Η Αμερική σε πόλεμο στη «Μακεδονία» (μέρος 1)

από το Michel Chossudovsky
Καθηγητής των οικονομικών, πανεπιστήμιο της Οττάβας

Ο συγκεκαλυμμένος πόλεμος της Ουάσιγκτον στη «Μακεδονία» (πρώην γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας) στοχεύει να παγιώσει τη σφαίρα της Αμερικής της επιρροής μέσα στη νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη. Σε κίνδυνο είναι η στρατηγική μεταφορά Βουλγαρία-«Μακεδονία» -Αλβανία, επικοινωνίες και ο "διάδρομος" του αγωγού πετρελαίου που συνδέει τη Μαύρη Θάλασσα με την Αδριατική ακτή. Η «Μακεδονία» βρίσκεται στο στρατηγικό σταυροδρόμι του διάδρομου αγωγού πετρελαίου.

Για να προστατεύσει αυτές τις διαδρομές των αγωγών, ο στόχος της Ουάσιγκτον είναι να εγκαταστήσεί ένα "συνονθύλευμα προτεκτοράτων" κατά μήκος των στρατηγικών διαδρόμων στα Βαλκάνια.

Η υπόσχεση της "Μεγάλης Αλβανίας" που χρησιμοποιείται από την Ουάσιγκτον για να ενθαρρύνει τον αλβανικό εθνικισμό είναι μέρος του τεχνάσματος στρατιωτικής κατασκοπείας. Επαρκώς τεκμηριωμένο, το τελευταίο συνίσταται στη χρηματοδότηση και τον εξοπλισμό του στρατού απελευθέρωσης του Κοσόβου (KLA) και το εθνικό απελευθερωτικό στρατό (NLA) πληρεξούσιο να διεξάγει τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις στη «Μακεδονία» .

Η ανάπτυξη της σφαίρας επιρροής της Αμερικής στη νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη με συνενοχή της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας — υποστηρίζει τα συμφέροντα των γιγάντων στη του πετρελαίου συμπεριλαμβανομένου των BP-Amoco-ARCO, Chevron και TEXACO. Εξασφάλιση του ελέγχου και "η προστασία" των διαδρομών αγωγών είναι κυριαρχική στην επιτυχία αυτών των επιχειρήσεων πολλών δισεκατομμυρίων δολαρίων.

Ένα επιτυχές διεθνές καθεστώς πετρελαίου είναι ένας συνδυασμός οικονομικών, πολιτικών, και στρατιωτικών ρυθμίσεων για να υποστηρίξει την παραγωγή πετρελαίου και μεταφορά στις αγορές.

Η αγγλοαμερικανική κοινοπραξία που ελέγχει το πρόγραμμα του διαβαλκανικού αγωγού ΑΜΒΟ που συνδέει το βουλγαρικό λιμένα Μπουργκάς (Burgas) με την Αυλώνα (Vlore) στην Αδριατική ακτή της Αλβανίας αποκλείει κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος τη συμμετοχή της γιγαντιαίου Ευρωπαϊκού ανταγωνιστή πετρελαίου την Total-Fina-Elf.

Με άλλα λόγια, ο αμερικανικός στρατηγικός έλεγχος του διαδρόμου αγωγών είναι προσηλωμένος επάνω στην αποδυνάμωση του ρόλου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και το κράτημα των ανταγωνιστικών Ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρησιακών συμφερόντων σε απόσταση χεριού.

Η ΗΠΑ βασισμένη κοινοπραξία αγωγών ΑΜΒΟ συνδέεται άμεσα με την έδρα της πολιτικής και στρατιωτικής δύναμης στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και την εταιρεία του αντιπρόεδρου Dick Cheney Halliburton Energy.

Η μελέτη σκοπιμότητας για το διαβαλκανικό αγωγό πετρελαίου της ΑΜΒΟ, που πραγματοποιήθηκε από την διεθνή επιχείρηση εφαρμοσμένης μηχανικής Brown & Root Ltd [βρετανικό θυγατρική της Halliburton] έχει καθορίσει ότι αυτός ο αγωγός... θα γίνει μέρος της υποδομής του κρίσιμου διαδρόμου Ανατολής-Δύσης της περιοχής που θα περιλαμβάνει εθνικές οδούς, σιδηροδρόμους, φυσικού αερίου και τις οπτικές ίνες τηλεπικοινωνιών.

Με την ολοκλήρωση της μελέτης σκοπιμότητας από τη Halliburton, ένα ανώτερο στέλεχος της Halliburton διορίστηκε CEO της ΑΜΒΟ. Στη Halliburton επίσης χορηγήθηκε η σύμβαση να υπηρετήσει τα αμερικανικά στρατεύματα στα Βαλκάνια και να χτίσει το "Bondsteel" μέσα στο Κόσοβο, το οποίο αποτελεί τώρα "τη μεγαλύτερη αμερικανική ξένη στρατιωτική βάση που κατασκευάστηκε από την εποχή του Βιετνάμ". Συμπτωματικά, White και Case LLT, η νομική Εταιρία της Νέας Υόρκης στην οποία ο Πρόεδρος William J Clinton προσχώρησε όταν άφησε το Λευκό Οίκο, έχει επίσης έναν αντικείμενο διακύβευσης στη συμφωνία σωληνώσης της ΑΜΒΟ.

Στρατιωτικοποίηση των διαδρόμων αγωγών

Το διαβαλκανικό πρόγραμμα αγωγών ΑΜΒΟ θα σύνδεε με τους διάδρομους αγωγών μεταξύ της Μαύρης Θάλασσας και τη λεκάνη της Κασπίας θάλασσας, η οποία βρίσκεται στην πλήμνη των μεγαλύτερων ανεξερεύνητων αποθεμάτων του παγκόσμιου πετρελαίου. Η στρατιωτικοποίηση από αυτούς τους διάφορους διαδρόμους είναι ένα αναπόσπαστο τμήμα του σχεδίου της Ουάσιγκτον.

Η αμερικανική πολιτική "της προστασίας των διαδρομών αγωγών" έξω από την λεκάνη της Κασπίας θάλασσας (και δια μέσου των Βαλκανίων) αναλύθηκε από το Γραμματέα Bill Richardson ενέργειας του Clinton μόλις μερικούς μήνες πριν από το βομβαρδισμό της Γιουγκοσλαβίας το 1999:

"Αυτό είναι για την ενεργειακή ασφάλεια της Αμερικής... Είναι επίσης για την παρεμπόδιση στρατηγικών επιδρομών από εκείνους που δεν μοιράζονται τις αξίες μας."

"Προσπαθούμε να κινήσουμε αυτές τις πρόσφατα ανεξάρτητες χώρες προς τη δύση... Θα επιθυμούσαμε να τους δούμε εμπιστευόμενους δυτικά εμπορικά και πολιτικά ενδιαφέροντα παρά να πηγαίνουν έναν άλλο δρόμο. Έχουμε κάνει μια ουσιαστική πολιτική επένδυση στην Κασπία, και είναι πολύ σημαντική για μας ότι τόσο ο χάρτης αγωγών όσο και η πολιτική να πηγαίνουν σωστά."

Οι αγγλοαμερικανικοί γίγαντες πετρελαίου, συμπεριλαμβανομένου including BP-Amoco-Arco, Texaco και Chevron—υποστηριζόμενες από τη στρατιωτική ισχύ των ΗΠΑ—ανταγωνίζεται με το Ευρωπαϊκό γίγαντα πετρελαίου της Total-Fina-Elf (συνεργαζόμενη με την ENI της Ιταλίας) που είναι μεγάλος παίκτης στις πλούσιες βορειοανατολικές πετρελαιοπηγές της Κασπίας Kashagan του Καζακστάν.

Οι διακυβεύσεις είναι υψηλές: Το Kashagan αναφέρεται "τόσο μεγάλο ώστε να ξεπεράσει ακόμη και το μέγεθος των αποθεμάτων πετρελαίου της Βόρειας Θάλασσας."

Η ανταγωνιστική κοινοπραξία που εδρεύει στη ΕΕ, εντούτοις, στερείται έναν σημαντικό διακύβευμα και επιρροή στις κύριες διαδρομές αγωγών από την λεκάνη της Κασπίας θάλασσας και πίσω (μέσω της Μαύρης Θάλασσας και δια μέσω των Βαλκανίων) στη δυτική Ευρώπη.

Τα βασικά προγράμματα διαδρόμων αγωγών —συμπεριλαμβανομένου του προγράμματος ΑΜΒΟ και το Μπακού- Cehyan πρόγραμμα δια μέσω της Τουρκίας στη Μεσόγειο —είναι κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος μέσα στα χέρια των αγγλοαμερικανικών ανταγωνιστών τους, τα οποία στηρίζονται σε μεγάλο ποσοστό στην πολιτική και στρατιωτική παρουσία των ΗΠΑ τόσο στην λεκάνη της Κασπίας όσο και στα Βαλκάνια.

Το σχέδιο της Ουάσιγκτον είναι να απομακρυνθούν τελικά και οι τρεις χώρες της ΑΜΒΟ, δηλαδή η Βουλγαρία, η «Μακεδονία» και η Αλβανία από την γερμανική-ΕΕ επιρροή μέσω της εγκατάσταση των ολοκληρωμένων αμερικανικών προτεκτοράτων.

Με άλλα λόγια, η αμερικανική στρατιωτικοποίηση και γεωπολιτικός έλεγχος επί του προγραμματισμένου αγωγού σύνδεσης του Μπουργκάς στη Βουλγαρία με τον Αδριατικό λιμένα του Αυλώνα στην Αλβανία είναι προσηλωμένη επάνω στην υπονόμευση της επιρροής της ΕΕ καθώς επίσης και την αποδυνάμωση των ανταγωνιστικών Γαλλο-Βελγο-Ιταλικών συμφέροντων πετρελαίου.

Οι διαπραγματεύσεις σχετικά με το αγωγό ΑΜΒΟ έχουν υποστηριχθεί από κυβερνητικούς υπάλληλους των ΗΠΑ μέσω της Υπηρεσίας εμπορίου και ανάπτυξης (TDA) την Πρωτοβουλία Ανάπτυξης Νότιου Βαλκανικής (SBDI)" σχεδιασμένη για να βοηθήσει την Αλβανία, Βουλγαρία και την «Μακεδονία» να αναπτύξουν περαιτέρω και να ενσωματώσουν τη υποδομή μεταφορών τους κατά μήκος του διαδρόμου Ανατολής-Δύσης που τους συνδέει."

Τα σημεία της TDA στην ανάγκη για τις τρεις χώρες για "να χρησιμοποιήσουν περιφερειακές συμπράξεις για να μοχλεύσουν νέα δημόσια και ιδιωτικά κεφάλαια [από τις αμερικανικές επιχειρήσεις]" υπογραμμίζοντας την ευθύνη της αμερικανικής κυβέρνησης "για εφαρμογή της πρωτοβουλίας."

Όσον αφορά τον αγωγό της ΑΜΒΟ, θα φαινόταν ότι η ΕΕ έχει κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος αποκλειστεί από τον προγραμματισμό και τις διαπραγματεύσεις. "Υπομνήματα κατανόησης" (MOU) έχει υπογραφεί ήδη με τις κυβερνήσεις Αλβανίας, Βουλγαρίας και «Μακεδονίας» που αποστερούν την εθνική κυριαρχία των χωρών και πάνω από τον αγωγό και πάνω από τις μεταφορικές οδούς με την παροχή "αποκλειστικών δικαιωμάτων" στην Αγγλοαμερικανική κοινοπραξία:

"... ] το MOU [δηλώνει ότι η ΑΜΒΟ θα είναι το μόνο συμβαλλόμενο μέρος που επιτρέπεται να οικοδομήσει τον προγραμματισμένο αγωγό πετρελαίου Μπουργκάς-Αυλώνα . Πιο συγκεκριμένα, δίνει στην ΑΜΒΟ αποκλειστικό δικαίωμα να διαπραγματευτεί με τους επενδυτές και τους πιστωτές του προγράμματος. Υποχρεώνει επίσης...[τις κυβερνήσεις της Βουλγαρίας, της «Μακεδονίας» και
της Αλβανίας] να μην αποκαλύψουν ορισμένες εμπιστευτικές πληροφορίες για το πρόγραμμα του αγωγού.

Το πρόγραμμα αγωγών της ΑΜΒΟ συνδέεται με ένα άλλο στρατηγικό πρόγραμμα τιτλοφορημένο "διάδρομος 8", που προτάθηκε αρχικά από την κυβέρνηση Clinton μέσα το πλαίσιο του "σύμφωνου σταθερότητας των Βαλκανίων".

Στρατηγικής σπουδαιότητας και για τις ΗΠΑ και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ο "διάδρομος 8" περιλαμβάνει την υποδομή εθνικών οδών, σιδηρόδρομους, την ηλεκτρική ενέργεια και τις τηλεπικοινωνίες. Στη συνέχεια, η υπάρχουσα υποδομή σε αυτούς τους τομείς προκαθορίζεται χρονικά για άρση των ελέγχων και την ιδιωτικοποίηση (σε κατώτατες τιμές) υπό την επίβλεψη ΔΝΤ-Παγκόσμιας τράπεζας.

Αν και σφραγισμένες από τους υπουργούς μεταφορών της ΕΕ ως τμήμα της διαδικασίας της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομικής ολοκλήρωσης, οι μελέτες σκοπιμότητας του "διάδρομου 8" ήταν διεξήχθησαν από αμερικανικές επιχειρήσεις που χρηματοδοτούνταν άμεσα από την TDA. Με άλλα λόγια, η Ουάσιγκτον φαίνεται να έχει θέσει το σκηνικό για την ανάληψη ελέγχου της υποδομής μεταφορών και επικοινωνιών των χωρών.

Αμερικανικές εταιρίες συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Bechtel, Enron και General Electric (με οικονομική υποστήριξη από την αμερικανική κυβέρνηση) ανταγωνίζεται με τις επιχειρήσεις από τη Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Το σχέδιο της Ουάσιγκτον είναι να ανοιχτεί ολόκληρος διάδρομος στις αμερικανικές πολυεθνικές σε μια περιοχή που τοποθετείται στο "οικονομικό κατώφλι" της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όπου η δύναμη του Deutschmark τείνει να εξουσιάσει πάνω από αυτή του δολλαρίου ΗΠΑ.

Στις αρχές του 2000, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή άρχισε τις διαπραγματεύσεις για θέση υφιστάμενου μέλους της ΕΕ με τη ΠΓΔΜ, τη Βουλγαρία και την Αλβανία. Και τον Απρίλιο του 2001, στο ύψος των τρομοκρατικών επιθέσεων, η «Μακεδονία» έγινε η πρώτη χώρα στα Βαλκάνια για να υπογράψει μια αποκαλούμενη " συμφωνία σταθεροποίησης και σύνδεσης" (SAA) που αποτελεί ένα σημαντικό βήμα προς την πλήρη ιδιότητα μέλους της ΕΕ.

Η συμφωνία παρέχει τη βάση για τη "απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου, πολιτική συνεργασία, οικονομικές και θεσμικές μεταρρυθμίσεις, και μεταμόσχευση της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ". Στο πλαίσιο της συμφωνίας σταθεροποίησης και σύνδεσης, η «Μακεδονία» (de facto) θα ενσωματωνόταν στο ευρωπαϊκό νομισματικό σύστημα, με το πλήρη πρόσβαση στην αγορά της ΕΕ.

Οι τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις συνέπεσαν χρονολογικά με τη διαδικασία "της διεύρυνσης της ΕΕ", κερδίζοντας ορμή μόλις μερικές εβδομάδες πριν από την υπογραφή της ιστορικής "συμφωνία σύνδεσης" με τη «Μακεδονία» . Επαρκώς τεκμηριωμένα, οι ΗΠΑ έχουν στρατιωτικούς συμβούλους που συνεργάζονται με τους τρομοκράτες. Ήταν αυτό μια απλή σύμπτωση;

Επίσης, ο Robert Frowick, "ένας πρώην αμερικανός διπλωμάτης", διορίστηκε επικεφαλής της αποστολής Οργάνωση για την ασφάλεια και συνεργασία της Ευρώπης στη «Μακεδονία» στα μέσα Μαρτίου, πάλι μόλις μερικές εβδομάδες πριν από την υπογραφή της "συμφωνία της σύνδεσης".

Σε στενή επαφή με την Ουάσιγκτον και την αμερικανική πρεσβεία στα Σκόπια, ο Frowick άρχισε έναν "διάλογο" με τον επαναστάτη ηγέτη του NLA Ali Ahmeti. Ήταν επίσης οργανικός στη μεσιτεία μιας συμφωνίας μεταξύ του Ahmeti και των ηγετών των αλβανικών κομμάτων, τα οποία αποτελούν μέρος του κυβερνητικού συνασπισμού.

Αυτή η συμφωνία που διαπραγματεύτηκε ο Frowick έχει συμβάλει κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος να αποσταθεροποιήσει τους πολιτικούς θεσμούς, συγχρόνως διακινδυνεύοντας τη διαδικασία της διεύρυνσης της ΕΕ.

Επιπλέον, η επιδεινωμένη κατάσταση ασφάλειας στη «Μακεδονία» έχει παράσχει την πρόφαση για τις αυξανόμενες ΗΠΑ πολιτικές, "ανθρωπιστικές" και στρατιωτικές παρεμβάσεις, συμβάλλοντας στην αποδυνάμωση των οικονομικών και πολιτικών δεσμών των Σκοπίων με τη Γερμανία και την ΕΕ.

Εν προκειμένω, ένας από τους "δεσμευτικούς όρους" της "συμφωνίας σύνδεσης" είναι ότι η «Μακεδονία» προσαρμόζεται "στα πρότυπα της ΕΕ για τη δημοκρατία". Δεν χρειάζεται να πούμε, χωρίς μια "λειτουργούσα κυβέρνηση" στη «Μακεδονία» , η ΕΕ διαδικασία σύνδεσης με τις Βρυξέλλες δεν μπορεί να προχωρήσει.

Οι κυβερνήσεις μαριονεττών εγκατεστημένες στα Τίρανα, Σκόπια και Σόφια, ενώ κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος αποκρίνονται στα φιρμάνια των ΗΠΑ, ταλαντεύεται αυτήν την περίοδο στην κατεύθυνση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Η πρόθεση της Ουάσιγκτον είναι τελικά να συγκρατήσει το "Lebensraum" (ζωτικό χώρο) της Γερμανίας στη νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη.

Δείχνοντας υποκριτική αφοσίωση στη "διεύρυνση της ΕΕ", οι ΗΠΑ έχουν με συνέπεια ευνοήσει τη "διεύρυνση του ΝΑΤΟ" ως μέσο συνέχισης των στρατηγικών ενδιαφερόντων τους στην Ανατολική Ευρώπη και τα Βαλκάνια, ενώ η Γερμανία και η Γαλλία έχουν αντιταχθεί σε αυτό.

Παρά το γεγονός ότι ο συντάκτης του άρθρου φαίνεται να έχει συμπάθειες προς την ΠΓΔΜ αυτό δεν εμποδίζει το άρθρο να είναι όχι θεμελιωμένο αλλά και επίκαιρο αν και πέρασαν μόνο επτά χρόνια από την δημοσίευσή του. Τα τυπογραφικά είναι δικά μου και έχω προσθέσει εισαγωγικά όπου στο αρχικό κείμενο υπήρχε αυτούσιο το όνομα Μακεδονία.

There is just too much to be gained, in terms of international opinion, political stock, and, well, justice itself, for some enterprising European civil servant not to go after those big, big fish. You might think that outrage in the United States, and the various forms of diplomatic pressure that would follow on that, would render this impossible. But once Bush leaves the White House, he will lose the symbolic cloak of office that makes him a symbol of America and still buys him a measure of respect and deference. No one of consequence will rise to his defense. Pinochet at least had Margaret Thatcher - who will speak for Bush? Most of the country will be so relieved to see Bush go they will quickly forget he ever existed, and won't care a whit if he or his associates are indicted in absentia abroad somewhere.

John McCain questioned about PNAC, 9/11

Here is the proposed layout and inventory of the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

The Gitmo Room--largest collection of books on torture in the world.

The Constitution Room--a single copy of the constitution torn and scattered on the floor.

The Legacy Room-empty.

The Iraq Room--4122 dog tags in a pile on the floor.

The Bush Room--the public lavatory with a shelf over the toilet containing all of the books George W. Bush has read in his lifetime, with room left over for two rolls of toilet paper.

The Cheney Room--a nice collection of Dick and Lynne Jane readers along with a large collection of books on gun safety.

The Detainee Foyer--this is where visitors check in. Vistors will have to have a security clearance and go through a full body scanner. Chances are some visitors will never leave this room.

The MCI Communications Room--the only place where visitors can make phone calls as cell phones will not be allowed. Phone calls monitored? Of course not!

The Michael Chertoff Indoor Swimming Pool--no that's not a diving board. Beach reading provided.

Wow! Another major flip flop by Johnny McTeleprompter! He knows not what he says because he knows not (and can't remember!) what he says.

Johnny & Joe Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press back in 2001 (around the time the anthrax attacks were happening) and gave a very intriguing interview. Here's what Johnny 'McCain' McTeleprompter said that day on Meet the Press about Afghanistan (emphasis mine):

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush's orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe's right.

And I would just like to add one additional point. I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government, but...

RUSSERT: How long will that take?

MCCAIN: I think the longer we give the impression that we're there for, the shorter it'll be. Because, as you quoted from articles earlier, they think they can outlast us. I don't think they can this time.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the American people will continue to stay with that campaign?

MCCAIN: Absolutely, and I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq. That's where the coalition may not be so strong. That's where people like the Saudis and the French and many others may have real reservations.

Seems to me ole Johnny McTeleprompter had a clear head back then. He realized Afghanistan had to be settled (kill Osama, stabilize Afghanistan) before even thinking of going after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What happened? Oh that's right. Mr. Flip Flop signed on to illegally invading Iraq and all the reasons given to invade Iraq were lies coming out of the White House. Ole Johnny trusted the liars...and still does.

What else is so interesting about this interview is both McTeleprompter & Lieberman agree that the Saudis are the protecters of the Muslims and pose a threat to our country. Geeeeeee....ya think? What's going on right now? Who is benefiting from 9/11 along with the Bush Regime? Oh that's right....the Saudi royals are! We should have sent the CIA in there to take out the royals, but as we all know, George Bush, his family, and friends are all good buddies with the Saudi royals! Spit.

(We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as far as I'm concerned.)

McTeleprompter & Lieberman's discussion on the anthrax attacks was also interesting. I personally believe the weapons-grade anthrax that was sent out to DEMOCRATS & LIBERALS of America was sent from the military under George Bush. Yep, I believe our own government attacked our citizens to give the impression to the knuckleheads in America that the "terrorists" are attacking us because of the dems & libs of our country. Just a bunch of homegrown fear! Spit. Assholes. Anyways...

Here's Johnny & Joe kind of ducking around the issue of where the anthrax is coming from (again, emphasis mine):

Senator McCain, is our government leveling with us as to the potency and the origination of the anthrax that is sweeping our country?

MCCAIN: I know that Tom Ridge is one of the most honest men that I have ever known, and I believe that he's telling the truth as he knows it. He would never deceive the American people.

You're going to have a guest on here pretty soon that's going to be much more knowledgeable than I am. But there is one point here, and I don't know exactly what grade it is, but it is 100 percent treatable. Everyone agrees on that. It is 100 percent treatable. And I'm afraid that a lot of Americans are not really aware of that.

Recently, in Rio, I believe, an envelope was received, which gives me the idea that perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the United States of America.

RUSSERT: Shouldn't we be told exactly how serious this threat is and where it's coming from?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, absolutely, Tim. There was some confusion this week, and it wasn't just you who are being given confusing or inconsistent information. It was members of Congress.

I think there's just a multiplicity of voices here. And the most important thing that can happen quickly is that we centralize who's speaking, and I think it ought to be Tom Ridge. There have been too many voices. Tom Ridge has been appointed to head the Office of Homeland Security. As you know, I think he ought to be given more powers than the president has given him yet, so he can tell people exactly what to do and not have to argue with bureaucrats. But...

RUSSERT: Are you being told what kind of quality it is?

LIEBERMAN: I've gotten mixed reports, but I'll tell you what I've concluded. And this is consistent with every report I've been given. The stuff that is being sent out, most of it, including the stuff that went to Tom Daschle's office, is significantly refined anthrax. In other words, when we hear the stories that there is anthrax in labs all over this country, that's basically bacteria in a lab tube. Dr. Fauci can tell you more detail on that.

To take it from that, to make it into the stuff that's being sent in envelopes, that requires a real effort and, frankly, more than a couple of guys in somebody's kitchen stirring things up.

So it says to me that there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program.

And it's, you know, thank God, as John says, this is treatable. It takes a lot of it to be infected. And we've controlled it. But it should remind all of us that these opponents of ours are serious and they've got some stuff behind them.

RUSSERT: In fact, Senator McCain, Dick Cheney at the Al Smith Dinner in New York said there will be more attacks, and we should be aware that we will probably suffer more casualties here at home than our troops overseas.

Yep. Dick Cheney said there would be more attacks and Johnny & Joey didn't pick up on that! Cheney had his neocons in the military send out the anthrax. The truth was right there in front of Johnny & Joey and neither one of them got it. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this because both of them are jackboot lickers to the Bush Regime now. They believe the liars while the rest of our country continues not to.

Why am I scared of Joe Lieberman & Johnny McTeleprompter? Is it because they're warmongering liars as George Bush & Dick Cheney are? Yep.

(hat tip to Clif for sending me the link to this 2001 interview) ;-)

Check it out here.

Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, Benjamin Armbruster, and Brad Johnson, Alternet, July 15, 2008

Yesterday, citing the "squeeze of rising prices at the pump," President Bush rescinded the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling.

The moratorium on lease sales in the Outer Continental Shelf was established in 1990 by his father, George H.W. Bush, in response to the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill and extended by President Clinton.

Bush's action pressures Congress to follow him in "capitulation to the oil companies" by lifting their moratorium, which must be renewed annually. In response, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) said at a press conference that Bush "is invoking the specter of another WMD: wells of mass deception."

At the Huffington Post, activist Martin Bosworth wrote, "Americans are smarter than we are often given credit for, and many of us do realize that destroying precious environmental resources and wildlife reserves to allow more domestic drilling is a psychological panacea -- a placebo to make us feel like 'something is being done.'"

However, polls show increasing support for expanded offshore drilling. Conservatives are preying on Americans' concern overskyrocketing gas prices by propagating false myths that drilling for oil off our coasts will allow us to "pay less" at the pump, that it's "environmentally safe," and that drilling is already underway by communist China.

Because "only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land," their political allies must resort to selling falsehoods.

Read More Here

Cheney coming to Birmingham Aug. 1

I'm going to sneak in with a mirror and see if Cheney has a reflection.

Les Dagsavisens utenriksredaktør Erik Sagflaat glimrende artikkel av 17.07 2008.

Filmopptaket fra avhøret på Guantánamo går nå verden rundt, og fyrer ytterligere opp under avskyen for det rettsløse samfunn president George W. Bush og hans folk har skapt i fangeleiren på Guantánamo. Forut for avhøret skal den da 16-år gamle Omar Khadr ha blitt myket opp ved å bli nektet søvn. Han sier også at han ble torturert ved den amerikanske flybasen Bagram utenfor Kabul. Khadr var 15 år da han ble arrestert. Nå er han 21, og sitter fortsatt på Guantánamo.

Omar Khadr er tiltalt for å ha deltatt i kamp mot de amerikanske invasjonsstyrkene i Afghanistan i 2001. Angivelig skal han også ha kastet en granat som drepte en amerikansk soldat. Men er dette terror? Det stiller vel snarere i klasse med de angrep som norsk motstandsbevegelse i sin tid rettet mot tyske okkupanter.

Samtidig forber edes nå det første militærtribunalet ved Guantánamo. Første tiltalte er Osama bin Ladens angivelige sjåfør, Salmi Ahmed Hamdan. Også han har vært utsatt for de såkalte «forsterkede avhørsmetodene». Blant annet ble han nektet normal søvn gjennom hele 50 døgn. Nå krever hans forsvarer, kommandørløytnant Brian Mizere, at hele saken må avvises fordi tilståelsene har framkommet under tvang. «Dette er omtrent så fjernt fra en rettferdig prosess som du kan komme», sier Michael Berrigan, som er nestleder for den militære forsvarergruppen.

Det står respekt av innsatsen til de militære forsvarerne. Det møtte ikke mye tillit da det ble kjent at forsvarerne ved de planlagte tribunalene på Guantánamo skulle være militære og oppnevnes av Pentagon. Men forsvarerne har tatt sin oppgave meget alvorlig, noe som slett ikke har vært populært hos deres arbeidsgiver. Forsvarerne er fast bestemt på å gi sine klienter det best mulige forsvar. Det gir håp for USA som rettsstat, når bare den gjengen som de siste snart åtte år har satt seg selv over både lov og grunnlov, er ute.

President George W. Bush nedla så sent som i mars i år veto mot en lov som forbyr all bruk av tortur. Bush hevder at en slik lov vil sette amerikanske liv i fare. Det forholder seg stikk motsatt. Ved bruk av tortur får man ikke sannheten, men de svar ofrene tror torturistene vil høre. Det åpner for feiltolkninger og gale beslutninger, som virkelig setter amerikanske liv i fare. Verste eksempel på det, er krigen i Irak, som til nå har kostet mer enn 4.100 amerikanske soldater livet.

Forut for invasjonen i Irak kom det et skred av desinformasjon fra torturofre. Sterkeste eksempel er den angivelige Al-Qaida-lederen Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi, som ble arrestert og fraktet til Egypt for avhør med egyptiske torturister. Han fabrikkerte påstander om biologiske og kjemiske masseødeleggelsesvåpen i Irak. Han hevdet også at det var nær forbindelse mellom Irak og Al-Qaida.

Opplysningene ble brukt for alt de var verdt i den krigshissende talen Bush holdt i Cincinnati i oktober 2002. De var også et viktig grunnlag for de påståtte «bevisene» daværende utenriksminister Colin Powell la fram i FN i februar 2003, og som siden har kostet ham hans gode navn og rykte. «De holdt på å drepe meg, noe måtte jeg si», sa al-Libi da han senere fortalte om avhørene han var blitt utsatt for.

Sentrale personer i Bush-administrasjonen utformet politikken som åpnet for bruk av tortur. For det er tortur, selv om det kalles «forsterkede avhørsmetoder». Visepresident Dick Cheneys stabssjef David Addington, forsvarsdepartementets Douglas Feith, justisdepartementets Alberto Gonzales og John Yoo var sentrale. Sistnevnte utformet et memorandum der han hevdet at det ikke var tortur såfremt offeret ikke døde eller ble påført varig skade. Alle var enige om at den utøvende makt, i siste instans presidenten, måtte ha helt frie hender som landets øverstkommanderende i krig.

Simulert drukning, ekstrem varme og ekstrem kulde, uutholdelig støy, lenking i smertefulle stillinger og fravær av søvn er blant metodene som kan brukes for å tvinge fram tilståelser. Hvis da ikke ofrene skysses av CIA til enda mer lovløst land for enda mer «forsterkede» avhør.

Tortur har ikke gjort USA tryggere. Tvert om har steder som Guantánamo og Abu Ghraib vært regelrette gavepakker til al-Qaidas og Talibans rekrutteringsoffiserer. Tortur har undergravd respekten for vestlige demokratier og har knust USAs troverdighet når det gjelder å stå opp for menneskerettighetene andre steder i verden. Tortur er rett og slett en umulighet for et land som ønsker å kalle seg sivilisert.

In a series of gripping articles, Jane Mayer has chronicled the Bush Administration’s grim and furtive dealings with torture and has exposed both the individuals within the administration who “made it happen” (a group that starts with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington), the team of psychologists who put together the palette of techniques, and the Fox television program “24,” which was developed to help sell it to the American public. In a new book, The Dark Side, Mayer puts together the major conclusions from her articles and fills in a number of important gaps. Most significantly, we learn the details on the torture techniques and the drama behind the fierce and lingering struggle within the administration over torture, and we learn that many within the administration recognized the potential criminal accountability they faced over these torture tactics and moved frantically to protect themselves from possible future prosecution. I put six questions to Jane Mayer on the subject of her book, The Dark Side. (italics in original)

In the interview, Ms. Mayer describes yet another instance in which the Bush administration has retaliated against someone who dared raise a voice in dissent:

[Horton:] You spend more time showing how the torture process compromised lawyers than how it compromised health care professionals. One of the more revealing cases involves Jessica (sic) Radack, a young career attorney in the Justice Department’s Honors Program, who dispensed ethics advice concerning plans for the interrogation of John Walker Lindh. It seems that her advice was contrary to the ethical views of senior Bush Administration lawyers, and you note that when a federal judge demanded to see the internal Department of Justice records relating to the matter, all of Radack’s emails, including the advice actually dispensed, had been deleted and the hard copies removed, and none of this was furnished to the court. Did the Justice Department ever undertake an internal probe into the obstruction?

[Mayer:] Radack was in some ways an early guinea pig showing how high the costs were for anyone—including administration lawyers—who dissented from the Bush Administration’s determination to rewrite the rules for the treatment of terrorists. Her job in the department was to give ethical advice. She was asked whether an FBI officer in Afghanistan could interrogate John Walker Lindh and use his statements against him in any future trial. By the time she was asked this, however, as she knew, Lindh’s father had already hired a lawyer to represent him. So she concluded that it would not be proper for the FBI to question him outside the presence of his counsel.

To her amazement, the FBI agent went ahead and did so anyway, and then the prosecutors in the Justice Department proceeded to use Lindh’s statements against him in their criminal prosecution. She told me, “It was like ethics were out the window. After 9/11, it was, like, ‘anything goes’ in the name of terrorism. It felt like they’d made up their minds to get him, regardless of the process.” Radack believed that the role of the ethics office was to “rein in the cowboys” whose zeal to stop criminals sometimes led them to overstep legal boundaries. “But after 9/11 we were bending ethics to fit our needs,” she said. “Something wrong was going on. It wasn’t just fishy—it stank.”

What happened next was truly scary. She tried to ensure that a judge overseeing the case, who asked for all information regarding the Department’s handling of Lindh, was given the full record, including her own contrary advice. But instead, she said she found that her superiors at Justice sent the judge only selective portions of the record, excluding her contrary opinion. Her case files, she said, were tampered with, and documents missing. Among the senior Justice Department officials who were sent her files, she said was Alice Fisher, a deputy to Michael Chertoff who followed him as head of the Department’s Criminal Division.

Radack complained about what she thought were serious omissions of the record being withheld from the judge. Within weeks of disagreeing with the top Justice Department officials, Radack went from having been singled out for praise, to being hounded out of the department. Radack got a job in private practice, but after her story appeared in Newsweek, with copies of some of her emails, the Justice Department opened a leak investigation. The U.S. Attorney then opened a criminal investigation. Radack has since become an advocate for whistle-blowers’ rights. But the episode served as a warning to anyone in the government who stood in the way of the so-called, “New Paradigm.” It is unclear to me what sort of investigation, if any, there has been of this case, including of the potential obstruction. (emphasis supplied)

Read the rest of the interview here.

Update:  Prof. David Luban, who blogs at Balkinzation, notes by e-mail that Jesselyn Radack wrote about this experiance in The Canary in the Coal Mine, which is available for purchase here.

Tags: Alice Fisher, David Addington, Department of Justice, Dick Cheney, Jane Mayer, Jesselyn Radack, John Walker Lindh, No Comment, Michael Chertoff, Scott Horton, The Dark Side

 
Bruce Ackerman writes in Slate about the possibility of a constitution crisis should both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency become vacant at the same time.  Apparently Bush (like Reagan did) issued an executive order defining the presidential succession.  Why would this be needed considering we already have a succession laid out in the Consitution?  That is unclear, but it sure seems like a power grab in the event of another major terrorist attack.

[W]hen [President Bush] issued a public directive on the matter on continuity in government in 2007, he explicitly pledged to act "consistent[ly]" with the Presidential Succession Act. At the same time, however, his directive refers to a secret appendix. And as Ron Rosenbaum pointed out in Slate, even members of the House Committee on Homeland Security have been denied access to the document.

That is pretty frightening.  That Members of Congress aren't allowed to see what changes the President might have ordered to the Presidential Succession is surely a major consitutional violation.  In fact, simply changing it at all is a constitutional violation.

I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but clearly this needs to be looked into.  If Ackerman is right, and something were to happen to Bush and Cheney... we could be facing a crisis like none we've seen before.

At the subsequent dinner, at the National Liberal Club, we were able to thank David Griffiths, who has for many years served as either Chairman or Secretary of the group, as well as the outgoing Treasurer Ahmad Mallick. There is likely to be a generational change within LIBG over the next year or so, which is essential for the smooth functioning of any healthy organisation. In the meantime, LIBG will be hosting what promises to be one of the liveliest fringe meetings at the Bournemouth LibDem autumn conference, on the theme 'Middle East: Is a Two-State Solution Still Viable?', with speakers including Ran Gidor (Counsellor at the Israeli Embassy), Jeff Halper (from the Israeli Committee against House Demolition), a Palestinian academic (to be confirmed) and Willie Rennie, MP, who was recently on a fact-finding mission to Israel/Palestine.

Link: www.libg.org.uk

Harpers Magazine interviewed Jane Mayer, the author of The Dark Side - An inside story of how the war on terror turned into a war on American ideals. This book is a series of articles which chronicle the Bush's administrations involvement with torture and the individuals that helped make it happen.

In a series of gripping articles, Jane Mayer has chronicled the Bush Administration’s grim and furtive dealings with torture and has exposed both the individuals within the administration who “made it happen” (a group that starts with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington), the team of psychologists who put together the palette of techniques, and the Fox television program “24,” which was developed to help sell it to the American public.

The interview involved six questions which can be found here... I highly recommend reading this interview in it's entirety.

What I found striking was Jane Mayer's response to the first question which included this statement:

Activists will be angry at me for saying this, but as someone who has covered politics in Washington, D.C., for two decades, I would be surprised if there is the political appetite for going after public servants who convinced themselves that they were acting in the best interests of the country, and had legal authority to do so. An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.

Much will depend on who the next president and attorney general are, and how much pressure they feel. At the very least, as a journalist, I hope that the records are opened, and all the legal memos released (several crucial ones remain secret) so that the country can learn its own history here. My guess is that the real accountability for President Bush will be in the history books, not the court room.

Remember, there are both Democrats and Republicans that sit on the Intelligence Committees and these legislators were informed of the torture programs as developed by the Bush administration. This would make them both accessory before and after the fact.

The reaction of top Bush Administration officials to the ICRC report, from what I can gather, has been defensive and dismissive. They reject the ICRC’s legal analysis as incorrect. Yet my reporting shows that inside the White House there has been growing fear of criminal prosecution, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that the Geneva Conventions applied to the treatment of the detainees. This nervousness resulted in the successful effort to add retroactive immunity to the Military Commission Act. Cheney personally spearheaded this effort. Fear of the consequences of exposure also weighed heavily in discussions about whether to shut the CIA program down. In White House meetings, Cheney warned that if they transferred the CIA’s prisoners to Guantanamo, “people will want to know where they have been—and what we’ve been doing with them.” Alberto Gonzales, a source said, “scared” everyone about the possibility of war crimes prosecutions. It was on their minds.

(I added the emphasis)

Well, now I understand why there was this big push to pass the Military Commission Act back in the Fall of 2006. And to think that most Congress men and women didn't even read this bill. My Congressman told me that he voted in favor of this bill because Nancy Pelosi told him to vote "yea" and he did. She wields a strong arm in the Democratic Congress.

Wait, there's even more... Cheney and his buddies have been carrying around a grudge ever since Watergate and they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to strike back.

After interviewing hundreds of sources in and around the Bush White House, I think it is clear that many of the legal steps taken by the so-called “War Council” were less a “New Paradigm,” as Alberto Gonzales dubbed it, than an old political wish list, consisting of grievances that Cheney and his legal adviser, David Addington, had been compiling for decades. Cheney in particular had been chafing at the post-Watergate reforms, and had longed to restore the executive branch powers Nixon had assumed, constituting what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called “the Imperial Presidency.

Then there is the matter of the recent FISA bill and Congressional members' knowledge of the illegal spying when it first took place.

From Salon:

Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:

Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

Harmon even went on Fox News and told the public that this NSA spying program was necessary.

Johnathan Turley explains it further.

This is exactly the dynamic which Law Professor, Fourth Amendment expert, and Simple-Minded, Confused Leftist Hysteric Jonathan Turley was describing on MSNBC on June 19:

I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only to be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller's support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back. . . .I think they're simply waiting to see if the public's interest will wane and we'll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing -- that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.

It's what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful. . . .

This is a very frightening bill. What people have to understand is that FISA itself is controversial. This court issued tens of thousands of warrants granted applications for surveillance without turning down any. Only recently did they turn down two. . . . What you're seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. It is something that allows the president and the government to go in to law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone, and to engage in warrantless surveillance. That's what the framers that drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent. . . .

Well, there's no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.

And, I'm afraid this is Washington politics at the worst. And, so, I think that what you're seeing with this bill is not just caving in to a very powerful lobby, but also caving in to sort of the worst motivations on Capitol Hill since 9/11. You know, the administration was very adept at bringing in Democrats at a time when they knew they couldn't refuse, to make them buy in to this program, and now that investment is bearing fruit.

I recommend that you read the complete article from Salon. There are too many details to list here. You don't want to miss this.

Well it helps to begin with not sticking the other person in the eye as a way of openers.  Bush or Cheney, and often Rice seem to delight in accusing Syria (or Iran) of some horrible act and then call for them to cooperate on some entirely different issue.  There must be some "neo" school of diplomacy that I have not heard about that teaches this method.  I must admit that the method is consistent and does produce the same type of results each time it is employed... like no help.

This meeting almost suggests that everyone would be better off with the US simply withdrawing from the Middle East and allowing Europe to take over major western influence.  The Bush/Cheney approach is assured of making no commitments that could or will be broken (there are no agreements to break).  With the election coming soon, there will be a choice in negotiating styles between Barack Obama and John McCain.  There is also a difference in objectives and goals.  Since Iran will remain for some time a country whose ambitions are suspect and the rest of the Middle East Arab states are a bit fragile, a more even balancing of power might be best for all.  A more inclusive style displayed by Obama would seem to me the right approach at the right time.  And what about cooporation with Russia and China?

What is clear is "freedom fries" or French fries, George W Bush's approach got fried this weekend.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has blocked the release of Vice President Dick Cheney's interview with investigators probing the leak of a CIA agent's identity, invoking executive privilege Wednesday to keep that document and others under wraps.

Bush asserted the privilege claim at the request of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who has been under pressure from a congressional committee to turn over the transcript of Cheney's interview, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. Mukasey argued that releasing the transcript would discourage
future witnesses from being questioned outside grand jury proceedings.

The records stem from the investigation into the 2003 exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, whose husband had accused the Bush administration of twisting the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted of obstructing justice and perjury in connection with the disclosure, but was not charged with leaking her name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7PCHp1fWoI

-Jack

"He also authors the "signing statements" now routinely issued to free the President of whatever restrictive intent might have been present in whichever piece of legislation he just signed into law. A typical signing statement, as written by Addington, will refer repeatedly to the "constitutional authority" of "the unitary executive branch," and will often mention multiple points in a single bill that the President declines to enforce.

Signing statements are not new, but at the time Bill Clinton left office, the device had been used, by the first forty-two presidents combined, fewer than six hundred times. George W. Bush, by contrast, issued more than eight hundred such takebacks during the first six years of his administra-tion. Those who object to this or any other assumption of absolute executive power are reflexively said by those who speak for the Vice President to be "tying the president's hands," or "eroding his ability to do his job," or, more ominously, "aiding those who don't want him to do his job..."

"[Cheney] I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job," the Vice President said after one year in office. "We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last thirty to thirty-five years." "Watergate—a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both, in the '70s, served to erode the authority, I think, the President needs to be effective," he said to reporters accompanying him on that December 2005 flight to Oman."

[A conversation with Powell regarding the war in Iraq]

"Powell attempted to summarize the consequences of unilateral action.... He added a new dimension, saying that the international reaction would be so negative that he would have to close American embassies around the world if we went to war alone.

That is not the issue, Cheney said. Saddam and the clear threat is the issue.

Maybe it would not turn out as the vice president thinks, Powell said. War could trigger all kinds of unanticipated and unintended consequences....

Not the issue, Cheney said."

"Cheney leaves no paper trail...Since November 1, 2001, under this administration's Executive Order 13233, which limits access to all presidential and vice-presidential papers, Cheney has been the first vice-president in American history entitled to executive privilege, a claim to co-presidency reinforced in March 2003 by Executive Order 13292, giving him the same power to classify information as the president has."

This is frightening, indeed.  Big Cheney is watching...and listening.

 Note:  Executive privilege is defined as the right of the president and executive branch officials to withold information from Congress, Courts, and the public.  It is a presidential prerogative power, and it lacks a solid constitutional backing.  U.S. vs. Nixon affirmed that this power was not absolute, and that it was subject to the interests of the government and the defendents in the criminal prosecution of Watergate.  In addition, Curtiss vs. Wright stated that the president was the "sole organ" in international affairs.  Executive privilege is most often invoked in matters of foreign relations and national security, and allows the executive branch to act with expediency and clarity.

It was Don Rumsfeld who deemed a large force unnecessary. He wanted to fight the war quicker, cheaper. Instead of planning for the worst, which is the professional and moral obligation of any man empowered to send soldiers to their death, he was convinced we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraq, a country that had been ruled by a tyrannical despot for thirty years, would rebound and instantly blossom into a thriving democracy. On its face, this is sheer stupidity and reality has borne this out. But George Bush, not knowing any better or caring to educate himself on the realities of invading a sovereign country, went along with this plan. This constitutes failure on a massive and tragic scale. When you count bodies, the money and the time wasted on this misbegotten war, it screams for accountability and the buck stops at the president's desk.

This is why it will be so galling when Georgie stands up in front of America to claim success in Iraq. No doubt by the time George leaves office we will have started drawing down our troop presence and handing over control of security operations to the Iraqis. This is certainly a hoped for and well deserved outcome. No doubt the Bush Administration will tout this as a great success; a prime example of the "mission accomplished" variety. But I, for one, will not allow this recasting of history to take hold. Any attempt to credit the "surge" for our putative success in Iraq must viewed in light of a critical and dunderheaded choice made by the president before a single boot had landed in Iraq: the undercommitment of U.S. forces and the stranding of them for three and a half years in a slow and bloody attrition because of an unwillingness to admit his own miscalculation. Does anybody remember "standing firm"?

We have all witnessed the fallout, the barbarism of jihadis seeking opportunity in the vacuum created by us, the disgraceful behavior at Abu Ghraib that will forever stain the image of America, the countless unnecessary casualties that resulted from failing to properly prepare for and execute the invasion.

These men should be in a docket. They should be held accountable for their failures and if found guilty, properly punished. Their names are, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

I only wish there was a hell, because then at least, we could all be assured that justice would eventually prevail.

Iraq will be a better place one day because of us, but it could have been better, faster, cheaper.

The Bush Administration has become downright ridiculous. President Bush's use of his executive privilege  is just another slap in the face of the American people who deserve to know what is going on. President Bush's constant use of his executive powers to avoid tough questions and investigations has become as common as the Salmonella outbreaks that keep popping up across the country. As if it wasn't bad enough when he commuted go ol' Lewis "Scooter" Libby's jail sentence back in 2003, he turns around and pulls a similar stunt to protect himself and Dick Cheney.  It seems that every time somebody starts looking into the Bush Administration regarding their decision to go to war with Iraq, the CIA leak, etc, President Bush pulls out another "Get Out of Jail Free Card."

President Bush and his cronies have continued to make a mockery out the United States justice system. Since the day the Supreme Court (not the votes of the people) made George W. Bush the President of the United States, the country has continued to go steadily downhill. The government wants people to believe in our judicial processes; to have faith in the law and system that exists, but whenever the President decides he doesn't want to talk about something, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

At the end of the day, should we really be mad at President Bush for using his executive privilege? After all he is just doing what he is supposed to do in the first place, and that is to take care of the people who have taken care of him.  When you think about it, The President of the United States is the ultimate power position, and being in the White House is like being part of the ultimate network.

Membership really does have it's privileges.

The question is relevant because of what Obama pointed out with Larry King last night. The New Yorker cover that has drawn so much attention is a cartoon, not particularly noteworthy for what it says about Obama, but because it is "an insult against Muslim Americans." Obama admitted that he has not been as diligent as he should have been about pointing out that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim in America.

George Bush and Dick Cheney apparently agrees, though they'd probably never say so publicly because fear-based politics remain their only tenuous thread to American support. But Bush appointed Khalilzad as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (one of few effective Bush appointments regarding Iraq), and Cheney once awarded Khalilzad a medal for outstanding public service.

Mos Def is widely popular and a musician and actor, though he likely won't be receiving any awards from the Bush administration. You can see a sample of why below in a song that includes the lines, "I don't rap for dead presidents. I'd rather see the president dead." (Warning: Some people will find the language offensive.)

Muhammad Ali is one of the most-respected sports figures in the world, and was chosen to light the Olympic torch for the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Two years ago Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to Congress. They are just a few among the many famous Muslims in and outside of the United States, including doctors, politicians and others, who have made significant contributions to American lives.

Many of them, like Obama, even pledge allegiance to the American flag.

George Carlin famously poked fun at the kind of censorship that made seven specific words taboo on TV and radio. Lenny Bruce went to jail for using those words on stage. Eddie Murphy's stand-up routines were so peppered with them that one wondered if he had any other words in his vocabulary. On the other hand, The New York Times chose not to print what Dick Cheney told a colleague on the Senate floor to go do to himself — one of the seven words — because the Times still believes in keeping their paper clean.

It's really pretty amazing what power we project on a few words our culture has decided are dirty. I've raised a few eyebrows because my characters, being like real people in the real world, occasionally use one of the dirty seven. Since I write for adults, and since I sometimes use some of the forbidden words myself, I won't stop putting them into the mouths of my adult characters. But I'm thinking of using foreign language translations. Merde sounds sort of maternal, and scopata sounds like a yummy pasta dish. So next time Dixie Hemingway does something like dropping a concrete block on her foot, I may have her say, "Oh, merde, oh scopata, that hurt!"