1-17-07

War Criminal Gates: Killing Kids Good for Economy

November 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday that he will have to lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases unless Congress acts quickly to approve additional funding for the Iraq war. The Los Angeles Times

One of the loudest messages coming out of those who want War is that War is good for the economy. The message, War will save the economy, is sometimes subtle, but the media has presented a consistent drum-beat, War is good for the economy. January 17, 2008 the stock market fell 306 points and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke asked Congress for an economic stimulus. This is really the Federal Reserve Fraud's way of saying "Let's bomb Iran" to save the economy.

Bernanke Backs Calls for Quick Action
The Fed chairman endorses "substantive" rate cuts and congressional efforts for rapid economic stimulus. Critics say it's too little, too late
by Dawn Kopecki

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threw his support behind quick and temporary tax breaks, combined with the possibility of "substantive" rate cuts, in testimony before Congress. But he did little to reassure Wall Street the central bank has the wherewithal to steer the U.S. economy out of a possible recession.

The bad guys, the Federal Reserve Fraud, Neocons ect. have gone to great extremes to deliberately create our horrible economy. Comrade Little George has doubled USA debt since 2001. Note, Federal Reserve Fraud, which has manipulated the oil shortage and high gasoline prices and high grocery store prices through Harry Reid's ethanol scam, continue to manipulate high gasoline prices by beating the drums of war. One of the side effects of a falling stock markets is falling oil prices. The bad guys do not want oil prices to fall and this is why the Neocons continually beat the drums of war. Falling gasoline prices and the elimination of the ethanol scam would put dollars in the pockets of the consumer. Also dropping credit card interest rates would put money in the hands of the consumer. Alan Greenspan directed the Federal Reserve System to lower interest rates to .0025% knowing the unjustified low interest rates would be followed by higher interest rates which would cause massive hardship for borrowers. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Fraud deliberately lowered interest rates knowing borrows would be hurt when they raised interest rates. The bad guys want hurting borrows and a hurting economy to sell their Wars,communi$m, police state, and ruling the people with and iron rod.

The real question is this? What happens if the Federal Reserve Fraud and the Neocons stop beating the drums of war, oil prices fall to under $10 per barrel, ethanol is taken off the market, grocery store prices fall like a lead balloon? A depression may manifest, however, in depression equity goes back to the people, not the Federal Reserve Fraud. We know because of the 1973 and 1978 oil run up in prices, which were followed by oil prices which went to less than $10 per barrel, the bad guys are manipulating oil prices up now. Unless thinking people understand why the Federal Reserve Fraud is manipulating oil prices up now by manipulating war, the people will never really understand the forces behind and the reason the economy is in horrible shape. There a two ways out of our economic mess. Deflation. Inflation. The bad guys want war and inflation. Why? Because in war and inflation the people are hurt, destroyed completely, and the Federal Reserve Fraud steals all the money, the dollar goes away and a new currency must be created. In deflation the people and Federal Reserve Fraud are hurt, but the existing currency has a chance of surviving.

What the Federal Reserve Fraud does not want is a major sell off in the stock markets, yet. The bad guys want high oil prices, inflation, and high interest rates, on their own terms, because they make a fortune off high interest rates. So far wary investors have made it difficult for the Federal Reserve Fraud to increase interest rates without crashing the stock markets. Wary investors know oil at $85.00 per barrel is a recipe for much higher interest rates. Nothing is more inflationary than increasing interest rates. Inflation went up the most in 34 years last month, November 2007, mainly because oil went from $60 a barrel to $100.00 per barrel. Media said sales went up in November 2007 trigging a big increase in the stock markets. Big lie. Sales units did not increase. Sales increased because inflation pushed up the price of individual units. Investors are selling quickly when interest rates, especially the 10 year mortgage rate, goes up. The Federal Reserve Fraud's challenge is creep interest rates up without triggering a major sell off. Expect the Federal Reserve Fraud to manipulate a major increase in military action as a means of increasing interest rates without a major market sell off.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in July 2006 the stock markets were falling, 500 or so points in two days prior to Israel's invasion. Another way to look at Israel's invasion of Lebanon is the invasion was instigated to stop a crashing stock market. However, Israel had been training to invade Lebanon for a year or more. To my mind the Federal Reserve Fraud is responsible for both the falling stock markets and Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The Rothchilds, Rockefellers and the Federal Reserve Fraud know in order to steal Jewish money and Holocaust them again it is necessary to have Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Dianne Feinstein leading Jewish people to their death and setting them up to be blamed for the planet's misery.

Israel has invaded Syria several times since Rosh Hashanah 2007. A Neocon led USA has also been involved in invading Syria, treason. The Executive is always committing treason when it directs our military to bomb a country without Congress declaring war against said country. The stock markets are again shaky. Oil is much higher than in July 2006, $100.00 per barrel. All this a random act of chance? Nope. Calculated. The Federal Reserve Fraud is bringing on World War III one calculated drop after another. So what can we expect? First of all there is not a person on the planet, in my opinion, more Anti-Christ material than Little George. Logic dictates the Federal Reserve Fraud intends to keep Little George in Office. Mike Mukasey, as US Attorney General, is the bad guys get out of jail free card. Mr. Mukasey legitimized September 11 and no thinking person on the planet believes September 11 happened the way the 911 Commission said it happened.

See the bombs exploding in the picture to the left, the building is WTC #7, and it fell down demolition style September 11 and it was not even hit by a plane. So obviously Mr. Mukasey is in on the cover-up.

It appears the bad guys' game plane is to get the Republican and Democratic nominations for president decided by February 5, 2008. Manipulate a big stock markets crash. Pull a free falling stock markets out of their dive with increased interest rates by major military action. Rothchilds' dubo, Israel, attacks Syria and Iran. Northern Iraq in more serious warfare. More bombing and fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember the Federal Reserve Fraud owns the banking system and big oil. So expect Saudi Arabia oil facilities to be bombed and sabotaged. Martial Law.

Below the horizontal line are many articles which are included for my benefit as well as a reader interested in research. The articles address some of the following.

The Neocon directed USA path to war is identical to Saddam Hussein's path. This leads one to the logical conclusion Saddam Hussein is alive and well working with the Neocons leading Baathist. The Executive and Legislative branches of the USA government are engaging in treason. USA military forces are engaged in military action in Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, countries Congress has not given the USA military authority to engage in military action - treason.

Inflation is deliberately manipulated exactly as inflation was deliberately manipulated in 1973 and 1978.

Logic dictates with all the lies laid on us nothing good can come of the Neocons actions. It is a lie to conclude the Neocons have a plan that benefits the people - War will save the economy. A horrible economy is a ring in the nose of people to lead them into a communi$t police state. What's beyond War will save the economy? People living in a world without civil rights. People living under Satan's rule.

How does the Federal Reserve Fraud and the Neocons get John Kerry, Congress, and all the others to do their mischief? Blackmail.

From the Los Angeles Times
Gates warns of layoffs without war funding
If Congress doesn't approve $196 billion for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, he says, bases may partly shut down and civilians may lose jobs. Democrats point out he's said this before.
By Julian E. Barnes and Noam N. Levey
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street barreled higher Wednesday for the second day in a row, giving the Dow Jones industrial average its biggest two-day point gain in five years after a Federal Reserve official hinted that the central bank may lower interest rates again.
ADVERTISEMENT


Investors' renewed hopes for a rate cut added to their relief that companies that made losing bets on subprime mortgages, such as Citigroup Inc. and Freddie Mac, are coming up with ways to raise cash. The market was clearly optimistic that at least some of the damage from the months-long credit crisis was finally being mitigated.

However, Wall Street has been fickle in recent months, with the Dow often rising and falling by triple digits, and no one is betting that the mortgage crisis that tripped up the nation's financial industry this year is over or that the market's huge gains so far this week will stick. Despite its spectacular advance, the Dow remains more than 6 percent below its Oct. 9 record close over 14,000, having plunged due to worries that the housing market's slump will lead to further losses for banks, and that the Fed can't keep slashing rates.

"The market's perception of whether the Fed cuts or not really changes by the day," said Michael Sheldon, chief market strategist at Spencer Clarke LLC. "We still have more data to come."

Early Wednesday, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn told the Council on Foreign Relations that recent financial turbulence has reversed some of the improvement seen in markets in previous weeks, and could squeeze credit for households and businesses. He said tight financial conditions may merit "offsetting" policy from the central bank.

The possibility for lower rates seemed more compelling to investors than persistent concerns about a slowdown in economic growth. The Fed has already reduced rates at its last two meetings, and continues to inject billions of dollars into the financial system through repurchase agreements to help calm the shaky markets. The central bank will hold its final rate-setting meeting of the year Dec. 11.

Plunging oil and gold prices also lifted investors' hopes for a rate cut -- if inflation is in control, policy makers have less reason to keep rates high. The Fed's Beige Book of economic activity around the country said with the economy expanding at a reduced pace, most core prices are stable or down slightly.

The Dow soared 331.01, or 2.55 percent, to 13,289.45, adding to the blue chip index's 215 point gain on Tuesday and giving the market's best known indicator its largest two-day point gain since Oct. 11, 2002, and largest two-day percentage gain since Nov. 21, 2002.

Wednesday's jump was also the biggest one-day percentage gain for the Dow since April 2, 2003.

The broader Standard & Poor's 500 index climbed 40.79, or 2.86 percent, to 1,469.02, logging its best two-day point gain since April 19, 2001.

The Nasdaq composite index shot up 82.11, or 3.18 percent, to 2,662.91, giving the technology-dominated index its largest two-day point gain since March 4, 2002.

Government bonds slipped as stocks rallied. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose to 4.05 percent from 3.95 percent late Tuesday -- and ticked up to 4.05 percent in afterhours trading.

Crude oil posted its own two-day milestone Wednesday, falling $3.80 to settle at $90.62 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after dropping $3.28 Tuesday. The $7 two-day plunge was the second-largest since the Nymex introduced a futures contract 24 years ago.

The dollar fell against the euro and pound, but rose against the yen.

"Everything we're seeing in the market is revolving about credit and encouragement that the Fed is going to bail us out again," said Alexander Paris, economist and market analyst for Chicago-based Barrington Research. "Investors are kind of ignoring the economic news like housing and durable orders that were all weaker than expected."

Indeed, signs that the Fed will reduce rates to keep cash flowing freely helped overshadow reports that in October, sales of existing homes fell for the eighth consecutive month and orders for big-ticket manufactured goods fell for the third straight month.

Wall Street has had a volatile week so far. Economic and credit market concerns sent the Dow plunging 240 points on Monday, pushing the index to the level of a 10 percent market correction.

On Tuesday, the market rebounded, finding some consolation after the investment arm of Arab city state Abu Dhabi invested $7.5 billion in Citigroup. Then, late Tuesday, government-sponsored mortgage investor Freddie Mac halved its dividend and said it would sell $6 billion of preferred stock, bolstering investors' sentiment that financial companies have some recourse.

On Wednesday, Freddie Mac rose $3.69, or 14.3 percent, to $29.42 on Wednesday, while its larger counterpart, Fannie Mae, rose $2.90, or 9.9 percent, to $32.30.

Citigroup rose $1.97, or 6.5 percent, to $32.29.

But the stock market still has quite a ways to go before breathing easy after this year's crisis in mortgages and the global financial industry's tens of billions of dollars in debt-related losses. Unless the Dow makes further gains this week, November will be the index's worst month since September 2002. And as recently as Monday, the S&P 500 index was in negative territory for the year.

Advancing issues led decliners by about 7 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where consolidated volume came to 4.45 billion shares, compared with 4.17 billion shares traded Tuesday.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 26.77, or 3.60 percent, to 770.04.

Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average fell 0.45 percent. Britain's FTSE 100 rose 2.70 percent, Germany's DAX index rose 2.55 percent, and France's CAC-40 rose 2.34 percent.

New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com

Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22935402-5005961,00.html

US backed Turkish strikes: generalArticle from: Agence France-PresseFont size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print From correspondents in Ankara

December 17, 2007 07:33am
THE US backed Turkish air raids on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq overnight with intelligence and clearance to enter Iraqi airspace, Turkey's army chief said.

"The United States gave intelligence," General Yasar Buyukanit was quoted by the Anatolia news agency as telling the private television channel Kanal D.

"But what is more important is that the United States last night opened northern Iraqi airspace to us. By doing that, the United States approved the operation," Gen Buyukanit said.

The general's staff announced earlier that Turkish warplanes had carried out air strikes overnight against positions of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militants in the Kurdish-run north of Iraq.

Artillery pounded the targets after the air raids, they said.

"The PKK should watch its step. It should not forget that, for us, its camps and movement in northern Iraq are like a Big Brother show," the general said, referring to the popular reality TV show.

He said winter conditions in mountainous northern Iraq would provide no refuge for the rebels who have been waging a 23-year campaign for self-rule in Turkey's southeast.

"The Turkish Armed Forces have given the message to the Turkish public and the world that whether it is winter or summer, we will find and hit them (PKK rebels) even if they live in caves," Gen Buyukanit said.

Gen Buyukanit said the strikes had been successful and all targets had been destroyed.
He denied that villages along the border had been struck, and said that the strikes targeted PKK camps that had been previously identified.

"No civilian targets or villages were hit even accidentally," Ge Buyukanit said.

The general said he and his top commanders had watched the operation live at the general staff headquarters in Ankara.

"Last night, I did not sleep at all ... I went home in the morning with my mind at rest," he said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071213/economy.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A record jump in gasoline prices pushed wholesale inflation up at the fastest pace in more than three decades in November, while retail sales showed unexpected strength.
The Labor Department said Thursday that wholesale prices rose by 3.2 percent last month, the biggest increase in 34 years, reflecting a 34.8 percent surge in gasoline prices. And outside of energy and food, so-called core inflation posted a 0.4 percent jump, double what had been expected.

ADVERTISEMENT


But in more upbeat economic news, the Commerce Department reported that retail sales increased by a better-than-expected 1.2 percent last month. It was the biggest sales advance in six months and reflected widespread strength in a number of areas from department stores to clothing shops and furniture stores.

Economists said the retail sales gain should ease concerns that the economy is about to tumble into a recession, although they said overall growth in the current quarter is still likely to be weak given the headwinds battering consumers. Those troubles include the slump in housing, a severe credit crunch and surging energy costs.

All of these problems have pushed consumer confidence down to the lowest point in two years, leading economists to forecast a subpar performance by holiday shoppers this year.

The big jump in wholesale prices was worrisome, economists said, because it was not limited to energy. That suggests that the relentless surge in energy prices could be spreading into more widespread inflation, something that would raise alarm bells at the Federal Reserve.

"I think the Fed has some worries on inflation," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "We are starting to see some leakage from energy into other areas of the economy."

At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said that one bad report on inflation "doesn't make a trend."

"Inflation has remained remarkably low, even in the face of high energy prices," Perino said. "We're confident that Chairman Bernanke takes price stability seriously and considers the risk of inflation in the Fed's policy decisions."

The Fed, struggling to get credit flowing again and to ward off a downturn, cut a key interest rate this week for the third time this year and also announced a global effort with other central banks to pump fresh cash into the banking system.

Wyss said the stronger-than-expected November retail sales performance would probably cause analysts to lift their forecasts for overall growth in the October-to-December quarter to slightly above 1 percent.

Many had trimmed those projections to less than 1 percent, believing that a slowdown in consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, and the continued drag from housing could push the country close to a recession.

"The retail sales report helps ease some of the worries about a recession, but it doesn't make them go away altogether," Wyss said. He said he still believed the maximum danger point for a downturn will occur in the first three months of next year.

Half of the November increase in retail sales came from a big jump in gasoline pump prices and therefore was not seen as a sign of strength in consumer demand. But there were widespread gains across a number of other areas including department stores and stores selling clothing, appliances, furniture and building supplies. Auto sales, however, fell for a second month, dropping by 1 percent as domestic manufacturers continue to struggle with weak demand.

The 3.2 percent jump in wholesale prices in November followed a much more moderate 0.1 percent rise in October. Energy costs pushed higher as oil neared $100 per barrel. Gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil all showed big gains.

Food costs were flat last month but the price of new cars and light trucks showed sharp increases.

The department's Producer Price Index measures inflation pressures before they reach the consumer. The government will release its look at consumer prices on Friday. Analysts were expecting that report to show a hefty gain of 0.6 percent for overall prices, reflecting the energy surge, but a more moderate 0.2 percent increase in core prices.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=1052621

Israeli fighter jets breach Lebanese airspace

MIL-LEBANON-ISRAEL-AIR
Israeli fighter jets breach Lebanese airspace

BEIRUT, Dec 17 (KUNA) -- Israeli fighter jets on Monday violated the Lebanese airspace twice from south to north, Lebanese army said in a release.

"Two Israeli warplanes have violated the Lebanese airspace from south and then flew to north, carrying out circular air motions on Shaka and Beirut," the Lebanese army command said.

Afterwards, another four Israeli warplanes hovered over Tripoli and Shaka in northern Lebanon and over Beirut before returning to Israel from south, it added.

Israeli fighter jets penetrate the Lebanese airspace on a daily basis in breach of UN Resolution 1701, provoking objection from UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). (end) ayb.

mt
KUNA 171945 Dec 07NNNN

It is especially sad to contemplate civil war and bloodshed in Lebanon, which within not-all-that-distant memory was an oasis of civilized cosmopolitanism in the Middle East; the capital, Beirut, was routinely called the "Paris of the Middle East." But the country contains enough ethnic enclaves to stymie many larger countries – Sunni Muslim, Shi'ite Muslim, Sufi Muslim, Druze, Christian. The Lebanese came up with a complicated ruling mechanism that gave representation of some sort to almost all the sects – the president, for example, has to be a Maronite Christian but he doesn’t have a lot of power compared to presidents in some other countries – that worked pretty well for a while. But eventually the difficulties of living together in a relatively small country bubbled over into a bloody civil war that lasted from 1975 to 1990. Even though it was effectively occupied by Syria, the country seemed to make a comeback during the 1990s. But the days of relative peace may be gone for now.

There are so many conflicts and potential conflicts bubbling in Lebanon that the prospect for another bloody civil war – not to mention a conflict with Israel – is real enough that militias are re-forming, and ordinary citizens are buying weapons to protect themselves. It is doubtful that the United States can do much beyond urging all factions not to resort to violence and urging Syria not to interfere too violently, as U.S. and European diplomats and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have been doing, probably to little effect.

The most significant catalyst for potential violence is the effort to choose a new Lebanese president to replace pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud, whose term expires Nov. 24, a job delegated to the Parliament. The ruling generally pro-Western and mostly Sunni coalition has 68 seats in the Parliament while the opposition, dominated by Shi'ite-oriented (and Syrian- and Iranian-backed) Hezbollah, has 59. The Parliament failed to agree on a candidate in August and September. They are trying again this week, with the French and Italian foreign ministers, the Arab League and U.N. boss Ban offering help, but the deadlock remains.

As Paul Salem, who heads the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut put it in a recent paper:

"The anti-Syrian 'March 14' coalition led by Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblat, and Samir Geagea wants to elect one of their own, or at least a candidate who will stand firm on the international tribunal related to the assassination of former prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the eradication of Syrian influence from the Lebanese army and security services, and the robust implementation of UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which call for extending government authority throughout the country, disarming all non-governmental militias, and preventing arms smuggling. The "March 8" coalition composed of Hezbollah and Amal, Shi’ite parties openly allied with Syria, and of the Free Patriotic Movement, a mainly Christian group headed by Michel Aoun, who claims more distance from Syria, want different things. Hezbollah wants a president who is not hostile to itself and Syria, accepts that Hezbollah will remain an armed movement, and does not take Lebanon into an alliance with the United States, but rather keeps it within the Syrian and Iranian alliance system. Michel Aoun’s main goal is to become president."

The situation is so tense, as Paul Salem mentioned, that about 40 Lebanese lawmakers from the ruling coalition have been holed up in the luxury Phoenicia Hotel under heavy guard, fearful that opposition gunmen will try to kill enough of them before a choice is made that its majority will be lost.

If no president is chosen, there could be two governments claiming legitimate authority, which could lead to a civil war between Sunni and Shi'ite factions. The prospect has caused many Christian and Druze families, who hope not to be drawn into fighting if it comes, to arm themselves and organize to try to protect themselves. Meanwhile both Sunni and Shi'ite militias, which had been virtually disbanded, have been reorganizing and arming themselves, and the sound of rifle fire resounds in nearby hills as groups and individuals take target practice.

In the last week or so French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has visited Lebanon trying to mediate, leaving with not much progress but a couple of modestly hopeful comments. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has tried to be helpful as have a few Italian politicians. As of this writing everybody is waiting for the Maronite Christian Cardinal to present a list of six acceptable candidates. But most parliamentarians think presenting the list will be just the beginning of the process, and the deadline of November 24 is looming.

The United States has warned Syria not to interfere in the election process and has imposed economic sanctions on four leading Syrians it suspects of smuggling arms into Lebanon and organizing fighters.

Just to complicate matters, Hezbollah, the Shi'ite political/military organization that rules much of southern Lebanon, has been holding maneuvers in anticipation of what it expects will be a new war with Israel in the near future. The Israeli army has conducted maneuvers near the Syrian border, and Israeli jets are said to have conducted reconnaissance missions over southern Lebanese cities.

There is speculation in Lebanon that some neighboring countries might not be all that upset to see civil strife emerge, so long as it was not intense enough to spill across national borders. Israel, for example, might not be upset if civil strife in Lebanon drew Hezbollah into its maelstrom, thus sapping its strength, popularity, and ability to carry out a successful military campaign against Israel. Hezbollah might even become weakened enough that Israel could virtually eradicate it.

There is also suspicion that Syria is deliberately working to exacerbate conflicts in Lebanon so it would have a chance to take over, or at least become the dominant influence, as was the case following the previous civil war. The wave of assassinations and car bombing, which most Lebanese believe are directed or inspired by Syria, adds fuel to this suspicion.

The current situation is beyond tragedy. One can hope the presidential election will result in a compromise that doesn't spark extensive violence. But it wouldn't be wise to count on it.

Digg this

BAGHDAD — The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day.

The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups. More than 5,000 have been sworn in in the last eight days, for a total of 77,542 as of Tuesday. As many as 10 groups were created in the past week, bringing the total number to 192, according to the American military.

U.S. officials said they were screening new members — who generally are paid $300 a month to patrol their neighborhoods — and were subjecting them to tough security measures. More than 60,000 have had fingerprints and DNA taken and had retinal scans, American officials said, steps that will allow them to be identified later, should they turn against the government. The officials said they planned to cap membership in the groups at 100,000.

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.

It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.

"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

Underscoring the division, Sunni politicians said the creation of the groups was justified because it made up for the U.S. decision to disband Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led army shortly after Baghdad fell in 2003. They also said the groups helped balance the infiltration of Iraq's security forces by Shiite militias during the rapid U.S.-sponsored expansion of those forces in 2004 and 2005.

"Those who fear are the ones who have militias blatantly operating from within the official institutions and law enforcement agencies and outside them," said Omar Abdul Sattar, a leading member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni group in parliament.

Dr. Safa Hussein, Maliki's deputy national security adviser and the head of a committee tasked with reconciling Iraq's rival factions, said the government was increasingly concerned about what would take place once the United States no longer was supervising the "concerned citizens" groups closely.

"We have tens of thousands of people who are carrying weapons on a contract basis, and when their contracts are finished where will they go?" he asked. "The Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense can't absorb them all, and the problem is they are growing very rapidly and the Iraqi government doesn't have any control over that."

"When the U.S. leaves, what we'll have are two armies," said Sami al Askari, a Shiite lawmaker who speaks to Maliki daily. "One who's loyal to the government and one not loyal."

American officials have hailed the decision to create the "concerned citizens" groups as the reason that violence has dropped throughout much of Iraq. Military commanders credit the groups with dramatic drops in violence, from Anbar province to areas south of Baghdad formerly known as the Triangle of Death.

But the campaign also has been criticized for sanctioning armed groups that include people who were attacking American troops only months ago, a fact that Riedel said should give U.S. officials pause.

"All of these factions and all of these militias are our friends only as long as it suits their interests," he said. "At any time they can change their affiliation. Once they come to the conclusion that the Americans are leaving, then they'll start to want to see how do they want to position themselves, post-American presence in Iraq, as heroes of resistance."

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said American officials had discussed the concerns with Maliki and that the reconciliation committee headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Hussein was intended to find ways to absorb the new groups into the security forces or other service-related jobs.

"This is not a militia; it's more than 190 distinct groups of individuals," Smith said. "It's not like the creation of a 70,000 militia in any form."

Brig. Gen. John Campbell, a deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, defends the program, which he said was never meant to comprise only Sunnis and that now included Shiites in some areas.

"There are people inside the government who are telling the prime minister, 'Hey, the Americans are arming these volunteers. It's a U.S. militia,' and that's absolutely false," he said. "We really got out ahead of the Iraqis here. We found people that wanted to fight al Qaida and we brought them on board."

U.S. officials hope that about a third of the men will be incorporated into local police forces. Currently 49,301 men are under contract with the U.S. military at $300 a month, for a total of almost $15 million a month. Of those, 21,390 are requesting to join the Iraqi Security Forces.

But Hussein said the Iraqi government couldn't process such large numbers and also vet the recruits for loyalty.

He also said that while the campaign might have worked in Anbar, where the population is nearly all Sunni, its results were mixed in areas such as the Saidiyah neighborhood in Baghdad or Diyala province, north of Baghdad, which include both Sunnis and Shiites.

Sectarian battles continue in those areas, and the Sunni groups are threatening Shiite residents or are the same people who'd threatened or displaced them in the past, he said.

"The problem is growing faster than our capacity," he said.

The new groups are proliferating so quickly that some American officials are taken aback. Maj. Mark Brady, who deals with tribal engagement and reconciliation in Baghdad, lauded the program but described it as "building a plane while flying in it."

In Mahmudiyah, a city of 116,000 south of Baghdad, at least 18,000 men have been enrolled in "concerned citizens."

Tensions are evident. In Baghdad's Saidiyah neighborhood, "concerned citizens" were removed from standing guard at checkpoints under orders from Maliki's office. Campbell said they'd now been assigned to mosques and schools.

In Amil, a once mixed-sect neighborhood that's been all but purged of Sunnis, Shiite leaders complained during a recent reconciliation meeting that a Sunni member of the volunteer organization had pointed a gun at one of them when he tried to enter a Sunni area at the invitation of Sunni tribal leaders.

While U.S. officials tout the drop in violence and the standing up of these groups as the start of national reconciliation, Riedel warns that it could instead set the stage for the final divide.

"As the Shiites see the Sunnis getting closer to the Americans, that will only reinforce their concern that this is a hostile measure designed somehow to undermine their government," he said.

(McClatchy special correspondent Sahar Issa contributed to this report.)

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927475.html

Israel welcomed a decision by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Friday to attend the upcoming Middle East peace summit, scheduled to be held in Annapolis, Maryland next week, calling it a positive development.

"We hope this is only the beginning and that we will see greater and broader Arab involvement in the peace process," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. "For this process to succeed, both Arabs and Israelis will have to take bold steps."

The U.S. also welcomed the announcement. "We welcome the decision by the Arab League follow-up committee to attend the Annapolis conference at the ministerial level. This is a signal they believe this will be a serious and substantive meeting," said State Department spokesman Karl Duckworth.
Advertisement

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal announced on Friday his decision to attend the conference, but insisted he would not allow theatrics like handshakes with Israeli officials, saying the gathering must make serious progress.

"The Arab peace follow-up group has decided to accept the invitation to attend the Annapolis Middle East peace conference at a ministerial level to discuss the peace process," al-Faisal said during a news conference at the end of talks of Arab League foreign ministers to coordinate positions ahead of the summit.

Later asked if Saudi Arabia would attend the Annapolis talks on a ministerial level, Faisal nodded his head.

Participation by al-Faisal was a key goal of the United States to show strong Arab support for the conference, due to be held in Annapolis, Maryland.

Until Friday, the kingdom had balked at saying whether it would attend and at what level, seeking assurances Israel would commit to serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Syria: U.S. agrees to put Golan on Annapolis agenda
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Friday that the U.S. has agreed to put the Golan Heights on the Annapolis talks agenda, but that Syria would await confirmation before deciding whether to go.

Moallem said Rice telephoned al-Faisal at the Cairo meeting with confirmation that the Golan would be discussed.

"Syria will wait until it receives the agenda of the conference. President Bashar al-Assad will then decide whether to attend or not, and at what level," Moallem told Syrian television from Cairo.

There was no immediate comment from Washington. Diplomats in the Syrian capital said Moualem's announcement signalled that Syria was going to attend.

"They are clearly going to Annapolis. The delay in publicly saying yes is typical, but Syria knows that it cannot afford except to attend," one European diplomat said.

"Syria is not going to miss an opportunity to state the case for regaining the Golan at such a huge meeting, regardless of the semantics of the schedule," an Arab diplomat said.

Moallem said Thursday that Arab States are demanding the U.S. place talks between Israel and Syria over the Golan on the agenda of the Annapolis summit.

Moallem said the demand was to enable Syria to participate in the conference, speaking at a meeting of Arab States' foreign ministers in Cairo.

According to the Syrian foreign minister, the League sent a letter to Washington requesting the upcoming conference include references to negotiations on the Golan Heights, an area conquered by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War.

Abbas also announced his support for the demand. "The Annapolis conference is a historic opportunity which we want to use, and we hope that all Arabs will walk hand in hand and discuss not just the Palestinian track but the Syrian and Lebanese ones as well," Abbas said.

Earlier Friday, Arab League Secretary General said that Arab countries will not offer Israel normalization for free during the upcoming US-sponsored Mideast peace conference.

Amr Moussa remarks were made shortly after midnight at the end of an informal gathering of some 11 Arab foreign ministers at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo ahead of a key league meeting to hammer out a unified Arab position on the Annapolis conference.

"There is nothing called a normalization for free," Moussa told reporters at the end of the meeting. "Arabs are going to participate in the (Annapolis) meeting, to show support for the Palestinians, based on the Arab peace initiative," he added.

The ministers are calling for the Arab peace initiative, a proposal offering full peace with Israel for a full withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War, be a basis for the talks.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat also said that Annapolis meeting will revive the stalled peace process.

"We, as a Palestinian party, have witnessed a seven year frozen political
process," Erekat said at the end of the meeting. "Now the question is not
whether should we go or not, but the strategic question is how will we go as Arabs?"

"We want peace, but it won't be for whatever price," he added and referred to the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of east Jerusalem and the future of millions of Palestinian refugees as preconditions for peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_election_19

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Lebanon's political tumult intensified as President Emile Lahoud said the country is in a "state of emergency" and handed security powers to the army before he left office late Friday without a successor. The rival, pro-Western Cabinet rejected the declaration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lahoud's final announcement created new confusion in an already unsettled situation, which many Lebanese fear could explode into violence between supporters of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's Western-backed government and the pro-Syria opposition led by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

The departure of Lahoud, a staunch ally of the Syrian regime during nine years in office, was a long-sought goal of the government installed by parliament's anti-Syria majority, which has been trying to put one of its own in the presidency.

Hezbollah and other opposition groups have blocked legislators from electing a new president by boycotting ballot sessions, leaving parliament without the required quorum.

The fight has put Lebanon into dangerous, unknown territory: Both sides are locked in bitter recriminations, accusing the other of breaking the constitution, and they are nowhere near a compromise on a candidate to become head of state.

The army command refused to comment on the developments. The military, under its widely respected chief, Gen. Michel Suleiman, has sought to remain neutral in the political chaos, and Lahoud's statement did not give it political powers.

The capital was calm, and all sides were vowing to avoid violence. Even before the president's vague announcement, the military was in place to guard against the two sides' supporters taking the conflict to the streets. On alert for days, hundreds of soldiers stood with tanks, armored personnel carriers and jeeps in the area around the downtown parliament building as well as on roads leading into Beirut.

Lahoud stepped down when his term expired at midnight, smiling as he reviewed an honor guard on the way out of the presidential palace in the Beirut suburb of Baabda. "My conscience is clear," he told reporters. "Lebanon is still well."

Before getting into his car to go, he blasted Saniora's government, calling it "illegitimate and unconstitutional. They know that, even if (President) Bush said otherwise."

In the capital, some 2,000 government supporters gathered in a Sunni Muslim neighborhood cheered his departure, setting off fireworks, beating drums and shouting, "Lahoud Out!"

His departure left the presidency vacant after parliament failed again to convene earlier Friday to vote on a successor.

Lahoud's vaguely worded final statement, two hours before midnight, wasn't a formal declaration of a state of emergency, but he enflamed tempers with his reference to a "state of emergency" in Lebanon.

"Because a state of emergency exists all over the land as of Nov. 24, 2007, the army is instructed to preserve security all over the Lebanese territory," the presidential spokesman, Rafik Shalala, said.

The constitution requires the Cabinet to approve any state of emergency, and Saniora's government quickly rejected the announcement.

"It has no value and is unconstitutional and consequently it is considered as if it was not issued," said a government spokesman, who asked not to be identified because an official announcement had not yet been made by the prime minister.

Later, a government statement said the Cabinet "continues to shoulder its responsibilities and exercise its full authority."

Shalala argued Saniora's position didn't matter because his government was not constitutional — the position voiced by Lahoud and the opposition since the Cabinet's five Shiite Muslim members quit last year.

Further complications came with the expiration of Lahoud's term. Under the constitution, the government is supposed to take on the president's powers if he leaves office without a replacement. Lahoud had vowed not to hand his authorities to Saniora — and his reference to a state of emergency might have been an attempt to escape doing so.

Saniora signaled earlier that his government planned to assume the powers. His top ally, the United States, said Friday that was the proper path.

"This is the procedure stipulated by the Lebanese constitution, and will ensure that the government is able to continue conducting its business without interruption," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington.

Calling for the election of a new president "as quickly as possible," McCormack said, "We urge all Lebanese political groups to do their part to maintain calm and promote security for Lebanon's citizens."

In a travel alert issued as the two sides traded barbs, the State Department noted Lahoud's action saying the election process "may pose security issues" for U.S. citizens and others in the country.

"There is a strong possibility for demonstrations and unrest during this period," it said. "The U.S. Embassy urges U.S. citizens who live, work or are traveling in Lebanon to exercise responsible security practices."

The embassy began restricting the movements of U.S. diplomats in Lebanon on Nov. 20, limiting their travel in downtown Beirut near the parliament building and other government offices and banned all but essential travel to Beirut International Airport until Monday.

Opposition leader Michel Aoun warned the Cabinet that "usurping the role of the presidency" would increase its "illegitimacy." But he appeared to be trying to ease fears of violence by adding that the opposition would "calmly confront" the situation.

The military command declined to comment on the president's statement, but Suleiman, the military commander, told his troops earlier in the week to ignore the constitutional wrangling and "listen to the call of duty."

The anti-Syria camp has sought to capture the presidency to seal the end of Syria dominance of Lebanon, which lasted for 29 years until international pressure and mass protests forced Damascus to withdraw Syrian troops in 2005.

Hezbollah, which is an ally of Syria and Iran, and its opposition allies have been able to stymie the government's hopes by boycotting parliament, as they did Friday afternoon when the majority tried to convene a session to vote before Lahoud left office.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is aligned with the opposition, scheduled another session for Nov. 30 to give the factions more time to try to find a compromise candidate — something they failed to do in weeks of talks mediated by France's foreign minister and others.

Leaders from each side had been pledging not to take steps to provoke the other — though Lahoud's announcement raised the heat.

"We have no choice but to have a consensus," Saad Hariri, leader of the anti-Syria majority in parliament, said after the failed session. "It is not in Lebanon's interest that the (presidential) palace is left empty."

Another factor complicating the crisis was the U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference next week.

Government supporters have accused Syria of using its allies in Lebanon to block a deal on the presidency until it sees what it gets in the conference. Damascus wants the meeting in Annapolis, Md., to address its demands for the return of the Israeli-held Golan Heights.

France on Friday called for patience to resolve Lebanon's crisis but also chided Syria. French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani said it's up to the "Syrians, like everyone else, to remember that the goal is not to hinder the process but to help it."

Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:

Average (63 votes)
» Recommended Stories

Nearly a month since Osama bin Laden published his message to "our people in Iraq", it is worth taking a look at what bin Laden really said versus what the media, Western leaders and some prematurely mirthful pundits claim he said.

In the most obvious sense, bin Laden's October 23 statement is a post-Iraq war statement and a further development of Ayman al-Zawahiri's 2005 message to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the now dead

leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. From al-Qaeda's perspective, the war is over and Islam has won; Washington's announcement last week that it intends to begin the withdrawal of 3,000 troops, as well as the US Congress' recess without renewing war funding, will bolster this perception. Bin Laden's message is, however, a warning to all Iraqi mujahideen - Sunni and Shi'ite - that the hardest task is yet to come: namely, the creation of an Islamist state in Iraq.

Bin Laden's October 23 message builds on the July 2005 letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi. At that time, Zawahiri told Zarqawi that the mujahideen had beaten the US-led coalition and urged him to prepare for US withdrawal, which might, he added, be "precipitous". Bin Laden's October message mirrors Zawahiri's in concluding that the US coalition has been beaten, and in stating that the only unknown is the precise moment of its withdrawal.

There is nothing in bin Laden's statement that criticizes the mujahideen for not fighting well - indeed, he refers to "magnificent victories" that make Americans "prisoners of their bases and the Green Zone" - much less anything that suggests they are losing. "The world has stood stunned, amazed, delighted and wonder-struck" over the Iraqi mujahideen's effectiveness and perseverance, the al-Qaeda chief said.
Watching America the tyrannical: watching its legions breaking apart under your strikes, its brigades being wiped out in front of your raids and its battalions being obliterated by the pounding of your squadrons ... O people of Iraq ... O eminent ones of the Turks, Kurds and Arabs: the affair of unbelief [the US occupation] has been shaken and confused, and the time of his fleeing is nigh, so increase his confusion and disarray, and strike some more at his neck and hit it with a bone-cutting sword. The bearer of the banner of the cross has increased his soldiers and claimed that he will defeat the soldiers of faith, so be resolute - may Allah be merciful to you - and remember Him much, for he is watching you ... You have done well by carrying out one of the greatest of duties which few carry out: repelling the attacking enemy.
Bin Laden's words are a bit more hyperbolic than usual, but they match the presiding sense of what he described as the "amazement" that exists among both the mujahideen and Muslims generally over the fact that US-led forces have been beaten so easily in Iraq, and that they are withdrawing with what Islamists surely view as minor losses for a superpower with a population of more than 300 million.

And we may already be seeing the insurgents spreading the "confusion" bin Laden called for among US-led forces, whose leaders are perhaps too eager to see victory in statistics that show a slowing of insurgent attacks. Always students of Sun-Tzu, Mao Zedong and the great Afghan commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Iraqi insurgents and their al-Qaeda and other foreign allies are simply not taking on US "surge" forces toe-to-toe - knowing they would be crushed - and are making fewer but more targeted attacks, moving to other areas of Iraq or simply lying low to fight another day [1].

As important - and this was the Massoud model during the Soviet army's retreat - the Iraqi mujahideen have heard US politicians promise withdrawal, and they know US voters favor withdrawal. In this case, they see little sense in aggressively attacking a retreating foe, risking humiliating him, and thereby causing him to reconsider his decision to leave in favor of staying to fight.

After praising the insurgents' victory, bin Laden delivers the crux of his message and puts it frankly:
But some of you have been tardy in performing another duty which is also among the greatest of duties: combining your ranks to make them one rank as loved by Allah, who said, "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid cemented structure."
Bin Laden here is reaffirming al-Qaeda's consistent post-2003 position on Iraq: (a) the US-led coalition will be evicted because the Iraqi mujahideen will prolong the war and kill unacceptable numbers of US military personnel, thereby causing political discord in America; and (b), in Zawahiri's words to Zarqawi, it will be a harder struggle for the insurgents "to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill the void ..."

Bin Laden, like Zawahiri before him, warns the Iraqi mujahideen that the Islamist movement has a wretched record in consolidating victory over infidel forces, and warns them that they must be fully alert to "the full magnitude of the [infidel] conspiracies being hatched against you".

Even before US forces withdraw, bin Laden explains, "infidelity on all its levels - international, regional and local - is combining to prevent the establishment of the state of Islam", as they effectively did after the Red Army left Afghanistan, once the Taliban took power there, and after Hasan Turabi stated his intention to make Sudan an Islamic state. As always, however, bin Laden does not blame these Islamist failures on the infidels; rather, he damns the Islamists for not recognizing that only mujahideen unity can prevent the wasting of military victory. Bin Laden reminds the Iraqi insurgents:
And the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Observe the group and avoid factionalism, for Satan is with the loner and farther away from the pair. Whoever wants the comfort of the Garden must stay with the group ... Sticks refuse to break when banded together. But if they come apart they break one by one."

My brothers, the amirs of the mujahid groups [in Iraq]: the Muslims are waiting for you to gather under one banner to enforce truth. And when you carry out this act of obedience [to God], the ummah will enjoy the birth year of the group. And how it longs for this year, and perhaps it will come soon at your hands. So seek - may Allah have mercy on you - to carry out this great lost obligation.
Bin Laden goes on

Schumer after the vote today.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: November 16, 2007
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — Senate Republicans today easily blocked an effort by Democrats to act on a war spending bill that would have provided $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would have required that troop withdrawals from Iraq begin within 30 days.

The bill had numerous other strings attached a well, including a goal of completing re-deployment from Iraq by mid-December 2008 and a narrowing of the Iraq mission to focus on counter-terrorism and training of Iraqi security forces.

The vote today was the latest attempt by Democrats to force President Bush to shift his war strategy, but they were able to muster only 53 of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and move to a vote; 45 senators voted against the measure.

A Republican counter-measure, which would have provided $70 billion for the military operations with no strings attached, also failed.

The House approved the supplemental war spending bill earlier in the week, and Democrats there had hoped that the Senate leadership would force the Republicans to filibuster, adding drama to what has become a familiar routine of Republicans using their powerful minority to block war-related legislation.

But with lawmakers eager to head home for the Thanksgiving recess, there was little rhetoric on the floor and the votes were taken in quick succession.

There is enough money in the defense spending bill that Mr. Bush signed earlier this week to keep the military operations going through mid-February, because of a provision that allows the Defense Department to shift money from other Pentagon accounts.

Democrats, who have failed all year to force a change in Mr. Bush’s handling of the war, nonetheless seized the opportunity in hopes of reminding the American public that they are still intent on achieving that goal. Republicans, in turn, accused them of wasting time.

Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said the Democrats should accept that they cannot change the war policy. “The commander in chief is the guy in charge of running and war and they can’t affect that,” he said. “They are not going to get the votes to do what they are trying to do, so I don’t see why they would continue to do that.”

But Democrats, including the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said they would continue to press for an end to the war. “We must not forget that 2007 has now been the deadliest year for our troops of the entire war,” Mr. Reid said in a speech on the Senate floor. “We must remember that more than 3,800 Americans have died. That tens of thousands more have been gravely wounded.”

Mr. Reid also criticized the financial cost of the war, citing Congressional data showing that more than $800 billion has been spent on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fight over war spending is certain to resume early next year.

More Articles in Washington »

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/110807.html

Bush's Favorite Lie

By Robert Parry
November 9, 2007

When cataloguing George W. Bush’s lies – even if you stick just to his fabrications about the Iraq War and the “war on terror” – there are so many to choose from, it’s hard to pick a favorite.

There’s the one about how before Sept. 11, 2001, Americans thought that “oceans protected us” – although perhaps not from Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, which during the Cold War had school children hiding under desks and homeowners buying bomb shelters.

After taking office in January 2001, Bush was so confident about the protective oceans that he pushed aggressively for a "Star Wars" missile defense system.

Or there’s Bush’s oft-repeated claim that al-Qaeda terrorists are poised to dominate the world through a caliphate “stretching from Spain to Indonesia,” though in reality they are a bunch of crazed misfits forcibly exiled from their own countries and now living in caves along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Bush also insists that Americans must heed what Osama bin Laden

says, like when this homicidal maniac supposedly calls Iraq the “central front” in the “war on terror,” the American people must keep troops there indefinitely.

But it’s never explained why it makes sense for the United States to let bin Laden’s public declarations shape Washington’s policies.

There’s a chance, you see, that bin Laden is either completely nuts or perhaps clever enough to bait Bush into taking actions that actually help al-Qaeda, like getting the United States bogged down in Iraq, alienating the Muslim world and diverting military resources away from where bin Laden is hiding.

Indeed, the evidence from captured (internal rather than public) al-Qaeda communications indicates that bin Laden’s high command considers Afghanistan and Pakistan – not Iraq – their central front.

In 2005, for instance, one intercepted letter, purportedly written by al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri, asked fighters in Iraq to send $100,000 to headquarters back on the Afghan-Pakistani border. If Bush were right – and al-Qaeda considered Iraq the “central front” – one might expect that the money would be going in the opposite direction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]

Personal Favorite

But my personal favorite Bush lie is when he insists that the United States invaded Iraq to enforce a United Nations resolution and that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “chose war” by barring U.N. weapons inspectors.

Bush dusted off that old canard on Nov. 7 while standing next to French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a press conference at George Washington’s estate at Mount Vernon in Virginia.

Responding to a question from a French journalist about Bush’s dispute with France over the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. president said:

“We had a difference of opinion with your great country over whether or not I should have used military force to enforce U.N. demands. … I just want to remind you that [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was supported by France and the United States, which clearly said to the dictator, you will disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Now, I'm the kind of person that when somebody says something, I take them for their word.”

Bush has made this same false argument scores of times dating back to July 2003, several months after the invasion when it was becoming clear that Saddam Hussein had told the truth when his government reported to the U.N. in 2002 that Iraq’s WMD stockpiles had been eliminated.

Hussein also relented in fall 2002, allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to travel freely around Iraq checking out suspected WMD sites. The U.N. inspectors found nothing and reported growing Iraqi cooperation in the early months of 2003. In other words, Hussein was complying with Resolution 1441.

Nevertheless, Bush was determined to invade Iraq and tried to get the U.N. Security Council to go along. However, France and most other members of the Security Council rebuffed Bush and sought more time for the inspectors.

Then, in defiance of the U.N. – and in violation of the U.N. Charter which prohibits aggressive wars – Bush forced out the U.N. inspectors and launched his “shock and awe” assault. After a bloody three-week campaign, U.S.-led forces toppled Hussein’s government, but found no WMD caches.

Instead of admitting the obvious facts – that he had launched an unprovoked war on false pretenses – Bush rewrote the history. Starting at a White House press briefing on July 14, 2003, Bush began insisting that he had no choice but to invade Iraq because Hussein wouldn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.

Bush told reporters: “We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

Bush’s Litany

Facing no contradiction from the White House press corps, Bush repeated this lie in varied forms over the next four-plus years as part of his litany defending the invasion.

On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”

As the years went by, Bush’s lie and its unchallenged retelling took on the color of truth.

At a March 21, 2006, news conference, Bush again blamed the war on Hussein’s defiance of U.N. demands for unfettered inspections.

“I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did.”

At a press conference on May 24, 2007, Bush offered a short-hand version, even inviting the journalists to remember the invented history.

“As you might remember back then, we tried the diplomatic route: [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was a unanimous vote in the Security Council that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. So the choice was his [Hussein’s] to make. And he made a choice that has subsequently caused him to lose his life.”

Not only have Washington journalists stayed consistently silent in the face of this false history, some have even adopted Bush’s lie as their own. For instance, in a July 2004 interview, ABC’s veteran newsman Ted Koppel used it to explain why he – Koppel – thought the invasion of Iraq was justified.

“It did not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to lose control over his country if all he had to do was say, ‘All right, U.N., come on in, check it out,’” Koppel told Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now.”

Of course, Hussein did tell the U.N. to “come on in, check it out.” But that was in the real world, not in the faux reality that governs modern Washington.

Bush’s Iraq lies are now entering a new political generation, seeping into Campaign 2008. At the Republican debate on June 5, 2007, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended Bush’s invasion on the grounds that Hussein refused to let U.N. weapons inspectors in to search for WMD.

If Saddam “had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction,” the war might have been averted, Romney said.

Not surprisingly, Romney’s false statement was no more challenged by the CNN debate moderators than Bush’s earlier versions had been. By constant repetition, Bush has transformed his lie into what passes for truth in modern American politics.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html

Americans: Sheep to the Constitutional Slaughter?
An Interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano

Brian Doherty | November 15, 2007

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of American media’s most tenacious defenders of Americans' rights. His official title at Fox News, where he appears regularly on Fox and Friends and The Big Story, is “Senior Judicial Analyst.” But at the often Bush-besotted network, the decidedly skeptical Napolitano thinks of himself more as “House Civil Libertarian.”

He’s the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in New Jersey history, and a former teacher of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School. He also writes books alerting Americans to how their own government threatens their liberties, including The Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws. Nick Gillespie interviewed Napolitano for our March 2005 issue.

Napolitano’s latest book is the pugnaciously and provocatively titled A Nation of Sheep. The book is certainly sharply critical of the Bush administration for its assaults on our freedom and privacy. But Napolitano also provides valuable historical context, showing there’s little new under the sun when it comes to the tendency of power to expand, even in a nation explicitly built to keep government powers as tiny oceans in a sea of individual rights.

He tells of Daniel Ellsberg’s brave stance against government wartime secrecy during Vietnam, former Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham's standing up to Abraham Lincoln (and subsequent arrest and banishment after a military commission trial for doing so), and Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon’s arrest for insulting President John Adams.

The book is wide-ranging in history and subject matter, containing entertaining (and often blood-curdling) takes on potential threats from ever-present surveillance cameras, the Transportation Security Administration, the government’s insistence that it can grab any private information a company may have collected about you, press pusillanimity, and our government’s yen for torture. It hits the pleasing tone of all-American barn-burning dudgeon that animated the Americans who, enraged with Lincoln’s treatment of Vallandigham, as Napolitano writes, “rioted and burned the local Republican building, cut down telegraph lines, and destroyed a bridge.”

I spoke to Judge Napolitano by phone on November 12, touching on some of the matters that most alarm him these days about America, a nation that has in his estimation become alarmingly close to a nation of sheep.

reason: Your book contains over 200 pages of alarming stuff (except for the part in the back where, for your readers convenience, you reprint the Declaration of Independence and Constitution), but let’s touch on some specific ills affecting the health of constitutional liberties in America. What, for example, is the “special needs exception” to the 4th Amendment that 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Chester Straub invoked, as you discuss in chapter 2?

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Of course, there is no “special needs exception,” not in case law, not in the Constitution. But it’s an argument that big government makes whenever it feels constrained by the document that created it, namely the Constitution.

The government has dispatched its lawyers into federal court to make this so-called “special needs” argument. It says to the court—it’s the sort of pedestrian argument you and I hear every day—"Oh, the Constitution was written 230 years ago. These guys couldn’t have anticipated planes into buildings or wiretaps. They were not the subject of ethnic and religious hatred like we receive from Islamo-fascism today." So the “special needs” of public safety require us to find in the Constitution—and they never admit they are going around the Constitution—to find authority to do a, b, c, and d, which might be, oh, wiretap without a warrant, monitor the keystrokes on citizens’ computers, open mail, and use self-written search warrants.

And some judges regrettably have accepted this argument. [Former Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales did not make it up. Government’s been arguing this for years, though the phrase “special needs” is not a term of art in law; it’s just a handle used by federal prosecutors when they do not want to uphold their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

reason: The Patriot Act seems to be a special bete noire of yours. What’s the problem with it?

Napolitano: The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime.

Remember that the British government permitted its soldiers to execute self-written search warrants. They called them “writs of assistance,” and they were one of the last straws that caused American colonist to rebel. It’s bitterly ironic that 230 years later a popularly elected government would authorize its own agents to do the same thing that when a monarchy did it, we fought a war of rebellion in reaction—which we won!

Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors' offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office.

So FBI agents can write their own search warrant with just the permission of their superior, no judge at all, nobody at the main Department of Justice, and serve it essentially on any entity they want, and if they serve this search warrant on your doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, and that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman tells you they received it, then that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, can be prosecuted for a felony, face five years in jail. What part of the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” do they not understand?

This creates a Soviet-style conundrum for the recipient, who can’t even tell his or her lawyer or general counsel about getting the search warrant. You can’t hire outside counsel to challenge it, you can’t mention it to your spouse on the pillow, to your priest in confession—not even to a federal judge in a federal courtroom where all language except perjury should be permitted. This is a conundrum the likes of which government has never visited even under the Alien and Sedition Act. If they prosecuted you for criticizing [President John] Adams you could complain about it to your heart’s content without being charged with another crime.

reason: The Patriot Act was sold as a necessary protection from terror. How has that worked out?

Napolitano: How many people has the DOJ convicted in a jury trial for terrorism based on evidence obtained from the Patriot Act? Zero. They’ve gotten people to plead guilty, to fold, and convicted many on drug trafficking, white slavery, prostitution, gambling, and political corruption, but haven’t gotten a single [terror] case where they presented evidence in a public court before a judge and jury and the jury found a defendant guilty under evidence obtained under Patriot Act.

The reasons stated by [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and the House Republican leadership for there being no debate on the Patriot Act was that terrorists were under every bed, behind every toilet, and inside every refrigerator. Therefore the Patriot Act was so necessary to keep the country safe that there was no time for debate. The most sinful aspect of its passage was how members of the House were not permitted to read it. It was posted on the House Intranet for 15 min [before the vote] and it’s 315 pages long. I read it twice, and it took me 20 hours each time. And you need in front of you not just it, but lots of other statutes, the full U.S. criminal code, to process it. It does lots of amending of other statutes, so you need to reread [those] statues to figure out what government has done by amending that statute.

I was speaking in the Midwest—I don’t want to tell you where, somewhere in the great Heartland—two weeks ago and at the end of my speech, after I said many of these things I’m saying here and in my book, there was a congressman in the audience. He and I socialized a bit, and he said, “Judge, I’m a little ill at ease. I didn’t know until hearing you tonight that the Patriot Act permitted self-written search warrants and criminalized speech about receiving them, and I voted for it twice.”

And I said—knowing how he was going to answer—I asked, “Didn’t you read it? You voted on it.” No, he didn’t have time, he only read the summary. And he didn’t remember the summary talking about self-written search warrants and criminalized speech. He told me many of his colleagues were in the same situation. I said, “WRONG—all your colleagues are in the same situation! No one in the House except maybe leadership read the Patriot Act you voted on!” It’s abominable for the government to tamper with our basic liberties—but it’s inconceivable that they would do so without any debate.

reason: Yet it happened. You called your book A Nation of Sheep, which indicates a pretty low opinion of the people who would let their elected representatives do this to them. But Bush’s approval ratings are pretty low—it seems as if there is something about his administration that’s begun to piss people off. You must have a lot of opportunity to hear from the public with your status as a big public voice on these issues—how upset are Americans about all this?

Napolitano: There is more widespread feeling [against these assaults on our liberty] than you would think, though I have discovered that widespread feeling after coming up with the title of the book! One place I’ve discovered a lot of it I didn’t expect…I speak to lots of right to life groups; I describe myself as “fiercely pro-life,” and I’ve found among right to life groups tremendous disdain with the president and the Congress about abuse of the Constitution, much to my surprise. If while talking about Roe v. Wade I make a comment about Bush and Congress tampering with the Constitution, I’m interrupted with a standing ovation at right to life gatherings, so there is this undercurrent of anger [over the Bush-era assaults on the Constitution].

Another platform for that undercurrent is the campaign of Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has rejuvenated almost single-handedly the Goldwater wing of the GOP. Now Reagan tried, before [James] Baker and his boys advised him on how to behave. Now, I loved the man, but if you look at his record and rhetoric, they are two different things. But Ron Paul had made it legitimate again for small government, maximum individual liberty, Goldwater Republicans to come forth and complain about big government, and I am the recipient of lots of those complaints.

Now, for the most part the president and his colleagues in both parties have succeeded in scaring the daylights out of people. Government grows in wartime because people are afraid, and they accept the satanic bargain that government offers: Give us your liberty and we will keep you safe. Many people think that when government is suppressing speech or privacy or fair prosecutions, that since those usurpations are so drastic that they must be keeping us safer.

But when the president says that his first job is to keep us safe, He is dead wrong. Read the oath of office: His first job is not to keep us safe, but to keep us free [by upholding the Constitution]. When you have this value judgment between freedom and safety, I’d rather have freedom with danger than slavery with safety.

But the supposed tradeoff when it comes to civil liberties isn’t really there. Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School spent five years reading every judicial opinion in the history of the United States on freedom of speech. Of all the cases of people prosecuted and convicted of violating some law that regulated speech, his conclusion is there is not one, not one single instance in all American history, where America’s security was adversely affected because of too much free speech. When government says it is keeping you safer by criminalizing speech, it’s a canard. They are making their own job easier by criminalizing speech because they have less dissent to confront.

reason: It seems like you really stand out from the flock at Fox, a network with a reputation for being far more supportive of Bush than you are. In fact, in your book you are downright hostile, even referring to “impeachable offenses.”

Napolitano: The arguments I am articulating here are arguments I have made in the hallways of Fox every day. But I love my job here and my role as house civil libertarian. I am able to do at Fox what I hope to do with this book—help people awake from lethargy and a naive trust of government and question whether or not a government has the power to take rights away. I argue it doesn’t—that these rights are natural and we should be debating these issues before our rights are taken away.

My favorite part of working at Fox, and my books, is the arguments I present about the difference between positivism and natural law, between those who believe all rights come from government, and the natural law position which says that rights come from our humanity, not from government; that we are created by God in his image and likeness, and as He is perfectly free, our rights to speech and thought, and to say what we think and write what we say, to develop our personality, to travel, to privacy, are all as natural as the fingernails on the ends of our finger.

This is more than an academic debate. If our rights come from government, then the Patriot Act is lawful and constitutional because the government that gives freedom can take it away just by having the president sign a bill into a law. But if rights come from our humanity, as I argue almost every day on Fox, then government cannot take freedom away absent due process and a fair trial, where you are charged and convicted of violating someone else’s freedom.

The president had said he believes in natural rights. Unfortunately when he signs these bills that take away our rights, he reveals he either doesn’t know what he’s doing or he doesn’t really believe in natural rights. The Patriot Act is not only unconstitutional, it’s unnatural, since it purports to take away that which naturally belongs to us.

reason: In chapter six, you discuss the very alarming “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51” and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. What’s so bad about them?

Napolitano: Those basically allow the president to declare martial law whenever he thinks there’s a state of emergency. Then he—he or she—can use the military to enforce ordinary criminal law and even suspend the authority of state criminal enforcement agencies. This is wildly, fantastically unconstitutional because it allows one human being by declaring emergency–like Pervez Musharraf just did—to suspend rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and Americans don’t even know; there was very little debate or awareness of this.

reason: I noticed that “he or she” in your previous statement. Have you made any headway with your Republican friends on the matter of, well, they might believe in this whole “war on terror” and trust Bush needs these extraconstitutional powers to protect us, but what about when a president they don’t trust wants to use them for goals they don’t believe in?

Napolitano: Bill O’Reilly defended Bush on his declaration of three Americans as enemy combatants, before the Supreme Court told him he can’t do it—and Bush refused to even say why—but Bill said “I trust him, it’s good for him to do that.”

I asked him, “Would you give that power to Hillary Clinton? She could declare you an enemy combatant and dispatch you to Guantanamo.” He just said, “Would you come and visit?” I said, “No….they’d keep me down there too!”

So many of my Fox colleagues, whom I love working with, have such trust and faith in the heart and head of President Bush. But look at the calendar: He’ll be Mr. Bush in 14 months, and unless it’s Ron Paul, God knows what his successor will do with the powers Congress had purported to give him. And I say “purported” because they don’t have the right to actually do all the extraconstitutional things they’ve done.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty (bdoherty@reason.com) is author of This is Burning Man and Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12039

December 12, 2007
No Liberty Without
Habeas Corpus

by Paul Craig Roberts
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue whether the executive branch can detain people indefinitely merely by declaring them to be suspected terrorists or illegal enemy combatants. The case is a habeas corpus issue and, therefore, of the utmost importance. Without the protection of habeas corpus, government can lock away anyone on the basis of unsubstantiated charges as the Guantanamo detainees have been for nearly six years.

Reporting on the Court's deliberations about Odah v. U.S. and Boumediene v. Bush, Tom Curry, a national affairs writer for MSNBC, reports that Justice Stephen Breyer suggested to U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement that the executive branch could indefinitely hold people such as those in Guantanamo prison if Congress were to pass "some special statute involving preventive detention and danger, which has not yet been enacted."

According to Curry, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter regard a preventive detention statute as a possibility worth considering.

Pray that Curry has misunderstood Breyer. A different interpretation of Breyer's remarks is that the justice was telling Bush's solicitor general that in the absence of a preventive detention statute there is no legal basis for holding the detainees.

If there were such a statute, the case before the court would be its constitutionality.

Support for the latter interpretation comes from House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). Rep. Nadler thinks Breyer was merely "thinking out loud," not "floating an idea" and inviting Congress to pass an unconstitutional statute. Nadler believes that Breyer was telling Clement that as there is not even a preventive detention statute, the executive branch has no basis for holding the Gitmo detainees.

That Feinstein, Specter, Jon Kyl, and other U.S. senators think it is "worth considering" for Congress to overturn habeas corpus, the greatest bulwark against tyranny, indicates how much the U.S. constitutional tradition has been lost. The importance of the case seems to be completely over the heads of the media, who appear to be looking for a technical solution that permits people accused without evidence to be held forever. The American press apparently believes that the U.S. government can make no mistake or behave improperly and that the detainees are actually, in Sen. Kyl's words, "a danger to our troops."

It is a "danger" that the Bush regime has been unable to prove even with torture and secret evidence. Half of the detainees have had to be released. According to news reports, the regime has been able to create cases against only 14 of those remaining. After all the years of illegal detention, harsh treatment, and denial of access to attorneys, the Bush regime has come up with 14 cases, and they are probably fabricated.

Where is the rule of law when hundreds of people can have years stolen from their lives?

It is uncertain how the court will decide the case. Bush's solicitor general has told the justices that they should trust the executive branch to correctly balance "the interests of the prisoners" with the administration's ability to "prosecute the global war on terror."

In other words, it is Waco all over again. The executive branch runs roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and then demands, "trust us," which means don't take away any of the illegitimate power that the executive branch has claimed and exercised or hold anyone accountable for abusing executive power. Unfortunately for the future of liberty in America, a number of the Republican justices see the issue as one of the separation of powers. The Republican justices or most of them are, or were, members of the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers committed to increased power for the executive. These Republican justices will be inclined to decide the case in the interest of executive power.

The Federalist Society is a product of a past time when Republicans were said to have "a lock on the presidency" but could not get their agenda into law because the Democrats had a lock on Congress. Republican frustrations manifested themselves in attempts to heighten the president's powers so that a Republican agenda could prevail over a Democratic Congress. Like generals who fight the last war, the Federalist Society is stuck in its assault on the separation of powers in the interest of "energy in the executive."

Many Federalist Society members join for social reasons and for networking, as the society provides the pool of attorneys for Republican appointments to the federal bench and for Department of Justice appointees. Many members mistakenly think that the society stands for "original intent," but as their real interest is career-driven, they don't pay much attention to the society's assault on the U.S. Constitution.

Kings exercised the power to throw into dungeons people who offended them or whom they regarded as a threat. Once arrested, a person could be locked up forever without charges or evidence brought before a court. Habeas corpus was an English invention that provides quick release of a person unlawfully held by orders of the executive.

The Bush regime has made the most determined assault the Anglo-American world has seen on the principle of habeas corpus. The previous assault was by Stuart kings who destroyed their rule by proclaiming the "divine right of kings." Now Americans are faced with Bush/Cheney and the solicitor general of the U.S. Department of Justice (sic), Paul Clement, proclaiming the divine right of President Bush and his Justice (sic) Department.

We must all pray that there are not enough Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court to uphold a Benthamite ruling of preventive detention.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the Englishman who renewed the assault on liberty, which centuries of English reforms had created. Bentham believed that tyranny was no longer a problem, because people were empowered by democracy to control the government. He argued that any restraint placed on government's powers would limit the ability of government to do good. To protect citizens from crime, Bentham favored the preventive arrest of everyone whose social class, bone structure, or other chosen indicator suggested a proclivity toward crime. "The greatest good for the greatest number."

The Bush regime is comprised of modern-day Benthamites. Their agenda is to overthrow the civil liberties that make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the state. As anyone can be declared a suspect, the weapons that Bush would use to fight "the global war on terror" would soon be turned on the American people. Without habeas corpus, there is no liberty.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22946066-5005961,00.html

China not ruffled by missile interceptionArticle from: ReutersFont size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print From correspondents in Beijing

December 18, 2007 08:51pm
CHINA reacted mildly today to a Japanese naval destroyer's shooting down of a dummy ballistic missile over the Pacific, saying only that it hoped its Asian neighbour would not cause instability in the region.

Japan has been working with the US on missile defence and today shot down the missile in space, becoming the first US ally to accomplish such a feat from a ship at sea

The US and Japan alliance tworries China because of any implications it may have for Taiwan, the self-governed island Beijing claims as its own.

China fears that Japan could help the US defend Taiwan should China use force to try to bring the island under mainland rule.

The US switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognising "one China", but is obliged by the Taiwan Relations Act to help the island defend itself.

"We have taken note that Japan has reiterated many times it will follow the path of peaceful development," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

"We also hope that the relevant actions of the Japanese side will be conducive to safeguarding peace and stability in the region," he said.

Asked about reports linking the missile interception to the Taiwan issue, Qin said he could not comment directly.

"The Taiwan question is China's internal affair," he said.

"China opposes any country meddling in the Taiwan question in any form."

The muted response could be due to a pending visit by Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who is expected in China in coming weeks for his first visit to the country as leader.

Ties between the two countries, who compete for diplomatic and economic influence in Asia, have improved since an "ice-breaking" visit by Fukuda's predecessor, Shinzo Abe, last year, and a reciprocal trip by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in April.

But relations remain sensitive to Japan's past militarism and wartime invasion of China, and the two have a long-running dispute over territorial boundaries and natural resources in the East China Sea.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes83.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ned Parker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Ruthless, shadowy — and a U.S. ally
A former warrior for Saddam Hussein's army and the insurgency now helps lead the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

December 22, 2007

BAGHDAD — "Abu Abed, you're a hero," the retired Shiite teacher shouted from the home she had fled last winter, when the bodies of Shiites were being dumped daily in the streets of her Amiriya neighborhood.

The fighter, wearing green camouflage and dark wraparound sunglasses, kept walking, his hand swinging a black MP-5 submachine gun.

No more than 5 feet 6, with a roll of baby fat, this Sunni Muslim gunman is an unlikely savior of Amiriya: a former intelligence officer in Saddam Hussein's army, a suspected onetime insurgent, a man who has photos of his brothers' mutilated corpses loaded in his cellphone.

To many Iraqis, Abu Abed is a Sunni warlord whose followers have spilled the blood of Shiite Muslim civilians and U.S. troops. But to the people in Amiriya, he is the man who has, with ruthless efficiency, restored order to a neighborhood where the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq held sway.

With the nation's politics deadlocked, the U.S. military has pinned its hopes for reconciliation in Iraq on the shoulders of such unknowable men. Abu Abed may have a shadowy past, and checkered present, but he has taken on extremists in his Sunni sect, and says he is willing to make peace with Iraq's Shiite-led government.

One worry for the government is that paramilitary groups such as Abu Abed's will seek to use their new relationships with the Americans to position themselves for another round of fighting with Iraq's Shiite leadership when U.S. forces have withdrawn.

"The risks are that these guys go back into an insurgency, perhaps better organized and better motivated than they were in the past, and that's what you want to avoid," said a U.S. diplomat who has helped recruit Sunni tribes and insurgents to police neighborhoods, and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Abu Abed's pacification methods are merciless. Since he declared all-out war on the fighters who were terrorizing the neighborhood, he has killed members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, burned their hide-outs, plastered Amiriya's walls with pictures of their corpses and broken his knuckles three times hitting disloyal members of his militia or prisoners.He claims his motivations are simple.

"I have a basic principle to fight anybody who is hurting my fellow citizens," he said. "That's why I cooperated in 2004 with the Americans and started to work against Al Qaeda."

His 600-man paramilitary force, the Knights in the Land of the Two Rivers, is virtually the law in Amiriya, a district of marble-adorned villas and date palms where thousands of well-heeled Sunnis and Shiite professionals lived under Hussein. He has allowed a modicum of normality to return to the neighborhood's streets, where shops now stay open until late in the evening and no bodies have been found since August.

At least 70 Shiite families have moved back to the area in the last three months under his protection. With the government absent, people go to him with their problems, sometimes personal ones. Men have asked him for advice on erectile dysfunction, and once a newlywed bride demanded that Abu Abed grant her a divorce after her husband failed to consummate their relationship.

American commanders have called on Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri Maliki, to seize upon the lull in violence to reconcile with Sunnis, many of whom had previously fought U.S. troops and the Iraqi government.

"They want to participate now, and the government has to allow them to do it," said Maj. Barry Daniels of the Army's 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, which is assigned to Amiriya. "I think if they feel they have a stake in their future, there is hope. If they do not, I am not very optimistic."

Abu Abed wants to bring his men into the Iraqi security forces, even though he is deeply suspicious of the ruling Shiite parties. In 2005, his two brothers were detained in a late-night raid by the national police force, which has been infiltrated by Shiite militias. Their mutilated bodies were found three weeks later on the Iranian border.

In the pictures on his cellphone, one brother has a nail driven through his head, the other has a hand chopped off. Abu Abed has hard feelings and lingering suspicions about government officials, but says he has no choice but to deal with them.

"I have to take jobs with the government," he said at his headquarters in a pink schoolhouse. "If I don't, there will be more people kidnapped and killed."

Abu Abed, who is in his late 30s, does not look like a former military intelligence officer except for his ramrod military posture. As he sits in his office, rap lyrics drift in from the courtyard, where his men are playing a recording of the song "P.I.M.P." by 50 Cent: "We internationally known and locally respected, / And you know you're just a P.I.M.P."

As he drags on a Gauloise and flicks red worry beads in his hands, his seemingly permanent scowl and darting brown eyes reveal little. He is a man of secrets. Not even his own men really know him.

He has met with Maliki's advisors, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih and Vice President Tariq Hashimi, but Abu Abed complains that progress has been slow.

"What have we done wrong? Aren't we fighting terrorists? Didn't we bring back Shia families? We are with the law," he said in his office, decorated with pictures of American generals.

The government has said it plans to absorb about 25% of the fighters from groups like Abu Abed's into the security forces, but it is taking its time. This week, the government approved the hiring of the first 100 men from Abu Abed's group to serve as the police force in Amiriya, but they must undergo a probationary period to prove their loyalty to the government.

"We know some Saddamists and Qaeda have tried to penetrate our security forces," said Haidar Abadi, a parliament member and Maliki confidant. "We want to prevent them from infiltrating our forces."

Abadi said he had spoken on the phone with Abu Abed and that his language sounded like an insurgent's. "A lot of them, I think, are Islamic Army. Most of them were Iraqi Baathists. To me there is a change of heart, which is good," he said, but he worried that many of the men who joined groups like Abu Abed's were the same people who terrorized Shiites.

"We are bombarded by messages from people who returned to their areas. They say the people who slaughtered them are running the checkpoints," he said.

At least $39 million has been spent equipping and paying for the paramilitary units across Iraq. The Americans expect these fighters to be absorbed into both the security forces and job-training programs.

It's been three years since Abu Abed began a double life assembling a network of informers across Baghdad that he used to feed information to the U.S. military about Al Qaeda in Iraq. He helped hunt down insurgents and what he called Iranian operatives.

By June 2006, Amiriya residents had taken on a bunker mentality, deeply suspicious of the Americans and the Shiite-led government. Some informers had noticed Abu Abed's comings and goings, and they spotted him leaving the Green Zone, the fortified area that includes Iraqi government offices and the U.S. Embassy. Soon after, someone riddled his taxi with bullets. He fled to Syria for a few months, and then reappeared in Amiriya.

After his return, he visited the mosques daily and made a public display of being with the hard-liners, but, he said, he began plotting to take down Al Qaeda in Iraq. He compiled files on its leaders.

"I tried to make some relations with Qaeda so they trusted me," he said.

Early this year, he started sending indirect messages to the U.S. military that he was ready to launch his revolt.

The rebellion erupted May 30 when Abu Abed approached the local head of Al Qaeda in Iraq in the street. He told the man, Haji Sabah, also known as the "White Lion," that the insurgent group was finished in Amiriya. Sabah's pistol jammed and Abu Abed pumped 16 bullets into his back, and then took his black Glock as a trophy. Next, he drove to a restaurant where fighters with the group gathered each morning and opened fire on them.

The insurgents retaliated with heavy machine-gun fire, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. He retreated to the Firdos mosque. His fighters had dwindled from 150 to just 15 as insurgents started to pour into Amiriya from across western Baghdad; he told his men to leave him, including his brother.

Abu Abed prepared to die. He was down to just four supporters, with three bodies in the mosque. Their enemies shelled the building with grenades. The mosque's cleric said he had no choice but to call the Americans.

When the eight U.S. Army Stryker combat vehicles arrived, the tide turned.

U.S. troops and Abu Abed's men started to hunt down their common enemy. Abu Abed wanted revenge: In June, he sent his men all over Baghdad to track down an Al Qaeda in Iraq fighter who had killed his friend.

Abu Abed defended his decision to hunt enemies outside Amiriya, an action that has been criticized by Iraqi government officials. "If I saw Osama bin Laden," he said, "would I have to ask legal cover to kill him?"

The Americans defend him and his tactics.

"Did Abu Abed get heavy-handed with some guys? I'll tell you this right now, Abu Abed personally killed some guys," said Maj. Daniels, who has fought alongside him since June. "It's a nasty business. It's war and they fought against Al Qaeda and they decided to kill the guys who were killing their families and terrorizing their community."

Abdul Razzaq Mohammed, a Shiite butcher, lived in Amiriya for 16 years before fleeing in September 2006 because Shiites were being killed. This fall, the 66-year-old decided to visit his old home when his friends assured him the neighborhood was safe. He met Abu Abed, who welcomed him back.

Mohammed visited for four days and then decided it was safe to return. He has no problem supporting the Sunni gunman: "I wish we had dozens of Abu Abeds in Iraq."

ned.parker@latimes.com

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4045471&page=1

'Sunni Awakening': Insurgents Are Now Allies
Former Insurgents Have Turned Their Guns on al Qaeda
Iraqi tribal leaders arrive for a reconciliation meeting between the Sunnis of Hawr Rajab, and neighboring Abu Disheer, a Shiite area, in southern Baghdad, Iraq, Dec. 22, 2007. (AP Photo/ Loay Hameed) By JOHN HENDREN
BAGHDAD, Dec. 23, 2007
Font Size

E-mail
Print
Share The fighters of Iraq's "Sunni awakening" have become as controversial as they've been successful.

Nearly 80,000-strong, paid by the Pentagon, and independent of the Iraqi government, these Sunni "awakening councils" are largely made up of former insurgents who have turned their guns on al Qaeda.

Top International stories
Pro-Thaksin Party Says Coalition ReadyGaza's Christians Keep Low Xmas ProfileQueen Elizabeth Launches YouTube ChannelRelated Topics
Iraq United States Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr Abdul Aziz al- Hakim Al Qaeda Defense Department
"At the beginning, people saw it as an occupation which had to be resisted," said Abul Abed, leader of the Knights of Mesopotamia, speaking in Arabic. "But then, they saw that the Americans were working in the interest of the people. They saw al Qaeda doing terrible things."

President Bush has called them the hope of the future Iraq. "In Anbar, you're seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can come when the Iraqis are more secure," Bush said during a visit to Anbar province in September.

"You see Sunnis, who once fought side by side with al Qaeda against coalition troops, now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al Qaeda," Bush added.

The militiamen are being lionized on Iraqi television.

In a new slick, Hollywood-style government advertisement, matching a virtual campaign, by jihadists in Iraq, that has endured for the duration of the 4 1/2-year war, a band of insurgents is driven out of town by local villagers. By nearly all accounts, it fairly represents what has happened in some Iraqi Sunni villages.

The fighters of the awakening have been integral to the lull in violence that's accompanied the American troop surge.

Even powerful Shiite leaders, such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, acknowledge that the militiamen have made a difference. Yet, Iraq's new hope has divided the nation. The increasingly frustrated fighters of the awakening have one demand: permanent jobs. And it has gone unmet.

"The projection is that some 20 percent to 30 percent of those serving in the concerned local citizen groups will eventually be incorporated in the Iraqi police or the army," Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Fox News on Sunday.

Yet, even for that minority of fighters, the Shiite-led government has dragged its feet on promises of government security jobs. They fear a civil war, in which taxpayer-armed Sunni gunmen will one day array themselves against the central government. The U.S. worries that leaving thousands of Sunni fighters jobless will achieve the same end.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071226/wl_mideast_afp/turkeyunrestkurdsiraq

Europe Latin America Africa Asia Canada Australia/Antarctica Kevin Sites Search: All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey praises US help as jets bomb northern Iraq by Sibel Utku Bila
Wed Dec 26, 3:36 PM ET

ANKARA (AFP) - Turkey praised the United States on Wednesday for providing intelligence in support of attacks against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, as it confirmed its third such air strike in 10 days.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Things are going on well at the moment. Intelligence is being shared" between the two NATO allies, Anatolia news agency quoted President Abdullah Gul as saying.

US support "befits our alliance," Gul said, adding: "Both of us are satisfied. This is how it should be. We could have come to this point earlier."

But the White House expressed concern to Ankara over the possible escalation of Turkey's attacks inside Iraq, especially "anything that could lead to ... civilian casualties," spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Wednesday's air strike was the third against Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets in northern Iraq that the military has confirmed since December 16, in addition to a cross-border ground operation.

The raid followed intelligence that "a large group of terrorists, who have been watched for a long time, are preparing to pass the winter in eight caves and hideouts in the Zap region," the general staff said in a statement.

"Our warplanes hit the targets in an effective air raid that started in the morning hours of December 26," it said, without mentioning casualties.

Officials in Kurdish-run northern Iraq said the strike targeted deserted villages along the border, but the extent of the damage was not known.

The aircraft struck an area called Nirvorokan in Dohuk province at around 8:30 am (0530 GMT), they said, while a news agency close to the PKK reported that some 10 warplanes took part in the raid.

Iraqi Kurds have reported two other air strikes this month that Turkey has not confirmed, inc