not a solution.

"I think the onus still remains with the company and for those who approved it, to justify how this is consistent with our national security concerns," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.

In New Jersey, the agency in charge of area ports sued to try to block Dubai Ports from taking over operations there.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey argued in court papers that Dubai Ports World was violating its lease by not getting consent for its pending acquisition of the current port operator, London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who is also suing over the sale, urged other governors to join the case.

Governors of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania have expressed concerns about the takeover;

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has said he trusts his brother the president on such security issues.

------

Associated Press writers Katherine Shrader, Ted Bridis, Liz Sidoti, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, and Jeffrey Gold in Trenton, N.J. contributed to this report.

"Clueless on ports - The White House says President Bush didn't know of the deal until recently"

Albany, New York Times Union Editorial
First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

The White House now acknowledges that President Bush wasn't aware that an Arab company was taking over operations at six American ports until last weekend.

That's astonishing.

It sends an unmistakable signal that the country's chief executive is out of the loop on some of the most sensitive security matters facing his administration.

What is even more astonishing is that The Associated Press had reported the sale in a Feb. 11 dispatch that was carried in most major U.S. newspapers.

The financial press also provided extensive coverage.

Mr. Bush, of course, has never been one to read newspapers, relying instead on his staff to provide daily news briefings.

Now he is paying a heavy political price for not doing his homework.

What may be most astonishing of all, though, is the secrecy surrounding this transaction.

Given the security questions that port operations were sure to raise, the administration should have briefed Congress on the details long ago.

Instead, it is only now that Congress and the public have learned of a secret deal worked out by the administration and the company, Dubai Ports, based in United Arab Emirates, that was part of the approval process.

The Associated Press reports that, unlike most foreign takeover transactions, the agreement does not require the company to keep business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court order.

Nor does it require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests -- a provision that experts say is routine in other foreign sales.

The administration is trying to allay opposition by reminding critics that security is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and Customs, no matter who runs port operations.

But is it any wonder that few in Congress are buying it?

Mr. Bush's penchant for secrecy, and his disdain for opposing views, have undermined his credibility, this time, perhaps, to a point beyond repair.

end quotes

AMERICA is the one paying the price for George W. Bush's incompetence, arrogance, and ineptitude .....

Not George .....

"Yet another big lie Bush won't admit"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

There is no use wasting words to urge the Bush administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No amount of international embarrassment, no pleas from the United Nations or from European governments -- not even a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court -- changes the way the United States conducts itself there.

We must assume that the shame of Guantanamo is with us for as long as the shameless George W. Bush is president.

So who is being held at this camp, where detainees have no real hope of release, or of being formally charged, or even of seeing what evidence there may be against them?

Who are these men in such despair that many resort to hunger strikes, but are force-fed by tube -- strapped into restraining chairs, if necessary -- lest the United States suffer the additional humiliation of creating Muslim martyrs?

Our government tells us the prisoners at Guantanamo are "the worst of the worst," to use Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's phrase.

"They're terrorists."

"They're bomb-makers, they're facilitators of terror."

"They're members of al-Qaida and the Taliban" is the description from the ever-reliable lips of Vice President Dick Cheney.

"They were there to kill," the President has asserted.

That is what our political leaders say.

But it is not what officials who are actually in charge of holding the prisoners say.

The government produced documents on 517 Guantanamo detainees for Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- military reviews of detainees' cases that were prompted by the Supreme Court's order that they be afforded some sort of legal process.

The documents became publicly available because of separate litigation.

The findings were analyzed by Seton Hall University law school students, led by Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux, lawyers who represent two Tunisian detainees.

What do the official findings of the U.S. military show?

More than half of the so-called enemy combatants at Guantanamo were determined to have committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces.

This was so even though the definition of a "hostile act" was loose enough to include fleeing a camp that had been bombed, or being picked up in an area of Pakistan where others believed to be fighters had fled.

Evidence the government used as proof that someone was an "enemy combatant" included associating with unnamed individuals or groups purported to have terrorist ties -- or possessing a rifle, using a guest house, possessing a Casio watch or wearing olive-drab clothing.

"These are the government's words," Joshua Denbeaux said.

"These are the government's proofs."

Only 7 percent of detainees actually were captured by U.S. and coalition forces.

The rest were rounded up by Pakistani authorities, by the Afghan Northern Alliance or by other militias and armed groups -- some of whom were paid bounties for handing over men alleged to be terrorists.

Most detainees are being held not for fighting, but because they were found to have some "association" with a group suspected of terrorist ties.

No definition of association is supplied.

It could be, Joshua Denbeaux said, that "you once passed him on the street."

"Or you could be Osama bin Laden's cousin."

"You can't tell."

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said the Seton Hall report is flawed because its authors didn't have access to classified evidence.

But the report doesn't claim to be based on evidence.

It analyzes the government's official findings -- determinations made by military authorities after they themselves reviewed all available evidence, classified or unclassified.

"We're holding them responsible for what they found," said Mark Denbeaux.

The portrait that emerges from the Seton Hall study is strikingly similar to the picture developed in a separate analysis of government documents by Corine Hegland of National Journal.

Hegland reviewed files on 132 men and review-board transcripts for 314 Guantanamo detainees.

She, too, found that relatively few were judged to have committed hostile acts.

She even uncovered "a few men whose most direct link to hostilities appears to be getting wounded by one of the thousands of American bombs dropped on Afghanistan."

No doubt there are dangerous men being held at Guantanamo.

But we do not, and cannot, know how many.

We know that government officials often lie, and that official documents can reveal a tale more true.

The essential truth about Guantanamo is now being revealed as tragic farce.

The Bush administration cannot and will not change course, because to do so would expose another gross error, and another big lie.

Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

"Difficult to Discern Who Runs U.S. Ports"

By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer

Thu Feb 23, 3:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Who's in charge of security at U.S. seaports?

There's no simple answer to that question — a critical part of the debate over the takeover of major port operations by a United Arab Emirates company.

All seaports are different and the biggest ones are complex.

Responsibility for security is spread among government agencies: the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, terminal operators and state and local port authorities.

The Homeland Security Department said over a year ago that confusion about responsibility had delayed a cargo security plan.

"During the two years since DHS was established, this has frequently led to questions of 'who's in charge?'" said a draft of the plan, released in December 2004.

Even now, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the Bush administration doesn't take port security seriously.

"It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law," he said.

The administration says it has strengthened port security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pointing to increased funding and new security technology.

Customs and Border Protection oversees the cargo that arrives in more than 20,000 shipping containers that pass through U.S. ports daily.

The Coast Guard approves security plans for 10,000 ships and 5,000 port facilities.

Since July 1, 2004, the Coast Guard has been responsible for making sure those plans are carried out.

The nation's larger ports have dozens of separate facilities within them, including oil refineries, warehouses, fuel farms, power plants and factories.

The terminal operator is responsible for security at its own terminal and the area within the port where cargo is loaded, unloaded or transferred, according to the Homeland Security Department.

UAE-based Dubai Ports World would operate some of the terminals at a half-dozen of the nation's largest seaports: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark, N.J.

"They're required to have a security plan," said Dennis Murphy, former Customs port director at the Port of Norfolk and former Homeland Security spokesman.

The plan has to include security measures such as lighting, fencing, locks and background checks on employees, he said.

"They have to know who the people are who they're hiring," Murphy said.

A fact sheet from the Homeland Security Department said that the "people working on the docks" and security personnel would not change under the pending deal.

Murphy said the entire supply chain is scrutinized by a number of people — including the buyer, the seller and the shipper along with federal officials — who want to make sure cargo moves where it's supposed to move.

"It's an elaborate ballet of information and machinery," he said.

"You don't mess around."

"If you divert a container here and there, there are investigators who will crawl all over your personal life if they think anything is hinky."

Many port security initiatives since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been the result of laws passed by Congress.

It was the National Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed in November 2002, that put the Coast Guard in charge of tightening port security.
___

On the Net:

U.S. Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil

Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov

from the February 24, 2006 edition

"Port flap serious test for Bush"

Both parties in Congress call for more oversight - and this time, the public seems to agree.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Cooler heads are beginning to prevail.

A week that began with veto threats from President Bush and sharp language aimed right back from Republicans has turned to sober briefings and a consideration of the facts.

But as the flap unfolds over a deal to transfer management of six major US ports to a Middle Eastern company, Mr. Bush faces a serious test of his political skill after blundering in dealings with members of his own party, analysts say.

The man who once campaigned as a uniter appears to have done just that - uniting both parties against him.

And once again, in the wake of the furor over warrantless wiretapping, the White House and Congress are at loggerheads over national security, specifically over how much the executive branch needs to consult with legislators and submit to oversight.

The difference is that, this time, the American public has latched onto the issue, and opposes the president's position.

Speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting Thursday morning, Bush offered reassurances that the ports-management deal involving a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Dubai Ports World, would not jeopardize American security.

He also echoed Wednesday's comment from his press secretary that the White House "probably should have briefed Congress about [the deal] sooner."

"We'll continue to talk to people in Congress and explain clearly why the decision was made," Bush said Thursday, referring to a "sense of calm" that cabinet members are bringing to the issue.

Soon after, the Senate Armed Services Committee received an open briefing by several federal departments and agencies involved in the ports deal.

Bush is juggling many interests as he seeks to tamp down the controversy.

On the world stage, he is keen on promoting American interests in the globalized economy.

In the war on terror, he needs friends around the world, calling the UAE a "valuable ally."

Domestically, with his political capital low, he needs to maintain a good working relationship with Congress in order to further his agenda.

And with the American people, he cannot afford to sink any lower in job approval, lest he turn himself into a liability in the Republican battle to maintain control of Congress.

Homeland security is Bush's strongest issue in the polls, and at the beginning of the week, he had appeared to jeopardize that strength by taking the unpopular position on the ports deal.

"There's an inherent American fear that their ports are vulnerable and they are made even more so by this deal," says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council.

"Whether it's based on facts or fears is another matter, but it's real and it's bipartisan and it's visceral...."

"This is one of those rare moments where the Democrats are handed a wedge issue against Republicans on national security."

"They're not going to give the administration any leeway."

The unfortunate fact for Bush is that, while he counts the UAE as a loyal friend in the war on terror, two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.

The 9/11 Commission report states that "the vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the UAE."

The US federal agencies in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which vetted the sale of the management of six US ports - in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Miami - had concluded that Dubai Ports World (which is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the UAE emirates) would have no bearing on security at the ports.

Security is handled by the US Coast Guard and Customs Service.

It has been revealed that the Dubai company agreed to special provisions aimed at ensuring US security.

Analysts doubt the conflict between Bush and Congress will reach the point of a presidential veto of a bill to overturn or inject more oversight into the UAE deal.

After more than five years in office, Bush has yet to veto a single bill, and it hardly makes sense politically for the first veto to come on a piece of national security legislation supported by most of the Republican Party, Mr. Wittmann says.

The sense that a veto will be averted was reflected in a comment Wednesday by Sen. John Warner ® of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on Fox News:

"I anticipate that the views of the commander in chief will eventually prevail, and that the country will settle back and suddenly realize - maybe not suddenly, but gradually realize - that the administration did the right thing."

What continues to strike political analysts is how Bush handled the controversy when it first burst forth.

The White House has acknowledged that Bush was not in on the decision, but under the approval process laid out in the 1975 law that established the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the president's direct involvement was not required.

Still, having found out that the port-management sale by a British firm to Dubai World Ports could bring negative political fallout, Bush jumped in with a threat to veto any legislation killing or delaying the deal.

"He nailed his colors to the mast in a way that was striking," says James Pfiffner, a professor of public policy at George Mason University.

"Politically, it might have been wise, once Bush found out, to touch base [with Congress] instead of jumping out in front of it."

In an earlier Volume of Life in OUR America, we were following a recent United States Supreme Court decision that basically stripped us common citizens here in OUR America of OUR property rights if some big MONEY-BAGS land developer wanted to move us out of his or her way, so as to secure to them our property for their pleasures and profits .....

The United States Supreme Court, hereinafter "THE SUPREMES", thought that this would be a good thing for OUR America, apparently ...

Just as they thought that sending Dred Scott back to the slave pens in the 1850's was also a good thing ....

Since to them, us common folk are little more than dirt to be swept off the road and into the ditch, so as to not sully the soles of the shoes of the well-heeled ....

Who everybody knows ....

Are the only REAL TRUE AMERICANS ....

And the rest of us ...

Well ...

To them, the "SUPREMES" ....

We're just here, I guess ...

In the way, as always ....

"A man's home isn't a castle - Bills seek to curb public seizure of private property in wake of ruling"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, February 25, 2006

ALBANY -- More than two dozen bills to limit the government's right to seize property are on the table in New York this year, following last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the city of New London, Conn., to condemn a group of homes for economic development.

The landmark 5-4 decision, which upheld the government's right to take property from one private owner and give it to another, prompted states nationwide to look at the issue.

Proposals are emerging in New York to set new parameters on the use of eminent domain.

Condemning property for commercial use is not as rare as some might think.

One group that opposes eminent domain says it found 146 cases in New York state between 1998 and 2002 in which the process was at least threatened.

"New York was one of the biggest abusers," said Steve Anderson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has defended homeowners in the New London case.

That case, he said, has served as a wake-up call to legislatures nationwide that the use of eminent domain is becoming a controversial issue.

It's not yet clear which, if any, of the ideas floating in New York may ultimately become law.

But the high court's decision, along with a spate of high-profile and controversial eminent domain fights across the state, including one looming in Albany's Park South neighborhood, have put this issue front and center.

Among the proposals:

Allowing only an elected body like a city council, rather than an industrial development agency, to take private property through eminent domain.

Forcing the condemning agency to pay 25 percent to 50 percent above market value for property it acquires by eminent domain.

Creating a commission to study the use of eminent domain.

Another proposal calls for an eminent domain ombudsman.

Increasing the public reporting and public review requirements for eminent domain proposals.

Requiring public referenda before eminent domain can be used.

Permitting eminent domain only to be used for public facilities such as hospitals or roads, but not for housing, retail or office projets.

"There's been a lot of activity and interest in this."

"I haven't seen every bill but I do know this: A lot of members have shown interest in becoming a co-sponsor," said Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski, D-New City, who is sponsoring one of the bills, which would make the use of eminent domain subject to local referenda if enough residents sign a petition.

In Zebrowski's own district, the village of Haverstraw wanted to take land and a building and give it to a group to build a condominium project and health care center.

"I think the (New London) decision got everyone's attention," added Assemblyman Paul Tokasz, D-Buffalo.

In his district, the town of Cheektowaga has proposed using eminent domain to buy homes in a neighborhood to be replaced with what Tokasz described as a "gated community."

Locally, the city of Albany plans to raze up to 89 homes and buy others in the troubled nine-block Park South neighborhood.

Boston-based Winn Development then wants to rehabilitate more than 200 homes and build over 400 new dwellings in the area.

Winn and the city want to negotiate home purchases, but haven't ruled out eminent domain.

While conservative groups generally oppose eminent domain, Sherry Appel, spokeswoman for the National League of Cities, cautions legislatures against enacting sweeping restrictions on the power.

It can be a useful tool to revitalize troubled urban areas, says Appel's group.

So does Peter Baynes, executive director of the state Conference of Mayors.

"It's really a tool of last resort," Baynes said, adding that only rarely is a condemnation completed and people are forced to sell their property.

Eminent domain, added Appel, should be decided on a local, case-by-case issue.

In some ways, the eminent domain debate has made for curious alignments in which groups normally thought of as liberal are advocating more local control, while conservatives such as the Institute for Justice, want state laws.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Elmsford, who has a bill to study eminent domain, noted the issue has led to "a very strange political alliance between the left and the very hard right."

Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

"Little nuance allowed in war"

By TOM TEEPEN
First published: Saturday, February 25, 2006

Your eyes do not betray you.

That is indeed George W. Bush standing on the gallows he so energetically built and has used so freely to hang others over the past five years.

Now it is Bush's turn on the trap door.

The irony is not that Bush is in this pickle but that he is there, not because he is surely wrong in letting a United Arab Emirates company run six U.S. ports, but because he just might be right.

The President insists the state-owned company has been vetted and meets all criteria.

The UAE has been helpful against terrorism, and to disallow the company now only because it is Arab and Muslim would dig the United States into an even deeper hole in the Muslim world.

But Bush has barred any such nuance -- as it turns out, his own included -- from discussions of what he insists is a "war" on terrorism.

When John Kerry ventured a little nuance in the '04 presidential race, he was kissed off as an elitist wimp who wanted group therapy for terrorists.

GOP campaign committees and White House spokesmen have even developed a particularly nasty political specialty in questioning the patriotism of decorated veterans who have opposed Bush's Iraq war or even just aspects of it.

Within months of 9/11, Karl Rove was telling GOP candidates to use the war to isolate Democrats and let bipartisanship go hang.

This administration has fought more imaginatively to create political safety for itself than to create safety from terrorists.

It is a measure of the administration's tin ear for the consequences of its own war politics that, in its hauteur and rich-kid sense of privilege, it didn't anticipate that this turn in port management would screech like fingernails on a blackboard.

Bush has left no political space for the counter-intuitive.

So the President finds himself beset not only by Democrats and other spurned counselors who are out to prove their anti-terrorist bona fides against all his past accusations but even by the congressional leaders of his own party who don't want to sink in this year's elections under the weight of an UAE whose terrorism-related record is decidedly mixed.

If Bush would only listen to them, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist actually are offering him a way out of this fix.

They suggest putting the port contract on ice for now and holding hearings on the proposal.

Instead, Bush threatens to veto any legislation that would even delay the changeover.

The President is once again in his habitual fallback position: Trust me.

Tom Teepen writes Cox Newspapers. His e-mail address is teepencolumn@coxnews.com

Of course, ethics reform is going begging ....

If these Congress boys and girls reformed ethics ...

They would be the ones going begging, instead .....

"Ethics reforms go begging"

First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Congress is out of town, and the liberties of the people are secure for the week.

What members are up to is begging for lots of money for their re-election campaigns, which usually means going somewhere out of state to woo rich partisans with special interests.

It usually doesn't mean visiting the local diner where voters might actually be seen.

This is not a pretty picture.

Yet as the system now exists, such money-trolling is an essential key to victory.

The relentless push for megabucks, according to retired South Carolina Democratic Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings in a recent Washington Post article, means that almost one-third of a senator's time is spent fundraising.

There is little time left for the serious work of legislating.

In fact, Hollings points out, the lobbyists don't even bother with the senator, who is poorly informed on most issues; they take the staff to lunch, where the real business is done.

The Jack Abramoff scandal and other evidence of lobbyist-congressional corruption have heightened pressure for ethics reform, but the congressional Republican leadership has been stalling and proposing only small fiddles around the margins that will do little to correct the problem.

Among prominent Republicans, only Arizona Sen. John McCain has the stomach to seriously tackle a political tactic from which the Bush administration has benefited.

His basic answer is to eliminate the confusion and obfuscation of current lobbying disclosure regulations and call for complete transparency.

McCain would force lobbyists and lawmakers to reveal for the first time how much money has been exchanged and for what projects.

Current law does not require any disclosure except that related to direct lobbying.

The big loophole is indirect grass-roots activity, during which lobbying organizations work to influence voters back home to press members of Congress for various causes.

McCain would put all that on the public record, too.

Of course voters would still be free to elect the fellow who rakes in the dough from polluting industries or any other controversial segment of society.

But at least they would have a better idea of who they are getting and what is going on.

The new House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, prefers an expanded disclosure approach.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert originally proposed new restrictions on lobbying behavior.

Since the two disagree, the momentum for ethics reform has at least temporarily stalled in the House.

And any talk of enforcing new rules is thus far a joke.

The nominal House ethics committee has been moribund for more than a year, since it had the temerity to question the ethics of then-Republican leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Republicans in the Senate are similarly divided but seem ready to move more rapidly than the House, taking up various reform proposals next week.

Democrats, who play the money game just as greedily as the Republicans but are less favored because they are in the minority, are making a variety of proposals to impose restrictions on privately paid travel and meals as well as add grass-roots disclosures.

Their failure to reach a consensus means they have not been able to maximize the damage to Republicans.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., proposes a new ethics enforcement commission, appointed by congressional leaders but independent of Congress.

It would be made up of former judges and lawmakers, initiate investigations and issue recommendations for disciplinary actions.

Most importantly, its findings would be made public.

This is a good idea to reduce the power of partisan politics to cover up lawmakers' embarrassments.

And, finally, Abramoff has begun to sing to authorities, but the public has not yet heard the full song.

Republicans have been clever about claiming that Democrats are guilty of dealing with him too, but that's a partisan fib.

This guy gave directly only to Republicans; it is an insider scandal, and that's the party on the inside.

A few of Abramoff's Indian clients did contribute to friendly Democrats but under Abramoff's direction gave far less money to them than to GOP candidates.

It is true that money will always drive politics.

But in the name of good government, voters should have more say on how it's done.

Marianne Means' e-mail address is means@hearstdc.com.

And with respect to shooting lawyers in Texas ....

I have this in from the internet .....

From some concerned Americans down there in Texas ...

Concerned about that mammoth state's reputation ....

In the wake of this Cheney "lawyer shooting" incident down there ....

Who wish us uninformed yokels elsewhere in OUR America ...

To know that they too are a nation of laws down there ...

And not just a bunch of reckless gun-slingers ....

Like Dick ....

The BIG GRIZ from Wyoming .....

From: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued a statement today saying Vice President Cheney broke no law by shooting a lawyer instead of a quail over the weekend.

A TPWD spokesman noted that, in Texas, lawyers are not considered game creatures, and are thus not subject to seasonal limitations or bag limits.

It was further noted that lawyer hunting was encouraged as the state is overrun with the pesky creatures.

A local food critic said that, contrary to rumor, lawyers do not taste like chicken, but rather like bovine dung which is a major component of their composition.

Below is a complete listing of the regulations.....

Texas 2005- 2006 Season and Bag Limit On Attorneys

1. Any person with a valid Texas hunting license may harvest attorneys.

2. Attorneys may be taken with traps and deadfalls, however, currency may not be used as bait.

3. It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a motor vehicle, watercraft or aircraft. Marked police vehicles may be used as shooting platforms.

4. It is unlawful to shout, "Whiplash, Ambulance, or Free Booze" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

5. It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, or Infiniti dealerships.

6. It is unlawful for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, female law clerk, sheep, accident victim, physician, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

7. Care should be used so as not to endanger any remaining species.

We would not want a repetition of the disaster that followed the "no limit" season on the subspecies, "Honest Lawyers".

That particular variety is near extinction.

Excessive harvesting could diminish the chances for survival of the Bill of Rights.

Well ...

Good morning America ...

And the world, as well .....

It's kind of cold up here where I am this morning ...

Down around six above the Fahrenhiet zero, anyway .....

Not that that means anything of course, in terms of how the world is working this morning ....

OR NOT, as seems to be the case more and more often as I look through the "news" .......

My own background as a human being is, I suppose, somewhat multi- and varied ....

And as a result, I have my own outlook on things not only here in OUR America ....

But in the wider world, as well ....

And being "curious" or "interested" by nature, much of the time ...

I am left wondering exactly where it was that that airplane took me to when I left Viet Nam all those years ago after completing my tour of duty over there in the U.S. Army ....

Because this place where I landed sure is hard to recognize a lot of times as what I recall OUR America was supposed to be .....

But that is how it goes ...

History itself is full of that ....

Nations that come into being ...

Hang around for a bit ...

And then ...

They disappear ...

Like species ....

Much is made of OUR America being this great big SUPERPOWER ......

And I think that is some of the most arrogant BULL ****, or BOVINE DUNG, that I have ever heard in my life .....

And as an American, a traditional American, as I style myself, I find much of this to be somewhat embarassing, to be truthful ......

"CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice is prancing around out there on the world stage spewing forth about all these different kinds of "democracies" that she somehow sees as being able to exist ....

An AMERICAN DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICANS ...

An EGYPTION DEMOCRACY FOR EGYPTIONS .....

An IRAQINAMI DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQINAMIS ......

Etc., etc., etc. ..........

And when I here this, I have to wonder that this woman is not out there actually sucking on her thumb while sitting on the floor and going GOO GOO all the time .....

Where on earth does she get this drivel from, is what I wonder ...

Since there are no parallels in HISTORY that I can find that support any of this rank twaddle that she is spinning out there ...

As though she were some kind of INTELLIGENT AUTHORITY on all of this ...

And the world itself was like a new born fool that couldn't get in out of the rain if it had to, without "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice being there to assist it along on its way .....

All I can think of is some words to a song ...

"What a long, strange trip it has been ...."

FWIW, "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice was a specialist in two countries: Czechoslovokia and the USSR.

Today, neither exist.

And here, according to ORTHODOX REPUBLICAN THEOLOGY as it exists in OUR America today ....

I have probably committed heresy and treason both by not jumping right up on the bandstand or tree stump or soap box to yell and cheer and wave flags about America being this alleged SUPERPOWER .......

But that is how it goes .....

The REPUBLICANS can and will and do delude themselves ...

While as a former combat veteran, I am aware of the pitfalls of doing so ...

And so ...

I avoid HYPE, me .....

Because HYPE gets common people like me killed and maimed ...

And that is just plain detrimental to my well-being in the long term, and so .....

In this forum, I am in here, where I try and keep to "current events", some of the time, anyway, since this thread is about LIFE in OUR America, the SPECTRUM .....

While at the same time I am over in another thread that is more specific to my views on life as a disabled combat veteran .....

And then, there is a third thread where I am talking about being an American citizen who is devoid of rights in a nation that touts itself as a "nation of laws" .....

And out of all of this, as I said ...

Well, I just end up wondering ...

Where on earth did that plane really take me to?

Or did I fall down some kind of rabbit hole into some kind of NEVER NEVER LAND when I stepped off that plane ...

Because the old home town sure does not look the same ...

And so .....

Thanks for bringing that in, jeffmoskin ...

Thanks indeed ...

For it is definitely relevant to this "musing" that I am doing in here this morning .....

I know that Ms. "CON-JOB" is called Doctor Rice, sometimes ....

Which implies something to someone, I guess ...

BUT NOT TO ME ...

Since all I ever seem to hear from her is alternating gusts and bouts of pure drivel followed by invective and demagoguery and then back to thumb-sucking and more GOO GOO's and then into drivel, and then, back to invective again ....

Slinging charges of this or that, as though Ms. "CON-JOB" were the only one in the world possessed of "evidence" to make these pronunciations about who in the world was doing what and when ...

When she herself was not even there to see or hear ....

RULE OF LAW, my *** ......

And so .....

Before this internet forum came into being right after the November 2004 presidential elections here in OUR America .....

People like us in here would not have been "talking", at all .....

Because to each other, we simply did not exist .....

Oh, it is possible that we might have passed each other by out there somewhere ...

But who would have ever known?

And certainly not me would be that answer .....

But that was then ....

And this is now ...

And so .....

Me, I don't like to rant ....

Although I probably can .....

But just ranting alone does not solve anything ...

Assuming that things can ever be "solved" ......

As opposed to "resolved" .....

And so ....

Here, what I want to do is to take the "rant" out of what I am saying above about Condoleeza Rice ...

Because what I am saying, I believe .....

And so ...

I want to develop those reasons why ....

While these thoughts are still fresh in my head ...

And what I want to do, is to make some comparisons ...

And maybe some connections ...

That might just demonstrate why Condoleeza Rice should not go around the world running her mouth so much .....

When it appears that she actually knows little of the history of the places and the peoples where she is when she is running her mouth so, as if the only peoples in the whole wide world who knew anything about anything were Americans .....

When the truth is more likely that we as a people don't know much at all ...

And that might be a kind and optimistic assessment ......

And for all of its talk about being some kind of SUPERPOWER ......

In a lot of ways, on the world stage, OUR America is just a pip-squeak nation ....

And so ...

As the words to the song go ...

Maybe we shouldn't get above our raising here ...

If you know what I mean .....

And so ....

I am not a Democrat, me .....

Although generally, I do get along with Democrats alright ....

And I am not a REPUBLICAN ....

Although I once was .....

A "theorectical" one, anyway ....

Until I got to meet some real ones ....

At which time I severed my membership in that political organization for good ...

And put them up on top of my list of domestic enemies of the United States Constitution ....

Along with these CONSERVATIVES ....

Of which I also am not one ....

And so ...

I don't really have some political axe to grind in here ....

Not "PARTY" wise, anyway .....

My "axe" would be from the standpoint of an American citizen wondering just who in the hell this BUSHCO crowd really is .....

And how it is that they can make a valid claim to be in charge of anything here in this world of OURS when they seem to know so little about it ...

Things such as exactly how old some of these Middle Eastern nations really are, as compared to OUR America .....

And so .....

OUR United States of America came into being in 1777 at the earliest ....

While places like Syria go back to the times of Alexander the Great .....

And likely beyond that as well ...

Back to antiquity .....

However long ago that was .....

And there was no "United States of America" back then .....

And there certainly was no London, England ...

Or Great Britain ...

Or British Empire .....

Nor was there a Rome .....

And Rome itself was dead and gone long before there was a United States of America ....

And so ...

WHY DO WE THINK THAT WE KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT RUNNING THE WORLD, AND ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST, WHEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES OUR LEADERS, PEOPLE LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, SEEM TO KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE WORLD THAT THEY SEEM TO BE CLAIMING ONLY THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR ......

And us, as well ....

If these people are out there in OUR names making foolish statements .....

And acting as complete blithering airheads .....

JUST HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR US?

And so ......

And here, to make my point, I want to go back to the days of ancient Rome ....

AND THE MIDDLE EAST ....

And this is a little over 2,000 years ago ...

Before Jesus was even born ...

For those of you who reckon time ....

Based on that event .....

And this is history that OUR forefathers in liberty knew well ....

As well as being history that ALL of OUR United States Senators should be able to quote from, chapter and verse ....

If I, a common citizen here in OUR America am aware of all these things, as a requirement of MY OWN CITIZENSHIP, here in OUR America .....

And before George W. Bush ever thought of executing his ill-fated, catestrophically successful armored BLITZKREIG of IRAQINAM, his "CUSTER-RUN" right into the heart of HIS ENEMIES ....

George should have been able to draw readily upon this history ...

To show us here in OUR America why he wasn't going to be blindly rushing into the very same mess as his prior counterpart, Marcus Licinius Crassus, who met his own doom in this same pasrt of the world, some time before America's George came on the scene to try and repeat Crassus' folly in IRAQINAM .....

And "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice especially should have known this history ...

Since it is the history of those to whom she preaches ...

And likely ...

Just likely .....

They know it well ...

As do I .....

And a good part of the known world as well, for that matter .....

Everybody, apparently, but "CON-JOB CONNIE" ...

And America's George .....

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae

Eager to match the military achievements of his two illustrious rivals, Marcus Licinius Crassus led an army into Parthia.

Instead of glory, all he found was death.

By Brian Dent

In 53 B.C., seven Roman legions, some 50,000 men, marched into the searing Mesopotamian desert.

They had come to this eastern province of the kingdom of Parthia seeking conquest and plunder but, deceived by a false guide and commanded by an arrogant blunderer, the legions were almost annihilated.

Aside from a lucky few, the Romans were either slaughtered and their bodies mutilated, or else were captured and enslaved.

Their commander was decapitated, and his head was used as an ornament at the banquet of the Parthian king.

Such was the Battle of Carrhae, a disaster almost unmatched in the otherwise glorious history of Roman arms.

It was a battle of shocking brutality, even by ancient standards.

It was also an early example of hit-and-run, guerrilla-style warfare, carried out in a manner that would stand up well by 21st century standards.

Most of all, it was a monument to the delusions, conceits and military incompetence of the Roman commander, Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Our guide across this ancient battlefield will be the famous 1st-century Greek biographer, Plutarch.

Where quotation marks are used in this article, the words are his.

Rome at the time of Carrhae, though still a republic, was ruled by three powerful public figures known as the First Triumvirate: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus-known to posterity as Pompey the Great-Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Pompey was Rome's most famous general, having earned his honorific title of Magnus for his many victories and conquests.

The young aristocrat Caesar had been known mostly for his eloquent speeches in the Senate, but the martial talents he had recently displayed in Gaul and Britannia were fast giving rise to a new legend.

Crassus, a nouveau riche entrepreneur, was both a successful politician and the richest man in Rome.

For all of his wealth and political power, Crassus, according to the 1st century Greek historian Plutarch, had always envied Pompey's military fame.

When Caesar too began to exhibit military prowess, Crassus, then aged 60, suddenly decided to seek conquests of his own.

"Being strangely puffed up, and his head heated," Plutarch wrote, "he proposed himself in his hopes to pass as far as Bactria and India, and the utmost ocean."

end quotes

And there I will stop for the moment .....

As those words of Plutarch's above here about "being strangely puffed up, and his head heated" could apply to George W. Bush as well as Crassus .....

And so .....

A pause ....

To let that thought sink in ....

And so ....

SO .....

They do fight back over there .....

And look at that ...

They cut off people's heads, too ....

So why is America, the mightiest SUPERPOWER the world has ever seen, at least according to George W. Bush and HIS GOVERNMENT, surprised at any of this?

And that answer is because of a failure of intelligence which is due to a complete and total lack of intelligence in George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice, who is full of beans, and Donald Rumsfeld ......

AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE ....

Whose purpose in OUR form of government is to be the SEAT OF KNOWLEDGE to counter-balance the popular side of OUR Congress, which is the House of Representatives .....

OUR UNITED STATES SENATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLIGENCE .....

And all we have today appears to be a swamp instead ....

Where if knowledge and intelligence do exist, they are buried out of sight down in the muck somewhere ...

Apparently completely out of arm reach by now .....

Since we are in fact mired down in IRAQINAM ....

And if any body of OUR government is responsible for that ...

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE OUR UNITED STATES SENATE ....

Which seems to be little more than George W. Bush's rubber stamp ...

Instead of a check-and-balance ....

And another question which comes to mind here, IS WHERE WERE THE MUSLIMS IN THIS CONFRONTATION BETWEEN "EAST" AND "WEST" when Crassus lost his head?

WHOSE SIDE WERE THE MUSLIMS ON?

The question of the morning .....

Here in Life in OUR America .....

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae (cont'd)

By Brian Dent

Crassus had some military accomplishments on his resumé.

He was one of Lucius Cornelius Sulla's lieutenants during the early civil wars, alongside young Pompey-the future triumvirs' rivalry dated from that time.

Crassus' first substantial opportunity to show his martial mettle came in 73 BC, when a band of gladiators, armed with cooking knives and led by a Thracian named Spartacus, broke out of their training school in Capua and managed to capture a wagonload of weapons.

Before long the breakout snowballed into a full-fledged slave revolt throughout Italy that became known as the Third Servile War.

Under Spartacus' leadership the slaves won several pitched battles over Roman troops, and were soon well on their way to marching out of Italy to freedom.

Alarmed, the Roman Senate gave Crassus command of an army.

One of his first acts was to revive the ancient practice of decimation:

every tenth man in a unit that had been routed by Spartacus was punished with death.

Next, in 71 BC Crassus maneuvered Spartacus onto the peninsula of Rhegium, where he bottled up the slave army by building a trench across the isthmus, described by Plutarch as "three-hundred furlongs long, fifteen feet broad and as much in depth."

Spartacus and one-third of his force managed to break out on a wild, snowy night, however, by filling a section of the trench with earth, thereby making it passable.

Spartacus still hoped to fight his way out of Italy.

But after winning another battle over one of Crassus' lieutenants, the slaves, over-confident and never really disciplined, persuaded him to lead them in a final, decisive battle.

This was exactly what Crassus wanted, since Pompey was coming with an army from Iberia, and Crassus desperately needed a quick victory before his old rival arrived.

In this final battle the slave army was indeed destroyed and according to Plutarch Spartacus himself, "deserted by those that were about him … surrounded by the enemy and bravely defending himself, was cut in pieces."

Pompey arrived in Italy in time to assist Crassus in rounding up the surviving slaves, who were crucified on rows of crosses that lined the Appian Way.

For that mopping up operation, coupled with his more significant conquests in Iberia, the Senate awarded him a formal triumph, while Crassus had to settle for a mere ovation.

What is more, the Roman citizens, according to Plutarch, thought Crassus petty for accepting even that much - a victory over slaves was not thought to be very heroic.

Perhaps Crassus recalled that turn of events 18 years later, when his mind turned once again to thoughts of military glory.

When Crassus revived his army career, the opponent he chose was the Parthian kingdom.

The Parthians were Iranian, inheritors of the old Persian Empire that had been destroyed by Alexander the Great in 331 BC.

The Parthians were not at war with Rome, and both Sulla and Pompey, on previous tours of duty in the east, had negotiated with them on friendly terms.

But Parthia was big enough and close enough to be a potential nuisance to Rome, and Crassus was looking for new worlds to conquer.

end quotes

And once again, for the moment, I will stop right here in this narrative .....

To let these words above sink in .....

As they somehow sound oh so familiar .....

So modern ...

SO ...

Well, let's face it ...

SO VERY GEORGE W. BUSH ....

That you just have to wonder ....

And so ....

And since we are talking of "knowledge" in here at the moment, "knowledge" of what came before us, as a nation, knowledge that OUR forefathers in liberty had at the beginnings of this nation, when THEY decided that WE should have a two-house LEGISLATURE, with a SENATE and an ASSEMBLY .....

We have ....

"Ancient Sun Temple Uncovered in Cairo"

By OMAR SINAN, Associated Press Writer

Sun Feb 26, 5:03 PM ET

CAIRO, Egypt - Archaeologists discovered a pharaonic sun temple with large statues believed to be of King Ramses II under an outdoor marketplace in Cairo, Egypt's antiquities chief said Sunday.

The partially uncovered site is the largest sun temple ever found in the capital's Aim Shams and Matariya districts, where the ancient city of Heliopolis — the center of pharaonic sun worship — was located, Zahi Hawass told The Associated Press.

Among the artifacts was a pink granite statue weighing 4 to 5 tons whose features "resemble those of Ramses II," said Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

Also found was a 5-foot-high statue of a seated figure with hieroglyphics that include three cartouches with the name of Ramses II, and a 3-ton head of royal statue, the council said in a statement.

The green pavement stones of the temple's floor were also uncovered.

An Egyptian team working in cooperation with the German Archaeological Mission in Egypt discovered the site under the Souq al-Khamis, a popular market in eastern Cairo, Hawass said.

"The market has to be removed" as archeologists excavate the entire site, Hawass said.

"Other significant discoveries might be waiting to be excavated now, and compensation will be paid to the shop owners."

"We are planning to make the whole area as a tourists and archaeological site, maybe after two years," he said.

King Ramses II, who ruled Egypt for 66 years from 1270 to 1213 B.C., had erected monuments up and down the Nile with records of his achievements, as well as building temples — including Abu Simbel, erected near what is now Egypt's southern border.

Numerous temples to Egypt's sun gods — particularly the chief god Ra — were built in ancient Heliopolis.

But little remains of what was once the ancient Egyptians' most sacred cities, since much of the stone used in the temples was later plundered.

The area is now covered with residential neighborhoods, close to a modern district called Heliopolis, in Egypt's packed capital.

Recently, I was having a conversation out there in "reality" with a younger person about these particular times that we find ourselves in today ...

And I asked this person how long ago in history Julius Caesar was ....

And he thought on it for a bit ...

And then said maybe 700 years ago or so ....

And I said, no, it was over 2,000 years ago .....

At a time when the urban population of the city of Rome could have been around 1,000,000 people .....

Which this young person then remarked was quite a few more than we have around here where we live ...

And I had to allow that that was so ....

There are not a million people here in my town ......

3,500 give or take .....

But that's kind of shy of a million ....

And so ....

And the point of this discussion had to do with GOVERNMENTS ......

And maybe more specifically, KNOWLEDGE of or about GOVERNMENTS .....

And the point there is ....

THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW IN THAT REALM .......

IT HAS ALL BEEN TRIED .....

And so ......

Where other peoples in the world have had a couple of thousand years to work things out for themselves ......

Maybe we should be a little more hesitant the next time about going into a much older country than OURS is, LIKE VIET NAM, for example, to tell those people how they now have to live, as George W. Bush is trying to do not only in IRAQINAM and Afghanistan, but seemingly around the world as well, these days .....

Because maybe those people will just say "**** you" .....

As the Parthians did to mighty Rome ....

As the Vietnamese did to the MIGHTY USA ....

And who can really blame them ...

If they did .....

And that answer would be ...

Not a fellow freedom-loving human being ....

Only a tyrant would do that ...

And so ....

SO VERY GEORGE W. BUSH, indeed ...

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae (cont'd)

By Brian Dent

For all the preparations he made in mobilizing a mighty invasion force, Crassus' first mistake was his failure to acquaint himself with the tactics of the Parthian army.

This was a significant error, because the Parthians waged war like no nation Rome had ever faced.

The Parthians occasionally employed mercenaries or raised militia to serve as infantry, but very often - including at Carrhae - their forces were entirely mounted.

Their heavy cavalrymen were called cataphracts, from the Greek word cataphractoi, which means "covered over."

The cataphract wore scale body armor, articulated plating on his arms and greaves on his legs.

With a long lance as his primary weapon, he looked like a forerunner of the medieval knight, differing only in the absence of stirrups hanging from his saddle.

More important to the Parthians than their armored cataphracts were their light cavalry, the horse-archers.

These used a very short composite bow, stiff to pull but accurate and with tremendous firepower.

Horse-archers would ride swiftly at the enemy, loose an arrow at the enemy and then wheel around and retreat short range.

This, the proverbial "Parthian shot," was the sort of tactic that the Romans were apt to regard with disdain, as being cowardly.

Crassus nearly failed to launch his campaign at all.

Public opinion at Rome, led by a tribune named Ateius, was for calling off the whole expedition, on the grounds that the war he sought was arbitrary and immoral.

Pompey and Caesar had at least conquered enemies that were perceived as a threat to Rome.

As to this Parthian war, though, Plutarch wrote that Ateius "and many others murmured that one man should undertake a war against a people that had done them no injury, and were at amity with them."

Ateius went so far as to have Crassus arrested.

Crassus was forced to call for help from, of all people, his bitter rival Pompey, who was popular among both the senators and the citizens.

Pompey appeared "with a pleasing countenance," interceded for Crassus and escorted him out of Rome unmolested.

Before Crassus departed Rome, however, Ateius publicly cursed him, "setting down a chafing-dish with lighted fire in it, pouring incense and burning libations on it," Plutarch reported, and "calling upon and naming several strange and horrible deities."

So terrible were these curses, according to Plutarch, that they doomed the utterer as well as the person he cursed.

Crassus next went to the port of Brundusium (now Brindisi in southern Italy).

He decided to sail immediately, despite the appearance of a storm, and so began his campaign by losing a number of ships.

Arriving in Syria in the autumn of 54, Crassus relieved the local commander and set about some minor conquests before next year's major campaign.

Crossing the Euphrates, he occupied and garrisoned a few Mesopotamian towns.

All surrendered to the Romans voluntarily, except for Zenodotia.

Plutarch reported Crassus "took it by storm, plundered the goods, and sold the inhabitants."

He then required his army to salute him as Imperator (or field marshal) for what he regarded as a great victory.

What he failed to do, though, was continue on to occupy the cities of Babylon and Seleucia, which had large Greek-speaking populations and were not friendly to their Parthian occupiers.

Before withdrawing into winter quarters, Crassus was joined in Syria by his son, Publius, who had been serving with distinction under Caesar in Gaul.

He brought with him 1,000 Gallic cavalry, who would play an important part at the battle to come.

Crassus spent his time in Syria during the winter of 54-53, "more like an userer than a general," Plutarch wrote, noting that it pleased him to weigh, "by scale and balance," all the treasures in the local temples he had captured.

He accepted cash payments from the native citizens, in lieu of levies of militia for the coming campaign.

end quotes

And with that last just said .....

Once again ...

I will pause ...

For a moment of reflection ....

And so .....

And zooming ahead in time some 2,000 years, we have going on in the same relative place right now as follows ......

Because George W. Bush and his crowd don't know history ...

And they don't know people ...

And so ...

They don't know much at all ....

But how to sow strife and turmoil in people's lives .....

NOW ...

That is something that this BUSHCO crowd knows how to do alright ....

They get high marks in that, and that is for sure ....

"Sunni mosque bombed as Iraqi tanks deploy in Baghdad"

1 hour, 48 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AFP) - Iraqi tanks deployed in Baghdad to pacify the city after an eruption of sectarian violence, but the bombing of a Sunni mosque and a mortar attack shattered the relative calm.

Four people were killed and 15 wounded in the bomb attack outside a Sunni mosque in eastern Baghdad as the faithful were leaving evening prayers, security officials said.

The attack was the latest strike against Iraq's ousted Sunni elite since Shiite mobs unleashed a wave of vengeance against the embittered minority after a revered Shiite shrine was blown up north of Baghdad last Wednesday.

Also Monday, a mortar shelling killed four people and wounded 14 others in a Shiite neighborhood, while two people were killed by gunmen who opened fire on a garage in Baquba, east of the capital, officials said.

Ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, called upon all Iraqis to unite and praised the role played by top Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani in trying to curb the sectarian violence.

On the eve of the resumption of his trial for crimes against humanity, Saddam called "for unity at all levels to stop those who want to trigger sedition and division", his lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said in a statement.

The latest bloodshed came as Iraqi authorities lifted a daytime curfew and positioned tanks in certain regions of Baghdad as they sought to defuse the crisis that had pushed Iraq to the precipice of civil war.

It was unclear whether the latest violence would strain efforts to lure Sunni parties back into talks on forming the country's next government after they bolted negotiations last Thursday in anger over the attacks on their community.

Sunni participation in government is seen as crucial to ending the community's insurgency, which has plunged Iraq into chaos since US forces toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.

Before Monday's mosque bombing, the main Sunni political bloc, the National Concord Front, indicated it would return to talks if Sunni religious sanctuaries that it claimed were seized by Shiite militias were returned to them.

"I have given a complete list to Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari of the Sunni mosques that are under Shiite control."

"If this is done, we will return to the negotiating table," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the Sunni alliance.

In Baghdad, there were signs of normality as both cars and pedestrians again clogged the streets after the lifting of a curfew and a 24-hour vehicle ban imposed in the wake of the violence that killed more than 120 people.

However, a three-hour extension to the usual seven-hour night curfew remained in place in the capital and the three central provinces of Salaheddin, Babil and Diyala, officials said.

General Abdel Aziz Mohammed, the defence ministry's chief of operations, announced tank deployments in parts of Baghdad, and warned that soldiers were now ordered to arrest anyone carrying weapons illegally.

The move appeared to be aimed at cracking down on Shiite mobs suspected of targeting Sunnis in retribution for Wednesday's bombing of the revered shrine in Samarra, north of the capital.

But the lurking fear of last week's sectarian killings continued to be felt as people hesitated to send their children to schools.

"Fear is still the master of the situation," said Ali Adnan, a 27-year-old Sunni engineer whose father was briefly kidnapped amid Shiite reprisals against Sunnis.

Iraq's national security adviser Muwaffak al-Rubaie announced that 10 people, including four security guards, had been arrested in connection with the bombing of Samarra's golden domed shrine.

Rebuilding the shrine will take at least five years, Iraq's Housing and Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar said Monday, while the United Nations volunteered to help in the effort.

Iraqi radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia was accused of attacking Sunnis, told reporters in his home town of Najaf he had returned early from a trip to Iran to assert control over the militia, while denying it was responsible for the violence.

Meanwhile, Saddam, whose trial was set to resume Tuesday, has ended a hunger strike after fasting for 11 days, his lead lawyer Dulaimi told AFP.

"I met with my client for seven hours on Sunday."

"At our request he had earlier ended the hunger strike he had been on for 11 days ... ," Dulaimi said, adding that the defence team may return to the court proceedings Tuesday after boycotting it for a month.

Saddam and seven co-accused face the death penalty if found guilty.

US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said Iraq's interior ministry had information on the whereabouts of American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted on January 7 by armed men.

A deadline set by her kidnappers to kill Carroll if their demands were not met passed Sunday with no news.

Khalilzad said that he was told that Carroll was still alive.

Ah, yes .....

FAILURES OF INTELLIGENCE ....

How very familiar sounding that is .....

But one has to really wonder ....

Was it INTELLIGENCE that failed?

Or was it really a fault of those who attributed INTELLIGENCE to those who never had it in the first place?

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae (cont'd)

By Brian Dent

Emerging from winter quarters in 53 BC, the Romans were met by an embassy from King Orodes II of Parthia.

The king's message was that if Crassus' army was sent by the people of Rome, Parthia would have no mercy; but if the invasion was Crassus' private adventure, for his own profit, Orodes would "take pity on Crassus' dotage," and allow the army to depart.

Crassus replied scornfully that he would give his answer at Seleucia.

The Parthian ambassador laughed and showed Crassus the palm of his hand, saying, "hair will grow there before you see Seleucia."

Crassus next received word from his ally, King Artavasdes of Armenia, along with 6,000 Armenian cavalry.

The king advised Crassus to invade Parthia by way of his realm - the Romans would then be provisioned by the Armenians, and the hilly country of that land would be unfavorable to Parthian cavalry.

Inexplicably, Plutarch wrote, Crassus refused that offer, and returned the king "but cold thanks."

Crassus' blunders continued.

He advanced to the city of Zeugma on the Euphrates and crossed to the east bank.

He was advised by his lieutenant, Gaius Cassius Longinus (better known to history for his role in cutting Julius Caesar's ambitions down to size on the Ides of March, nine years later) to advance along the Euphrates towards Seleucia, having his flank protected and his water supply guaranteed by proximity to the river.

Crassus paid no attention.

Instead he was taken with a local Arab chieftain named Ariamnes, who persuaded Crassus that only a token force of Parthians, commanded not by King Orodes but by a General Surena, was nearby to oppose him.

Ariamnes, of course, was a spy, sent to lead Crassus into a trap, but Surena was in fact the Parthian commander - and an interesting character in his own right.

Though not yet 30 years old, he was deemed the second man in the kingdom and had had the honor of placing the crown on King Orodes' head.

Wherever he traveled, even to battle, he required 1,000 camels to carry his baggage, 200 wagons to transport his concubines, and was accompanied by 1,000 armed bodyguards.

Crassus agreed to engage Ariamnes as a guide through the Mesopotamian desert.

Leaving the river, the Arab guided the Romans along a way "that was at first pleasant and easy but afterwards very troublesome by reason of the depth of the sand," Plutarch wrote.

Indeed, the Romans soon found themselves "in a sea of sand" with no water in sight.

While Crassus was on the march, fresh word arrived from King Atavasdes:

He was under attack by a Parthian force under King Orodes himself, and was not able to send the reinforcements he had promised.

Once again, the Armenian urged that Crassus withdraw from the desert and renew the attack from Armenia, where their forces could be joined on friendly ground.

Plutarch wrote that Crassus, "out of anger and perverseness," decided that this was actually treachery on the part of the Armenians.

He returned no answer, but promised to revenge himself on Armenia when he was through with Parthia.

Things went from bad to worse.

Crassus' Arab guide vanished.

The Romans found themselves stranded in the Mesopotamian desert, not far from a little town called Carrhae.

Some of the army's scouts, now battered and bloodied, came in to report that their comrades were dead, and that they themselves had barely escaped.

The Parthian army was nearby, they said, and ready to attack.

end quotes

And once again ...

A pause .....

To Reflect .....

On how "Crassus" George W. Bush really is ....

And in the same place, too ...

And for the same reasons ...

Arrogance ...

Stupidity ...

Pig-headedness ....

An inability to change plans in mid-stream, when it is apparent to everyone else that you are heading right into the heart of the desert ...

Which Crassus and George W. Bush both see as being RESOLUTE .....

You know ...

STAY THE COURSE ....

VICTORY AT ANY COST ...

That kind of blithering idiocy .....

The art of "Sloganeering" at its highest expression ....

And so ....

And once again leaving the damn arrogant and pig-headed fool Crassus to contemplate his own doom in the desert some 2,000 year ago where George W. Bush is now facing his own, unless he can get his head out of somewhere where he never should have stuffed it in the first place, we come back to OUR own times, for just a moment ...

To take a quick look around ....

Where we have this following to report upon .....

For what it might be worth .....

In this age of strife and turmoil that has now descended upon us here in OUR America ...

With the ascension of George W. Bush and his crowd to power here in OUR America .....

"Residents Fed Up With Brooklyn Oil Slick"

By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer

Mon Feb 27, 5:16 AM ET

NEW YORK - Big Oil left most of the Brooklyn waterfront decades ago, but the industry's legacy still bubbles to the surface.

Beneath the industrial yards and townhouses of Brooklyn's Greenpoint section lies a vast underground oil slick that, at one time, covered an area as big as 41 football fields and contained more petroleum than the Exxon Valdez spilled off the Alaskan coast.

The stuff oozes into a concrete-lined canal known as the Newtown Creek, and some of it makes its way into the East River, leaving an oily sheen.

Also, residents complain of an oily smell in their basements after heavy rains.

Refineries left the stuff behind during more than a century along the waterfront.

The details of how so much got in the ground are something of a mystery, but Exxon Mobil accepted responsibility for much of the damage in 1990 and has been pumping out the oil ever since.

The cleanup, though, has been painfully slow.

More than half of the 17-million-gallon spill is still thought to be in the ground.

A number of Greenpoint families say their patience has run out, and more than 20 people sued in December, claiming the oil is releasing foul-smelling fumes that could be toxic or flammable.

Soil tests conducted this summer by the environmental group Riverkeeper suggested the spill might be emitting benzene gas, which can cause leukemia, and methane, which can explode in a confined space.

The tests were inconclusive, but the results still struck fear among residents.

They were further incensed by a state Department of Environmental Conservation estimate that the mop-up would take 20 more years.

"Twenty years!"

"Are they kidding?" said one plaintiff, Robert McErlean, 58.

"If they wanted to come in and drill for oil for profit, you know they'd have that oil out in 20 days!"

State health officials took issue with Riverkeeper's findings.

"All preliminary data and test samples collected near the spill site indicated that there was no immediate public health concern," said Health Department spokesman Jeffrey Hammond.

Most of the oil is 10 to 40 feet underground.

Brooklyn does not use wells for drinking water.

Cancer rates in Greenpoint are also lower than elsewhere in the city, according to state data, and Exxon Mobil spokesman Brian Dunphy said studies have indicated that no vapors are getting into homes.

Those assurances are unlikely to end the legal battle.

The families are represented by a California law firm that has brought in celebrity activist Erin Brockovich to recruit more plaintiffs.

They are seeking unspecified damages from Exxon Mobil and two other oil giants, Chevron and BP.

In a second lawsuit, Riverkeeper and Brooklyn's top politicians are seeking fines of $32,500 per day from Exxon Mobil for every new oil discharge into the canal, plus fines of $27,500 for every discharge before 2004.

The lawsuit is aimed at pressuring the company into adopting a more efficient way of extracting the oil.

"We know there are technologies out there that are a hell of a lot more aggressive," said Riverkeeper investigator Basil Seggos.

Such improvements, he said, might include installing wells to actually clean the groundwater instead of simply removing the oil, and using ventilation systems that draw away gases.

The oil companies say the cleanup has accelerated in the past few years and much less oil is leaking into the canal.

Some 40 refineries were once clustered in Greenpoint, and as a result, the oil companies disagree over who is responsible for what.

The first of Greenpoint's refineries opened in 1867.

Much of the oil probably leaked over many decades, at a time when industry was held to lower environmental and operating standards, Dunphy said.

Some have blamed much of the leakage on a 1950 explosion caused by fuel seeping into Greenpoint's sewers.

The scope of the plume was not discovered until 1978, when the Coast Guard noticed oil.

By then, most oil company operations in the neighborhood had closed.

McErlean, whose grandfather was a refinery worker, said only public pressure will keep the companies from walking away entirely.

"The more squeaks in the wheel, the more it is going to get oiled," he said.

"Not that we want any more oil down here."

And HISTORY .....

We have some "HISTORY" other than that of the fate of the fool Crassus to report upon as well .....

"Scientists claim to find lost civilization"

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:46 a.m., Tuesday, February 28, 2006

NARRAGANSETT, R.I. -- Scientists have found what they believe are traces of the lost Indonesian civilization of Tambora, which was wiped out in 1815 by the biggest volcanic eruption in recorded history.

Mount Tambora's cataclysmic eruption on April 10, 1815, buried the inhabitants of Sumbawa Island under searing ash, gas and rock and is blamed for an estimated 88,000 deaths.

The eruption was at least four times more powerful than Mount Krakatoa's in 1883.

Guided by ground-penetrating radar, U.S. and Indonesian researchers recently dug in a gully where locals had found ceramics and bones.

They unearthed the remains of a thatch house, pottery, bronze and the carbonized bones of two people, all in a layer of sediment dating to the eruption.

University of Rhode Island volcanologist Haraldur Sigurdsson, the leader of the expedition, estimated that 10,000 people lived in the town when the volcano erupted in a blast that dwarfed the one that buried the Roman town of Pompeii.

The eruption shot 400 million tons of sulfuric gases into the atmosphere, causing global cooling and creating what historians call "The Year Without a Summer."

Farms in Maine suffered crop-killing frosts in June, July and August.

In France and Germany, grape and corn crops died, or the harvests were delayed.

The civilization on Sumbawa Island has intrigued researchers ever since Dutch and British explorers visited in the early 1800s and were surprised to hear a language that did not sound like any other spoken in Indonesia, Sigurdsson said.

Some scholars believe the language more closely resembled those spoken in Indochina.

But not long after Westerners first encountered Tambora, the society was destroyed.

"The explosion wiped out the language.

That's how big it was," Sigurdsson said.

"But we're trying to get these people to speak again, by digging."

Some of what the researchers found may suggest Tambora's inhabitants came from Indochina or had commercial ties with the region, Sigurdsson said.

For example, ceramic pottery uncovered during the dig resembles that common to Vietnam.

John Miksic, an archaeologist at the National University of Singapore, has seen video of the dig and said he believes Sigurdsson's team did find a dwelling destroyed by the eruption.

But he doubts the Tamborans were from Indochina or spoke a language from that area.

If Vietnamese-style ceramics reached the island, it was probably through trade with intermediaries, Miksic said.

During the dig, Sigurdsson's team found the charred skeleton of a woman who was most likely in her kitchen.

A metal machete and a melted glass bottle lay nearby.

The remains of another person were found just outside what was probably the front door.

The team included researchers from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and the Indonesian Directorate of Volcanology.

GAMESMANSHIP .....

This is what the FABULOUS FLYING BUSHCOS believe that they are good at ...

And the truth is that they are rank amateurs, actually .....

They are too cocky on the one hand ....

And too ignorant on the other, to really be good at this "game" .....

No sublety at all on the part of these BUSHCOS .....

Which is one thing that their "followers" like about them ...

"Oh, you know where that George W. Bush stands, alright ..."

"He don't hide his feelings, no sir, no way ..."

And best of all ...

Both George and Dick are not afraid to lock and load and let fly .....

And people here in OUR America like that ....

It don't really make a difference what George and Dick are firing down on ......

It just makes a difference that they are blazing away ....

And that is all it takes for some people to be satisfied .....

Especially when the people George and Dick are killing don't look like George and Dick's supporters .....

Which is a point that George and Dick capitalize on, by killing brown-skinned peoples in other countries, since by and large, George and Dick's followers like those people to be killed ...

For their pleasure, it seems ...

And so ....

Let the games go on ....

And so ....

Roman Disaster at Carrhae (cont'd)

By Brian Dent

That revelation, according to Plutarch, left Crassus "struck with amazement" and initially paralyzed.

Then, in something of a panic, he shuffled and re-shuffled his troops, finally settling on a square formation.

Each side of the square was manned by 12 heavy cohorts (roughly 6,000 infantry to a side), with a troop of cavalry between each pair of cohorts.

The baggage train occupied the interior of the square.

The army then blindly and awkwardly marched ahead, and in a rare stroke of good luck stumbled upon the Balissus River.

The parched troops were at least able to refresh themselves before the battle.

Most of Crassus' officers were for staying by the river and awaiting the Parthian attack.

But young Publius Crassus persuaded his father to advance toward the enemy.

The Romans did so and, eventually confronting the Parthians, were pleasantly surprised to find that the enemy did not appear so numerous as they had feared.

Unknown to them, however, Surena hid the main body of his army behind the first rank, and had them conceal the glittering of their armor.

Then, at a signal, the Parthians threw off their cloaks and raised a clamor of kettle-drums that Plutarch described as producing "a hideous noise" that had a psychological impact on the legions.

Surena made the first move, but when a charge by his cataphracts, proved unable to break the Roman line he had them withdraw, feigning disorder and confusion.

His cavalrymen then swiftly surrounded the Roman square.

With his cumbersome infantry formation unable to counter Surena's maneuver, Crassus ordered a cavalry charge, but the Romans were met with a shower of arrows that Plutarch said "passed through every kind of covering, hard and soft alike."

Once they had broken and repulsed the Roman cavalry, the Parthians were easily able to pour arrows into the infantry square, "for, indeed, the order of the Romans was so close, that they could not miss."

To maintain his punishment of the Roman legions, Surena had cleverly arranged for a running supply train of camels to keep his horse archers resupplied with arrows.

Seeing no end to the deluge of arrows that assailed his men, Crassus was compelled to send his son Publius, with 6,500 men, including the Gallic cavalry, on a desperate counterattack.

The sally seemed to succeed at first - the Parthians fled and Publius exultantly detached his cavalry in pursuit.

But that apparent retreat was just another feint, for when the Romans had been lured a sufficient distance from the square the Parthians suddenly turned and reappeared in force.

Plutarch described how they then rode round and round Publius' force, raising "such a cloud of dust that the Romans could neither see nor speak to one another."

Isolated and encircled as his father's square had been, Publius' men were packed in too close, and were easy pickings for the horse-archers.

When Publius tried to rally his troops for a counterattack, "they showed him their hands nailed to their shields, and their feet stuck to the ground."

Publius was able to rally some of his Gallic cavalry, though, and they managed the closest thing to a genuine Roman success in the whole sorry campaign.

The fierce Celts were able to seize the cataphracts' lances and drag them to the ground, where the Parthians' heavy armor rendered them helpless.

Some Gauls dismounted and crept under the Parthian horses, which they disemboweled, unhorsing the riders.

Those tactics, however, could only delay the inevitable.

Publius was severely wounded and was dragged away by some survivors to a nearby hill for a last stand.

Two of Publius' friends urged him to flee with them to Carrhae, but he courageously decided to stay and die with his troops.

When the hill was finally overrun, Publius ordered his armor-bearer to run him through.

Back at the square, Marcus Licinius Crassus had received no word from Publius, because all of the latter's messengers were slain.

Then the horrifying drumming began again, and Crassus finally learned his son's fate.

The Parthians rode forward with Publius' head on the point of a spear, and, Plutarch wrote, "scoffingly inquired where his parents were, and what family he was of, because it was impossible that so brave and gallant a warrior should be the son of so pitiful a coward as Crassus."

end quotes

And on that note ...

Once again, I shall pause in the narrative .....

To let these words kind of percolate, as it were .....

In the meantime, me, being a veteran of combat, myself ......

What I get from this ...

Each time I read it ...

Is that if you are going to go to war ...

Especially against a "hard people" ....

Meaning ones who will fight back when you invade THEIR lands .....

You shouldn't really be seen crying in public when they do slap you back .....

And there is where this BUSHCO crowd has "failed the test" .....

In my estimation, anyway .....

And so ....

And once again zooming forward in time ...

To OUR times ...

We have from George W. Bush's ALLIES IN THE WAR OF TERROR down there in Mexico as follows ......

"Mexican Presidency admits to 'Dirty War'"

By JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer

Mon Feb 27, 5:57 PM ET

MEXICO CITY - A leaked draft of a government report on Mexico's "dirty war" alleges that the country's presidency orchestrated an anti-insurgency campaign in which soldiers carried out summary executions, raped women, and set entire villages on fire.

Based partly on declassified Mexican military documents, the report was prepared by a special prosecutor assigned to investigate alleged atrocities by soldiers.

Prosecutors said the report has not yet been officially released and was undergoing changes.

The report was leaked to several prominent Mexican writers and published Sunday in the Mexican magazine, Erme-Equis.

The unedited draft states the alleged crimes were committed during the administrations of presidents Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, Luis Echeverria, Jose Lopez Portillo, and Adolfo Lopez Mateos.

The most brutal period allegedly occurred under Echeverria's rule from 1970-76, when military bases allegedly served as "concentration camps," according to the report, and hundreds of suspected subversives in the southern state of Guerrero were killed or disappeared.

Under Echeverria's so-called "Friendship Operation" launched by the military in 1970 in Guerrero, the report says it has evidence the army conducted "illegal searches, arbitrary detentions, torture, the raping of women in the presence of their husbands, and the possible extrajudicial executions of groups of people."

"With this operation, a state policy was established in which all authorities connected to the military — the president ... the presidential guard, the commanders of Guerrero's two military regions, officers and their troops — participated in human rights violations with the justification of pursuing a bad fugitive," the report said.

"Such an open counter-guerrilla strategy could not have been possible without the explicit consent and approval of the president," it added.

The Washington-based National Security Archive, a private, nonpartisan research group, also posted the report on their web site Sunday, saying it believed all Mexicans should have access to it.

"This is the most extensive documented description of how the state unleashed a savage counterinsurgency campaign that targeted a tiny armed insurgency and swept up thousands of civilians in its wake," said Kate Doyle, director of the research group's Mexico Project.

Jose Luis Contreras, a spokesman for Special Prosecutor Ignacio Carrillo, said Carrillo planned to present the report to President Vicente Fox this week.

But Carrillo first planned to make changes — including erasing the words "concentration camps" from the draft.

"Obviously this does not apply to this country," Contreras said.

The special prosecutor also is revising the report's allegations that Echeverria's presidency was directly behind the abuses, Contreras said.

Carrillo did not return calls seeking comment.

A spokeswoman from Fox's office said the president had not yet received the report and could not comment.

Fox has vowed to prosecute Mexico's past crimes, but has done little so far.

Carrillo's office has unsuccessfully sought to bring genocide charges against Echeverria for mass killings committed during two anti-government protests of mostly university students, in 1968 and 1971.

The former president has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

But until now, there has been little more than witness accounts of what took place in Guerrero's villages.

The report for the first time names soldiers and cites telegrams from the Defense Department describing exactly who would be targeted in Mexico's war against guerrilla leaders Lucio Cabanas and Genaro Vazquez.

It gives a grisly account — during the administration of Lopez Mateos — of soldiers in 1963 mutilation killing of a leader of coffee farmers in the community of El Ticui.

The report states that when Echeverria came to power, the government "implemented a genocide plan that was closely followed during his reign."

During that time, guerrillas were blamed for a series of kidnappings and attacks on soldiers.

The report describes soldiers dressed in civilian clothes gunning down five men in the community of Los Piloncillos in front of their families, friends and neighbors.

After guerrillas ambushed and killed 18 troops in 1972, the army detained at least 90 men in the village of El Quemado and took many of them to three different military bases that served as "concentration camps," according to the report.

Seven of the men died from being tortured, the report states.

And IRAQINAM .....

Where true to form ....

George W. Bush is going to "STAY THE COURSE" .....

Even though he hasn't the slightest idea of where that course is taking anyone at all ....

Except further and further from the stability that existed in this world of OURS before George W. Bush came on the scene ...

And pulled the lanyard that fired the salvo .....

That may just set OUR world on fire yet .....

And so ...

"Civil war looms with 68 killed in Baghdad"

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:57 p.m., Tuesday, February 28, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Sunnis and Shiites traded bombings and mortar fire against mainly religious targets in Baghdad well into the night Tuesday, killing at least 68 people a day after authorities lifted a curfew that had briefly calmed a series of sectarian reprisal attacks.

At least six of Tuesday's attacks hit clearly religious targets, concluding with a car bombing after sundown at the Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood that killed 23 and wounded 55.

A separate suicide bombing killed 23 people at an east Baghdad gas station, where people had lined up to buy kerosine.

In addition to those known to have been killed Tuesday, police found nine more bullet-riddled bodies, including a Sunni Muslim tribal sheik, off a road southeast of Baghdad.

It was unclear when they died.

The surge of violence deepened the trauma of residents already shaken by fears the country was teetering on the brink of sectarian civil war, threatened talks among Iraqi politicians struggling to form a government and raised questions about U.S. plans to begin drawing down troop strength this summer.

Iraq began to tilt seriously toward outright civil war after the Feb. 22 bombing of the important Shiite Askariya shrine in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

President Bush decried the latest surge in sectarian violence Tuesday and said that for Iraqis "the choice is chaos or unity."

In congressional testimony, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said a civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region's Sunni and Shiite powers against one another.

Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said the sectarian violence stems from a core of Sunni Arab insurgents who can exploit "social, economic, historical and religious grievances."

"Networks based on these relationships remain the greatest threat to long-term stability in Iraq," Maples said.

The sectarian violence has hit Baghdad hardest because the population in the capital is about evenly divided between Shiites and Sunnis, more so than in any other region of the country.

At about the same time as the attack on the Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque, a mortar round landed near the Shiite Imam Kadhim shrine in the Kazimiyah neighborhood on the opposite side of the Tigris River, killing one and wounding 10.

Those attacks appeared to have been in retaliation for assaults on Sunni places of worship earlier in the day.

North of Baghdad, a blast badly damaged a Sunni mosque where the father of Saddam Hussein was buried in the family's ancestral hometown, Tikrit.

The Iraqi Islamic Party reported a bomb hit the Sunni Thou Nitaqain mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood at 8 a.m. Tuesday, killing three and wounding 11.

Gunmen in two speeding cars opened fire on the Sunni al-Salam mosque in the western Baghdad's Mansour district, killing a guard.

Late Tuesday police reported finding the body of Shiite cleric Hani Hadi handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head near a Sunni mosque in Baghdad's notorious Dora neighborhood.

One of the day's bloodiest attacks came when a suicide bomber detonated an explosives vest packed with ball bearings among people lined up to buy kerosine at a crowded filling station in east Baghdad.

The blast killed 23 people and wounded 51, leaving behind the charred and twisted remains of wheeled carts that customers had used to transport fuel canisters to the station.

A car bombing in the same neighborhood targeted a police patrol and killed five people and wounded 17 -- all civilians.

Another car bomb hit a small market opposite the Shiite Timimi mosque in the mostly Shiite Karradah neighborhood, killing six people and wounding 16.

Separately and in an unusual move, the government issued a statement declaring that 379 people had been killed and 458 wounded as of 4 p.m. Tuesday in the sectarian violence tied to the Askariya bombing.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that more than 1,300 people were killed in the reprisal attacks.

The Cabinet statement, however, said "what was reported in a foreign newspaper were inaccurate and exaggerated numbers of victims."

More than 60 relatives of the dead -- many of them women dressed in black and beating their breasts as they wailed in grief -- assembled with empty coffins at the morgue to take away their dead family members.

One young man, who refused to give his name, told an AP reporter that his three brothers had gone out to buy bread Saturday night and were gunned down in a drive-by attack.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie, meanwhile, traveled to the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Tuesday to meet with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the Shiite community's most revered spiritual leader.

Al-Rubaie emerged to tell reporters "the way to forming the government is difficult and planted with political bombs."

"We ask the Iraqi people to be patient, and we expect forming the government will take a few months."

In the south Tuesday, two British soldiers were killed in Amarah, 180 miles from Baghdad, the Defense Ministry reported in London, but gave no other details.

A witness said a car bomb targeted a British patrol and helicopters were seen taking away casualties.

The U.S. military reported a U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire west of Baghdad on Monday.

No details were provided.

The death brought to at least 2,292 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an AP count.

The figure includes seven military civilians.

In other violence Tuesday, a roadside bomb targeting the convoy of a defense ministry adviser killed five soldiers and injured seven others in the east Baghdad.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. Daham Radhi al-Assal, escaped unharmed.

------

Associated Press Writer Sinan Salaheddin and Alexandra Zavis contributed to this report from Baghdad