Ahmadinejad Replaces Nuclear Technocrat with True Believer
October 20, 2007
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has replaced long time nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani - a powerful, well connected conservative who is also Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran - with Saeed Jalili, an inexperienced deputy foreign minister for European and American Affairs. More

The Media's Dilemma
By Thomas Lifson
Rush Limbaugh’s political jiu-jitsu masterstroke comes to a climax at 1 PM, EDT today, when the ebay auction for the letter sent by 41 Senate Democrats to the CEO of his syndicator Clear Channel ends. With four hours left, the bid has already toppped two million dollars, with the purchase price to be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, benefitting the education of children of deceased Marines and federal law enforcement personnel. Because Rush Limbaugh has offered to match the purchase price, the total donation will possibly exceed four million dollars.
The Mainstream Media have so far virtually* blacked out the story, but when the auction is over and a highly impressive sum is paid, will they continue to ignore it? After all, the auction of a grilled cheese sandwich claimed to display the image of the Virgin Mary fetched only $28,000 and received widespread publicity in the US and overseas. Someone paying a million bucks or more for a contemporary letter is pretty big news, even without the charity angle. And this is no food product bearing a resemblance to sacred art, this is a historic document signed by 80% of the majority caucus of what is commonly alleged to be the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Rush Limbaugh has outsmarted the Democratic Leadership of the Senate and cornered the media. If the media do not cover the auction results, they will look ridiculous. The letter is easy enough to explain that it will inevitably be discussed at water coolers, sports events, churches, parties, and other get-togethers. But if the media do cover it, they must include some explanation for the high price, and that will make Reid and the Democrats look silly or worse. Capitalizing on their rhetoric, the letter is to be delivered in an attaché case made by a company carrying the name Halliburton.*

In case your media diet does not include talk radio and the conservative commentariat, the backstory is fairly simple, which makes the auction all the harder to ignore.
The blowback from the “General Betray Us” MoveOn.org left the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies smarting, and they were anxious to demonstrate to their own supporters that conservatives behave reprehensively. Accordingly Media Matters (which Hillary bragged she “helped start” took out of context a phrase Rush Limbaugh spoke, “phony soldiers” and alleged he had smeared good patriotic American soldiers and veterans who disagree with him.
In an effort to promote the fabricated media storm and perhaps force change on Rush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got 40 other Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Mark P. Mays, CEO of the syndicator of Rush’s show, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.
Instead of cowering, Mr. Mays turned the letter over to Rush, who came up with the brilliant plan to make the Democrats regret their hasty attempt to intimidate a private citizen who is their critic. Invoking the majesty of the United States Senate to intimidate a private citizen demonstrates a remarkable degree of self-absorption. A simple thought experiment:
What if Newt Gingrich, while he was Speaker, had enlisted 80% of the House majority as signatories of a letter to the CEO of General Electric asking Jack Welch to apologize for a sin of NBC News? Do you think Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman would have ignored it? How about CBS and ABC? There was no Media Matters back then, but fax machines were in widespread use. How long would it take for everyone to be pointing out that broadcasting is a regulated industry, and that the evil politicians were muzzling the free press?
Reid & Company never for a moment imagined that anyone would characterize their act as bullying a free press and possibly even raising First Amendment issues. Because Clear Channel hold many radio licenses from the federal government, it is very vulnerable to pressure from the government, and the words “chilling effect” do not seem outrageously out of place in evaluating the intended consequence of the Senate Majority Leader’s letter. Interviewed on Hannity & Colmes Thursday evening, Rush called the letter “neo-Stalinist.”
The letter is, in fact, an important historical document, representing an attempt to silence the single most prominent private citizen critic of the Democratic Party, written on official stationery of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and bearing the signatures of the vast majority of his caucus, including the front-runner and other candidates for the Party’s presidential nomination. Should the purchaser be so-minded, it may someday be donated to the Smithsonian Institution, National Archives or some other nonprofit library or archive.
The mainstream media have taken a beating in viewership and readership and in credibility the past two decades that Rush Limbaugh has been on the air, and the Democrats are perpetually outraged that he dominates the entire medium of talk radio, while no liberal host has ever been able to mount a halfway comparable performance on the public airwaves.

Arrogance combined with the emotion of hate leads to dangerous mistakes. Reid and the media which gave initial credence to the Media Matters-generated smear of Rush have stepped in something whose smell may linger in the history of American politics.
Photo illustration Copyright © 2003 David Monniaux

* Reader Steve Swinehart informed us that the maker of the attache case is not part of Halliburton, the oil services giant.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the...as_dilemma.html

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Ex-CIA official says terror risk still real
Marshfield native talks at Abbey
By Kathleen McKenna, Globe Correspondent | October 18, 2007

The Central Intelligence Agency took on a human face last week in what some might consider an unusual location - Glastonbury Abbey in Hingham.

In the first of the Abbey's "Listening to Other Voices" lecture series, which takes place in the Glastonbury conference center each fall, Lloyd Salvetti, a native of Marshfield and a 32-year veteran of the CIA, told a capacity crowd of about 200 his tales of government service, his thoughts on ethics and morality in the CIA, and his certainty that Americans are at grave risk of another terrorist attack.

"These are difficult and perilous times," said Salvetti, who retired in 2002 as director of the Center for the Study of Intelligence, a CIA think tank. "Most of America lives as though it's September 10th. But we in the CIA know that it's September 12th."

Salvetti, who graduated from Tufts University before enlisting in the Air Force and serving in Vietnam, said he is convinced that another attack on the United States is imminent. He also said the specter of war with Iran is looming.

His grim predictions stood in stark contrast to the hushed atmosphere of the Abbey, with black-robed monks moving quietly through the room.

Salvetti maintained that the so-called war against terror is "not a religious war. These are dangerous killers. They're nuts. They want to re-create the world the way they think it ought to be."

But he opposed the war in Iraq "from the outset. We took our eyes off the ball. We should have brought [Sept. 11 criminals] to justice. Instead, we took our best people - including CIA - and shifted them to Iraq."

In his introduction, the Rev. Tim Joyce spoke about Salvetti's longtime connection to the Abbey, which began when he befriended one monk, who has since died, while stationed at the US Embassy in Rome. Over the years, Salvetti, described by Joyce as "a thinking Catholic," has returned regularly to the Abbey for guidance and retreats. Last year, he and his wife, Gail, accompanied Joyce on a pilgrimage to Greece.

The son of Italian immigrants, Salvetti is fiercely loyal to the agency that employed him for more than three decades, calling the CIA "just" and "fundamentally good," and said that "teaching ethics is a CIA priority." When trying to understand the CIA, Salvetti said, people should "dismiss Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer, and James Bond."

The agency's main priority, he said, is supplying US leaders with "the unvarnished truth." But "truth is elusive," he said. "And the facts are nearly always incomplete." The CIA is particularly challenged now, he said, because about 50 percent of its workforce was hired after Sept. 11.

Salvetti did not explain why he retired from the CIA in July 2002, but made no secret of the fact that he disagrees with the policies of the current administration. In the CIA, he said, "you serve the president who holds the office - or you leave."

Salvetti, who referenced the writings of many other experts during his speech, said the government was greatly affected by the galvanizing climate of fear after Sept. 11. Lawyers, he said, were given unprecedented influence over policy discussions, and questions of ethics fell by the wayside. "[The lawyers] asked what can we do, instead of what should we do," he said.

He said he believes that "classic interrogation techniques" - not torture - work on most suspected war criminals.

"I am opposed to torture however you define it," he said. But, he added, "The point is not my moral standard, but that of our political leaders."

He lamented what he called "anti-Americanism" around the globe since Abu Ghraib and other reports of torture were released. "The sooner our government renounces 'enhanced' terrorism techniques," he said, "the sooner we can work to regain our standing in the world."

During his recent visit to the Abbey, Salvetti said, Joyce asked whether he would join the CIA if he lived his life over again.

"You bet I would," said Salvetti, adding that college students still rank the CIA in the top five in terms of "ideal employers."

Glastonbury Abbey is, as its website describes it, a "small community of Benedictine monks striving to embrace the challenges of contemporary living within the time-tested values of a vital monastic spirit."

Future speakers in the lecture series include a Jewish humanitarian, a Black Muslim, and Sister Helen Prejean of "Dead Man Walking" fame. Joyce told the crowd - of which more than half, organizers estimated, were from outside the Abbey community - that the monks of Glastonbury began the series nine years ago because "we need divergent views."

"If religious people can't speak peacefully to one another," Joyce said, "how will the rest of the world follow?"

© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

IEDs Seen as Rising Threat to America DHS, FBI agree homemade explosive devices used in Iraq pose a threat in U.S.; critics argue Bush administration slow to devise counter strategy.

Spencer S. Hsu and Mary Beth Sheridan

Evangelicals Gather at SummitAttendees of Values Voter Summit weigh options, express discomfort with GOP front-runners.

The Wounded Warrior at Home: Walter Reed and Beyond
The Washington Post's ongoing investigation of the state of medical care and facilities at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the overall military and VA health care systems.

The Power of 'Madam President'
By Eugene Robinson Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A21



A friend of mine in New York -- a high-powered professional woman -- told me the other day that she thought the country had moved beyond the point where women should want to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she would be the first woman president. "Just vote for the best person," she said, with what sounds like impeccable logic.

But Clinton, according to all the polls, is winning overwhelming support from female voters. And the reason, I think, is that there's a flaw in my friend's logic: Except in some sort of arcane higher-dimensional geometry comprehensible only to mathematicians, you can't get beyond a point that you've never actually reached.



The fact is that we've never had a female president. And for many women across the country -- especially those of the boomer generation who have seen the role of women in American society change so dramatically -- Clinton's election would be a historic milestone and a source of great pride.

That's certainly not the only reason Clinton leads the national polls for the Democratic nomination. She started with universal name recognition and has proceeded to run a smart, largely mistake-free campaign. She is surrounded by the aura of her husband's eight-year administration, and while that may be a mixed blessing if she gets to the general election, it's a huge asset among the Democratic faithful.

But her lead among women over Barack Obama and her other rivals is so huge -- and so much greater than her lead among men -- that it has to have something to do with gender. Which is perfectly understandable.

Obama, of course, would be the first African American president, which would be equally historic. And the predictable notes of caution that must be inserted into any column about Clinton's campaign -- that the polls in Iowa show a close three-way race, that anything can happen in New Hampshire, that Obama can rebound in South Carolina, that Howard Dean was leading in the polls four years ago, that nothing matters until someone, somewhere, actually casts a vote -- are more than cover-your-behind caveats, they're real. There's plenty of time for the whole nature of the Democratic race to change.

But some of the numbers are stunning. A national CNN poll released Wednesday showed that among registered Democrats, 68 percent of African American women said Clinton was their likely choice for the nomination while only 25 percent backed Obama. By contrast, Obama led Clinton -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- among African American men.

The CNN sample of black voters was small, meaning those numbers are not precise. But even taking into account the margin of error, the poll reports an unmistakable tendency that clearly works in Clinton's favor: To the extent that African American voters are taking identity into account as they ponder the presidential race, women are considering not only race but also gender. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign, has called it "the 'sistah' vote."

That advantage among blacks is mirrored among Democratic women overall -- and with a series of "Women Changing America" campaign events during the past week, including a huge fundraiser Wednesday in Washington, Clinton has been making an overt appeal to consolidate this support. Her campaign Web site is full of encomiums from women -- professional women, working-class women, stay-at-home mothers -- who express their pride in the first front-running female presidential candidate. Clinton asks voters to help her shatter " the highest glass ceiling."

At recent campaign appearances, Clinton has told of meeting an elderly woman -- born when women didn't even have the vote -- who came up and said she just wanted to shake the hand of the first female president.

As the old proverb goes, "women hold up half the sky" -- actually, a bit more than half. If Clinton can sustain her advantage among women -- especially among the working-class and middle-class women who could be said to constitute the spine of the Democratic Party -- it's hard to see how Obama, John Edwards or any of the other challengers can gain much ground on her.

Not that they aren't trying. Clinton's rivals are full of promises and proposals that are meant to appeal to female voters -- initiatives on issues such as family leave and health insurance. All the Democratic contenders have records of support for gender equality. All of them, especially Obama and Edwards, are more than capable of projecting themselves as strong-yet-sensitive, modern, caring guys.

But they can't hide the fact that they're guys. And she's not.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

The U.S. Bishops New Call for Political ParticipationBy Nancy Frazier O'Brien
10/19/2007Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Rejecting a political climate based on "powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype," the U.S. bishops call Catholics to "a different kind of political engagement" in a document to be voted on during their fall general meeting Nov. 12-15 in Baltimore.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Hold Annual Meeting in 2004
That engagement must be "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good and the protection of the weak and vulnerable," they said.

The 37-page "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility From the Catholic Bishops of the United States" was developed by seven committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and must be approved by two-thirds of the USCCB membership.

The bishops also are to vote on a shortened version of the text, designed for use as a parish bulletin insert.

In the longer document, the bishops admit that "Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and too few candidates fully share the church's comprehensive commitment to the dignity of the human person."

"As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group," the draft document says. "When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths."

The draft is part of a series of documents that have been issued before every presidential election for more than 30 years.

But the 2007 version underwent a wider consultation at the committee level and is the first to come before the full body of bishops. In past years, the documents were approved by the Administrative Committee, made up of the executive officers of the USCCB, elected committee chairmen and elected regional representatives.

Although the draft document outlines a wide variety of policy positions taken by the bishops on domestic and international issues, it makes clear that not all issues carry equal importance.

"There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor," the document says, citing in particular abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, stem-cell research involving the destruction of human embryos and "violations of human dignity such as racism, torture, genocide and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war."

The bishops warn against "two temptations in public life (that) can distort the church's defense of human life and dignity."

"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity," they say. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is ... not just one issue among many."

But it is also wrong to misuse "these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity," the draft document says.

Although there might be "principled debate" about the best approach on issues such as health care, racism, unjust war, the death penalty and immigration, "this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore church teaching on these important issues," the bishops say.

The draft document does not address a topic raised during the 2004 presidential campaign -- giving Communion to Catholic politicians who support keeping abortion legal. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis already has said he would not give Communion to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Catholic and the leading Republican candidate for president, because of Giuliani's support for abortion.

The document says that "those who knowingly, willingly and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil."

"If a Catholic were to vote for a candidate who supports a policy involving intrinsic evil, such as abortion, precisely because of that position, the Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil," it adds. "In some cases, if a Catholic who fully accepts fundamental principles such as the right to life were to vote for a candidate despite the candidate's opposing position but because of other proportionate reasons, their vote would be considered 'remote material cooperation' and can be permitted only if there are indeed proportionate reasons."

All Catholics "have a responsibility to discern carefully which public policies are morally sound," the draft document says.

"Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems, but we cannot differ on our moral obligation to help build a more just and peaceful world through morally acceptable means, so that the weak and vulnerable are protected and human rights and dignity are defended," it adds.

The draft will be presented to the bishops on behalf of seven committees -- domestic policy, international policy, pro-life activities, communications, doctrine, education and migration.
- - -

Copyright © 2007 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Update: Feingold vows to use 'every tool at my disposal' to block telecom immunity, protect privacy; Dodd says will filibuster
A Senate committee advanced a bipartisan piece of legislation that would grant telecommunications companies legal immunity for their cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, but lawmakers are expecting at least another month of battle over the scope of the administration's surveillance authority.

The Senate Intelligence Committee spent nearly five hours Thursday hammering out the parameters of their proposal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite talk of a bipartisan compromise, critics were still furious about some parts of the bill, and passage in its current form is hardly a guarantee.

"The bill still cedes far too much power to the executive branch, which has time and again shown it will only abuse it," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said in a statement. "If the bill that ultimately reaches the Senate floor includes immunity and does not adequately protect the privacy of Americans, I will fight it vigorously with every tool at my disposal.”

Feingold, who serves on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, has been a vigorous opponent of attempts to vastly expand presidential power since Sept. 11. He and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) succeeded Thursday in amending the Intelligence committee's bill to explicitly require warrants for surveillance of Americans residing overseas.

Although the bill emerged from the committee on a 13-2 vote, the Feingold-Wyden amendment is seen as unacceptable to the Bush administration, and one of the Senate's Democratic presidential candidates has vowed to prevent a floor vote on the bill, which provides immunity for telephone and Internet companies that helped spy on Americans.

"I have decided to place a 'hold' on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization," Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said in a statement released by his presidential campaign.

Dodd, who is not a member of the intelligence panel, released the statement before final details of the bill were released Thursday night. His campaign and Senate office did not return RAW STORY's calls seeking comment Friday morning. Later Friday, Dodd released a YouTube video saying he would filibuster the FISA update if necessary. FireDogLake declared, "This is awesome. Go Dodd."

The Senate panel agreed to telecom immunity after receiving from the administration long-requested documents outlining the legal justifications of Bush's post-9/11 warrantless surveillance scheme. Their bill is meant to provide narrow grants of immunity to companies that facilitated the then-illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Interestingly, approval of the measure coincides with a massive increase in donations from the country's top telecom companies to Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), as noted by Wired's Ryan Singel

The bill requires that the Attorney General certify to the court that companies alleged to have assisted in the program were following a written request or directive from the Attorney General or an intelligence agency head or deputy head as part of the TSP.

Notably, the bill provides no retroactive immunity for government officials, nor does it cover telecommunications' companies actions before Sept. 11, 2001. This provision likely would not kill all pending lawsuits against telecommunications companies, as some have alleged the NSA was recruiting phone companies to conduct legally questionable surveillance as early as February of 2001.

Dodd's hold is not the only roadblock being thrown before telecom immunity. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) both said recently that they had not seen the same documents handed over to the Intelligence Committee. Until they do, the pair said, any question of immunity is a non-starter.

The Judiciary Committee is next in line to consider the FISA update before moving a full bill to the Senate floor, which is expected in late November or early December.

FISA renewal also has stalled in the House, which would have to agree to any changes in the law before Congress sends a bill to the president. A House measure introduced earlier this month did not contain immunity for telecoms, a key sticking point for the president. Republicans managed to delay consideration of that measure using some parliamentary tricks.

In August, Congress approved the Protect America Act, which was designed to close narrow loopholes in FISA law that mandated warrants to eavesdrop on conversations originating and terminating abroad. That measure expires in February, and Congress is in the middle of correcting what critics say was over-broad authority granted in that measure.

So what does the Constitution say about religion?

(It may not be what you think.)
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas

As America's finest continue shedding their blood in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do well to take stock of who we are and what we're up against. What we're up against is a fanatical cadre of theocrats bent on imposing their view of Theo on everybody else. At gunpoint.

Who we are is a little more complicated. On paper, we're the freedom people. I say "on paper" because that's where it all starts. We have the oldest written constitution on the planet. We can be proud of that. What we can't be proud of is that many Americans don't seem to know what it says, particularly when it comes to our nation's first freedom: religious freedom.

(Illustration by Bob Laird, USA TODAY)


Ask most Americans what the Constitution says about God, and their answers may surprise you.

"One nation under God?"

Nope, that's the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Oh, yeah, right, right. How about, 'Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights'?"

Sorry, but that's the Declaration of Independence.

"Hmmmm."

Mostly what you'll get is a lot of blank stares. Trust me. I've tried it in nearly 50 states. Fully 55% of the country, according to a recent survey by the First Amendment Center, believes that the U.S. Constitution establishes us as a "Christian nation." Worse still, while nearly all Americans say freedom of religion is important, only 56% think it should apply to all religious groups. The truth is that the Constitution says nothing about God. Not one word. And, you can bet that some of the local clergy back in the 1780s howled about it. Newspapers, pamphlets and sermons decried the drafters' failure to acknowledge God.

One, and only one, reference

Even more interesting is what the Constitution has to say about religion. Although many of the nation's loudest religionists continue to assert that America is a Christian nation in some legal or constitutional sense, the language of the original Constitution itself suggests otherwise. The only reference to religion is tucked away in Article VI and reads: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a Christian nation to me. If you wished to create a Christian nation, wouldn't you at least need to ensure that its leaders were Christian? The No Religious Test Clause stands out because most colonies did have religious qualifications for public office. Many required a belief in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity with some, like the Carolinas, going so far as to require that all elected officials be Protestant.

So, why would the framers of our Constitution do such a thing, and moreover, why two years later would they adopt a constitutional amendment declaring that the new federal government could "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Was it because they were militant atheists? Hardly. James Madison, the primary architect of our Constitution, studied under the tutelage of Presbyterian-preacher-turned-Princeton-president John Witherspoon and even considered a career in the ministry before opting for politics.

More likely, the framers were concerned about the corrupting influence the institutions of church and state have on each other when either becomes too cozy. These guys knew their history. They had witnessed the blood shed by governments in the name of religion. Europe was nearly destroyed by it. They also knew their politics. The Baptists, Presbyterians and other Evangelicals were fed up with religion that was "established" by the state (as was the Anglican Church in many Southern colonies and the Congregational Church in New England) and were determined to achieve full-throttle religious freedom for all — believers and non-believers alike. It was prominent Virginia Baptist John Leland who declared, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever!" Pastor Leland went on to assert that "the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did." Leland and his Baptist colleagues played a key role in helping persuade Madison to support a federal Bill of Rights guaranteeing liberty of conscience for all.

What 'separation' really means

America has institutionalized this great theological concept through the political mechanism of the First Amendment. The "no establishment" clause separates the institutions of church and state by prohibiting any government action that has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Government is to remain neutral. No citizen should be advantaged or disadvantaged because of his religious faith.

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. The First Amendment limits only the power of government — not the power of the people or of the church. Religious organizations are free to speak out on the issues of the day. They can preach, pray, proselytize, promote and, yes, even endorse candidates if they are foolish enough to do so. (They will, however, have to forfeit their tax exemption if they use church funds, since we don't allow a tax deduction for monies given to partisan causes — just charitable ones.) Again, it is government — not religious organizations — that is restricted by our Constitution.

America's so-called Godless Constitution, with its provisions separating church and state, has given us the strongest political and religious institutions on earth. Among developed nations, no one else believes and worships as much as we Americans. One can only marvel when today's pious pulpiteers clamor for federal dollars for their "faith-based initiatives" or complain that God has been kicked out of the public schools. Perhaps they were praying in school when they should have been studying their history.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a minister, lawyer and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).

hostName = '.usatoday.com';

Iraq and Iran, Oil, Politics and Religion
Darrell Williams October 19, 2007 In 1951 Iran had a democracy. Mohammed Mossadegh was the first democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran. Before his election, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., the predecessor of British Petroleum, had concessions for all of Iran’s oil industry. Only a small percent of the revenues were being retained by the Iranian government, the major profits were going directly to Britain. Prime Minister Mossadegh was strongly opposed to this exploitation of Iran’s natural resources by another nation. One of his first acts upon becoming Prime Minister, was to try to obtain an agreement with the British to share the oil revenues 50-50 with Iran. This was the standard percentage in most oil company contracts. When Britain refused, Mossadegh nationalized the entire Iranian oil industry. In 1953, in retaliation, the British and the U.S. blockaded Iran and cut off all foreign aid. This created a disaster for Iran because the couldn’t sell any oil. The U.S. then launched an anti-Mossadegh undercover propaganda campaign in Iran. They paid Iranian newspapers to publish anti-Mossadegh stories based on false documents, accusing him of being associated with the local Communist Party. The civil unrest and CIA instigated riots resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister. He was quickly replaced by Shah Reza Pahlazi. The U.S. backed Shaw ruled Iran as an absolute monarch, completely eliminating all previous democratic reforms. The Shah received billions of dollars from the British and American oil companies (five U.S. companies) in exchange for granting them new oil concessions. His undemocratic regime maintained absolute dictatorial control of the nation by the continued U.S. subsidizing of his Army and his hated secret police, the SAVAK. For 25 years the despised ruler lived in luxurious palaces while the Iranian people received almost nothing from the lucrative oil industry. The U.S. and Britain were perfectly happy with this arrangement. They would continue to support the dictator as long as the oil revenues continued. The U.S. and Britain had absolutely no concern or regrets that they had replaced a democratic government with a dictatorship. Their only concern was the oil.

Does this sound familiar?

The Shah’s ruthless oppression of his own people eventually led to his overthrow in 1979 by the Shiite clerics and the establishment of a Shiite Islamic theocracy, which now rules Iran. The British and the U.S. are totally responsible for the present Islamic government in Iran. If they had not conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh for the sole purpose of privatizing the oil industry, Iran would have a democratic government today.

Saddam Hussein was of course not democratically elected. He was an oppressive military dictator. But he was removed for exactly the same reason that Mossadegh was removed. Both of these leaders had nationalized the oil industry and this was totally unacceptable to the British and American oil companies.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was intended to produce the same effect as the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. Saddam Hussein was to be replaced with a puppet leader who would discontinue the nationalized or socialized oil industry program and create a privatized economic system (capitalism). This is what the U.S. is presently trying to accomplish with the al-Malaki government. Al-Malaki will be supported by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) only as long as he accepts the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry and opposes nationalization. It he opposed privatization, the U.S. will find a reason to replace him.

Most of the Iraqi people are very aware that this was the original intention of the U.S. invasion and unlike the coup in Iran, it’s not working in Iraq. The present rebellion by the different Islamic sects is analogous to the 1979 Islamic rebellion in Iran against the Shaw. The final outcome in Iraq will be identical to the outcome in Iran. Both nations will have a Shiite Islamic theocracy and a nationalized oil industry. Both nations will be ruled by an Ayatollah (Shiite Islamic leader).

The only way the U.S. can maintain control over the Iraqi oil industry is to remain in Iraq as a permanent occupying military dictatorship. The present Iraqi government of Nuri al-Malaki has no real power or control over the nation. Al-Malaki is taking orders from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army.

The Bush administration has embarked on a nation building adventure in Iraq in which the Neocon master plan was to completely remodel the Iraqi nation into a duplicate of the American model. This required completely changing the economic, political and social characteristics of an entire society. Never before has an occupier had such arrogant ambitions.

Before the U.S. invasion, the economic system of Iraq was socialistic. The political system was a military dictatorship. The social-religious system was Islamic.

The Iraqi people were completely happy with the Islamic system of their society which had existed for over a thousand years. They had no desire to change this fundamental part of their society.

The socialistic system of the Iraqi nation was succeeding relatively well in financing the government, the military, the civil servants and the teachers. Under this system all of the revenues from the major industry, oil, was remaining within the country. There was essentially no reason to change this economic system. Today, the Iraqi Oil Worker Unions are strongly opposed to privatizing the oil industry.

It was only the political system that some Iraqi’s wanted to change. Under Hussein, the Shiites and Kurds had been discriminated against. Many Iraqi’s wanted to remove the military dictatorship and replace it with an Islamic Theocracy (Islamic democracy is discussed below). The Iraqi’s never wanted a secular government, but only a religious Islamic government. In a nation that has only one religion, it is impossible to separate religion and government.

The hegemony of the Bush administration wanted to change all three of these aspects of the Iraqi society. (It is totally illegal by international law, for an occupier to attempt to make fundamental changes such as these.)



Bush wanted to change the socialistic system of state ownership to a capitalistic system of private ownership. The American oil companies wanted to acquire private ownership of the Iraqi oil industry. This change would only benefit the Americans, it would not benefit the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. Under the state ownership of the oil industry, the revenues remained within the nation and benefited the people. Under the private ownership of the American companies, the revenues would leave the country and be of no benefit to the Iraqi people. This would create the same conditions in Iraq that existed in Iran when the British controlled the oil industry in that country. This was identical to the situation in Iran in 1951 when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry for the benefit of the Iranian people. The Bush administration had only self interest in mind with this economic change. The U.S. pre-emptive strike against Iraq was just another coup.

If the U.S. looses the oil company concessions in Iraq, this will be a major loss in revenues to the American companies, but after all, the oil belongs to the Iraqi’s. (As one observer remarked “How did our oil get under their sand?)

The Bush administration’s plan to change the political system of Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy was completely misconstrued and misunderstood by both Bush and those in Iraq who wanted a democracy. The Bush administration lacked any understanding of Iraqi Islamic politics. The concept of American democracy that the Bush administration was planning was totally different from the Iraqi concept of Islamic democracy. The Iraqi concept was simply the idea of ‘majority rule’. To the Shiite majority who were in favor of Islamic democracy, this meant that they would be able to win the democratic elections and take control of the whole country. The Sunnis and Kurds, who were minority groups were opposed to this Islamic democracy, because they knew that they would lose in the elections and probably, in the future, face discrimination by the Shiites.

Bush’s mistaken belief that he could establish an American style democracy in Iraq failed to understand Iraqi politics. Bush’s conception of democracy was primarily based on the American democratic characteristic requiring the separation of religion and state. This characteristic cannot exist in a Muslim nation like Iraq. The Iraqi political system is a unification of religion and state, not a separation. The Iraqi Constitution requires that all members of the government be Muslims. This means that even though they may have an Islamic democracy, or rule by the majority, they can never have a non-religious government.

Bush’s imaginary plan for a non-religious, secular government composed of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds was always impossible. First of all, all Iraqi’s want a government and constitution that is Islamic and based on the Koran (Qur’an) and Shari’a or Islamic Law. Secondly, the three Islamic groups are not political parties, they are religious sects. Thirdly, these three sects have been separated by a schism for hundreds of years and will never compromise. Because of this inability to compromise their religious beliefs, only one religious sect can control the government and this will be the one that is strongest militarily. Bush’s political plan for a multi-sect government was always impossible. The only possible outcome from democratic elections in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic theocracy.

The third ambitious goal of the Bush administration for Iraq, was to change the social-religious nature of the country. Of the three aspects the administration was attempting to change, this one was the one that was the most insanely impossible. This was the characteristic of the Iraqi culture that every single Iraqi citizen was completely happy with and would die to defend. While some Iraqi’s wanted to eliminate the dictatorship and some wanted to privatize the industries, absolutely no one wanted to change the social or religious nature of their nation. The Iraqi’s viewed this as an attack and an insult by the predominately Christian Bush administration aimed at their sacred religion. They saw no difference between this intolerant attack and the ancient Christian Crusades against the Muslim Turks. This is the aspect of American hegemony that has done the most to provoke the fundamentalist extremists and terrorists.

There are basically two types of terrorists. The political terrorists who want some specific goal or objective and the religious terrorists who do not want any specific goal. These religious extremists only want to fight a holy war and die as a martyr. This is the type of terrorists that the Bush administration is provoking. This is clearly the conception that Osama bin Laden has in mind when he calls Bush a Crusader. This is the type of terrorist that presents a potential threat to our national security. The Bush administration is not fighting terrorists, they are creating terrorists. Those Americans who believe that the U.S. is not attacking the Islamic religion, completely fail to understand the Iraqi concept of the unification of religion and state. In the mind of an Iraqi Muslim, an attack against their nation is also an attack against their religion, because they do not separate these two concepts.

The Bush administration’s hegemony in Iraq has focused on the three major aspects of society, the economic, political and the socio-religious. These proposed changes have been supported by three different groups of Americans who have different special interests.

The economic change from socialism to capitalism is supported in general by all corporations and capitalists who have economic ambitions in the Middle East. The goal of privatizing all of the Iraqi industries presents opportunities to make vast fortunes for American corporations in all types of industries, but primarily oil. This is part of the administration’s aggressive master plan of globalization. Globalization itself is primarily focused on acquiring cheap labor to maximize corporate profits. Privatization and Globalization have the same goals.

The attempted political change in Iraq from dictatorship to democracy, has been supported by most members of the U.S. Congress and most average Americans because of a misunderstanding of what was involved. This concerned the difference between American democracy and Islamic democracy. If most Americans had understood the consequences of establishing Islamic democracy, they would probably have been opposed to the U.S. military action in Iraq. Islamic democracy can only result in an Islamic theocracy. While some Americans are in favor of a Christian theocracy, most are opposed to an Islamic theocracy (every religion wants their own religion to have secular power, but not other religions). Establishing a Shiite Islamic theocracy in Iraq will have the unfortunate consequence of uniting Iraq with Iran, since Iran already has a Shiite Islamic theocracy.

The third goal of Bush’s hegemony, the socio-religious change, has been strongly supported by the American’s who are generally referred to as Christian fundamentalists, right wingers or theocons. Many average American Christians and other religious groups support this action because they see no harm in forcing their religious ideas on other nations, even if they don‘t want them. These people or groups are comparable to the fundamentalist Muslims who are also only concerned with the religious aspects of the American occupation of Iraq. Fundamentalist extremists in any religion are quite ready to force their beliefs on everyone else. Many Christian groups have always had an evangelical missionary zeal in which they think it is their holy duty to save the rest of the world from their errors even if they don‘t want to be saved or converted. These evangelicals hope that Bush will succeed in establishing freedom of religion for all religions in Iraq, so they can begin converting the Muslims to their own religious beliefs. Of course the Muslims simply see this as more Crusading by Christian intruders and don’t want the other religions to start constructing churches or synagogues in Baghdad.

Nation building is an arrogant endeavor undertaken for exactly the same misguided reasons that inspired previous generations of militaristic nations to invade, colonize and exploit weaker nations for selfish motives.

Since the end of WW II, the United States has instigated two major, disastrous wars, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Altogether in these two wars, over two million people have been killed. Both of these unnecessary wars have destroyed nations and wasted lives and national treasure. It’s time to change direction.

EXCLUSIVE: The Case for Israel's Strike on Syria
Official: Air Attack Targeted Nascent Nuclear Facility Built With North Korean 'Expertise'

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3752687&page=1

Iran to fire '11,000 rockets in minute' if attacked

Iran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic. "In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful.

Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.

"If a war breaks out in the future, it will not last long because we will rub their noses in the dirt," said Chaharbaghi.

"Now the enemy should ask themselves how many of their people they are ready to have sacrificed for their stupidity in attacking Iran," he said.

Iranian officials have repeatedly warned the military would target the bases of US forces operating in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan in the event of any attack and already has these sites under close surveillance.

Chaharbaghi said that the Guards would soon receive "rockets with a range of 250 kilometres (155 miles)" whereas the current range of its rockets is 150 kilometres (91 miles).

"We have identified our targets and with a close surveillance of targets, we can respond to the enemy's stupidity immediately," Chaharbaghi added.

He said that the Guards' weapons were spread out throughout the country and so would not be affected by any isolated US strikes against military facilities.

The Guards are Iran's elite ideological army and responsible for its most significant weapons such as the longer range Shahab-3 missile which has Israel and US bases in the Middle East within its range.




Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18591.htm


The reality of NSPD-51 is almost as bad as the paranoia.
By Ron Rosenbaum 10/19/07 "Slate" -- -- Oh, god. I'm reluctant to write this particular column. I've been scarred by this kind of story before. I've learned that it's difficult to write about the sources of paranoia without spreading paranoia.

But the subject, NSPD-51—that's National Security Presidential Directive 51—and the attendant explosion of blogospheric paranoia about it deserve attention. Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that NSPD-51 is a blueprint for a coup in the guise of plans for "continuity of government" in the event of a national emergency (such as a terrorist attack during an election campaign). Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that it will be used as a pretext for canceling the upcoming presidential election and preserving "continuity" of this administration in office.

Nonetheless, the specifics of the directive are a matter of legitimate concern that has not been given the urgent and sustained attention it deserves by Congress or the mainstream media.

I first became aware of the extent of the paranoia when I read the following comment, which was appended to an essay Naomi Wolf wrote for the Huffington Post:

Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a "terrorist attack," or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of "national security," and take the control of the government via the "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20," released by the WH May 9^th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting nightmare?

Crazy, right? Well after I read it I Googled "NSPD-51" and got something like 36,000 hits. (HSPD-20 is essentially the same directive under a different title.) Most of the ones I sampled elaborated on the "nightmare" coup scenario above. Of course, Google hits are not evidence of the facts, only of the temper of the times, and the times are seething with paranoia.

But that doesn't mean NSPD-51 doesn't deserve careful scrutiny. Consider that an election-eve al-Qaida attack, for instance, is not inconceivable. What if a nuclear device goes off in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles the weekend before the election and a warning is issued that the other two cities will be hit on Election Day?

Who will decide whether the elections in those heavily Democratic states should be put off or whether the entire election should be postponed until ... when? Until the bodies are cleared, the gamma radiation has subsided? Just how wise and fair—and constitutional—are the brand-new mechanisms for "continuity of government" that NSPD-51 has put into effect with almost no prior and little subsequent discussion last May?

And there's another paranoia-inducing element of the story: The existence of "classified continuity annexes" whose content has been kept secret even from the House Committee on Homeland Security. A troubling aspect of the story that, so far as I know, only one mainstream media reporter, Jeff Kosseff of the Portland Oregonian, has pursued.

As it happens, I had a troubling experience in the past writing about paranoid fears that an unpopular president will cancel a presidential election. The experience helped turn me into a conspiracy theory skeptic, so let me briefly recount that incident—which, curiously enough, also involved the Portland Oregonian—so you'll understand the perspective I bring to the question.

Return with me to 1970, another moment of seething paranoia two years before Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, before Watergate was even a gleam in Gordon Liddy's eyes. A time of war and of an increasingly frustrated and suspicious anti-war movement. It was my first year as a reporter, and the whole episode started with a cab driver from Staten Island.

As historian and frequent Slate contributor David Greenberg recounts it in his thoughtful book Nixon's Shadow, "the rumor [that Nixon had a secret plan to cancel the '72 presidential election] first appeared in print on April 5 in the Portland Oregonian, the Staten Island Advance and other Newhouse-owned newspapers. According to the item, the administration had asked the RAND Corporation ... to study whether 'rebellious factions using force or bomb threats would make it unsafe to conduct an election' and how the president might respond. Ron Rosenbaum, a reporter from the Village Voice, heard about the article from a Staten Island cab driver and investigated. He reported in The Voice on April 16 that RAND and the administration denied that any such study existed, but then playfully pointed out that they would surely deny it if it were true. Rosenbaum added that the country would just have to wait until 1972 to see."

Lesson here: Don't get too "playful" when writing about conspiracy theories. The problem with being "playful" back then was that much of the anti-war movement read the Voice at the time, and my story ignited a firestorm of paranoia. Soon there were "documents" of dubious authenticity circulating that purported to be RAND memos outlining plans to round up and lock up leaders of the anti-war movement. Eventually Pat Moynihan, then a Nixon consigliere, thundered against the rumor as an example of the intrusion of irrationality into politics.

The thing is, there's nothing wrong with planning for "continuity of government," especially in the nuclear age. Planning for continuity doesn't necessarily mean plotting a coup, although that's the way my story was read and spread. (Of course, meanwhile—proving that reality can outrun paranoia—the Nixon administration was planning to subvert the election, anyway, with the assortment of illegal actions and dirty tricks that became known as Watergate.)

Still, there's nothing I feel the need to apologize about for pursuing that story then (or this one now). Indeed, it was marginally possible back then, when the anti-war movement had become massive and some were turning to violence, that the RAND Corp. might have been involved in planning how to maintain "continuity" in the face of violent disruptions.

But the fact that the extreme worst-case scenario didn't happen in 1972 (no coup attempt) left one big question unanswered—and NSPD-51 illustrates it still hasn't been settled in any satisfactory way: What are the contingency plans for holding or postponing a national election in the midst of a traumatic national emergency?

I've studied the actual presidential directive, which you can find here.

In many respects, it's innocuous. It doesn't, for instance, tamper with the procedures for presidential succession in case, say, the chief executive and vice president are killed. And there's a value to requiring that every government agency prepare a plan to deal with a catastrophe.

But consider provision 2E of the directive:

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics mine.)

Do you see those five weasel words "as a matter of comity"? Just what elements of the legislative and judicial branches will be allowed to participate in "executing constitutional responsibilities" and "providing for orderly succession [and] appropriate transfer of leadership"?

In other words, who gets to call the shots? What does comity mean in this context? Informally, it means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another."

In other words, in the weasel-speak of NSPD-51, it implies that one or more branches of the government will have to cede power to another. And since everything is to be "coordinated by the president," I'm guessing that the members of the Supreme Court left alive and some congressional leaders left alive (How chosen? What party balance?) will in effect have to sit around a big conference table and do a lot of "ceding" to the executive.

And given the current state of relations between Congress and the executive, such comity will not necessarily translate into camaraderie.

If it comes down to whether to pull the nuclear trigger, who will get to vote, and how large a majority will be required to launch?

Comity—that innocent-sounding word—could well turn out to be the excuse for junking those pesky checks and balances the Founding Fathers seemed so obsessed with. For an indeterminate period of time.

The document is also hazy on when our new continuity policies will be set in motion. The directive tells us that they'll kick in whenever the nation faces a "catastrophic emergency." But look how vaguely "catastrophic emergency" is first defined:

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

These are profoundly, potentially calamitously, broad terms. Who defines what is extraordinary? Who defines how severe severely is? Is there any procedure to challenge the junking of constitutional government?

Worse, "catastrophic emergency"—woefully vague to start out with—is later expanded to include even "localized acts of nature and accidents" as well as "technological or attack-related" emergencies.

In other words, even if you don't believe the most sinister paranoid coup theories, the document does nothing to allay one's fears that it could be used in a sinister way.

I wish I did, but I see nothing in the document to prevent even a "localized" forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window, institute a number of unspecified continuity policies, and run the country with the guidance of the "National Continuity Coordinator" and with the "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee" for as long as the president sees fit.

This order has been issued by executive fiat and has not been subjected to any public examination by the other two branches, which have behaved in a supine way that suggests how they'll behave when comity time arrives and urgent decisions on the fate of the nation and perhaps the world (nuclear retaliation being what it is) need to be made immediately.

The fact that Congress has not scrutinized and challenged the potential here for an emergency-situation power grab is scandalous, unacceptable.

Let Congress pass a law posthaste nullifying the directive, and then when the executive nullifies the nullification, challenge it in the courts. I can't believe even this Supreme Court, with its deference to executive power, could take this clownishly drafted document seriously.

It's not that others haven't noticed the problem. The Wikipedia entry on NSPD-51, for instance, cites rational warnings against it from both right and left:

Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the [left wing] National Lawyers Guild have interpreted this as a break from Constitutional law in that the three branches of government are equal, with no single branch coordinating the others. … The directive does not specify whose responsibility it would be to either declare a catastrophic emergency or declare it over.

Good point. And then there are the final two provisions of the NSPD, which mysteriously refer to unseen secret "annexes" to the directive. Needless to say, if what they've made public is so shameless in its disregard for the Constitution, the following two sections on secret provisions don't allay suspicion:

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

So, how many secret annexes are there in addition to "annex A," and what kinds of things do they say that even the paranoia-inducing public document can't include?

Here's where Jeff Kosseff of the Portland Oregonian comes in. In an e-mail to me, he said he believed he was the first mainstream media reporter to pursue the classified annex issue (although Charles Savage reported on the disturbing public aspects of the directive itself in the Boston Globe in May).

Kosseff told me he got onto the story when Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio expressed puzzlement that he was having trouble seeing what was in the classified "annexes." DeFazio was a member of the homeland security committee and cleared to read classified material in a supersecure "bubble room" designed to prevent any kind of surveillance. But DeFazio's initial request was, as Kosseff reported, "denied" by the White House, which cited "national security concerns."

DeFazio said this was the first time he had been denied access to classified documents. He brought in the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Bennie Thompson, and the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigation and Oversight, Chris Carney, to back his request for access to the classified annexes.

In a phone conversation, Jeff Kosseff told me the latest development. In August, these requests were denied as well. On grounds of "national security."

I don't want to be alarmist, I have no evidence there's a coup brewing. But I think the American people and their congressional reps deserve some say in how they will be ruled when the ordinary rules go out the window in a national emergency. For one thing, what will happen to the Bill of Rights' guarantees of individual liberty and the courts that are supposed to enforce them?

If you ask me, setting aside any paranoid fantasies, it is clear on the most basic level—read it yourself—that NSPD-51 is the creation of irresponsible incompetents, bulls in the china shop of our constitutional framework. It is a recipe for disaster. For a catastrophe of governance that would match whatever physical catastrophe it followed and threaten the re-establishment of constitutional democracy. It would make the partisan warfare over the 2000 election in Florida seem like child's play. We might recover from a disaster but we might never recover from the "continuity coordination" that followed, "coordination" that could forever undermine any faith in the actual continuity of constitutional liberty in America since it would put it at the mercy of any president who wants to "coordinate continuity" rather than govern legally.

I think it's urgent that we bring these questions out of the shadows of phony comity. I'd urge readers to call or e-mail their members of Congress and senators now. Call for an emergency joint congressional hearing to end this farce, give us some transparency about what our government will do if we suffer another 9/11. Let all branches of government participate in the attempt to reach some consensus on rational and effective continuity planning. Something more specific and sophisticated than the clumsy but dangerously Orwellian "Continuity Coordination Committee."

POLITICS-US: Homeless Vets Play the Waiting Game
By Aaron Glantz


James Eggemeyer in Iraq.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 19 (IPS) - U.S. Army Specialist James Eggemeyer injured himself before he even set foot in Iraq, jumping out of a C-130 gunship during training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

"I jumped out and the jumpmaster who was holding that line that was wrapped around my arm had to cut the line because I was pretty much being dragged behind the airplane," the 25-year-old Florida native told IPS as he drove a donated truck through the streets of his hometown of Port Saint Lucie, a two-hour drive north of Miami, Florida.

"I hit the side of the plane with my Kevlar," he added. "My parachute was twisted up like a cigarette roll and I hit real hard and my ankle and my knee and my back and my shoulder (got hurt). I tore my rotator cuff. I feel like a 50-year-old man."

After the incident, military doctors prescribed Eggemeyer painkillers: the opiate Vocodin, the anti-depressant Percoset, and the steroid hydrocortisone.

Then, in April 2003, they sent him to Iraq. For the next year, he drove a Humvee, running supply convoys to U.S. soldiers stationed all around the country.

His experience in Iraq was rough. His convoys were attacked twice. His worst day occurred early on, when the military truck in front of his Humvee hit a civilian vehicle. Eggemeyer says he slammed on the brakes to avoid adding his vehicle to the pile-up. Then he got out and loaded an entire family of dead Iraqis onto a U.S. helicopter, including a little girl.

After that, Eggemeyer says his condition worsened. The longer he stayed in Iraq, the worse his body felt. He also started to take more of the opiates and the steroids the military had given him. The more he took them, the more he needed to dull the pain.

But violence wasn't the only thing Eggemeyer had to deal with while deployed overseas. While Eggemeyer was in Iraq, he filed for divorce. His mother had called to tell him his wife was cheating on him with a man in a local hotel. Then Eggemeyer checked his bank account and found 7,000 dollars was missing.

So for the duration of Eggemeyer's time in Iraq, James's parents took custody of his son, Justin, who had been born just two months before his deployment.

Returning to Fort Bragg in April 2004, James was quickly discharged from the military. His experience in Iraq had changed his disposition. He started fighting with his captain, and was given "dishonourable discharge under honourable conditions", which allowed him to use services from Veterans Administration but denied him access to college tuition assistance or vocational training.

When his parents moved to Miami with Justin, James Eggemeyer opted to stay on in his hometown of Port Saint Lucie on Florida's central coast, where he had secured part-time work buffing, waxing and shampooing cars at Kare-Pro Car Wash.

Located right outside the gates of the exclusive PGA Country Club and down the street from the private Legacy Golf & Tennis Club, Kare-Pro had a decidedly upscale clientele.

It did not go well. Eggemeyer said his main problem was that the manual labour he engaged in at Kare-Pro was aggravating his training injury. After a dispute with the manager over whether he would get Memorial Day off, Eggemeyer quit.

By December 2006, when James Eggemeyer filed a disability claim with the Veterans Administration, he had already joined the ranks of the United States's burgeoning population of homeless veterans, and was living out of his girlfriend's Ford Explorer. So when the VA responded with a letter to his old address requesting that he come in for a physical examination, he missed the appointment.

It's a vicious cycle so familiar to homeless people across the country. They need help from the government because they don't have a home, but can't receive mail because they don't have an address.

Eggemeyer pawned everything he could: his girlfriend's diamond ring, his guitar, his X-Box video game system, and his television. Then he went to get help, from Tony Reese, a Veterans Services representative working for Martin County, Florida.

Reese let Eggemeyer use his office as his address and made sure that James showed up at all his appointments. He checked that all of James's documents were in order and used the VA computer system to ensure his claim was on the right bureaucrat's desk at the regional office in Saint Petersburg.

But even with that, the process dragged on.

"We were just waiting for the VA," Reese said. "I really don't know how the VA is processing these Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) claims. Supposedly they're supposed to be separated and moving quicker but, you know, it doesn't seem like it to any veteran who files a claim."

So Reese tried to raise money from private organisations -- just enough to keep Eggemeyer afloat until his claim was settled.

In June, he convinced the William J Peterman Foundation for Disabled War Veterans to donate enough money to put James up in a cheap hotel for the month, with both Reese and the foundation believing Eggemeyer would surely be receiving a disability cheque by month's end.

All the VA needed to do was have a claims adjuster stamp a decision on his file, and since James was homeless, his file should theoretically be at the top of the stack.

But after 30 days passed, the VA still hadn't rendered a decision. The Peterman Foundation's money ran out and James Eggemeyer was back on the street.

Then, on Jul. 21, Eggemeyer crashed his girlfriend's 1999 Ford Explorer -- which was also his home -- into a utility pole. Eggemeyer blamed the intoxicating effects of VA prescribed pain killers for his accident. The police report noted Eggemeyer wasn't drunk and he was only cited for "careless driving".

"I was on so many painkillers that I thought I was getting in the turning lane, but it was actually the curb," Eggemeyer said. "I wrecked it and totaled it and then I didn't have anywhere to live."

Reese sprung into action again. He got the local Veterans Council, a membership organisation of groups like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, to cough up enough money for James to buy a used truck to live in.

July passed, August passed, and James was still waiting, unemployed, on a decision from the Veterans Administration.

"It's a representative case," Reese told IPS. "The more you stay in contact with the VA, the more you stay on top of your claim, the more the chance of your claim getting processed as it should be. But sometimes weeks and months just pass by and before you know it the claim is sitting God knows where. (James Eggemeyer), he's just your typical guy returning."

Indeed, the VA's own statistics show that Specialist James Eggemeyer received what could best be described as "standard treatment".

Since the start of the Iraq war, the backlog of unanswered disability claims has grown from 325,000 to more than 600,000. On average, a veteran must wait almost six months to have a claim heard. If a veteran loses and appeals a case, it usually takes at about three years.

Veterans groups maintain that the backlog amounts to official negligence. Since the launch of the Iraq war more than four years ago, the number of people charged with reviewing and approving veterans' disability claims has actually dropped. According to the American Federation of Government Employees, the VA employed 1,392 Veterans Service Representatives in June 2007 compared to 1,516 in January 2003.

The VA's patient-to-doctor ratio also grew -- from 335 to 1, to 531 to 1, between 2000 and September 2004.

But across the country, people like Tony Reese continue to take their jobs seriously. Through the months of waiting, Reese continually called the claims adjudicators he knew at the rating board in St. Petersburg. He reminded them of what they already knew from the forms in front of them: that Specialist James Eggemeyer had served his country in Iraq but he had sustained both physical and mental injuries in the field of battle and was now homeless and suicidal.

On Sep. 5, a claims official at the Department of Veterans Affairs told Reese and Eggemeyer that the first cheque would come within the week. Eggemeyer had been given a 100-percent disability rating retroactive to the date he made his first claim.

As a result, James now has an apartment and will soon be reunited with his son.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39731

Who's bluffing on the Turkish-Iraqi border?
Turkey has had enough of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) harassment and is preparing to invade Iraq to attempt to stamp it out, despite the protests of Washington, which has labeled the PKK a terrorist group but uses it as an ally in its "war on terror" in Iraq. Turkey doesn't seem to be bluffing or backing down, which puts the US and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in an even tighter spot. - Sami Moubayed (Oct 19, '07)

US House waffles on genocide
A combination of heat from an irate Turkey and the White House makes it look likely that the US House of Representatives will now shelve its controversial "genocide" resolution regarding the mass slayings of Armenians. The highly symbolic resolution which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee is unlikely to go to a floor vote after concerns regarding US access to Turkish air space were raised. - Jim Lobe (Oct 19, '07)

CounterPunch Diary

The Man Who Builds Hillaryworld
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

The pollster and immensely influential tactical adviser at Hillary Clinton's elbow is Mark Penn. Penn's polling played a crucial role in Bill Clinton's recovery from the nadir of 1994, when he joined Team Clinton as part of the rescue party summoned by Hillary Clinton and headed by Dick Morris. Penn has been joined at the hip politically to Mrs Clinton ever since, as a prime adviser of her successful senate bid and now in her drive to capture the Democratic presidential nomination.

To find out what Penn and hence Mrs Clinton deems worthy of note about the state of he naion we can now turn to Penn's new book, Microtrends.*

Penn's America is a bright-eyed, mostly upbeat world. As he bowls along, Penn tosses market-researched stats and polling data like confetti and soon the reader is spattered with golly-gee micro-measurements: growing number of home knitters ("knitting is very hip"), decline of baseball fans, burgeoning vegan children, rise of women archers, longer best-selling books, more college-educated nannies, a surge in employees in the non-profit sector, more kids who are cross-dressers and who, Penn says brightly, "are triggering a large, new tolerance movement in schools and communities."

There are no Columbines in Mr Penn's index, no Goths intolerantly spraying the schoolyard with machine-gun fire. Why look on the dark side when Penn's researchers excavate the news that there are more left-handers, hence - Penn boldly claims--the probability of more da Vincis. Now that's a microtrend worth savoring! The factoid lies on the page, awaiting an entrepreneur and a business plan. Will some niche 'trep (teen entrepreneur--a microtrend) change the zipper seam on guys' pants, so lefties can u