3-9-09

Admiral Mullen Offers Mexico $1.4 Billion Bribe to Allow US Military to Invade Mexico

Admiral Mullen went to Mexico last week and offered Mexico a $1.4 billion dollar bribe in exchange for Mexico allowing the US military to invade Mexico and station US troops in Mexico. Why does Admiral Mullen want US troops stationed in Mexico? To establish an iron curtain between Mexico and the USA to shut off fleeing Americans when the bad guys start killing us just as a Rothschild/Rockefeller directed Stalin killed Russians after World War II. How many Russians did Stalin have murdered? A bunch, possibly 40 million. Thanks to comrade Little George, and now Obama, and their treasonous Executive Orders surrounding the Jose Padillia case, US citizens are now terrorists and we have lost our Constitutional Civil Rights. The president can lock up law abiding US citizens forever, not notify our family, confiscate our possessions, not allow us to know why we have been locked up, and not allow us to have an attorney. Americans, for any reason, are now terrorists, to be done with as the president chooses, locked up in solitary confinement, brutally tortured, tried by secrete military tribunal, and killed. Think this is an illogical nightmare which will never happen? Did the recent economic meltdown happen and is it real? Why has the US military converted 600 military bases to fully operational and manned secrete prisons ready for prisoners? Why was one of Obama's first Executive Orders directed to the Justice Department not to challenge the Jose Padilla conviction by allowing the US Supreme Court rule on the President comrade Little George's Executive Order which gives the president the right to strip Americans of their US Constitutional rights. See Jacob G. Hornberger article,Obama and the al-Marri Case, and my take of Hornberger's article. (It is down a ways)

The bad guy directed USA is making war on the US Constitution and the American people as hard as they can, which the US Constitution defines as treason. Every since comrade Obama was anointed president there has been a steady drumbeat of War with Mexico and Iran. Out of one side of Obama's mouth he says the USA is getting out of Iraq, out of the other is rhetoric from his Administration against Iran. The USA cannot engage in War with Iran and get out of Iraq, and to say so is a con and a lie. The communist propaganda media has said the US gun shops are supplying murderers in Mexico, which is saying the BATF and the Border Patrol, billion dollar federally funded organizations, are not doing their job. This is a lie. The US gun shops are not selling guns to murderers in Mexico. But what is more important is why our country is laying this lie on the world. The USA wants the US military to invade Mexico and set up an iron curtain so US citizens cannot flee to Mexico when the killing of US citizens starts. Now to get what the communi$t$ who hate America and making war on us want, the bad guy directed USA is bribing Mexico to the tune of $1.4 Billion dollars in bribe money, to allow the US military to invade Mexico.

Texans don't let this happen. A few of us are holed up in our "Alamo" fighting this, and Admiral Mullen, Obama, and the US Congress and those communi$t$ who are making War on the USA are our Santa Anna, but it is better to die as brave true Texans did, than live in a coward Rothschild/Rockefeller communi$t Police State. Just say "No" to US military troops in Mexico. The communi$t$ will get their Battle of San Jacinto.

zzzzzzzzz

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090307/pl_afp/mexicodrugscrimeusmilitary

US military speeding help to Mexico: admiral
US Embassy – The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen (L), talks with members of the Mexican … WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States is working to rush assistance to Mexico as it fights violent drug cartels, including equipment to help authorities track the narcotics mafia, the top US military officer said.

"We're all working very hard to move the capabilities that are desirable to Mexico as quickly as we can," Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters late Friday from his aircraft after holding talks in Mexico.

"We all have a sense of urgency about this," he said.

During his meetings with the country's military leadership, Mullen said he discussed how Washington could help in the battle against the powerful cartels, citing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) as a crucial element.

"ISR, that kind of capability is certainly a big part of it," Mullen said, using a term that can refer to unmanned drones.

He said the emphasis would be on sharing intelligence "but in recognition that there are additional assets that could be brought to bear across the full ISR spectrum."

With last year's death toll from drug-related violence at 5,300 as well-financed cartels orchestrate a campaign of intimidation and kidnappings, the crisis over the border has become a serious national security concern for the United States.

The visit by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff underlined US alarm over the escalating violence, which experts say is fed by easy access to guns and drug profits on the US side of the border.

Mullen said the US military was ready to share tactics learned in fighting insurgent networks in Iraq and Afghanistan that he said could prove useful in Mexico's drug war.

The US military was "sharing a lot of lessons we've learned, how we've developed similar capabilities over the last three or four years in our counter-insurgency efforts as we have fought terrorist networks.

"There are an awful lot of similarities," he said.

The admiral said there was no discussion of deploying US troops to the border but Mexican authorities were increasingly open to bolstering military cooperation with the United States, in a break with tradition.

"What I find is the military to military relationship is the best I've ever seen it," Mullen said.

As part of the US Merida Initiative that gives Mexico 1.4 billion dollars over three years to fight the growing drug mafia, Mullen said the military and other government agencies were trying to expedite funding and assistance already approved under the 2008 federal budget.

The two countries started sharing intelligence after signing an agreement in November and under the Merida program the US plans to deliver helicopters, maritime surveillance aircraft and other equipment, according to the Pentagon.

During his visit to Mexico, Mullen met with the secretary of defense, General Guillermo Galvan, and secretary of the navy, Mariano Francisco Saynez, saying he had come to hear how the United States could help.

"I share their deep concern over organized crime and narco-trafficking and appreciate their vigorous efforts to improve security," Mullen said in a statement earlier.

The two countries have traded accusations over failures in the drug war, with Mexican President Felipe Calderon taking offense at a US government report blaming corruption in his country.

Calerdon hit back in an interview with AFP this week, saying corruption in the United States was also fueling the crisis.

The Mexican president has cracked down on cartels since taking office in 2006, often with bloody repercussions as Mexico battles a surging drug trade and drug-linked violence.

His government announced last month it would deploy about 5,000 military troops and 1,000 police to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's murder capital just across the border from El Paso, Texas.

Before Mexico, Mullen travelled to Brazil, Chile, Peru and Colombia in a week-long tour of Latin America.

zzzzzzzzz

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/03/06/rep-ron-paul-vs-james-baker-iii-on-revised-war-powers-act/

Note also that Baker’s argument rests on the premise that the constitution is dead and that without the War Powers Act, or his new replacement for it, there would be no restriction on presidential war making whatsoever - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, among others, notwithstanding.

Paul is right, as usual. The War Powers Act - which “allows” the president to start wars for 60 days before Congress can assemble to swing their rubber stamp and “support the troops” - should be repealed and replaced with nothing but the perpetual threat of impeachment.

Baker’s plan is no substitute for an actual rule of law. (Ha.)

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

US says 12,000 US troops to leave Iraq by Sept.

US says 12,000 US troops to leave Iraq by September; 32 killed in Baghdad suicide attack

SINAN SALAHEDDIN
AP News

Mar 08, 2009 08:34 EST

The U.S. military announced Sunday that 12,000 American and 4,000 British troops will leave Iraq by September — hours after a suicide bomber struck police and recruits lined up at the entrance of Baghdad's main academy, killing 32 people.

The blast — the second major attack to hit Iraqis in three days and the deadliest to strike Baghdad in nearly a month — was a bloody reminder of the ability of insurgents to defy security improvements and stage dramatic attacks as the U.S. begins to draw down its forces.

Maj. Gen. David Perkins said the troop withdrawals will reduce U.S. combat power from 14 brigades to 12 along with some supporting units. The U.S. also plans to turn over 74 facilities and areas under its control to the Iraqis by the end of March as part of the drawdown.

President Barack Obama has decided to remove all combat troops by the end of August 2010 with the remaining forces leaving by the end of 2011. The 4,000 British troops due to leave are the last British soldiers in Iraq.

The U.S. withdrawal will be gradual at first, leaving most troops in place for parliamentary elections at the end of this year. There are currently about 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Remaining American forces will be repositioned in coordination with Iraqi authorities to ensure the most dangerous areas of the country are protected, Perkins said.

Perkins insisted violence has dropped more than 90 percent and was at its lowest level since the summer of 2003, claiming a recent spate of high-profile attacks, including Sunday's bombing, was evidence of an increasingly desperate al-Qaida in Iraq.

"Al-Qaida and other terrorists are still active," he said, adding insurgents appear to be stepping up attacks to derail recent progress by the Iraqi government in holding provincial elections and in reaching a new security agreement with the United States.

"It's indicative that al-Qaida feels threatened. They're feeling desperate. They want very much to maintain relevance," he said.

The bomber on Sunday detonated his explosives as he drove his motorcycle into a group of people waiting near a side entrance of the academy, which is in a mainly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad.

Iraqi and U.S. forces sealed off the scene, allowing only ambulances and fire engines to enter. Nervous Iraqi troops fired in the air to prevent onlookers and reporters from getting too close. They accidentally shot at a fire engine but no casualties were reported, according to witnesses.

Extremists increasingly have targeted Iraqi forces as they take over the country's security so the American troops can go home.

Baghdad's main police academy has been hit by several bombings. Another suicide bombing there killed at least 33 people and wounded dozens on Dec. 1.

Haitham Fadhel said he was standing in one of three lines of recruits arriving for their first day of special guard training courses at the academy.

"We were feeling secure as we were waiting in a well-guarded area," he said. "Before the explosion occurred I heard a loud shout saying 'Stop, stop, where are you going?' Seconds later, a huge explosion shook the area."

The 24-year-old recruit from the mainly Shiite neighborhood of New Baghdad was knocked unconscious and was wounded by shrapnel. He said he was lucky because the bomber struck a different line, but two of his friends were killed.

"I am just wondering how a big security breach can occur in such a secured area," Fadhel said. "I came here to get a job after four years of staying at home even though I graduated from Oil Institute ... but it seems that I have no luck."

Iraqi officials provided conflicting casualty tolls, as is common in the chaotic aftermath of bombings.

Three medical officials and one police officer in the area where the bombing occurred said 32 people were killed, including 19 recruits, nine policemen and four traffic police, and some 60 others were wounded.

Another police officer said 28 were killed. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said 24 people were killed and more than 60 wounded.

___

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes and Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.

Source: AP News

zzzzzzzzz

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

President Obama talking with members of the Ohio Congressional delegation aboard Air Force One on Friday during a trip to Ohio. More Photos >

By HELENE COOPER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

Mr. Obama pointed to the success in peeling Iraqi insurgents away from more hard-core elements of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a strategy that many credit as much as the increase of American forces with turning the war around in the last two years. “There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region,” he said, while cautioning that solutions in Afghanistan will be complicated.

In a 35-minute conversation with The New York Times aboard Air Force One on Friday, Mr. Obama reviewed the challenges to his young administration. The president said he could not assure Americans the economy would begin growing again this year. But he pledged that he would “get all the pillars in place for recovery this year” and urged Americans not to “stuff money in their mattresses.”

“I don’t think that people should be fearful about our future,” he said. “I don’t think that people should suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions.”

As he pressed forward with ambitious plans at home to rewrite the tax code, expand health care coverage and curb climate change, Mr. Obama dismissed criticism from conservatives that he was driving the country toward socialism. After the interview, which took place as the president was flying home from Ohio, he called reporters from the Oval Office to assert that his actions have been “entirely consistent with free-market principles” and to point out that large-scale government intervention in the markets and expansion of social welfare programs began under President George W. Bush.

Sitting at the head of a conference table with his suit coat off, Mr. Obama exhibited confidence six weeks into his presidency despite the economic turmoil around the globe and the deteriorating situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He struck a reassuring tone about the economy, saying he had no trouble sleeping at night.

“Look, I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or just dealing with health care or just dealing with energy or just dealing with Iraq or just dealing with Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t have that luxury, and I don’t think the American people do, either.”

The president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.

Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”

Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban “should be explored,” an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.

“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that outreach may not yield the same success. “The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex,” he said. “You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”

For American military planners, reaching out to some members of the Taliban is fraught with complexities. For one thing, officials would have to figure out which Taliban members might be within the reach of a reconciliation campaign, no easy task in a lawless country with feuding groups of insurgents.

And administration officials have criticized the Pakistani government for its own reconciliation deal with local Taliban leaders in the Swat Valley, where Islamic law has been imposed and radical figures hold sway. Pakistani officials have sought to reassure administration officials that their deal was not a surrender to the Taliban, but rather an attempt to drive a wedge between hard-core Taliban leaders and local Islamists.

During the interview, Mr. Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found. “There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said.

“I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario,” he added. The president went on to say that “we don’t torture” and that “we ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.”

Aides later said Mr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention. In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court.

Instead, aides said Mr. Obama’s comment referred only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

Mr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bush’s detainee policy might be disappointed. Mr. Obama said that by the time he got into office, the Bush administration had taken “steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

He credited not Mr. Bush but the former Central Intelligence Agency director Michael V. Hayden and the former director of national intelligence Mike McConnell, who “really had America’s security interests in mind when they acted, and I think were mindful of American values and ideals.”

Turning to domestic affairs, Mr. Obama indicated that the end was not in sight when it came to the economic crisis and suggested that he expected it could take another $750 billion to address the problem of weak and failing financial institutions beyond the $700 billion already approved. Maintaining support for the additional costs of bailouts is quite likely to be among Mr. Obama’s biggest challenges, given the anger that many Americans feel toward Wall Street executives who they believe are being unduly rewarded with bailout money.

The budget plan he released last month included a placeholder estimate of $250 billion for additional bank bailouts — an amount that represents the projected long-term cost to taxpayers of a $750 billion infusion into the financial sector — and in the interview Mr. Obama indicated that those figures were what he was likely to seek from Congress.

“We have no reason to revise that estimate,” he said.

Addressing the fear and uncertainty among Americans as job losses mount and stock markets sink, Mr. Obama urged Americans to “be prudent” in their personal financial decisions, but not to hunker down so much that it would further slow the recovery.

“What I don’t think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending,” he said.

Still, he avoided guessing when the situation might begin to turn around. “Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” he said. “How long it will take before recovery actually translates into stronger job markets and so forth is going to depend on a whole range of factors.”

He added that “part of what you’re seeing now is weaknesses in Europe that are actually greater than some weaknesses here, bouncing back and having an impact on our markets.”

Mr. Obama’s uncertain forecast about when the economy will begin to rebound contrasted with the projections embedded in the budget he recently released.

That plan rested on the assumption that the economy would shrink by 1.2 percent this year, a projection that many economists, including some in his administration, consider overly optimistic because it implies the economy would bounce back in the second half of this year.

As he settles into his new job, Mr. Obama said he spent much of his time reading briefing books, but still tried to stay in touch by perusing newspapers and thumbing through weekly newsmagazines. But he said he did not watch much television, except basketball games.

Mr. Obama rode to the White House partly on his savvy use of new technology, and he has a staff-written blog on his presidential Web site. Even so, he said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example.

“Part of the reason we don’t spend a lot of time looking at blogs,” he said, “is because if you haven’t looked at it very carefully, then you may be under the impression that somehow there’s a clean answer one way or another — well, you just nationalize all the banks, or you just leave them alone and they’ll be fine.”

Jeff Zeleny and Peter Baker contributed reporting.

The Ultimate Earmark
U.S. Military Aid to Israel
By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

In these days of economic crisis, budget overruns, earmarks, and multi-billion dollar bailouts, when Americans are being forced to tighten their own belts, one of the most automatic earmarks—a bailout by any measure—goes to a foreign government but is little understood by most Americans. U.S. military aid to Israel is doled out in annual increments of billions of dollars but remains virtually unchallenged while other fiscal outlays are drastically cut.

The United States and Israel signed a Memorandum of Understanding in August 2007 committing the U.S. to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade. This is grant aid, given in cash at the start of each fiscal year. The only stipulation imposed on Israel’s use of this cash gift is that it spend 74 per cent to purchase U.S. military goods and services.

The first grant under this agreement was made in October 2008, for FY2009, in the amount of $2.55 billion. To bring the total 10-year amount to $30 billion, amounts in future years will gradually increase until an annual level of $3.1 billion is reached in FY2013. This will continue through FY2018.

Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Since 1949, the United States has provided Israel with $101 billion in total aid, of which $53 billion has been military aid. For the last 20-plus years, Israel has received an average of $3 billion annually in grant aid;, until now the grant has been a mix of economic and military aid.

Israel receives its aid under vastly more favorable terms than any other recipient. Egypt, for instance, receives $2 billion a year in economic aid, but this is a loan and must be repaid. Saudi Arabia also has U.S. military equipment in its arsenal, but it buys and pays for this equipment and is not given it, as Israel is.

Aid to Israel can be said to benefit the United States because it is spent to purchase equipment manufactured here. But this recycling of federal monies into the arms industry is not the wisest way to spur general economic recovery. In fact, in the midst of a financial crisis, incurring a long-term obligation of this magnitude is highly irresponsible.

When Israel attacks Palestinians, as during the recent assault on Gaza, its instruments of destruction are U.S. fighter jets and attack helicopters, U.S. missiles, U.S.-made white phosphorus, U.S.-made Caterpillar bulldozers. All of this American-made destruction is clearly identifiable to television audiences throughout the Arab and Muslim world, where viewers receive a steady diet of news showing Palestinian civilians being killed by weapons made in the USA. It is from this vast population, which feels kinship with Palestinians and feels itself to be under assault from the United States, that terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are able to find recruits.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act stipulates that no aid may be provided to a country that engages in a consistent pattern of violations of international human rights laws. Israel has been charged by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch with precisely such violations during the Gaza assault and in past attacks. Israel also violates the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that U.S. weapons must be used only for “internal security.”

This arms package, furthermore, seriously undermines the mission of U.S. peace mediators such as former Senator George Mitchell, recently appointed by President Obama as envoy to the Middle East. As long as Israel can rest assured that it is guaranteed an annual arms package in the billions, it will have no incentive whatsoever to heed Mitchell’s mediation efforts, to make the territorial concessions necessary to reach a peace agreement, to stop building settlements and other infrastructure in the occupied Palestinian territories, or to stop its attacks on Palestinians.

By committing itself to this arms package, the United States is undermining with one hand the very peace agreement it is trying to promote with the other hand.

These distortions of U.S. national interests must stop.

Kathleen and Bill Christison have been writing on Palestine and Israel for several years. Kathleen is the author of two books on the Palestinian situation and U.S. policy on the issue, while Bill has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies, mostly for CounterPunch. They have co-authored a book, forthcoming in June from Pluto Press, on the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinians, with over 50 of their photographs. Thirty years ago, they were analysts for the CIA. They are members of the Stop $30 Billion Coalition in Albuquerque, NM. They can be reached at kb.christison@earthlink.net.