3.6.06

Russian Diplomat "Killed in Iraq"

Russian Diplomat "Killed in Iraq"

Bad Move.

Saturday 03 June 2006

One Russian diplomat has been killed and four kidnapped in Iraq's capital, Baghdad, Iraqi interior ministry officials say.

The gunmen used three cars to block a road then opened fire on the Russian diplomatic vehicle, the officials say.

The attack took place in Mansour district in the west of the city, close to the Russian embassy.

An embassy official confirmed the death and abductions to Russia's Interfax agency but made no further comment.

Russia's foreign ministry in Moscow would only say it was still checking the information.

Mansour houses a number of embassies and has seen attacks on other diplomats.

A United Arab Emirates diplomat was seized and held for two weeks before being freed last month.

Last year, two Algerian, one Egyptian and two Moroccan embassy workers were abducted and killed.

Severed Heads

The latest abductions came on another day of violence across the country.

Iraqi police said they had found eight severed heads on a roadside near the town of Baquba, 60km (35 miles) north-east of Baghdad.

The identities have not been confirmed but a note at the scene said at least one had been killed in retaliation for the murder of four Shia doctors.

Police told the Reuters news agency one of the men was identified as the Sunni preacher of a mosque in Tarmiya, 30km north of Baghdad.

And a police lieutenant-colonel, Adil Zihari, told Associated Press five of the men worked at a hospital in Baghdad.

Separately, seven policemen were killed and 10 other people wounded in an attack on a checkpoint in Baquba.

Insurgents raided the al-Razi checkpoint with rocket-propelled and hand grenades and small arms fire.

In other violence, at least four bodies were found across Baghdad, all with signs of torture.

The violence comes as the new government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki prepares to name the new interior and defence ministers - a move the administration hopes will help ease unrest.

2.6.06

Iraqi Assails U.S. for Strikes on Civilians - New York Times

Iraqi Assails U.S. for Strikes on Civilians - New York Times

Published: June 2, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.


Mohammed Adnan/Associated Press

Iraqis mourned their dead relatives outside a morgue in Baquba Thursday after gunmen ambushed a bus and killed at least five people.

The Reach of War

Go to Complete Coverage »

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: The Transition in Iraq

As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.

In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said. "This is completely unacceptable." Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added.

The denunciation was an unusual declaration for a government that remains desperately dependent on American forces to keep some form of order in the country amid a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency in the west, widespread sectarian violence in Baghdad, and deadly feuding among Shiite militias that increasingly control the south.

It was also a sign of the growing pressure on Mr. Maliki, whose governing coalition includes Sunni Arabs who were enraged by news of the killings in Haditha, a city deep in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province. At the same time, he is being pushed by the Americans to resolve the quarreling within his fragile coalition that has left him unable to fill cabinet posts for the Ministries of Defense and the Interior, the two top security jobs in the country.

Military and Congressional officials have said they believe that an investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis in Haditha on Nov. 19 will show that a group of marines shot and killed civilians without justification or provocation. Survivors in Haditha say the troops shot men, women and children in the head and chest at close range.

For the second day in a row, President Bush spoke directly about the furor surrounding the case. "Obviously, the allegations are very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military, especially the Marine Corps," President Bush said Thursday, in response to a question from a reporter after a meeting of his cabinet. Referring to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, he added, "I've spoken to General Pace about this issue quite a few times."

Investigators are examining the role of senior commanders in the aftermath of the Haditha killings, and trying to determine how high up the chain of command culpability may rest.

Marine officials said Thursday that Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson, who was the top Marine Corps commander in Iraq during the Haditha killings, had been set to be promoted to become the service's senior officer in charge of personnel, a three-star position.

General Johnson is widely respected by the Marine Corps' senior leadership, yet officials said it was unlikely that the Pentagon would put him up for promotion until the Haditha investigations were concluded.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that a parallel investigation into whether the killings were covered up has concluded that some officers reported false information and that superiors failed to adequately scrutinize the reports about the two dozen deaths.

The newspaper said that the inquiry had determined that Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, a squad leader present at Haditha, made a false statement when he reported that a roadside bombing had killed 15 civilians. The inquiry also said that an intelligence unit that later visited the site failed to highlight that civilians had gunshot wounds.

In Baghdad, senior Iraqi officials demanded an apology and explanation about Haditha from the United States and vowed their own inquiry.

"We in the ministers' cabinet condemned this crime and demanded that coalition forces show the reasons behind this massacre," Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, one of the most powerful Sunni Arabs in the new government, said in an interview.

Where There Was One Enemy, Now There Are Many

Where There Was One Enemy, Now There Are Many

by Terri Judd

Amid the posters of Muqtada al-Sadr and other radical clerics plastered across Basra, the face of a small wide-eyed child stares forth from a far more insignificant circular.

The handwritten inscription below explains his family are desperate for information about the little boy, aged no more than five. But the Baswaris appeared not to notice it on their way to market. "Probably kidnapped," one man said dismissively as if it was too ordinary an occurrence these days to merit further discussion.


Iraqi police commandos search a car at a checkpoint in the southern city of Basra. A pregnant woman was shot dead at a US checkpoint in Iraq while on her way to give birth, officials said, sparking further controversy amid a furor over an alleged marines shooting rampage.(AFP/Essam Al Sudani)
Down the street, a large mural in the local police station depicts a map of Iraq. The red paint streaked down it represents the blood of its people, a police officer explained in an equally matter-of-fact manner.

There was a genuine sense of optimism when British tanks rolled into Iraq's second largest city more than three years ago. Some were so overjoyed, they greeted the soldiers with food and flowers. Those who had lost sons, fathers and uncles to Saddam Hussein's regime openly thanked the army.

But slowly that spirit has been crushed. One enemy has been replaced by countless others.

As Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki declared a state of emergency in the British-controlled area yesterday, anyone with any money or hope of escape is trying to emigrate.

Eman Aziz, has lost three of her university classmates since the invasion. All were shot in broad daylight. "It will be difficult for me to leave my country," she said. "But every day my husband goes to work I have to wonder if he will come back."

Murder statistics in the city fluctuate constantly from as many as 20 a day to an official figure of 60 assassinations in February. The people live in fear of the local militia, divided between Sadr's people and the Badr Brigade, as well as the British trained police force. While the British forces now acknowledge that there is a "rotten core" among the police they have trained, locals are far more blunt.

"If you ask anybody in Basra, they would tell you most of the crimes committed, the assassinations, they are carried out by policemen in police cars," said Major General Abdul Latif Thua'Aban, head of Iraqi army's 10 division, recently. He insisted his soldiers, who now command far more respect both locally and among the multi-national forces, are doing their best to stabilise the region.

But every attack aimed against British forces brings another bloody day for the people of Basra. Mortars and rockets which pound the British bases fall short with fatal consequences. A roadside bomb aimed at an armoured Warrior earlier this year tore through a classroom, packed with schoolchildren. Soldiers from the Highlanders battle group rebuilt it, mending the windows and desks - if not the children's peace of mind.

The servicemen and womenhave become used to the violence which appears to come in often inexplicable waves. Each death chips away at morale, and for some it brings searing grief. "Everyone was so keen to come out here. They are not so keen now," said one Royal Anglian soldier, who lost a friend 18 days ago.

There are also signs of optimism, economically at least. A fleet of new buses now waits outside the station. Amid the sewage and filth which still fill the streets, ambitious building projects abound. But ask the Baswaris who can possibly afford to build an ostentatious mansion beside the river and they simply shrug.

It is a common expression in a city where a largely moderate population is now afraid to speak out. Women in particular have seen their rights disappear since the invasion.To go out without a scarf, a regular sight three years ago, is tantamount to suicide. "Before the invasion you didn't talk about the Ba'ath party. Now you are afraid to talk about ten or 12 parties," said Eman Aziz.

An Immovable Obstacle to Action on Climate Change

An Immovable Obstacle to Action on Climate Change

An Immovable Obstacle to Action on Climate Change
by Andrew Gumbel

If you had to pick one company in America as the ultimate corporate villain, you might be hard pressed to find a better candidate than ExxonMobil. At a time of soaring petrol prices and growing public anger over the cost of filling up cars and trucks, ExxonMobil is not only making money hand over fist at an increasing rate - it is actually making more money than any other oil company in the world.


Environmentalists spit blood at the very mention of the name ExxonMobil for a variety of reasons - the company's willingness to spend millions of dollars to refute the significance or even the existence of global warming, and the role of energy companies in exacerbating it; its extraordinary lobbying, more energetic than any of its rivals', to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration; and its continuing refusal to make good on its full compensation payments to the victims of the 1988 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in Alaska.


The company's top officers and stockholders are, naturally, delighted. But just about everyone else these days seems to be hopping mad. The company was successfully sued last year by petrol station owners who alleged they were being overcharged.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, spit blood at the very mention of the name ExxonMobil for a variety of reasons - the company's willingness to spend millions of dollars to refute the significance or even the existence of global warming, and the role of energy companies in exacerbating it; its extraordinary lobbying, more energetic than any of its rivals', to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration; and its continuing refusal to make good on its full compensation payments to the victims of the 1988 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in Alaska.

Watchdogs of good corporate governance have been raising eyebrows for years at the compensation collected by ExxonMobil's top officers. Lee Raymond has been a particular object of public opprobrium for some time. Last November, he testified before Congress that America's soaring petrol prices were caused by "global supply and demand" and promised that ExxonMobil was assuming its share of the pain. "We're all in this together," he told congressmen. That, though, was before it emerged that ExxonMobil made a record-breaking $36bn (£19bn) in profits in 2005, a 40 per cent increase over the previous year

The recent sharp spike in petrol prices - now well over $3 a gallon, compared with well under $2 at the start of the Bush administration - has unleashed a political hurricane and played a major role in hammering President Bush's approval ratings.

The issue is also likely to play a prominent role in November's mid-term elections. Already, one Senate candidate, the Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford, has put out television adverts blaming the Republicans for allowing the oil companies to get away with murder. Mr Raymond's retirement package, he said, was something "you and I paid for".

In New York state, an ardent campaign is under way to break the company's monopoly hold on petrol stations along a stretch of road known as the Thruway. Eric Goldstein, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defence Council, a leading environmental lobbying group, justified the initiative, saying: "ExxonMobil has gone out of its way time and again to distinguish itself from its competitors as the most anti-environmental oil company."

Indeed, the company has financed about 40 organisations dedicated to debunking global warming, starting in the late 1980s. Mr Raymond himself has twice served as chairman of the climate change-denying Global Climate Coalition.

Even the federal government has found evidence the company has contributed directly to the increased cost of energy. The Government Accountability Office recently found that Exxon's 1999 merger with Mobil alone added four to five cents to the price of a gallon of petrol.

31.5.06

Truthdig - Reports - Robert Scheer: Bush Links Energized Enron

Truthdig - Reports - Robert Scheer: Bush Links Energized Enron

Posted on May 30, 2006
Bush's letter to Ken Lay

Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush wrote this letter to then-Enron Chairman Ken Lay in 1997. Personal letters like this one, obtained by The Smoking Gun, lay waste to Bush’s claim to be only a distant acquaintance of the disgraced energy trader.

By Robert Scheer

The Bush family consistently acted to put Enron and its longtime CEO, Ken Lay, into a position to rip off investors and taxpayers. Why is the mass media ignoring that fact now that Lay has been convicted in arguably the most egregious example of white-collar fraud in U.S. history?

Until he hooked up with the Bushes, Lay was just another mid-level energy trader complaining endlessly about being hemmed in by onerous government regulations and those terrible consumer lawyers who prevent free market hustlers from doing their thing. But after he and his company became top supporters of the Bushes — eventually giving $3 million in total to various Bush electoral campaigns and the Republican Party — doors opened for them in a big way. In particular, once Bush the father got rid of key energy industry regulations, Lay was a made man and Enron’s fortunes soared.

This program of corporate welfare led Lay to dub the first President Bush “the energy president” in a column supporting his reelection because “just six months after George Bush became president, he directed … the development of a new energy strategy,” which, in effect, compelled local utility companies to carry Enron electricity on their wires. It was, Lay crowed, “the most ambitious and sweeping energy plan ever proposed.”

Another huge gift from the first Bush regime came in the form of a ruling by Wendy Gramm, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that permitted Enron to trade in energy derivatives, making possible the company’s exponential growth. Five weeks after that ruling, Gramm resigned and joined the Enron board of directors, serving on its subsequently much criticized audit committee. Six years later, Gramm’s husband, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), further enabled Enron greed by pushing through additional anti-regulation legislation.



A long list of members of George H.W. Bush’s Cabinet and inner circle, including Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher, went to work for Enron after his 1992 defeat. An even greater number of Enron officials returned the favor by joining the George W. Bush administration in 2001 shortly before the Enron scandal exploded.

The close connections between President Bush and Lay began when they both worked on the 1992 Bush père presidential reelection campaign. In fact, a long paper trail of their friendly and collaborative correspondence has been made public through Freedom of Information Act requests. “Dear Ken, one of the sad things about old friends is that they seem to be getting older — just like you!” wrote then-Texas Gov. Bush in April 1997. “Thank goodness you have such a young beautiful wife.” In Lay’s typed responses — some are handwritten — he sometimes crossed out Bush’s formal titles to scrawl a friendly “George,” emphasizing their personal history before he urged the governor to, for example, help Enron secure foreign energy contracts with regimes in Romania and Uzbekistan, or called for so-called tort reform designed to protect corporations from lawsuits.

Typical was Bush’s role in Enron lobbying of Pennsylvania’s governor to permit Enron to enter his state’s energy market. As Lay wrote in a letter dated Oct. 7, 1997: “I very much appreciated your call to Gov. Tom Ridge a few days ago. I am certain that will have a positive impact on the way he and others in Pennsylvania view our proposal.” After the Enron crash, Bush attempted to distance himself from the “Bush pioneer,” who had sent more than $2 million in Enron funds George W.’s way, as well as supplying him with the Enron company jet on at least eight occasions. “I have not met with him personally,” Bush said after the scandal broke.

What Bush left out was not only his hundreds of personal encounters with Lay before he assumed the presidency but, more important, Lay’s key role in drafting the Bush administration’s energy policy. Lay met with energy task force chairman Dick Cheney at least six times. It was Lay who submitted a key memo opposing price caps in response to the energy crisis in California that Enron had helped engineer. Lay was also instrumental in the abrupt dismissal of Curtis Hebert Jr. as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman. The neutered FERC later conveniently refused California’s loud pleas for help.

So far, California has recouped some of the billions in taxpayer and pension funds it lost, and several of Enron’s top dogs are looking at hard time. Perhaps, after this November, if the opposition party can retake at least one branch of government, the connections between these corporate criminals and their buddy in the White House can be more fully investigated as well.

29.5.06

The Hardest Word

The Hardest Word
by Scott Ritter

One has to wonder as to what must have been going through the minds of those who were advising George W Bush and Tony Blair to "come clean", so to speak, about their respective shortcomings regarding the conduct of the war in Iraq. With over 2,460 American and 106 UK soldiers killed in Iraq (not to mention untold thousands of dead Iraqis), the two people in the world most responsible for the ongoing debacle in Iraq displayed the combination of indifference and ignorance that got them neck deep in a quagmire of their own making to begin with.

President Bush kicked himself for "talking too tough", while the British prime minister ruminated on the decision to disband the Ba'athist infrastructure that held Iraq together in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Neither expressed any regret over the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.

Bush made no reference to the exaggerated and falsified claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction he and his loyal ally bandied about so freely in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Blair, recently returned from a visit to Baghdad where he met with the newly appointed prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, did not reflect on the reality that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was a more peaceful and prosperous land before British and American troops overthrew the Iraqi president and condemned Iraq to the horrific reality of insurgent-fed civil strife.

"Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing," Bush remarked, although he was quick to add, "Not everything has turned out the way we hoped". That, of course, could qualify for the understatement of the year. For his part, Blair spoke of faulty judgements, perhaps the greatest of which was to underestimate the scope and intensity of the insurgency, which he in typical fashion characterized as fighting against the democratic process, as opposed to struggling against an illegal, illegitimate and unjust occupation.

Blair shared his reflective insights at moment when the people of the United Kingdom were wrestling with new revelations concerning how he misled their attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, into putting forward a legal finding that enabled Britain to go to war with Iraq void of a second United Nations security council resolution. Blair had apparently told Lord Goldsmith that Iraq was in "material breach" of its obligations, despite the fact that no new intelligence on WMD had been unearthed, and UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq receiving total cooperation from the Iraqi government. Not a peep from the prime minister on this matter, though.

For his part Bush waxed eloquently about the cost of war to America. "No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America," the president said. "I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country." He added: "I can understand why the American people are troubled by the war in Iraq. I understand that. But I also believe the sacrifice is worth it and it's necessary."

Of course, the president remained mute as to the current visit to Iraq by the commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael Hagee, who in the light of recent accusations of excessive force on the part of Marines fighting a life and death struggle in the Anbar province of Iraq, were cautioned to kill "only when justified". Some 717 Marines have lost their lives in the fighting in Iraq, most in the violence-prone Anbar province, where the Iraqi insurgency is particularly deeply entrenched. Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment are accused of slaughtering scores of innocent Iraqis in the aftermath of a fire-fight that followed a deadly attack on the Marines by a road-side bomb. In the middle of a conflict not of their making, fighting an enemy as deadly and resolute as they themselves are, the Marines are now lectured by general's to destroy only that which needs destroyed, kill only those who need killed, as if war was ever that easy.

Instead of focusing on the horrific reality of the unmitigated disaster that these two politicians are solely responsible for inflicting on their own respective armed forces and the people of Iraq, Bush deflected any talk about bringing American troops home. "I have said to the American people, 'As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down,'" he said. "But I've also said that our commanders on the ground will make that decision." Blair dutifully chimed in that, in the aftermath of his Baghdad visit, he "came away thinking that the challenge is still immense, but I also came away more certain than ever that we should rise to it."

Both politicians were playing to their respective electorates, Blair in an effort to forestall his inevitable departure from government, Bush trying against hope to prevent a democratic landslide in the mid-term elections upcoming in November. But they both forgot that, to paraphrase an old military saying, "the enemy has a vote, too." And the Iraqi insurgency votes on a daily basis, its ballots counted in the bodies of those killed because of the violence brought on Iraq thanks to the decision by Bush and Blair to invade.

That decision, based upon lies and deceit, and done in pursuit of pure power (either in the form of global hegemony, per Bush, or a pathetic effort to ride Bush's coattails in the name of maintaining a "special relationship", for Blair), underscores the reality that when it comes to Iraq, both are resting on a policy that is as corrupt as one can possibly imagine.

Void of any genuine reflection as to what actually went wrong, and lacking in any reality-based process which seeks to formulate a sound way out of Iraq, these two politicians are simply continuing the self-delusional process of blundering down a path in Iraq that can only lead to more death and destruction.

Perhaps the advisors of Bush and Blair thought they were going to put a human face on two leaders who had been so vilified over the Iraq debacle. If so they failed. The joint press conference was little more than a pathetic show where two failed politicians voiced their continued support of failed policies, which had gotten their respective nations embroiled in a failed war. To quote Blair: "What more can I say? Probably not wise to say anything more at all."

Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and Marine Corps intelligence officer. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein."

28.5.06

Greg Palast | Lay Convicted, Bush Walks, Ahnold Got Lay'd

Greg Palast | Lay Convicted, Bush Walks, Ahnold Got Lay'd

Lay Convicted, Bush Walks
By Greg Palast
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 25 May 2006

Don't kid yourself. If you think the conviction of Ken Lay means that George W. Bush is serious about going after corporate bad guys, think again.

First, Lay got away with murder - or at least grand larceny. Like Al Capone convicted of failing to file his taxes, Ken Lay, though found guilty of stock fraud, is totally off the hook for his BIG crime: taking down California and Texas consumers for billions through fraud on the power markets. Lay co-convict Jeff Skilling and Enron did not act alone. They connived with a half dozen other power companies and a dozen investment banks to manipulate both the stock market and the electricity market. And though their co-conspirators have now paid $3 billion to settle civil claims, the executives of these other corporations and banks get a walk on criminal charges. Furthermore, to protect our president's boardroom buddies from any additional discomfort, the Bush Justice Department, just days ago, indicted Milberg-Weiss, the law firm that nailed Enron's finance industry partners-in-crime. The timing of the bust of this firm - the top corporation-battling law firm - smacks of political prosecution, and is a signal to Big Business that it's business as usual. Lay and Skilling have to pay up their ill-gotten gains to Enron's stockholders, but what about the $9-plus billion owed to electricity consumers? The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bush's electricity cops, have slapped Enron and its gang of power pirates on the wrist. Could that have something to do with the fact that Ken Lay, in secret chats with Dick Cheney, selected the Commission's chairmen? Team Bush had to throw the public a bone, so they threw us Lay and Skilling for the crime - note - not of ripping off the public, but of ripping off stockholders - the owner class. This limited conviction, and the announcement of only one more indictment - of the crime-busters at Milberg-Weiss - is Team Bush's "all clear!" signal for the sharks to jump back into the power pool.

That leaves one question: If Bush's Justice Department let Ken and company keep the California loot, what about that state's own government? If you want to know how Californians' $9 billion went bye-bye, read on...


When Ahnold Got Lay'd

Peninsula Hotel, Beverly Hills. May 17, 2001. The Financial Criminal of the twentieth century, not long out of prison, meets with the Financial Criminal of the twenty-first century, who fears he may also have to do hard time. These two, bond-market manipulator Mike Milken and Ken Lay, not-yet-indicted Chairman of Enron Corporation, were joined by a selected group of movers and shakers - and one movie star.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had been to such private parties before. As a young immigrant without a nickel to his name, he put on private displays of his musculature for guests of his promoter. As with those early closed gatherings, I don't know all that went on at the Peninsula Hotel meet, though I understand Ahnold, this time, did not have to strip down to his Speedos. Nevertheless, the moral undressing was just as lascivious, if you read through the 34 page fax that arrived at our office.

Lay, who convened the hugger-mugger, was in a bit of trouble. Enron and the small oligopoly of other companies that ruled California's electricity system had been caught jacking up the price of power and gas by fraud, conspiracy and manipulation. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it was real money - $6.3 billion in suspect windfalls in just six months, May through December 2000, for a half-dozen electricity buccaneers, at least $9 billion for the year. Their skim would have been higher, but the tricksters thought they were limited by the number of digits the state's power-buying computers could read.

When Ken met Arnold in the hotel room, the games were far from over. For example, in June 2003, Reliant Corporation of Houston simply turned off several power plants, and when California cities faced going dark, the company sold them a pittance of kilowatts for more than gold, making several million in minutes.

Power-market shenanigans were nothing new in 2000. What was new was the response of Governor Gray Davis. A normally quiet, if not dull, man, this Governor had the temerity to call the energy sellers "pirates" - in public! - and, even more radically, he asked them to give back all the ill-gotten loot, the entire $9 billion. The state filed a regulatory complaint with the federal government.

The Peninsula Hotel get-together was all about how to "settle" the legal actions in such a way that Enron and friends could get the state to accept dog food instead of dollars. Davis seemed unlikely to see things Ken's way. Life would be so much better if California had a governor like the muscle guy in the Speedos.

And so it came to pass that, in 2003, quiet Gray Davis, who had the cojones to stand up to the electricity barons, was thrown out of office by the voters and replaced by the tinker-toy tough guy. The Governator performed as desired. Soon after Schwarzenegger took over from Davis, he signed off on a series of deals with Reliant, Williams Company, Dynegy, Entergy and the other power pirates for ten to twenty cents on the dollar, less than you'd tip the waitress. Enron paid just about nothing.


23.5.06

Easily Dispensable: Iraq's Children

By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 22 May 2006

/*Cherishing children is the mark of a civilized society.*/
/- Joan Ganz Cooney/

If, as I would like to believe, the above quote suggests all children
and not merely those born in Western democracies, I am no longer certain
that we live in a civilized society.

That women and children suffer the most during times of war is not a new
phenomenon. It is a reality as old as war itself. What Rumsfeld, Rice
and other war criminals of the Cheney administration prefer to call
"collateral damage" translates in English as the inexcusable murder of
and other irreparable harm done to women, children and the elderly
during any military offensive.

US foreign policy in the Middle East manifests itself most starkly in
its impact on the children of Iraq. It is they who continue to pay with
their lives and futures for the brutal follies of our administration.
Starvation under sanctions, and death and suffering during war and
occupation are their lot. Since the beginning of the occupation, Iraqi
children have been affected worst by the violence generated by the
occupying forces and the freedom fighters.

While I had witnessed several instances of this from the time of my
first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I was shaken by a close encounter
with it, a year later, in November 2004.

In a major Baghdad hospital, 12-year-old Fatima Harouz lay in her bed
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album18&id=1_G>,
dazed, amidst a crowded hospital room. She limply waved her bruised arm
at the flies that buzzed over the bed. Her shins, shattered by bullets
when American soldiers fired through the front door of her house, were
both covered in casts. Small plastic drainage bags filled with red fluid
sat upon her abdomen, where she had taken shrapnel from another bullet.

She was from Latifiya, a city just south of Baghdad. Three days before I
saw her, soldiers had attacked her home. Her mother, standing with us in
the hospital, said, "They attacked our home and there weren't even any
resistance fighters in our area." Her brother had been shot and killed,
his wife wounded, and their home ransacked by soldiers. "Before they
left, they killed all of our chickens," added Fatima's mother, her eyes
a mixture of fear, shock and rage. A doctor who was with us as Fatima's
mother narrated the story looked at me and sternly asked, "This is the
freedom . in their Disney Land are there kids just like this?"

The doctors' anger was mild if we consider the magnitude of suffering
that has been inflicted upon the children of Iraq as a direct result of
first the US-backed sanctions and then the failed US occupation.

In a report released by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) on
May 2nd of this year, one out of three Iraqi children is malnourished
and underweight.

The report states
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/2f579a75641ad1b1b8ef750a7efb67ce.htm>
that 25% of Iraqi children between the ages of six months and five years
old suffer from either acute or chronic malnutrition. In addition, the
Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) press release on the
matter added, "A 2004 Living Conditions Survey indicated a decrease in
mortality rates among children under five years old since 1999. However,
the results of a September 2005 Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
- commissioned by Iraq's Central Organization for Statistics and
Information Technology, the World Food Program and UNICEF - showed
worsening conditions since the April 2003 US-led invasion of the country."

Also this month, on May 15th , a news story
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DAH517137.htm> about the same
UN-backed government survey highlighted that "people are struggling to
cope three years after US-forces overthrew Saddam Hussein." The report
added that "Children are ... major victims of food insecurity," and
described the situation as "alarming." The story continued, "A total of
four million Iraqis, roughly 15 percent of the population, were in dire
need of humanitarian aid including food, up from 11 percent in a 2003
report, the survey of more than 20,000 Iraqi households found.. Decades
of conflict and economic sanctions have had serious effects on Iraqis.
Their consequences have been rising unemployment, illiteracy and, for
some families, the loss of wage earners."

/*But the hearts of small children are delicate organs. A cruel
beginning in this world can twist them into curious shapes.*/
/ - Carson McCullers/

Iraq's ministries of Health and Planning carried out the survey with
support from the UN World Food Program and UNICEF. A spokesman for
UNICEF's Iraq Support Center in Amman, Jordan, David Singh, told Reuters
that the number of acutely malnourished children in Iraq had more than
doubled, from 4% during the last year of Saddam's rule to at least 9% in
2005. He also said, "Until there is a period of relative stability in
Iraq we are going to continue to face these kinds of problems." UNICEF's
special representative for Iraq, Roger Wright, commenting on the dire
effects of the situation, said, "This can irreversibly hamper the young
child's optimal mental/cognitive development, not just their physical
development."

This past March, an article titled "Garbage Dump Second Home for Iraqi
Children <http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-31-03.asp>"
addressed the appalling situation in the northern, Kurdish-controlled
Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah where young children assist their families in
searching the city garbage dumps. It said that children as young as
seven often accompany their parents to the dumps before school, in order
to look for reusable items such as shoes, clothing and electrical
equipment which is then resold in order to augment the family income.

This disturbing news is not really news in Baghdad. Back in December
2004 I saw children living with their families
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album27&id=100_3505>
in the main dump of the capital city.

Poverty in Iraq has plummeted acutely during the invasion and
occupation. Those who were already surviving on the margins due to years
of deprivation have sunk further, and the children of such families have
recourse to no nutrition, no health care, no education, no present and
no future. Those from less unfortunate backgrounds are now suffering
because the family wage earner has been killed, detained, or lost
employment. Or the source of the family's income, a shop, factory or
farm have been destroyed, or simply because it is impossible to feed a
family under the existing economic conditions of high costs and low to
nil income in Iraq.

As execrable as the current situation is for Iraqi children, most of the
world media, appallingly, does not see it as a story to be covered. Even
back in November 2004, surveys conducted by the UN, aid agencies and the
interim Iraqi government showed that acute malnutrition among young
children had nearly doubled since the US-led invasion took place in the
spring of 2004.

A Washington Post story
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html>,
"Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos," read, "After the rate of acute
malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4
percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to
a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's
Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development
Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children
suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea
and dangerous deficiencies of protein."

Not only is the US occupation starving Iraq's children, but occupation
forces regularly detain them as well. It is common knowledge in Iraq
that there have been child prisoners in the most odious prisons, such as
Abu Ghraib, since early on in the occupation. While most, if not all,
corporate media outlets in the US have been loath to visit the subject,
the Sunday Herald in Scotland reported
<http://www.sundayherald.com/43796> back in August 2004 that "coalition
forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib.
Witnesses claim that the detainees - some as young as 10 - are also
being subjected to rape and torture."

The story read, "It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says
he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'The kid was hurting very bad and they
covered all the doors with sheets,' he said in a statement given to
investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. 'Then, when I heard
the screaming I climbed the door . and I saw [the soldier's name is
deleted] who was wearing a military uniform." Hilas, who was himself
threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Ghraib, then described
in horrific detail how the soldier raped 'the little kid.'"

The newspaper's investigation at that time concluded that there were as
many as 107 children being held by occupation forces, although their
names were not known, nor their location or the length of their detention.

In June 2004 an internal UNICEF report, which was not made public, noted
widespread arrest and detention of Iraqi children by US and UK forces. A
section of the report titled "Children in Conflict with the Law or with
Coalition Forces," stated, "In July and August 2003, several meetings
were conducted with CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) . and Ministry
of Justice to address issues related to juvenile justice and the
situation of children detained by the coalition forces . UNICEF is
working through a variety of channels to try and learn more about
conditions for children who are imprisoned or detained, and to ensure
that their rights are respected."

Another section of the report added, "Information on the number, age,
gender and conditions of incarceration is limited. In Basra and Karbala
children arrested for alleged activities targeting the occupying forces
are reported to be routinely transferred to an internee facility in Um
Qasr. The categorization of these children as 'internees' is worrying
since it implies indefinite holding without contact with family,
expectation of trial or due process." The report went on to add, "A
detention centre for children was established in Baghdad, where
according to ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) a
significant number of children were detained. UNICEF was informed that
the coalition forces were planning to transfer all children in adult
facilities to this 'specialized' child detention centre. In July 2003,
UNICEF requested a visit to the centre but access was denied. Poor
security in the area of the detention centre has prevented visits by
independent observers like the ICRC since last December [2003]."

A section of the report which I found very pertinent, as I'd already
witnessed this occurring in Iraq, stated, "The perceived unjust
detention of Iraqi males, including youths, for suspected activities
against the occupying forces has become one of the leading causes for
the mounting frustration among Iraqi youth and the potential for
radicalization of this population group."

On December 17, 2003, at the al-Shahid Adnan Kherala secondary school in
Baghdad, I witnessed US forces detain 16 children who had held a mock,
non-violent, pro-Saddam Hussein the previous day. While forces from the
First Armored Division sealed the school with two large tanks,
helicopters, several Bradley fighting vehicles and at least 10 Humvees,
soldiers loaded the children into a covered truck and drove them to
their base. Meanwhile, the rest of the students remained locked inside
the school until the US military began to exit the area.

Shortly thereafter the doors were unlocked, releasing the frightened
students who flocked out the doors. The youngest were 12 years old, and
none of the students were older than 18. They ran out, many in tears,
while others were enraged as they kicked and shook the front gate. My
interpreter and I were surrounded by frenzied students who yelled, "This
is the democracy? This is the freedom? You see what the Americans are
doing to us here?"

Another student cried out to us, "They took several of my friends! Why
are they taking them to prison? For throwing rocks?" A few blocks away
we spoke with a smaller group of students who had run from the school
(in panic). One student who was crying yelled to me, "Why are they doing
this to us? We are only kids!"

The tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles that were guarding the perimeter
of the school began to rumble down the street beside us, on their
passage out. Several young boys with tears streaming down their faces
picked up stones and hurled them at the tanks as they drove by. Imagine
my horror when I saw the US soldiers on top of the Bradleys begin firing
their M-16's above our heads as we ducked inside a taxi. A soldier on
another Bradley, behind the first, passed and fired randomly above our
heads as well. Kids and pedestrians ran for cover into the shops and
wherever possible.

I remember a little boy, not more than 13 years old, holding a stone and
standing at the edge of the street glaring at the Bradleys as they
rumbled past. Another soldier riding atop another passing Bradley pulled
out his pistol and aimed it at the boy's head and kept him in his sights
until the vehicle rolled out of sight.

One of the students hiding behind our taxi screamed to me, "Who are the
terrorists here now? You have seen this yourself! We are school kids!"

The very next month, in January 2004, I was in an area on the outskirts
of Baghdad that had been pulverized by "Operation Iron Grip." I spoke
with a man at his small farm house. His three year old boy, Halaf Ziad
Halaf, walked up to me and with a worried look
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album06&id=100_1616>
on his face said, "I have seen the Americans here with their tanks. They
want to attack us."

His uncle, who had joined us for tea, leaned over to me and said, "The
Americans are creating the terrorists here by hurting people and causing
their relatives to fight against them. Even this little boy will grow up
hating the Americans because of their policy here."

The slaughter, starvation, detention, torture and sexual assault of
Iraq's children at the hands of US soldiers or by proxy via US foreign
policy, is not a recent phenomenon. It is true that the present US
administration has been brazen and blatant in its crimes in Iraq, but
those willing to bear witness must not forget that Bill Clinton and his
minions played an equally, if not even more devastating role in the
assault on the children of Iraq.

On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was
asked by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" about the effects of US sanctions
against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the
price worth it?"

In a response which has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think
this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

/*We are guilty of many errors and many faults but our worst crime is
abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the
things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his
bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are
being developed. To him we cannot answer "Tomorrow." His name is "Today."*/
/- Gabriela Mistral/

To all Americans who, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary,
continue to believe that they are supporting a war for democracy in
Iraq, I would like to say, the way Iraq is headed it will have little
use for democracy and freedom. We must find ways to stop the immoral,
soulless, repugnant occupation if we want the children of Iraq to see
any future at all.

Because of How STRONGLY OPPOSED I am to this, some of Dahr Jamail's dispatches get published in several locations.

Personal Data on Veterans Is Stolen

Personal Data on Veterans Is Stolen

This is actually the second time this has happened. About a year ago, at a previous address I received a letter stating the same thing had happened, and I would not be able to use my Government Credit card. Well, folks, I haven't had a government credit card since 2002. I would probably be receiving the same letter now, but I left no forwarding address.

Burglary Leaves Millions at Risk Of Identity Theft

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A01

As many as 26.5 million veterans were placed at risk of identity theft after an intruder stole an electronic data file this month containing their names, birth dates and Social Security numbers from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee, Secretary Jim Nicholson said yesterday.

The burglary occurred May 3 in Aspen Hill, according to a source with knowledge of the incident who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation.

A career data analyst, who was not authorized to take the information home, has been put on administrative leave pending the outcome of investigations by the FBI, local police and the VA inspector general, Nicholson said. He would not identify the employee by name or title.

"They believe this was a random burglary and not targeted at this data," he said. "There have been a series of burglaries in that community. . . . There is no indication at all that any use is being made of this data or even that they know that they have it." Nicholson said affected veterans include anyone discharged after 1975 and some of their spouses, as well as some veterans discharged before then who submitted a claim for VA benefits.

The theft represents the biggest unauthorized disclosure ever of Social Security data, and it could make affected veterans vulnerable to credit card fraud if the burglars realize the value of the data, one expert said.

"In terms of Social Security numbers, it's the biggest breach," said Evan Hendricks, publisher of the Privacy Times newsletter and author of the book "Credit Scores and Credit Reports." "As long as you've got that exact Social, most of the time the credit bureaus will disclose your credit report, and that enables the thief to get credit."

For years, the VA inspector general has criticized the department for lax information security, chiefly concerning the ease with which hackers might penetrate VA computer systems. "VA has not been able to effectively address its significant information security vulnerabilities and reverse the impact of its historically decentralized management approach," acting Inspector General Jon A. Wooditch wrote in a November 2005 report.

Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued a statement calling on the department to restrict access to sensitive information to essential personnel and to enforce those restrictions. "It is a mystifying and gravely serious concern that a VA data analyst would be permitted to just walk out the VA door with such information," the statement said. Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel will hold hearings on information security at the department.

Nicholson would not discuss specifics of the incident, saying doing so could hurt the investigation. The data do not contain medical records or financial information but in some cases show disability ratings, he said. "The employee took it home to work with it," he said. "He was working on a project . . . but he was not authorized to take it home."

According to a police report, someone pried open a window to the employee's home between 10:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. on May 3. The burglar or burglars took a laptop, an external drive and some coins. The theft was reported that day to Montgomery County police, according to the report.

Police think the crime may be related to a nearby break-in on the same day, the source said. Police are also investigating whether several burglaries in Rockville may be connected.

Although publicly revealing the incident may alert the thieves to the value of the data, Nicholson said VA officials decided that veterans needed to know to monitor their credit scores and credit card and bank statements. The department plans to send letters to all of the veterans to notify them that their personal information has been compromised, Nicholson said.


CONTINUED 1 2 Next

Iraq Veterans Against the War

IVAW Home - Iraq Veterans Against the War

Please visit this site and find out what had been kept from us in the media (not all has been kept quiet)-The US Government does not want us to know.

Peace Has No Borders-A Festival of Resistance
By Geoffrey Millard
June 16th & 17th we urge you to turn your back on U.S. war policies and join
with citizens of Canada and the world to demand an end to the Iraq War.

Tell the U.S. “Hands off Iraq and hands off U.S. soldiers!”

We ask that you join us in Buffalo, NY and Fort Erie, Ontario to implore the
government of Canada to act by granting asylum to U.S. soldiers who are
refusing to fight in the illegal war in Iraq!
... [more]


An Open Letter to Bubba
By Charlie Anderson, Iraq Veterans Against the War

I’ve seen you around. I’ve seen you driving your gas guzzling SUV with the “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the back. I’ve seen you wearing your pro-war/pro-bush t-shirts as you walk right past me in my Iraq Veterans Against the War t-shirt as if I don’t exist. And I’ve seen you at anti-war rallies and meetings where I often speak, as you wave your American flag and call me a traitor. In this country we have freedom of speech. But you owe me and every other veteran of this war the respect of listening to our experience.

Your magnet says “support our troops,” but what have you done for us? Not a penny of the proceeds go to us, instead they go to sweatshops in . You say that I am not supporting the troops when I say that they should come home. But I am, because I know that there was no threat to ... [more]

A Veteran's Response to the State of the Union Address
By Tim Goodrich, Iraq Veterans Against the War

President Bush, as a co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, I feel that your State of the Union address left many unanswered questions, particularly regarding the war in Iraq. Although you spoke of your grand plan for victory in Iraq, I would like to know exactly what the plan is. Clearly, it hasn't worked so far and it isn’t working now. In the past three years, the number of attacks per day in Iraq has increased and the war is no closer to being finished now than when it started. There have been more than 2,240 dead and 16,400 Americans wounded. This doesn’t take into account those who have returned and faced an under funded Veterans Administration, homelessness, or post traumatic stress disorder. For a real victory plan, the best course of action would be an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Our continued presence only serves to fuel terrorism, not defeat it. Not only would an immediate withdrawal prevent the unnecessary deaths of more of our country's honorable military personnel, but it would also increase the security of our nation by allowing our troops to do what they signed up for; defending the country. Mr. Bush, even the conservative (and now broken) military has grown tired of your deceit, lack of planning, and arrogance. Your job as President is to serve the people. It’s time to heed their call and bring the troops home.

R.I.P. Specialist Doug Barber

It is with great sadness that IVAW announces the death of one of our own. Specialist Doug Barber, a member of IVAW, recently took his own life after returning from Iraq. A main contributor to his death was the PTSD he dealth with; the same PTSD that originated from the time Doug spent in the war in Iraq. Another contributing factor was the failure of the VA to provide adequate mental care services to heal the wounds of war.

This is not the first time that a soldier has taken his life after returning from the battlefield. Even today, the list of the tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans who have committed suicide continues to grow. Aiding Iraq Veterans continues to be one of the main goals of IVAW. With your continued support, we will keep up the fight to make sure that returning vets receive the benefits and help they need and deserve.

Below is an article that was written by Jay Shaft, who had spoken extensively with Doug about his experiences. At the bottom of the article, there are links to articles Doug had written and audio interviews he ... [more]

Returning Home Alive
By Stan Goff

All is not okay or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand.

- Douglas Barber, 2005

On January 16th, after having talked quite normally on the phone with at least two other people that same day, Douglas Barber, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) living in Lee County, Alabama, changed the answer-message on his telephone. "If you're looking for Doug," it said in his Alabama drawl, "I'm checking out of this world. I'll see you on the other side." He then called the police, collected his shotgun, and went out onto his porch to meet them.

From the sketchy reports we have now, it seems the police wouldn't oblige him with a "suicide by cop" and tried to talk him down. When it became apparent he wasn't able to commit cop-suicide, 27-year-old Douglas Barber ... [more]

IVAW Success! Dave Airhart Wins Victory over Campus Repression

The Kent State Antiwar Committee (KSAWC) announced its victory over campus repression at a news conference at Kent State . The university had been taking IVAW member David Airhart, a student and veteran of Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War, to a disciplinary hearing for his having unfurled a peace banner at the top of a rock climbing wall erected on campus by military recruiters on October 29, 2005. At 5:30 PM on November 15th, Airhart learned from his lawyer that the university was canceling the hearing set for the 16th. (Charges will be expunged from his record, according to the university, after a mediation meeting.)

... [more]
IVAW Success! Pentagon Admits to Use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah!
November 19th, 2005

Despite denying the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah last year, the Pentagon has done an about-face and admitted that it was indeed used against enemy combatants. With Horrific Results

Read the article here

White phosphorus is a chemical that burns skin down to the bone and can not be extinguished with the use of water.

Recently, Italian State television aired a documentary about the use of white phosphorus featuring two IVAW members Watch the video here. Jeff Engelhardt and Garrett Reppenhagen were in Fallujah during the attack and testified to the fact that white phosphorus was indeed used. Earlier, the issue had come to light when officers mentioned its use in Field Artillery Magazine

Because of the publicity garnered by the documentary, the Pentagon has relented and told the American public the truth.

... [more]
The IVAW Mission Statement
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of veterans who have served since September 11th, 2001 including Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. We also believe that the governments that sponsored these wars are indebted to the men and women who were forced to fight them and must give their Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen the benefits that are owed to them upon their return home.


We welcome all active duty, national guard, reservists, and recent veterans into our ranks. Confidentiality can be assured. What does this mean? To join IVAW please send an email to ivaw@ivaw.net , or fill out this membership form.

Photobucket