Expatica's German news in English: Holocaust cartoon contest is a 'provocation': Steinmeier
BERLIN - German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Wednesday sharply attacked plans by an Iranian newspaper for a Holocaust cartoon contest.
"To ignore the Holocaust in this way and to denigrate the victims is not just tasteless but also a provocation," said Steinmeier in remarks to reporters. agreed
Steinmeier said he could neither comprehend nor understand such a move.
German law bans denying the Holocaust or causing offence to the memory of Holocaust victims.
Earlier, the German government said it would not close its embassies in Islamic countries which have been hit by violent protests over the publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Muslims.
"Closing of embassies is absolutely out of the question," said deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg at a news conference. Steg said Germany wanted to use its diplomats to promote both a "dialogue of cultures" and economic cooperation with the Islamic world.
"We have to use existing contacts to contribute to de-escalation," said Steg, who underlined that Germany would not reduce aid to any of the Muslim countries which had been hit by violent protests.
Cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, first published in Denmark, have been printed in many European newspapers including several in Germany.
The cartoons have enraged many Muslims. Depiction of the Prophet is barred under the Islamic faith. One of the cartoons published showed Mohammed with a bomb wrapped in his turban.
I really have refused to comment on this outrageous overreaction, but the conduct of those provoking violence is deplorable
8.2.06
ABC News: Soldier Says He Was Charged for Armor
ABC News: Soldier Says He Was Charged for Armor
CHARLESTON, W.Va. Feb 8, 2006 (AP)— A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.
First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard. BU*SH*IT
"I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday's edition. "They took it off me and burned it."
Rebrook's story spurred action Tuesday from U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va. "I've been in touch with his family, and I've already written (Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) to request that they immediately refund his money and review this horrendous policy," said Rockefeller, who is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "I'm shocked that he has been treated this way by our military."
Byrd questioned Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing in Washington.
"How can it be that the Defense Department, which is requesting $439 billion in this budget, has to resort to dunning a wounded soldier for $700 to replace a piece of body armor?" Byrd asked.
Schoomaker called Rebrook's story unusual and promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it."
Rockefeller said he first met Rebrook when he was an ROTC cadet at George Washington High School in Charleston and later nominated him to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where he graduated with honors. Rebrook then spent four years on active duty, including six months in Iraq.
Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was angry when she learned about the $700 bill. Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said.
Continued1. 2. 3. NEXT»
CHARLESTON, W.Va. Feb 8, 2006 (AP)— A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.
First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard. BU*SH*IT
"I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday's edition. "They took it off me and burned it."
Rebrook's story spurred action Tuesday from U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va. "I've been in touch with his family, and I've already written (Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) to request that they immediately refund his money and review this horrendous policy," said Rockefeller, who is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "I'm shocked that he has been treated this way by our military."
Byrd questioned Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing in Washington.
"How can it be that the Defense Department, which is requesting $439 billion in this budget, has to resort to dunning a wounded soldier for $700 to replace a piece of body armor?" Byrd asked.
Schoomaker called Rebrook's story unusual and promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it."
Rockefeller said he first met Rebrook when he was an ROTC cadet at George Washington High School in Charleston and later nominated him to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where he graduated with honors. Rebrook then spent four years on active duty, including six months in Iraq.
Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was angry when she learned about the $700 bill. Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said.
Continued1. 2. 3. NEXT»
The Death of a Presidency
History News Network
John K. White: The Death of a Presidency
Source: The Forum Vol. 3, Issue 4 (ed. Nelson Polsby) (1-30-06)
[John Kenneth White is a professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America. He is the author of The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2003).
The George W. Bush presidency is finished....
... George W. Bush’s troubles are profound. And when presidents are beleaguered, they often look to their predecessors for guidance. At first glance, Bush can take heart from their experiences. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, three other presidents have faced poorly in public opinion polls and have recovered their standing. Harry S. Truman’s first term is a case in point. In 1946, Truman’s approval rating dipped to just 27 percent, as Americans were fed up with labor strikes, meat shortages, and Truman’s inability to cope.42 Nearly forty years later, Ronald Reagan was rocked by the Iran-Contra affair, and his approval ratings fell from 62 percent to 47 percent.43 Bill Clinton took a similar tumble: he began his presidency with 58 percent support, but by 1994 his approval rating fell to 41 percent.44 Clinton’s big government health care plan along with his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve in the military left voters thinking that instead of electing a New Democrat, they might just have chosen George McGovern.
Yet, Truman, Reagan, and Clinton recovered because they could change the subject. Harry Truman’s failure to keep the Democrats in control of Congress in 1946, gave him a perfect opportunity to rail against a “Do-Nothing Congress” in 1948. Suddenly, the focus was back to the domestic New Deal-Fair Deal issues that always worked for Democrats. And—much to everyone’s surprise—Truman kept his job.
Ronald Reagan learned from the Truman experience. While the Contras may have been important to Reagan personally, effecting a regime change in Nicaragua was never central to his presidency. What mattered to Reagan’s followers was reducing taxes and winning the Cold War against the hated Soviet “evil empire.” After the Iran-Contra scandal became known, Reagan dropped most references to the Sandinistas and returned to familiar themes. Also sustaining Reagan was the public’s affection for him. At the height of the Iran- Contra affair, 75 percent said they liked Reagan personally, while a mere 18 percent did not.
Perhaps no president knew better how to change the subject than Bill Clinton. After the drubbing he took in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton ditched Hillary’s health care proposals and opted to enact bite-sized portions of them—e.g. insuring the children of the unemployed. Gays in the military were also forgotten, as Clinton turned his laser-like attention to family and values issues, including the desirability of having children wear school uniforms. In 1996, Clinton famously noted that “the era of big government is over,” and he signed a welfare reform bill over the objections of many Democrats. By echoing Reagan’s themes and keeping his focus on the middle class, Clinton won an easy victory over Bob Dole.
On the other hand, six presidents since FDR have failed to recoup their public standing: Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush. In 1952, Harry Truman saw his approval rating fall to a mere 22 percent after his administration became mired in the Korean War.47 Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill after another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict. Frustrated, they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower—especially after the World War II general told voters, “I shall go to Korea.”
Lyndon B. Johnson had a similar experience as he saw his landslide victory melt in the Vietnamese tropical heat. A Gallup poll taken in August 1968 found just 35 percent giving him positive marks.49 In many ways, LBJ foresaw his political demise, telling columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak after the 1964 election:
I was just elected by the biggest popular margin in the history of the country, fifteen million votes. Just by the natural way people think and because Barry Goldwater scared the hell out of them, I have already lost two of these fifteen and am probably getting down to thirteen. If I get into any fight with Congress, I have already lost another couple of million, and if I have to send any more boys into Vietnam, I may be down to eight million by the end of the summer.
In 1973, Richard M. Nixon’s presidency was caught in the web of Watergate. Opinion polls showed Nixon with a dismal approval rating of 30 percent.51 Repeatedly, he tried to change the focus to other issues, at one point telling Congress in 1974, “One year of Watergate is enough.”52 But the Watergate tapes only intensified the media and public focus on Nixon’s wrongdoing. By the time he left office, just 24 percent approved of his performance.
Gerald R. Ford, too, suffered a crippling blow to his public esteem. Starting with a breathtaking 71 percent job approval, his support dropped 21 points after his decision to pardon Nixon.54 Declaring that Watergate had been “an American tragedy” and “someone must write the end to it,” Ford hoped the pardon would turn attention away from Nixon and toward more pressing matters—including high energy prices and a stubbornly persistent inflation rate.55 But 60 percent of the public thought Ford was wrong to issue the pardon, and 62 percent said it condoned two standards of justice: one for the rich and powerful; another for the ordinary citizen.56 Ford could not escape the political fallout: a 1976 exit poll found 14 percent cited Watergate and the Nixon pardon as important issues in making their presidential decision, and an overwhelming percentage of these disenchanted voters backed Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter was the fifth president to suffer a fatal blow in public support. At the onset of his presidency, Carter received a 66 percent job approval rating.58 Just three years later, Carter’s positive grades had plummeted to 29 percent.59 In response, Carter delivered his famous “malaise speech” and proclaimed a “crisis of confidence” in government.60 Voters disagreed, thinking the constitutional mechanisms still worked and that nothing was wrong with their character. But they thought something was decidedly wrong with Carter, and they ousted him in a landslide. The Iranian hostage crisis only served to emphasize Carter’s impotence and inability to change the subject. So great was the distaste for Carter that public disdain for him persisted long after his presidency ended: a 1988 Harris poll gave Carter the dubious distinction of being first (with 46 percent) in the category “least able to get things done.”61 Only recently has Carter recouped his public esteem thanks to an unusually effective post-presidency and a public longing for truth in government that has powered his latest book, Our Endangered Values, to the top of the New York Times best-seller list.
George H. W. Bush also suffered a fatal fall in public esteem. Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, the elder Bush won plaudits and an 89 percent approval rating.63 But Americans are a restless people, and after the quick war the economy remained foremost on their minds. By 1992, voters thought Bush was inattentive to their concerns and he received a dismal 37 percent of the vote—exactly his approval rating in a pre-election Gallup poll.
What unites these six failed presidencies is each man’s inability to change the subject. Harry Truman could not get the public’s mind off the Korean War. Lyndon Johnson could not get people to focus on anything except Vietnam and race riots. Richard Nixon could not erase the airing of the Watergate tapes (even as he tried to erase them in fact). Gerald Ford could not ameliorate voter anger over the Nixon pardon. Jimmy Carter became identified with his malaise speech and the Iranian hostages. And George H. W. Bush was a foreign policy president at a time when voters could have cared less.
George W. Bush is likely to share the fates of his predecessors for one reason: he can’t change the subject. Bush cannot take the focus away from Iraq, which continues to drain U.S. lives and resources with no end in sight.
Moreover, thanks to Iraq and the hurricanes, the fiscal crisis facing the next president has come four years early.
Even when Bush has tried to refocus attention elsewhere, voters have answered with a resounding “NO!” For example, a Gallup poll taken in July found 62 percent saying they disapproved of George W. Bush’s Social Security proposals.65 Even the public thinks Bush cannot recover: a Time magazine survey finds 49 percent saying Bush cannot recoup from his low public approval scores; 46 percent believe he can.... He has to GO
John K. White: The Death of a Presidency
Source: The Forum Vol. 3, Issue 4 (ed. Nelson Polsby) (1-30-06)
[John Kenneth White is a professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America. He is the author of The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2003).
The George W. Bush presidency is finished....
... George W. Bush’s troubles are profound. And when presidents are beleaguered, they often look to their predecessors for guidance. At first glance, Bush can take heart from their experiences. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, three other presidents have faced poorly in public opinion polls and have recovered their standing. Harry S. Truman’s first term is a case in point. In 1946, Truman’s approval rating dipped to just 27 percent, as Americans were fed up with labor strikes, meat shortages, and Truman’s inability to cope.42 Nearly forty years later, Ronald Reagan was rocked by the Iran-Contra affair, and his approval ratings fell from 62 percent to 47 percent.43 Bill Clinton took a similar tumble: he began his presidency with 58 percent support, but by 1994 his approval rating fell to 41 percent.44 Clinton’s big government health care plan along with his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve in the military left voters thinking that instead of electing a New Democrat, they might just have chosen George McGovern.
Yet, Truman, Reagan, and Clinton recovered because they could change the subject. Harry Truman’s failure to keep the Democrats in control of Congress in 1946, gave him a perfect opportunity to rail against a “Do-Nothing Congress” in 1948. Suddenly, the focus was back to the domestic New Deal-Fair Deal issues that always worked for Democrats. And—much to everyone’s surprise—Truman kept his job.
Ronald Reagan learned from the Truman experience. While the Contras may have been important to Reagan personally, effecting a regime change in Nicaragua was never central to his presidency. What mattered to Reagan’s followers was reducing taxes and winning the Cold War against the hated Soviet “evil empire.” After the Iran-Contra scandal became known, Reagan dropped most references to the Sandinistas and returned to familiar themes. Also sustaining Reagan was the public’s affection for him. At the height of the Iran- Contra affair, 75 percent said they liked Reagan personally, while a mere 18 percent did not.
Perhaps no president knew better how to change the subject than Bill Clinton. After the drubbing he took in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton ditched Hillary’s health care proposals and opted to enact bite-sized portions of them—e.g. insuring the children of the unemployed. Gays in the military were also forgotten, as Clinton turned his laser-like attention to family and values issues, including the desirability of having children wear school uniforms. In 1996, Clinton famously noted that “the era of big government is over,” and he signed a welfare reform bill over the objections of many Democrats. By echoing Reagan’s themes and keeping his focus on the middle class, Clinton won an easy victory over Bob Dole.
On the other hand, six presidents since FDR have failed to recoup their public standing: Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush. In 1952, Harry Truman saw his approval rating fall to a mere 22 percent after his administration became mired in the Korean War.47 Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill after another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict. Frustrated, they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower—especially after the World War II general told voters, “I shall go to Korea.”
Lyndon B. Johnson had a similar experience as he saw his landslide victory melt in the Vietnamese tropical heat. A Gallup poll taken in August 1968 found just 35 percent giving him positive marks.49 In many ways, LBJ foresaw his political demise, telling columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak after the 1964 election:
I was just elected by the biggest popular margin in the history of the country, fifteen million votes. Just by the natural way people think and because Barry Goldwater scared the hell out of them, I have already lost two of these fifteen and am probably getting down to thirteen. If I get into any fight with Congress, I have already lost another couple of million, and if I have to send any more boys into Vietnam, I may be down to eight million by the end of the summer.
In 1973, Richard M. Nixon’s presidency was caught in the web of Watergate. Opinion polls showed Nixon with a dismal approval rating of 30 percent.51 Repeatedly, he tried to change the focus to other issues, at one point telling Congress in 1974, “One year of Watergate is enough.”52 But the Watergate tapes only intensified the media and public focus on Nixon’s wrongdoing. By the time he left office, just 24 percent approved of his performance.
Gerald R. Ford, too, suffered a crippling blow to his public esteem. Starting with a breathtaking 71 percent job approval, his support dropped 21 points after his decision to pardon Nixon.54 Declaring that Watergate had been “an American tragedy” and “someone must write the end to it,” Ford hoped the pardon would turn attention away from Nixon and toward more pressing matters—including high energy prices and a stubbornly persistent inflation rate.55 But 60 percent of the public thought Ford was wrong to issue the pardon, and 62 percent said it condoned two standards of justice: one for the rich and powerful; another for the ordinary citizen.56 Ford could not escape the political fallout: a 1976 exit poll found 14 percent cited Watergate and the Nixon pardon as important issues in making their presidential decision, and an overwhelming percentage of these disenchanted voters backed Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter was the fifth president to suffer a fatal blow in public support. At the onset of his presidency, Carter received a 66 percent job approval rating.58 Just three years later, Carter’s positive grades had plummeted to 29 percent.59 In response, Carter delivered his famous “malaise speech” and proclaimed a “crisis of confidence” in government.60 Voters disagreed, thinking the constitutional mechanisms still worked and that nothing was wrong with their character. But they thought something was decidedly wrong with Carter, and they ousted him in a landslide. The Iranian hostage crisis only served to emphasize Carter’s impotence and inability to change the subject. So great was the distaste for Carter that public disdain for him persisted long after his presidency ended: a 1988 Harris poll gave Carter the dubious distinction of being first (with 46 percent) in the category “least able to get things done.”61 Only recently has Carter recouped his public esteem thanks to an unusually effective post-presidency and a public longing for truth in government that has powered his latest book, Our Endangered Values, to the top of the New York Times best-seller list.
George H. W. Bush also suffered a fatal fall in public esteem. Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, the elder Bush won plaudits and an 89 percent approval rating.63 But Americans are a restless people, and after the quick war the economy remained foremost on their minds. By 1992, voters thought Bush was inattentive to their concerns and he received a dismal 37 percent of the vote—exactly his approval rating in a pre-election Gallup poll.
What unites these six failed presidencies is each man’s inability to change the subject. Harry Truman could not get the public’s mind off the Korean War. Lyndon Johnson could not get people to focus on anything except Vietnam and race riots. Richard Nixon could not erase the airing of the Watergate tapes (even as he tried to erase them in fact). Gerald Ford could not ameliorate voter anger over the Nixon pardon. Jimmy Carter became identified with his malaise speech and the Iranian hostages. And George H. W. Bush was a foreign policy president at a time when voters could have cared less.
George W. Bush is likely to share the fates of his predecessors for one reason: he can’t change the subject. Bush cannot take the focus away from Iraq, which continues to drain U.S. lives and resources with no end in sight.
Moreover, thanks to Iraq and the hurricanes, the fiscal crisis facing the next president has come four years early.
Even when Bush has tried to refocus attention elsewhere, voters have answered with a resounding “NO!” For example, a Gallup poll taken in July found 62 percent saying they disapproved of George W. Bush’s Social Security proposals.65 Even the public thinks Bush cannot recover: a Time magazine survey finds 49 percent saying Bush cannot recoup from his low public approval scores; 46 percent believe he can.... He has to GO
Expatica's German news in English: Ahmadinejad calls for 'free debate' on Holocaust
Expatica's German news in English: Ahmadinejad calls for 'free debate' on Holocaust
TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called for a free debate on the Holocaust. (megalomaniac sociopath)
"The West should be free-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real dimensions of the Holocaust," Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran.
The Iranian president caused international uproar after he called for the eradication of Israel, branded the Holocaust as a fairly tale and demanded a relocation of Israel to Europe or America.
"I stand firm on what I said but I am head of the executive branch and not a scholar, so let scholars get to the truth and not shut them down," Ahmadinejad said.
"Instead of coming up with a scientific reply, they (West) branded me as war-monger and used other attributes suiting them much more," the president added. (okay...uneducated, and crisis provoking)
Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust - the term generally applied to the mass extermination of six million Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany - was true, then those responsible for it should bear the consequences and not make Palestinians suffer for it. If not, then the West should drop the issue.
He reiterated the Iranian demand on holding a referendum on the future fate of Palestine.
"The situation is very clear with no need to complicate it: Palestinians must have an existence right and should therefore decide by themselves about their political future," Ahmadinejad said.
TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called for a free debate on the Holocaust. (megalomaniac sociopath)
"The West should be free-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real dimensions of the Holocaust," Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran.
The Iranian president caused international uproar after he called for the eradication of Israel, branded the Holocaust as a fairly tale and demanded a relocation of Israel to Europe or America.
"I stand firm on what I said but I am head of the executive branch and not a scholar, so let scholars get to the truth and not shut them down," Ahmadinejad said.
"Instead of coming up with a scientific reply, they (West) branded me as war-monger and used other attributes suiting them much more," the president added. (okay...uneducated, and crisis provoking)
Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust - the term generally applied to the mass extermination of six million Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany - was true, then those responsible for it should bear the consequences and not make Palestinians suffer for it. If not, then the West should drop the issue.
He reiterated the Iranian demand on holding a referendum on the future fate of Palestine.
"The situation is very clear with no need to complicate it: Palestinians must have an existence right and should therefore decide by themselves about their political future," Ahmadinejad said.
Iran's missile tech suppliers named
Top News Article Reuters.com
BERLIN (Reuters) - Two German businessmen, a former Russian military officer and North Korea are among those helping Iran develop missiles that the West fears could one day carry nuclear warheads, diplomats and intelligence officials say.
Last month German federal prosecutors formally charged two German citizens with espionage for helping a foreign intelligence agency acquire dual-use "delivery system" technology. The prosecutors announced the charge of espionage last week but did not name the country involved.
The two German men have been accused of "having sold a vibration testing facility in 2001 and 2002 on behalf of a foreign military intelligence procurement entity," the prosecutor's office said in a statement posted on its Web site.
A German official familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the investigation, said the country involved was Iran.
"These missile technology dealers ... appear to have been acting alone and were not part of any organized gang," he said.
The state prosecutor's office in Karlsruhe, Germany did not name the men or the German company they worked for.
The involvement of German citizens in what U.S. and European officials believe is Iran's covert nuclear weapons program will be embarrassing for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has vowed to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons.
"You really can't separate Iran's nuclear activities from its missile program. The missiles are the delivery system," an EU diplomat familiar with the case said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and publicly doubted that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two.
Recent U.S. intelligence recovered from a stolen laptop computer suggests that Iranian missile experts are trying to develop a missile re-entry vehicle capable of carrying a relatively small nuclear warhead, EU and U.S. officials say.
Last week the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, due to fears it is developing atomic weapons. Continued ...
BERLIN (Reuters) - Two German businessmen, a former Russian military officer and North Korea are among those helping Iran develop missiles that the West fears could one day carry nuclear warheads, diplomats and intelligence officials say.
Last month German federal prosecutors formally charged two German citizens with espionage for helping a foreign intelligence agency acquire dual-use "delivery system" technology. The prosecutors announced the charge of espionage last week but did not name the country involved.
The two German men have been accused of "having sold a vibration testing facility in 2001 and 2002 on behalf of a foreign military intelligence procurement entity," the prosecutor's office said in a statement posted on its Web site.
A German official familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the investigation, said the country involved was Iran.
"These missile technology dealers ... appear to have been acting alone and were not part of any organized gang," he said.
The state prosecutor's office in Karlsruhe, Germany did not name the men or the German company they worked for.
The involvement of German citizens in what U.S. and European officials believe is Iran's covert nuclear weapons program will be embarrassing for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has vowed to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons.
"You really can't separate Iran's nuclear activities from its missile program. The missiles are the delivery system," an EU diplomat familiar with the case said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and publicly doubted that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two.
Recent U.S. intelligence recovered from a stolen laptop computer suggests that Iranian missile experts are trying to develop a missile re-entry vehicle capable of carrying a relatively small nuclear warhead, EU and U.S. officials say.
Last week the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, due to fears it is developing atomic weapons. Continued ...
Hypocrisy from Bush, Clinton at funeral of Coretta Scott King
Hypocrisy from Bush, Clinton at funeral of Coretta Scott King
A funeral service was held Tuesday in Atlanta for Coretta Scott King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Over the last several days more than 157,000 mourners came to pay respects to Mrs. King who died of ovarian cancer on January 30 at the age of 78.
The death of Coretta Scott King evoked an outpouring of popular sympathy from those who identify her and her husband with the struggle for social equality and justice that animated the mass movement against Jim Crow segregation. Her death also evoked a torrent of hypocrisy and posturing from leading figures from both political parties, including President Bush and three former US presidents who gave tributes at the funeral service.
One could not listen to their remarks without being struck by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was opposed to just about everything these people stand for. From Carter, to former president Bush, to Clinton, to the current occupant in the White House, they have all presided over an enormous rollback in civil rights, the growth of poverty and inequality, and an explosion of US militarism around the world. It should be recalled in regard to this last point that King was murdered in 1968 as he was coming into sharp opposition to the Democratic Party over the Vietnam War.
George W. Bush’s presence at the ceremony was particularly grotesque. The president’s career is closely associated with those who opposed the civil rights movement, including his own father. In his unsuccessful election campaign for the Senate in 1964, George Herbert Walker Bush opposed the Civil Rights Act enacted that year, denouncing Texas’ Democratic Senator Ralph Yarborough as an “extremist” and “left-wing demagogue” for supporting the federal legislation that outlawed racial segregation.
The modern-day Republican Party is the product of a conscious appeal to win segregationist votes in the 1960s, after the national leadership of the Democratic Party—which had long been the party of Jim Crow in the South—moved to support civil rights legislation. Leading figures of the Republican Party today, such as Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, have close and public ties to white supremacist organizations such as the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Bush, whose utter indifference towards the conditions of life confronted by the working class and poor African Americans in particular was demonstrated to the whole world during Hurricane Katrina, is systematically dismantling whatever social safety net remains in the US, including Medicare, Medicaid, public education and housing.
Moreover, while he referred to the “vicious words,” “bombings” and other threats that Coretta Scott King and her family endured, he has launched a campaign of illegal spying on American citizens that mirrors the FBI surveillance against King and others in the civil rights movement 40 years ago.
As of late last week, Bush reportedly had no intention of attending the funeral and had planned to send his wife and father, the former president, while he gave a speech on his budget-cutting plan in New Hampshire. The president’s handlers apparently convinced him it would be a good move politically to attend, particularly since his minimal support among black voters had plummted since Hurricane Katrina. The fact that a black minister with close ties to the White House was officiating at the ceremony also helped.
The remarks by Bush and his father were perfunctory with all present aware of the hollowness of their efforts to identify with King’s legacy.
The enormous chasm between the lifestyles of the privileged representatives at the funeral and the broad masses of blacks and working class people was impossible to conceal. Despite all of the hypocritical tributes to the struggle for civil rights waged four decades ago, the ceremony provided a palpable sense that developments in American since 1968 have betrayed the ideals for which King had fought.
Southern Christian Leadership Council co-founder Reverand Joseph Lowrey and others noted that Coretta Scott King had publicly opposed the war in Iraq, which he suggested had been launched on the basis of lies. In a clear reference to Bush’s attack on civil liberties former president Jimmy Carter noted that the Kings had been the target of “secret government wiretapping” and that the “color on the faces” of the victims of Hurricane Katrina had shown that the struggle for civil rights had not been completed.
The underlying political tensions within the ruling elite were highlighted when Carter deliberately refused to shake the Republican president’s hand.
The efforts of the Democrats to wrap themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, however, were no more sincere that Bush’s. The Democrats’ capitulation to the Bush administration on a host of questions, from the war in Iraq, to government spying, to the appointment of right-wing Supreme Court justices, is an expression of the fact that, in the end, this party defends the interests of the same economic elite as the Republicans.
Former President Clinton noted that just four days after her husband’s assassination Coretta Scott King traveled to Memphis to support the struggle of the striking sanitation workers that her husband had been championing when he was killed. At the time, she insisted that the “right to a job and an income” was the only way to “pursue life, liberty and happiness” in America.
But the Democrats today, no less than the Republicans, are thoroughly hostile to the struggle of the working class to attain such basic rights. Just two months ago, the entire political establishment was denouncing transit workers in New York City as “selfish thugs” because they dared to go out on strike to defend their right to health care and pension benefits. Hillary Clinton, the US Senator from New York, who joined her husband in addressing the funeral, called the strike illegal and upheld the state’s strike-breaking Taylor Law that imposed thousands of dollars in fines on the workers.
President Clinton whose “welfare reform” had a devastating impact by eliminating the guarantee of a minimal income for millions of poor people, including African Americans, epitomized the rightward shift of the Democratic Party over the last several decades and its repudiation past social reforms.
The past 40 years has seen an enormous social polarization in the US that has affected the entire political establishment, which is unified in its efforts to further enrich the wealthiest layers of American society.
This process also had a severe impact upon the civil rights movement King built. That movement—which never challenged the underlying economic causes of inequality, i.e., the capitalist system itself—in the end elevated a privileged layer of African Americans through such programs as affirmative action, while failing to significantly change the conditions of the great mass of black workers and youth.
The struggle against racial discrimination is directly connected to the great social question in America: the division of society into two classes whose interests are irreconcilably opposed. The guarantee of genuine equality and democratic rights can only be achieved through a fundamental reorganization of economic life to meet the needs of the masses of working people, not the wealthy few.
See Also:
Laura Bush takes umbrage: racism and the Republican Party
[10 September 2005]
Rosa Parks and the lessons of the civil rights movement
[8 November 2005]
A funeral service was held Tuesday in Atlanta for Coretta Scott King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Over the last several days more than 157,000 mourners came to pay respects to Mrs. King who died of ovarian cancer on January 30 at the age of 78.
The death of Coretta Scott King evoked an outpouring of popular sympathy from those who identify her and her husband with the struggle for social equality and justice that animated the mass movement against Jim Crow segregation. Her death also evoked a torrent of hypocrisy and posturing from leading figures from both political parties, including President Bush and three former US presidents who gave tributes at the funeral service.
One could not listen to their remarks without being struck by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was opposed to just about everything these people stand for. From Carter, to former president Bush, to Clinton, to the current occupant in the White House, they have all presided over an enormous rollback in civil rights, the growth of poverty and inequality, and an explosion of US militarism around the world. It should be recalled in regard to this last point that King was murdered in 1968 as he was coming into sharp opposition to the Democratic Party over the Vietnam War.
George W. Bush’s presence at the ceremony was particularly grotesque. The president’s career is closely associated with those who opposed the civil rights movement, including his own father. In his unsuccessful election campaign for the Senate in 1964, George Herbert Walker Bush opposed the Civil Rights Act enacted that year, denouncing Texas’ Democratic Senator Ralph Yarborough as an “extremist” and “left-wing demagogue” for supporting the federal legislation that outlawed racial segregation.
The modern-day Republican Party is the product of a conscious appeal to win segregationist votes in the 1960s, after the national leadership of the Democratic Party—which had long been the party of Jim Crow in the South—moved to support civil rights legislation. Leading figures of the Republican Party today, such as Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, have close and public ties to white supremacist organizations such as the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Bush, whose utter indifference towards the conditions of life confronted by the working class and poor African Americans in particular was demonstrated to the whole world during Hurricane Katrina, is systematically dismantling whatever social safety net remains in the US, including Medicare, Medicaid, public education and housing.
Moreover, while he referred to the “vicious words,” “bombings” and other threats that Coretta Scott King and her family endured, he has launched a campaign of illegal spying on American citizens that mirrors the FBI surveillance against King and others in the civil rights movement 40 years ago.
As of late last week, Bush reportedly had no intention of attending the funeral and had planned to send his wife and father, the former president, while he gave a speech on his budget-cutting plan in New Hampshire. The president’s handlers apparently convinced him it would be a good move politically to attend, particularly since his minimal support among black voters had plummted since Hurricane Katrina. The fact that a black minister with close ties to the White House was officiating at the ceremony also helped.
The remarks by Bush and his father were perfunctory with all present aware of the hollowness of their efforts to identify with King’s legacy.
The enormous chasm between the lifestyles of the privileged representatives at the funeral and the broad masses of blacks and working class people was impossible to conceal. Despite all of the hypocritical tributes to the struggle for civil rights waged four decades ago, the ceremony provided a palpable sense that developments in American since 1968 have betrayed the ideals for which King had fought.
Southern Christian Leadership Council co-founder Reverand Joseph Lowrey and others noted that Coretta Scott King had publicly opposed the war in Iraq, which he suggested had been launched on the basis of lies. In a clear reference to Bush’s attack on civil liberties former president Jimmy Carter noted that the Kings had been the target of “secret government wiretapping” and that the “color on the faces” of the victims of Hurricane Katrina had shown that the struggle for civil rights had not been completed.
The underlying political tensions within the ruling elite were highlighted when Carter deliberately refused to shake the Republican president’s hand.
The efforts of the Democrats to wrap themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, however, were no more sincere that Bush’s. The Democrats’ capitulation to the Bush administration on a host of questions, from the war in Iraq, to government spying, to the appointment of right-wing Supreme Court justices, is an expression of the fact that, in the end, this party defends the interests of the same economic elite as the Republicans.
Former President Clinton noted that just four days after her husband’s assassination Coretta Scott King traveled to Memphis to support the struggle of the striking sanitation workers that her husband had been championing when he was killed. At the time, she insisted that the “right to a job and an income” was the only way to “pursue life, liberty and happiness” in America.
But the Democrats today, no less than the Republicans, are thoroughly hostile to the struggle of the working class to attain such basic rights. Just two months ago, the entire political establishment was denouncing transit workers in New York City as “selfish thugs” because they dared to go out on strike to defend their right to health care and pension benefits. Hillary Clinton, the US Senator from New York, who joined her husband in addressing the funeral, called the strike illegal and upheld the state’s strike-breaking Taylor Law that imposed thousands of dollars in fines on the workers.
President Clinton whose “welfare reform” had a devastating impact by eliminating the guarantee of a minimal income for millions of poor people, including African Americans, epitomized the rightward shift of the Democratic Party over the last several decades and its repudiation past social reforms.
The past 40 years has seen an enormous social polarization in the US that has affected the entire political establishment, which is unified in its efforts to further enrich the wealthiest layers of American society.
This process also had a severe impact upon the civil rights movement King built. That movement—which never challenged the underlying economic causes of inequality, i.e., the capitalist system itself—in the end elevated a privileged layer of African Americans through such programs as affirmative action, while failing to significantly change the conditions of the great mass of black workers and youth.
The struggle against racial discrimination is directly connected to the great social question in America: the division of society into two classes whose interests are irreconcilably opposed. The guarantee of genuine equality and democratic rights can only be achieved through a fundamental reorganization of economic life to meet the needs of the masses of working people, not the wealthy few.
See Also:
Laura Bush takes umbrage: racism and the Republican Party
[10 September 2005]
Rosa Parks and the lessons of the civil rights movement
[8 November 2005]
Ex-President Carter: Eavesdropping Illegal
Ex-President Carter: Eavesdropping Illegal
Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.
"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."
Carter made the remarks at a union hall near Las Vegas, where his oldest son, Jack Carter, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
The former president also rebuked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for telling Congress that the spying program is authorized under Article 2 of the Constitution and does not violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed during Carter's administration. Gonzales made the assertions in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began investigating the eavesdropping program Monday.
"It's a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it's ridiculous. Obviously, the attorney general who said it's all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office.
But he's a very partisan attorney general and there's no doubt that he would say that," Carter said. "I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it's over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law." Many laws.
The former president said he would testify before the Judiciary Committee if asked.
"If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make."
Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.
"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."
Carter made the remarks at a union hall near Las Vegas, where his oldest son, Jack Carter, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
The former president also rebuked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for telling Congress that the spying program is authorized under Article 2 of the Constitution and does not violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed during Carter's administration. Gonzales made the assertions in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began investigating the eavesdropping program Monday.
"It's a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it's ridiculous. Obviously, the attorney general who said it's all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office.
But he's a very partisan attorney general and there's no doubt that he would say that," Carter said. "I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it's over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law." Many laws.
The former president said he would testify before the Judiciary Committee if asked.
"If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make."
Washington Digs In for a 'Long War' as Rumsfeld Issues Global Call to Arms
Washington Digs In for a 'Long War' as Rumsfeld Issues Global Call to Arms
I hope globally, the rest of the world tells you to go to hell. Its not their war. YOU started it.
The Bush administration's re-characterisation of its "global war on terror" as the "long war" will be seen by critics as an admission that the US has started something it cannot finish. But from the Pentagon's perspective, the change reflects a significant upgrading of the "generational" threat posed by worldwide Islamist militancy which it believes to have been seriously underestimated.
The reassessment, contained in the Pentagon's quadrennial defence review presented to Congress yesterday, presages a new US drive to rally international allies for an ongoing conflict unlimited by time and space. That presents a problematic political, financial and military prospect for many European Nato members including Britain, as well as Middle Eastern governments.
According to the review, a "large-scale, potentially long duration, irregular warfare campaign including counter-insurgency and security, stability, transition and reconstruction operations" is necessary and unavoidable. Gone is the talk of swift victories that preceded the 2003 Iraq invasion. This will be a war of attrition, it says, fought on many fronts.
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, suggested at the weekend that western democracies must acknowledge they are locked in a life or death struggle comparable to those against fascism and communism. "The enemy have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."
Mr Rumsfeld denied the Iraq invasion had proved a catalyst for terrorist recruiting - but said al-Qaida and its allies wanted to use Iraq as a central front in the longer struggle. "A war has been declared on all of our nations [whose] futures depend on determination and unity," he said. "As during the cold war, the struggle ahead promises to be a long war."
The Pentagon review proposes a series of measures to equip the US and its allies for the long haul, built around a whopping overall 2007 defence budget request of more than $550bn. They include increased numbers of special forces and unmanned spy aircraft or drones, expanded psychological warfare and civil affairs units (for winning "hearts and minds"), and more sea-borne, conventionally armed long-range missiles. Countries such as Iran will note plans for covert teams to "detect, locate and render safe" nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Addressing the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London yesterday, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of US central command covering the Middle East, said winning the "long war" would necessitate increased "security assistance, intelligence-sharing and advice" for allies. "Regional nations must participate and lead the fight," he said.
A revived, enlarged international coalition would enable the US to "re-posture" its Middle East ground forces once stability in Iraq and Afghanistan was achieved, he said. Ground forces that remained would be quickly deployable elsewhere; and their area of operations would grow to include old and new theatres in south-east Asia and east and north Africa.
Just as important, Gen Kimmitt said, was enhancement of the coalition's ability to forge long-term diplomatic and law enforcement networks to counter the "astonishing" use by al-Qaida and its allies of "physical and virtual domains" such as the internet.
'The fundamental forces at play in the long war should not be underestimated," he said. "An extremist ideology seeks to go back to the era of theocratic dictatorship, repression and intolerance" while employing the latest technology to do so.
The movement's aim was to end western influence in the Muslim world and overthrow "apostate" Middle Eastern regimes, he said, and it would not hesitate to use WMD.
The "long war" doctrine, formalising President Bush's earlier division of the world into good guys and evil-doers, is likely to prove highly controversial as its wider implications unfold. Washington will be accused of scaremongering and exacerbating the clash of cultures. In the US itself, the human and moral cost of the post-9/11 wars is already under critical scrutiny, from soldiers' families to the former president Jimmy Carter. That would be an accurate assessment.
Gen Kimmitt admitted the biggest battle could be at home: "It will require strong leadership to continue to make the case to the people that this war is necessary and must be prosecuted for perhaps another generation." We don't have strong or intelligent leadership.
I hope globally, the rest of the world tells you to go to hell. Its not their war. YOU started it.
The Bush administration's re-characterisation of its "global war on terror" as the "long war" will be seen by critics as an admission that the US has started something it cannot finish. But from the Pentagon's perspective, the change reflects a significant upgrading of the "generational" threat posed by worldwide Islamist militancy which it believes to have been seriously underestimated.
The reassessment, contained in the Pentagon's quadrennial defence review presented to Congress yesterday, presages a new US drive to rally international allies for an ongoing conflict unlimited by time and space. That presents a problematic political, financial and military prospect for many European Nato members including Britain, as well as Middle Eastern governments.
According to the review, a "large-scale, potentially long duration, irregular warfare campaign including counter-insurgency and security, stability, transition and reconstruction operations" is necessary and unavoidable. Gone is the talk of swift victories that preceded the 2003 Iraq invasion. This will be a war of attrition, it says, fought on many fronts.
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, suggested at the weekend that western democracies must acknowledge they are locked in a life or death struggle comparable to those against fascism and communism. "The enemy have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."
Mr Rumsfeld denied the Iraq invasion had proved a catalyst for terrorist recruiting - but said al-Qaida and its allies wanted to use Iraq as a central front in the longer struggle. "A war has been declared on all of our nations [whose] futures depend on determination and unity," he said. "As during the cold war, the struggle ahead promises to be a long war."
The Pentagon review proposes a series of measures to equip the US and its allies for the long haul, built around a whopping overall 2007 defence budget request of more than $550bn. They include increased numbers of special forces and unmanned spy aircraft or drones, expanded psychological warfare and civil affairs units (for winning "hearts and minds"), and more sea-borne, conventionally armed long-range missiles. Countries such as Iran will note plans for covert teams to "detect, locate and render safe" nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Addressing the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London yesterday, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of US central command covering the Middle East, said winning the "long war" would necessitate increased "security assistance, intelligence-sharing and advice" for allies. "Regional nations must participate and lead the fight," he said.
A revived, enlarged international coalition would enable the US to "re-posture" its Middle East ground forces once stability in Iraq and Afghanistan was achieved, he said. Ground forces that remained would be quickly deployable elsewhere; and their area of operations would grow to include old and new theatres in south-east Asia and east and north Africa.
Just as important, Gen Kimmitt said, was enhancement of the coalition's ability to forge long-term diplomatic and law enforcement networks to counter the "astonishing" use by al-Qaida and its allies of "physical and virtual domains" such as the internet.
'The fundamental forces at play in the long war should not be underestimated," he said. "An extremist ideology seeks to go back to the era of theocratic dictatorship, repression and intolerance" while employing the latest technology to do so.
The movement's aim was to end western influence in the Muslim world and overthrow "apostate" Middle Eastern regimes, he said, and it would not hesitate to use WMD.
The "long war" doctrine, formalising President Bush's earlier division of the world into good guys and evil-doers, is likely to prove highly controversial as its wider implications unfold. Washington will be accused of scaremongering and exacerbating the clash of cultures. In the US itself, the human and moral cost of the post-9/11 wars is already under critical scrutiny, from soldiers' families to the former president Jimmy Carter. That would be an accurate assessment.
Gen Kimmitt admitted the biggest battle could be at home: "It will require strong leadership to continue to make the case to the people that this war is necessary and must be prosecuted for perhaps another generation." We don't have strong or intelligent leadership.
A 9/11 Conspirator in King Bush's Court? Sheehan Wasn't Welcome But a Saudi Accused of Support for al Qaeda Was
A 9/11 Conspirator in King Bush's Court? Sheehan Wasn't Welcome But a Saudi Accused of Support for al Qaeda Was
I know I mentioned this before; but it bears repeating.
While Cindy Sheehan was being dragged from the House gallery moments before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt honoring her son and the other 2,244 US soldiers killed in Iraq, Turki al-Faisal was settling into his seat inside the gallery. Faisal, a Saudi, is a man who has met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions, describing the al Qaeda leader as "quite a pleasant man." He met multiple times with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Yet, unlike Sheehan, al-Faisal was a welcomed guest of President Bush on Tuesday night. He is also a man that the families of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe was connected to their loved ones' deaths.
Al-Faisal is actually Prince Turki al-Faisal, a leading member of the Saudi royal family and the kingdom's current ambassador to the US. But the bulk of his career was spent at the helm of the feared Saudi intelligence services from 1977 to 2001. Last year, The New York Times pointed out that "he personally managed Riyadh's relations with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban. Anyone else who had dealings with even a fraction of the notorious characters the prince has worked with over the years would never make it past a U.S. immigration counter, let alone to the most exclusive offices in Washington." Al-Faisal was also named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed by hundreds of 9/11 victims' families, who accused him of funding bin Laden's network. Curiously, his tenure as head of Saudi intelligence came to an abrupt and unexpected end 10 days before the 9/11 attacks.
I know I mentioned this before; but it bears repeating.
While Cindy Sheehan was being dragged from the House gallery moments before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt honoring her son and the other 2,244 US soldiers killed in Iraq, Turki al-Faisal was settling into his seat inside the gallery. Faisal, a Saudi, is a man who has met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions, describing the al Qaeda leader as "quite a pleasant man." He met multiple times with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Yet, unlike Sheehan, al-Faisal was a welcomed guest of President Bush on Tuesday night. He is also a man that the families of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe was connected to their loved ones' deaths.
Al-Faisal is actually Prince Turki al-Faisal, a leading member of the Saudi royal family and the kingdom's current ambassador to the US. But the bulk of his career was spent at the helm of the feared Saudi intelligence services from 1977 to 2001. Last year, The New York Times pointed out that "he personally managed Riyadh's relations with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban. Anyone else who had dealings with even a fraction of the notorious characters the prince has worked with over the years would never make it past a U.S. immigration counter, let alone to the most exclusive offices in Washington." Al-Faisal was also named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed by hundreds of 9/11 victims' families, who accused him of funding bin Laden's network. Curiously, his tenure as head of Saudi intelligence came to an abrupt and unexpected end 10 days before the 9/11 attacks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
