Hannah's Blog

November 3rd--Yes!

Putting it in a nutshell!

Published on Thursday, September 30, 2004 by the Black Commentator
The November Third Movement
by Margaret Kimberley

November 2 is Election Day. On November 3, 2004, a new movement must begin, regardless of that election?s outcome. If Bush emerges triumphant the reasons for opposing his regime are obvious. His agenda is so horrific that opposition is a necessity. America must be saved from corporate corruption, a loss of individual rights, and unending war that threatens the entire world.

Of course the painful situation we find ourselves in makes the possibility of a Kerry defeat unthinkable. It would be the worst electoral defeat of a Democrat presidential candidate in modern political history. It would be worse than the Gore defeat of 2000, worse than the landslides that sent George McGovern and Walter Mondale packing. If a president who cheated his way into the White House, presided over the loss of one million jobs, and made war based on lies isn?t defeated, the recriminations and blood letting must be immediate, public, and uncompromising.

There should be no talk of being positive and unified when the Democratic party is in shambles. The clumsiness of John Kerry on the campaign trial is not only a reflection of Kerry the man, but of the dysfunction promoted by the hapless Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Leadership Conference. The only outcome worse than a Kerry defeat, would be continued deference to the people who made it happen.

The party leadership, including the deified Bill Clinton, must be exposed by this movement as the architects of a disaster. Democrats who stood up to Bush when their leaders took a dive must liberate themselves from the belief that the people who have run their party into the ground know more than they do or are deserving of any respect.

Hard truths must be discussed if George W. Bush stands on the steps of Congress with his hand on a bible in January. One of the hardest truths is the fact that the corporate media is the enemy of the Democratic party. Never again should a front runner be dethroned because selective television editing makes it appear that he screamed too loudly. The bloodless assassination of Howard Dean came about through an unholy alliance between the corporate media and Democratic big wigs and was the beginning of the Democrats ignominious slide to oblivion.

The biases of the corporate media are obvious and present the biggest obstacle to the election of a Democrat to the presidency. On November 3rd Democrats must begin saying loudly and unequivocally that the media are biased. The television networks no longer have even a pretense of objectivity. The talking heads of television news made hay out of the Dan Rather document fiasco, but refused to do even minimum reporting on the same story that was first told during the 2000 campaign. It was proven then that George W. Bush was missing from both his Texas and Alabama Air National Guard units for over a year. The young George W. Bush made no bones about his privileged treatment. In fact he bragged to one of his professors at Harvard business school that his father?s connections helped him to party stateside instead of in the Mekong delta. Dan Rather could have saved himself a lot of trouble with some good old fashioned reporting.

Progressives must begin a new movement on November 3rd even if the unlikely but still hoped for Kerry victory becomes a reality. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Leadership Conference will crow that their dubious strategies were in fact brilliant. Their claims should not go unchallenged.

The listless Democratic National Convention was a waste of precious time. An undecided voter was either still undecided or a Bush supporter after the Democrats used up four days of television time without coherently and pointedly telling viewers why they shouldn?t vote for Bush. Even if Kerry manages to overcome this lost opportunity, he should not be allowed to forget that going on endlessly about swift boats was not very swift.

In short, progressive Democrats must remain visible and vocal in a Kerry administration. We cannot fall victim to the argument that our criticism should be muted because Kerry is better than Bush. The expression ?damning with faint praise? comes to mind. How hard is it to be better than a fascist? That dubious distinction forces the painful vote for Kerry, but it shouldn?t keep anyone from speaking up if Kerry forgets who put him in office.

President Kerry should face thousands of demonstrators if he continues the disastrous occupation of Iraq and the take over of Haiti. If a Million Worker March must take place under his administration then so be it. If President Kerry doesn?t defend affirmative active or the social security system he should realize that there will be a price for him to pay when he needs support from his own party.

Kerry should not think for one moment that he can bring back the days of slick Willie and his triangulations. Democrats have already seen that movie and know the bad ending all too well. As the song says, we won?t get fooled again. On November 3rd, no matter how the headline reads, there will be a movement for change. The remaking of the Democratic party will have begun and the change will be for the better.

Margaret Kimberley?s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BC. Ms. Kimberley (margaret.kimberley@blackcommentator.com) is a freelance writer living in New York City.

Copyright 2004 Black Commentator

DU Liability

While it is sometimes doubtful that the President knows what he's talking
about, there's no question that the people who write his speeches do. So,
what's behind the attack on "frivolous law suits?"

I know the explanation is that such suits against medical providers are
resulting in an increase in insurance rates which are then passed on to
whoever pays for the patients. But every objective study has shown that the
number of lawsuits is actually very small and the number of big awards few.
Not to mention that most could be avoided if the medical community were
better at weeding out the incompetent and negligent.

So, maybe there's another reason that the government is concerned about law
suits from damaged individuals. Maybe what it's really about is
pre-empting the posssibility that a whole lot of veterans and civilians are
going to come back and sue the government for failing to protect them from
the health problems they develop after breathing in the fall out from
depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

While the veterans of the Gulf War might not have a good case, because the
adverse consequences of breathing in uranium oxides was not yet well known,
there's now been an accumulation of information by the Europeans, the World
Health Organization and NATO from which, however vigorously it's denied by
the Pentagon, the liability of the American government could be established
pretty easily.

The effort to suppress the information and to delay proper investigation
might be enough to demonstrate a pattern of fraud and make any number of
officials subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946.

Objective DU reports from US and UK governments do not say differently. Read after years of information warfare on the DU topic, they prove that USA and the world knew about the health and environmental consequences of DU weapon use. They documents have been warning about toxic-radioactive effects of DU, as follows,

- In 1984, US Federal Aviation Agency document cautioned the investigators of aircraft crashes against the hazard from DU in counterweights of civilian airplanes: particles inhaled or ingested are toxic and can cause long-term irradiation of the internal tissue.

- Six months before the Gulf War, a Science Applications International Corporation report wrote, "Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."

- In the early nineties, UK Atomic Energy Authority warned that if all of the DU fired by tanks in the Gulf War was inhaled, "there could be half a million deaths as a result by 2000." Tanks fired only about 8% of all DU used in that war.

- 1993 US General Accounting Office report GAO/NSIAD-93-90 stated, "Inhaled insoluble [DU] oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and toxicity risk."

- 1995 US Army Environmental Policy Institute report warned, "Toxicologically, DU poses a health risk when internalized. Radiologically, the radiation emitted by DU results in health risks from both external and internal exposures [...] If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences &8220;

- In 1999, a Los Alamos Laboratory memo said that there were concerns about the environmental consequences of DU. Thus, in order to protect the DU weapons from becoming politically unacceptable and removed from the arsenals, reports from the Gulf War should be edited accordingly. Another memo stated that alpha particles emitted from DU dust created from exploded DU ammunition pose a health risk, but beta particles from DU shrapnel and from intact DU bullets are a serious hazard to health.

- January 2001, leak: UK Ministry of Defense was secretly testing for radiation poisoning among British soldiers just months before it sent troops to Kosovo. At the time the ministry was refusing screening for Gulf War veterans. The disclosure went much further than an earlier leak that showed only that officers knew 4 years earlier about the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers from DU shells.

- In January 2001, a leak implicated former Republican Senator Warren Rudman and retired Rear Admiral Paul Steinman who biased and censored a serious inquiry into Pentagon's handling of Gulf War illness, run by Dr. Bernard Rostker.

On Lying

Two letters to the editor today. One on lying, the other on gassing one's own people.

Dear Editor,

It's quite common for subjugated and fearful people all around the globe to
say the opposite of what they mean. Their friends know the truth and their
enemies deserve to be lied to.It's a self-protective strategy.

So why is the most powerful government on earth finding it necessary to
speak in opposites? To say "clear skies" when they mean increasing mercury
emmissions into the atmosphere; to promote "quality assurance" when
they're talking about junk; and to refer to the obliteration of whole
buildings or city blocks as "surgical strikes?" And why are we not being
told that the depleted uranium with which those surgically striking bombs
are "hardened" is still uranium and is still lethal because only the
deadliest two percent has actually been taken out to fuel our nuclear power
plants?

Why is the American government lying to its own people? Why, even more
importantly, is the American government not telling the truth to its own
soldiers? Not letting them know that if they breathe in the dust kicked up
by the exploding rounds and the fire storm that engulfs the target, they
will carry the irradiating atoms in their lungs and in their kidneys and
probably even in their DNA right back home to their families?

Is the American government lying to its citizens and its soldiers because
it considers us the enemy?

On Gassing One's Own People

Dear Editor,

Although no weapons of mass destruction that belonged to Saddam Hussein's
Iraq have been found, there's still that charge that he "gassed his own
people" which our President seems to delight in repeating. Never mind that
the poisonous gasses Iraq is accused of using were supplied to that country
by the United States. And never mind that more recent investigations have
suggested that it was actually Iran that spread gas over a Kurdish village,
nor that the Kurds in northern Iraq don't even consider themselves Saddam
Hussein's people.

That Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" seems to have a particular
significance that has nothing to do with facts. What does it actually
mean? Does it mean that, if they weren't his own people, gassing them would
have been OK? Is the repetition of this phrase actually a policy phrase,
an expression of our governments attitude to the citizens it has gone into
Iraq to free? Does it mean that as long as it's other people's people that
are being poisoned, like with uranium oxide dust from Depleted Uranium
bombs and shells, it's OK?

Just thought I'd mention it because "gassed his own people" has been
bothering me a lot, especially now that I'm finding out that our own
soldiers are being poisoned by that so-called Depleted Uranium. Is it a
gas when it becomes areolized in an explosion and sets off a fire-storm? I
don't know. But if it is, is our government now guilty of "gassing its own
people," too?

Iraq in a Nutshell

I am assuming Harper's wants this article distributed as widely as possible:

Baghdad Year Zero
Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia
Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, September 2004. By Naomi Klein.

It was only after I had been in Baghdad for a month that I found what I was looking for. I had traveled to Iraq a year after the war began, at the height of what should have been a construction boom, but after weeks of searching I had not seen a single piece of heavy machinery apart from tanks and humvees. Then I saw it: a construction crane. It was big and yellow and impressive, and when I caught a glimpse of it around a corner in a busy shopping district I thought that I was finally about to witness some of the reconstruction I had heard so much about. But as I got closer I noticed that the crane was not actually rebuilding anything?not one of the bombed-out government buildings that still lay in rubble all over the city, nor one of the many power lines that remained in twisted heaps even as the heat of summer was starting to bear down. No, the crane was hoisting a giant billboard to the top of a three-story building. SUNBULAH: HONEY 100% NATURAL, made in Saudi Arabia.

Seeing the sign, I couldn?t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is ?a huge pot of honey that?s attracting a lot of flies.? The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq?s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.

Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn?t have ?a postwar plan.? The only problem with this theory is that it isn?t true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.

* * *

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war?s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush?s Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself.

The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.

* * *

Torturers believe that when electrical shocks are applied to various parts of the body simultaneously subjects are rendered so confused about where the pain is coming from that they become incapable of resistance. A declassified CIA ?Counterintelligence Interrogation? manual from 1963 describes how a trauma inflicted on prisoners opens up ?an interval?which may be extremely brief?of suspended animation, a kind of psychological shock or paralysis. . . . [A]t this moment the source is far more open to suggestion, far likelier to comply.? A similar theory applies to economic shock therapy, or ?shock treatment,? the ugly term used to describe the rapid implementation of free-market reforms imposed on Chile in the wake of General Augusto Pinochet?s coup. The theory is that if painful economic ?adjustments? are brought in rapidly and in the aftermath of a seismic social disruption like a war, a coup, or a government collapse, the population will be so stunned, and so preoccupied with the daily pressures of survival, that it too will go into suspended animation, unable to resist. As Pinochet?s finance minister, Admiral Lorenzo Gotuzzo, declared, ?The dog?s tail must be cut off in one chop.?

That, in essence, was the working thesis in Iraq, and in keeping with the belief that private companies are more suited than governments for virtually every task, the White House decided to privatize the task of privatizing Iraq?s state-dominated economy. Two months before the war began, USAID began drafting a work order, to be handed out to a private company, to oversee Iraq?s ?transition to a sustainable market-driven economic system.? The document states that the winning company (which turned out to be the KPMG offshoot Bearing Point) will take ?appropriate advantage of the unique opportunity for rapid progress in this area presented by the current configuration of political circumstances.? Which is precisely what happened.

L. Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. occupation of Iraq from May 2, 2003, until he caught an early flight out of Baghdad on June 28, admits that when he arrived, ?Baghdad was on fire, literally, as I drove in from the airport.? But before the fires from the ?shock and awe? military onslaught were even extinguished, Bremer unleashed his shock therapy, pushing through more wrenching changes in one sweltering summer than the International Monetary Fund has managed to enact over three decades in Latin America. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former chief economist at the World Bank, describes Bremer?s reforms as ?an even more radical form of shock therapy than pursued in the former Soviet world.?

The tone of Bremer?s tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country?s borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was ?open for business.?

One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq?s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. ?Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,? he said, ?is essential for Iraq?s economic recovery.? It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Bremer?s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq?s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein?s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

If these policies sound familiar, it?s because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. But while these reforms are only ever enacted in part, or in fits and starts, Bremer delivered them all, all at once. Overnight, Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world to being, on paper, its widest-open market.

* * *

At first, the shock-therapy theory seemed to hold: Iraqis, reeling from violence both military and economic, were far too busy staying alive to mount a political response to Bremer?s campaign. Worrying about the privatization of the sewage system was an unimaginable luxury with half the population lacking access to clean drinking water; the debate over the flat tax would have to wait until the lights were back on. Even in the international press, Bremer?s new laws, though radical, were easily upstaged by more dramatic news of political chaos and rising crime.

Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in ?rebuilding Iraq? trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as ?a capitalist dream,? and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. ?Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine,? one of the company?s partners enthused. ?One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country.?

Soon there were rumors that a McDonald?s would be opening up in downtown Baghdad, funding was almost in place for a Starwood luxury hotel, and General Motors was planning to build an auto plant. On the financial side, HSBC would have branches all over the country, Citigroup was preparing to offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil, and the bell was going to ring on a New York?style stock exchange in Baghdad any day.

In only a few months, the postwar plan to turn Iraq into a laboratory for the neocons had been realized. Leo Strauss may have provided the intellectual framework for invading Iraq preemptively, but it was that other University of Chicago professor, Milton Friedman, author of the anti-government manifesto Capitalism and Freedom, who supplied the manual for what to do once the country was safely in America?s hands. This represented an enormous victory for the most ideological wing of the Bush Administration. But it was also something more: the culmination of two interlinked power struggles, one among Iraqi exiles advising the White House on its postwar strategy, the other within the White House itself.

* * *

As the British historian Dilip Hiro has shown, in Secrets and Lies: Operation ?Iraqi Freedom? and After, the Iraqi exiles pushing for the invasion were divided, broadly, into two camps. On one side were ?the pragmatists,? who favored getting rid of Saddam and his immediate entourage, securing access to oil, and slowly introducing free-market reforms. Many of these exiles were part of the State Department?s Future of Iraq Project, which generated a thirteen-volume report on how to restore basic services and transition to democracy after the war. On the other side was the ?Year Zero? camp, those who believed that Iraq was so contaminated that it needed to be rubbed out and remade from scratch. The prime advocate of the pragmatic approach was Iyad Allawi, a former high-level Baathist who fell out with Saddam and started working for the CIA. The prime advocate of the Year Zero approach was Ahmad Chalabi, whose hatred of the Iraqi state for expropriating his family?s assets during the 1958 revolution ran so deep he longed to see the entire country burned to the ground?everything, that is, but the Oil Ministry, which would be the nucleus of the new Iraq, the cluster of cells from which an entire nation would grow. He called this process ?de-Baathification.?

A parallel battle between pragmatists and true believers was being waged within the Bush Administration. The pragmatists were men like Secretary of State Colin Powell and General Jay Garner, the first U.S. envoy to postwar Iraq. General Garner?s plan was straightforward enough: fix the infrastructure, hold quick and dirty elections, leave the shock therapy to the International Monetary Fund, and concentrate on securing U.S. military bases on the model of the Philippines. ?I think we should look right now at Iraq as our coaling station in the Middle East,? he told the BBC. He also paraphrased T. E. Lawrence, saying, ?It?s better for them to do it imperfectly than for us to do it for them perfectly.? On the other side was the usual cast of neoconservatives: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (who lauded Bremer?s ?sweeping reforms? as ?some of the most enlightened and inviting tax and investment laws in the free world?), Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and, perhaps most centrally, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Whereas the State Department had its Future of Iraq report, the neocons had USAID?s contract with Bearing Point to remake Iraq?s economy: in 108 pages, ?privatization? was mentioned no fewer than fifty-one times. To the true believers in the White House, General Garner?s plans for postwar Iraq seemed hopelessly unambitious. Why settle for a mere coaling station when you can have a model free market? Why settle for the Philippines when you can have a beacon unto the world?

The Iraqi Year Zeroists made natural allies for the White House neoconservatives: Chalabi?s seething hatred of the Baathist state fit nicely with the neocons? hatred of the state in general, and the two agendas effortlessly merged. Together, they came to imagine the invasion of Iraq as a kind of Rapture: where the rest of the world saw death, they saw birth?a country redeemed through violence, cleansed by fire. Iraq wasn?t being destroyed by cruise missiles, cluster bombs, chaos, and looting; it was being born again. April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell, was Day One of Year Zero.

While the war was being waged, it still wasn?t clear whether the pragmatists or the Year Zeroists would be handed control over occupied Iraq. But the speed with which the nation was conquered dramatically increased the neocons? political capital, since they had been predicting a ?cakewalk? all along. Eight days after George Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, the President publicly signed on to the neocons? vision for Iraq to become a model corporate state that would open up the entire region. On May 9, Bush proposed the ?establishment of a U.S.-Middle East free trade area within a decade?; three days later, Bush sent Paul Bremer to Baghdad to replace Jay Garner, who had been on the job for only three weeks. The message was unequivocal: the pragmatists had lost; Iraq would belong to the believers.

A Reagan-era diplomat turned entrepreneur, Bremer had recently proven his ability to transform rubble into gold by waiting exactly one month after the September 11 attacks to launch Crisis Consulting Practice, a security company selling ?terrorism risk insurance? to multinationals. Bremer had two lieutenants on the economic front: Thomas Foley and Michael Fleischer, the heads of ?private sector development? for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Foley is a Greenwich, Connecticut, multimillionaire, a longtime friend of the Bush family and a Bush-Cheney campaign ?pioneer? who has described Iraq as a modern California ?gold rush.? Fleischer, a venture capitalist, is the brother of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Neither man had any high-level diplomatic experience and both use the term corporate ?turnaround? specialist to describe what they do. According to Foley, this uniquely qualified them to manage Iraq?s economy because it was ?the mother of all turnarounds.?

Many of the other CPA postings were equally ideological. The Green Zone, the city within a city that houses the occupation headquarters in Saddam?s former palace, was filled with Young Republicans straight out of the Heritage Foundation, all of them given responsibility they could never have dreamed of receiving at home. Jay Hallen, a twenty-four-year-old who had applied for a job at the White House, was put in charge of launching Baghdad?s new stock exchange. Scott Erwin, a twenty-one-year-old former intern to Dick Cheney, reported in an email home that ?I am assisting Iraqis in the management of finances and budgeting for the domestic security forces.? The college senior?s favorite job before this one? ?My time as an ice-cream truck driver.? In those early days, the Green Zone felt a bit like the Peace Corps, for people who think the Peace Corps is a communist plot. It was a chance to sleep on cots, wear army boots, and cry ?incoming??all while being guarded around the clock by real soldiers.

The teams of KPMG accountants, investment bankers, think-tank lifers, and Young Republicans that populate the Green Zone have much in common with the IMF missions that rearrange the economies of developing countries from the presidential suites of Sheraton hotels the world over. Except for one rather significant difference: in Iraq they were not negotiating with the government to accept their ?structural adjustments? in exchange for a loan; they were the government.

Some small steps were taken, however, to bring Iraq?s U.S.-appointed politicians inside. Yegor Gaidar, the mastermind of Russia?s mid-nineties privatization auction that gave away the country?s assets to the reigning oligarchs, was invited to share his wisdom at a conference in Baghdad. Marek Belka, who as finance minister oversaw the same process in Poland, was brought in as well. The Iraqis who proved most gifted at mouthing the neocon lines were selected to act as what USAID calls local ?policy champions??men like Ahmad al Mukhtar, who told me of his countrymen, ?They are lazy. The Iraqis by nature, they are very dependent. . . . They will have to depend on themselves, it is the only way to survive in the world today.? Although he has no economics background and his last job was reading the English-language news on television, al Mukhtar was appointed director of foreign relations in the Ministry of Trade and is leading the charge for Iraq to join the World Trade Organization.

* * *

I had been following the economic front of the war for almost a year before I decided to go to Iraq. I attended the ?Rebuilding Iraq? trade shows, studied Bremer?s tax and investment laws, met with contractors at their home offices in the United States, interviewed the government officials in Washington who are making the policies. But as I prepared to travel to Iraq in March to see this experiment in free-market utopianism up close, it was becoming increasingly clear that all was not going according to plan. Bremer had been working on the theory that if you build a corporate utopia the corporations will come?but where were they? American multinationals were happy to accept U.S. taxpayer dollars to reconstruct the phone or electricity systems, but they weren?t sinking their own money into Iraq. There was, as yet, no McDonald?s or Wal-Mart in Baghdad, and even the sales of state factories, announced so confidently nine months earlier, had not materialized.

Some of the holdup had to do with the physical risks of doing business in Iraq. But there were other more significant risks as well. When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq?s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as ?the wish list of foreign investors,? there was one small detail he failed to mention: It was all completely illegal. The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq?s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must ?comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.? Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country?s existing laws unless ?absolutely prevented? from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the ?public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets? of the country it is occupying but is rather their ?administrator? and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan: since America didn?t own Iraq?s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer?s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset.

By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet, that it would be better to wait until after the transition. Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for ?political risk,? that high-stakes area of insurance law that protects companies against foreign governments turning nationalist or socialist and expropriating their investments.

Even the U.S.-appointed Iraqi politicians, up to now so obedient, were getting nervous about their own political futures if they went along with the privatization plans. Communications Minister Haider al-Abadi told me about his first meeting with Bremer. ?I said, ?Look, we don?t have the mandate to sell any of this. Privatization is a big thing. We have to wait until there is an Iraqi government.?? Minister of Industry Mohamad Tofiq was even more direct: ?I am not going to do something that is not legal, so that?s it.?

Both al-Abadi and Tofiq told me about a meeting?never reported in the press?that took place in late October 2003. At that gathering the twenty-five members of Iraq?s Governing Council as well as the twenty-five interim ministers decided unanimously that they would not participate in the privatization of Iraq?s state-owned companies or of its publicly owned infrastructure.

But Bremer didn?t give up. International law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets themselves, but it doesn?t say anything about the puppet governments they appoint. Originally, Bremer had pledged to hand over power to a directly elected Iraqi government, but in early November he went to Washington for a private meeting with President Bush and came back with a Plan B. On June 30 the occupation would officially end?but not really. It would be replaced by an appointed government, chosen by Washington. This government would not be bound by the international laws preventing occupiers from selling off state assets, but it would be bound by an ?interim constitution,? a document that would protect Bremer?s investment and privatization laws.

The plan was risky. Bremer?s June 30 deadline was awfully close, and it was chosen for a less than ideal reason: so that President Bush could trumpet the end of Iraq?s occupation on the campaign trail. If everything went according to plan, Bremer would succeed in forcing a ?sovereign? Iraqi government to carry out his illegal reforms. But if something went wrong, he would have to go ahead with the June 30 handover anyway because by then Karl Rove, and not Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, would be calling the shots. And if it came down to a choice between ideology in Iraq and the electability of George W. Bush, everyone knew which would win.

* * *

At first, Plan B seemed to be right on track. Bremer persuaded the Iraqi Governing Council to agree to everything: the new timetable, the interim government, and the interim constitution. He even managed to slip into the constitution a completely overlooked clause, Article 26. It stated that for the duration of the interim government, ?The laws, regulations, orders and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority . . . shall remain in force? and could only be changed after general elections are held.

Bremer had found his legal loophole: There would be a window?seven months?when the occupation was officially over but before general elections were scheduled to take place. Within this window, the Hague and Geneva Conventions? bans on privatization would no longer apply, but Bremer?s own laws, thanks to Article 26, would stand. During these seven months, foreign investors could come to Iraq and sign forty-year contracts to buy up Iraqi assets. If a future elected Iraqi government decided to change the rules, investors could sue for compensation.

But Bremer had a formidable opponent: Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq. al Sistani tried to block Bremer?s plan at every turn, calling for immediate direct elections and for the constitution to be written after those elections, not before. Both demands, if met, would have closed Bremer?s privatization window. Then, on March 2, with the Shia members of the Governing Council refusing to sign the interim constitution, five bombs exploded in front of mosques in Karbala and Baghdad, killing close to 200 worshipers. General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned that the country was on the verge of civil war. Frightened by this prospect, al Sistani backed down and the Shia politicians signed the interim constitution. It was a familiar story: the shock of a violent attack paved the way for more shock therapy.

When I arrived in Iraq a week later, the economic project seemed to be back on track. All that remained for Bremer was to get his interim constitution ratified by a Security Council resolution, then the nervous lawyers and insurance brokers could relax and the sell-off of Iraq could finally begin. The CPA, meanwhile, had launched a major new P.R. offensive designed to reassure investors that Iraq was still a safe and exciting place to do business. The centerpiece of the campaign was Destination Baghdad Exposition, a massive trade show for potential investors to be held in early April at the Baghdad International Fairgrounds. It was the first such event inside Iraq, and the organizers had branded the trade fair ?DBX,? as if it were some sort of Mountain Dew?sponsored dirt-bike race. In keeping with the extreme-sports theme, Thomas Foley traveled to Washington to tell a gathering of executives that the risks in Iraq are akin ?to skydiving or riding a motorcycle, which are, to many, very acceptable risks.?

But three hours after my arrival in Baghdad, I was finding these reassurances extremely hard to believe. I had not yet unpacked when my hotel room was filled with debris and the windows in the lobby were shattered. Down the street, the Mount Lebanon Hotel had just been bombed, at that point the largest attack of its kind since the official end of the war. The next day, another hotel was bombed in Basra, then two Finnish businessmen were murdered on their way to a meeting in Baghdad. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt finally admitted that there was a pattern at work: ?the extremists have started shifting away from the hard targets . . . [and] are now going out of their way to specifically target softer targets.? The next day, the State Department updated its travel advisory: U.S. citizens were ?strongly warned against travel to Iraq.?

The physical risks of doing business in Iraq seemed to be spiraling out of control. This, once again, was not part of the original plan. When Bremer first arrived in Baghdad, the armed resistance was so low that he was able to walk the streets with a minimal security entourage. During his first four months on the job, 109 U.S. soldiers were killed and 570 were wounded. In the following four months, when Bremer?s shock therapy had taken effect, the number of U.S. casualties almost doubled, with 195 soldiers killed and 1,633 wounded. There are many in Iraq who argue that these events are connected?that Bremer?s reforms were the single largest factor leading to the rise of armed resistance.

Take, for instance, Bremer?s first casualties. The soldiers and workers he laid off without pensions or severance pay didn?t all disappear quietly. Many of them went straight into the mujahedeen, forming the backbone of the armed resistance. ?Half a million people are now worse off, and there you have the water tap that keeps the insurgency going. It?s alternative employment,? says Hussain Kubba, head of the prominent Iraqi business group Kubba Consulting. Some of Bremer?s other economic casualties also have failed to go quietly. It turns out that many of the businessmen whose companies are threatened by Bremer?s investment laws have decided to make investments of their own?in the resistance. It is partly their money that keeps fighters in Kalashnikovs and RPGs.

These developments present a challenge to the basic logic of shock therapy: the neocons were convinced that if they brought in their reforms quickly and ruthlessly, Iraqis would be too stunned to resist. But the shock appears to have had the opposite effect; rather than the predicted paralysis, it jolted many Iraqis into action, much of it extreme. Haider al-Abadi, Iraq?s minister of communication, puts it this way: ?We know that there are terrorists in the country, but previously they were not successful, they were isolated. Now because the whole country is unhappy, and a lot of people don?t have jobs . . . these terrorists are finding listening ears.?

Bremer was now at odds not only with the Iraqis who opposed his plans but with U.S military commanders charged with putting down the insurgency his policies were feeding. Heretical questions began to be raised: instead of laying people off, what if the CPA actually created jobs for Iraqis? And instead of rushing to sell off Iraq?s 200 state-owned firms, how about putting them back to work?

* * *

From the start, the neocons running Iraq had shown nothing but disdain for Iraq?s state-owned companies. In keeping with their Year Zero?apocalyptic glee, when looters descended on the factories during the war, U.S. forces did nothing. Sabah Asaad, managing director of a refrigerator factory outside Baghdad, told me that while the looting was going on, he went to a nearby U.S. Army base and begged for help. ?I asked one of the officers to send two soldiers and a vehicle to help me kick out the looters. I was crying. The officer said, ?Sorry, we can?t do anything, we need an order from President Bush.?? Back in Washington, Donald Rumsfeld shrugged. ?Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.?

To see the remains of Asaad?s football-field-size warehouse is to understand why Frank Gehry had an artistic crisis after September 11 and was briefly unable to design structures resembling the rubble of modern buildings. Asaad?s looted and burned factory looks remarkably like a heavy-metal version of Gehry?s Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain, with waves of steel, buckled by fire, lying in terrifyingly beautiful golden heaps. Yet all was not lost. ?The looters were good-hearted,? one of Asaad?s painters told me, explaining that they left the tools and machines behind, ?so we could work again.? Because the machines are still there, many factory managers in Iraq say that it would take little for them to return to full production. They need emergency generators to cope with daily blackouts, and they need capital for parts and raw materials. If that happened, it would have tremendous implications for Iraq?s stalled reconstruction, because it would mean that many of the key materials needed to rebuild?cement and steel, bricks and furniture?could be produced inside the country.

But it hasn?t happened. Immediately after the nominal end of the war, Congress appropriated $2.5 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, followed by an additional $18.4 billion in October. Yet as of July 2004, Iraq?s state-owned factories had been pointedly excluded from the reconstruction contracts. Instead, the billions have all gone to Western companies, with most of the materials for the reconstruction imported at great expense from abroad.

With unemployment as high as 67 percent, the imported products and foreign workers flooding across the borders have become a source of tremendous resentment in Iraq and yet another open tap fueling the insurgency. And Iraqis don?t have to look far for reminders of this injustice; it?s on display in the most ubiquitous symbol of the occupation: the blast wall. The ten-foot-high slabs of reinforced concrete are everywhere in Iraq, separating the protected?the people in upscale hotels, luxury homes, military bases, and, of course, the Green Zone?from the unprotected and exposed. If that wasn?t injury enough, all the blast walls are imported, from Kurdistan, Turkey, or even farther afield, this despite the fact that Iraq was once a major manufacturer of cement, and could easily be again. There are seventeen state-owned cement factories across the country, but most are idle or working at only half capacity. According to the Ministry of Industry, not one of these factories has received a single contract to help with the reconstruction, even though they could produce the walls and meet other needs for cement at a greatly reduced cost. The CPA pays up to $1,000 per imported blast wall; local manufacturers say they could make them for $100. Minister Tofiq says there is a simple reason why the Americans refuse to help get Iraq?s cement factories running again: among those making the decisions, ?no one believes in the public sector.?[1]

This kind of ideological blindness has turned Iraq?s occupiers into prisoners of their own policies, hiding behind walls that, by their very existence, fuel the rage at the U.S. presence, thereby feeding the need for more walls. In Baghdad the concrete barriers have been given a popular nickname: Bremer Walls.

As the insurgency grew, it soon became clear that if Bremer went ahead with his plans to sell off the state companies, it could worsen the violence. There was no question that privatization would require layoffs: the Ministry of Industry estimates that roughly 145,000 workers would have to be fired to make the firms desirable to investors, with each of those workers supporting, on average, five family members. For Iraq?s besieged occupiers the question was: Would these shock-therapy casualties accept their fate or would they rebel?

* * *

The answer arrived, in rather dramatic fashion, at one of the largest state-owned companies, the General Company for Vegetable Oils. The complex of six factories in a Baghdad industrial zone produces cooking oil, hand soap, laundry detergent, shaving cream, and shampoo. At least that is what I was told by a receptionist who gave me glossy brochures and calendars boasting of ?modern instruments? and ?the latest and most up to date developments in the field of industry.? But when I approached the soap factory, I discovered a group of workers sleeping outside a darkened building. Our guide rushed ahead, shouting something to a woman in a white lab coat, and suddenly the factory scrambled into activity: lights switched on, motors revved up, and workers?still blinking off sleep?began filling two-liter plastic bottles with pale blue Zahi brand dishwashing liquid.

I asked Nada Ahmed, the woman in the white coat, why the factory wasn?t working a few minutes before. She explained that they have only enough electricity and materials to run the machines for a couple of hours a day, but when guests arrive?would-be investors, ministry officials, journalists?they get them going. ?For show,? she explained. Behind us, a dozen bulky machines sat idle, covered in sheets of dusty plastic and secured with duct tape.

In one dark corner of the plant, we came across an old man hunched over a sack filled with white plastic caps. With a thin metal blade lodged in a wedge of wax, he carefully whittled down the edges of each cap, leaving a pile of shavings at his feet. ?We don?t have the spare part for the proper mold, so we have to cut them by hand,? his supervisor explained apologetically. ?We haven?t received any parts from Germany since the sanctions began.? I noticed that even on the assembly lines that were nominally working there was almost no mechanization: bottles were held under spouts by hand because conveyor belts don?t convey, lids once snapped on by machines were being hammered in place with wooden mallets. Even the water for the factory was drawn from an outdoor well, hoisted by hand, and carried inside.

The solution proposed by the U.S. occupiers was not to fix the plant but to sell it, and so when Bremer announced the privatization auction back in June 2003 this was among the first companies mentioned. Yet when I visited the factory in March, nobody wanted to talk about the privatization plan; the mere mention of the word inside the plant inspired awkward silences and meaningful glances. This seemed an unnatural amount of subtext for a soap factory, and I tried to get to the bottom of it when I interviewed the assistant manager. But the interview itself was equally odd: I had spent half a week setting it up, submitting written questions for approval, getting a signed letter of permission from the minister of industry, being questioned and searched several times. But when I finally began the interview, the assistant manager refused to tell me his name or let me record the conversation. ?Any manager mentioned in the press is attacked afterwards,? he said. And when I asked whether the company was being sold, he gave this oblique response: ?If the decision was up to the workers, they are against privatization; but if it?s up to the high-ranking officials and government, then privatization is an order and orders must be followed.?

I left the plant feeling that I knew less than when I?d arrived. But on the way out of the gates, a young security guard handed my translator a note. He wanted us to meet him after work at a nearby restaurant, ?to find out what is really going on with privatization.? His name was Mahmud, and he was a twenty-five-year-old with a neat beard and big black eyes. (For his safety, I have omitted his last name.) His story began in July, a few weeks after Bremer?s privatization announcement. The company?s manager, on his way to work, was shot to death. Press reports speculated that the manager was murdered because he was in favor of privatizing the plant, but Mahmud was convinced that he was killed because he opposed the plan. ?He would never have sold the factories like the Americans want. That?s why they killed him.?

The dead man was replaced by a new manager, Mudhfar Ja?far. Shortly after taking over, Ja?far called a meeting with ministry officials to discuss selling off the soap factory, which would involve laying off two thirds of its employees. Guarding that meeting were several security officers from the plant. They listened closely to Ja?far?s plans and promptly reported the alarming news to their coworkers. ?We were shocked,? Mahmud recalled. ?If the private sector buys our company, the first thing they would do is reduce the staff to make more money. And we will be forced into a very hard destiny, because the factory is our only way of living.?

Frightened by this prospect, a group of seventeen workers, including Mahmud, marched into Ja?far?s office to confront him on what they had heard. ?Unfortunately, he wasn?t there, only the assistant manager, the one you met,? Mahmud told me. A fight broke out: one worker struck the assistant manager, and a bodyguard fired three shots at the workers. The crowd then attacked the bodyguard, took his gun, and, Mahmud said, ?stabbed him with a knife in the back three times. He spent a month in the hospital.? In January there was even more violence. On their way to work, Ja?far, the manager, and his son were shot and badly injured. Mahmud told me he had no idea who was behind the attack, but I was starting to understand why factory managers in Iraq try to keep a low profile.

At the end of our meeting, I asked Mahmud what would happen if the plant was sold despite the workers? objections. ?There are two choices,? he said, looking me in the eye and smiling kindly. ?Either we will set the factory on fire and let the flames devour it to the ground, or we will blow ourselves up inside of it. But it will not be privatized.?

If there ever was a moment when Iraqis were too disoriented to resist shock therapy, that moment has definitely passed. Labor relations, like everything else in Iraq, has become a blood sport. The violence on the streets howls at the gates of the factories, threatening to engulf them. Workers fear job loss as a death sentence, and managers, in turn, fear their workers, a fact that makes privatization distinctly more complicated than the neocons foresaw.[2]

* * *

As I left the meeting with Mahmud, I got word that there was a major demonstration outside the CPA headquarters. Supporters of the radical young cleric Moqtada al Sadr were protesting the closing of their newspaper, al Hawza, by military police. The CPA accused al Hawza of publishing ?false articles? that could ?pose the real threat of violence.? As an example, it cited an article that claimed Bremer ?is pursuing a policy of starving the Iraqi people to make them preoccupied with procuring their daily bread so they do not have the chance to demand their political and individual freedoms.? To me it sounded less like hate literature than a concise summary of Milton Friedman?s recipe for shock therapy.

A few days before the newspaper was shut down, I had gone to Kufa during Friday prayers to listen to al Sadr at his mosque. He had launched into a tirade against Bremer?s newly signed interim constitution, calling it ?an unjust, terrorist document.? The message of the sermon was clear: Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani may have backed down on the constitution, but al Sadr and his supporters were still determined to fight it?and if they succeeded they would sabotage the neocons? careful plan to saddle Iraq?s next government with their ?wish list? of laws. With the closing of the newspaper, Bremer was giving al Sadr his response: he wasn?t negotiating with this young upstart; he?d rather take him out with force.

When I arrived at the demonstration, the streets were filled with men dressed in black, the soon-to-be legendary Mahdi Army. It struck me that if Mahmud lost his security guard job at the soap factory, he could be one of them. That?s who al Sadr?s foot soldiers are: the young men who have been shut out of the neocons? grand plans for Iraq, who see no possibilities for work, and whose neighborhoods have seen none of the promised reconstruction. Bremer has failed these young men, and everywhere that he has failed, Moqtada al Sadr has cannily set out to succeed. In Shia slums from Baghdad to Basra, a network of Sadr Centers coordinate a kind of shadow reconstruction. Funded through donations, the centers dispatch electricians to fix power and phone lines, organize local garbage collection, set up emergency generators, run blood drives, direct traffic where the streetlights don?t work. And yes, they organize militias too. Al Sadr took Bremer?s economic casualties, dressed them in black, and gave them rusty Kalashnikovs. His militiamen protected the mosques and the state factories when the occupation authorities did not, but in some areas they also went further, zealously enforcing Islamic law by torching liquor stores and terrorizing women without the veil. Indeed, the astronomical rise of the brand of religious fundamentalism that al Sadr represents is another kind of blowback from Bremer?s shock therapy: if the reconstruction had provided jobs, security, and services to Iraqis, al Sadr would have been deprived of both his mission and many of his newfound followers.

At the same time as al Sadr?s followers were shouting ?Down with America? outside the Green Zone, something was happening in another part of the country that would change everything. Four American mercenary soldiers were killed in Fallujah, their charred and dismembered bodies hung like trophies over the Euphrates. The attacks would prove a devastating blow for the neocons, one from which they would never recover. With these images, investing in Iraq suddenly didn?t look anything like a capitalist dream; it looked like a macabre nightmare made real.

The day I left Baghdad was the worst yet. Fallujah was under siege and Brig. Gen. Kimmitt was threatening to ?destroy the al-Mahdi Army.? By the end, roughly 2,000 Iraqis were killed in these twin campaigns. I was dropped off at a security checkpoint several miles from the airport, then loaded onto a bus jammed with contractors lugging hastily packed bags. Although no one was calling it one, this was an evacuation: over the next week 1,500 contractors left Iraq, and some governments began airlifting their citizens out of the country. On the bus no one spoke; we all just listened to the mortar fire, craning our necks to see the red glow. A guy carrying a KPMG briefcase decided to lighten things up. ?So is there business class on this flight?? he asked the silent bus. From the back, somebody called out, ?Not yet.?

Indeed, it may be quite a while before business class truly arrives in Iraq. When we landed in Amman, we learned that we had gotten out just in time. That morning three Japanese civilians were kidnapped and their captors were threatening to burn them alive. Two days later Nicholas Berg went missing and was not seen again until the snuff film surfaced of his beheading, an even more terrifying message for U.S. contractors than the charred bodies in Fallujah. These were the start of a wave of kidnappings and killings of foreigners, most of them businesspeople, from a rainbow of nations: South Korea, Italy, China, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey. By the end of June more than ninety contractors were reported dead in Iraq. When seven Turkish contractors were kidnapped in June, their captors asked the ?company to cancel all contracts and pull out employees from Iraq.? Many insurance companies stopped selling life insurance to contractors, and others began to charge premiums as high as $10,000 a week for a single Western executive?the same price some insurgents reportedly pay for a dead American.

For their part, the organizers of DBX, the historic Baghdad trade fair, decided to relocate to the lovely tourist city of Diyarbakir in Turkey, ?just 250 km from the Iraqi border.? An Iraqi landscape, only without those frightening Iraqis. Three weeks later just fifteen people showed up for a Commerce Department conference in Lansing, Michigan, on investing in Iraq. Its host, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, tried to reassure his skeptical audience by saying that Iraq is ?like a rough neighborhood anywhere in America.? The foreign investors, the ones who were offered every imaginable free-market enticement, are clearly not convinced; there is still no sign of them. Keith Crane, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation who has worked for the CPA, put it bluntly: ?I don?t believe the board of a multinational company could approve a major investment in this environment. If people are shooting at each other, it?s just difficult to do business.? Hamid Jassim Khamis, the manager of the largest soft-drink bottling plant in the region, told me he can?t find any investors, even though he landed the exclusive rights to produce Pepsi in central Iraq. ?A lot of people have approached us to invest in the factory, but people are really hesitating now.? Khamis said he couldn?t blame them; in five months he has survived an attempted assassination, a carjacking, two bombs planted at the entrance of his factory, and the kidnapping of his son.

Despite having been granted the first license for a foreign bank to operate in Iraq in forty years, HSBC still hasn?t opened any branches, a decision that may mean losing the coveted license altogether. Procter & Gamble has put its joint venture on hold, and so has General Motors. The U.S. financial backers of the Starwood luxury hotel and multiplex have gotten cold feet, and Siemens AG has pulled most staff from Iraq. The bell hasn?t rung yet at the Baghdad Stock Exchange?in fact you can?t even use credit cards in Iraq?s cash-only economy. New Bridge Strategies, the company that had gushed back in October about how ?a Wal-Mart could take over the country,? is sounding distinctly humbled. ?McDonald?s is not opening anytime soon,? company partner Ed Rogers told the Washington Post. Neither is Wal-Mart. The Financial Times has declared Iraq ?the most dangerous place in the world in which to do business.? It?s quite an accomplishment: in trying to design the best place in the world to do business, the neocons have managed to create the worst, the most eloquent indictment yet of the guiding logic behind deregulated free markets.

The violence has not just kept investors out; it also forced Bremer, before he left, to abandon many of his central economic policies. Privatization of the state companies is off the table; instead, several of the state companies have been offered up for lease, but only if the investor agrees not to lay off a single employee. Thousands of the state workers that Bremer fired have been rehired, and significant raises have been handed out in the public sector as a whole. Plans to do away with the food-ration program have also been scrapped?it just doesn?t seem like a good time to deny millions of Iraqis the only nutrition on which they can depend.

* * *

The final blow to the neocon dream came in the weeks before the handover. The White House and the CPA were rushing to get the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution endorsing their handover plan. They had twisted arms to give the top job to former CIA agent Iyad Allawi, a move that will ensure that Iraq becomes, at the very least, the coaling station for U.S. troops that Jay Garner originally envisioned. But if major corporate investors were going to come to Iraq in the future, they would need a stronger guarantee that Bremer?s economic laws would stick. There was only one way of doing that: the Security Council resolution had to ratify the interim constitution, which locked in Bremer?s laws for the duration of the interim government. But al Sistani once again objected, this time unequivocally, saying that the constitution has been ?rejected by the majority of the Iraqi people.? On June 8 the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that endorsed the handover plan but made absolutely no reference to the constitution. In the face of this far-reaching defeat, George W. Bush celebrated the resolution as a historic victory, one that came just in time for an election trail photo op at the G-8 Summit in Georgia.

With Bremer?s laws in limbo, Iraqi ministers are already talking openly about breaking contracts signed by the CPA. Citigroup?s loan scheme has been rejected as a misuse of Iraq?s oil revenues. Iraq?s communication minister is threatening to renegotiate contracts with the three communications firms providing the country with its disastrously poor cell phone service. And the Lebanese and U.S. companies hired to run the state television network have been informed that they could lose their licenses because they are not Iraqi. ?We will see if we can change the contract,? Hamid al-Kifaey, spokesperson for the Governing Council, said in May. ?They have no idea about Iraq.? For most investors, this complete lack of legal certainty simply makes Iraq too great a risk.

But while the Iraqi resistance has managed to scare off the first wave of corporate raiders, there?s little doubt that they will return. Whatever form the next Iraqi government takes?nationalist, Islamist, or free market?it will inherit a shattered nation with a crushing $120 billion debt. Then, as in all poor countries around the world, men in dark blue suits from the IMF will appear at the door, bearing loans and promises of economic boom, provided that certain structural adjustments are made, which will, of course, be rather painful at first but well worth the sacrifice in the end. In fact, the process has already begun: the IMF is poised to approve loans worth $2.5? $4.25 billion, pending agreement on the conditions. After an endless succession of courageous last stands and far too many lost lives, Iraq will become a poor nation like any other, with politicians determined to introduce policies rejected by the vast majority of the population, and all the imperfect compromises that will entail. The free market will no doubt come to Iraq, but the neoconservative dream of transforming the country into a free-market utopia has already died, a casualty of a greater dream?a second term for George W. Bush.

The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that ultimately made reconstruction impossible. Bremer?s reforms unleashed forces that the neocons neither predicted nor could hope to control, from armed insurrections inside factories to tens of thousands of unemployed young men arming themselves. These forces have transformed Year Zero in Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned: not a corporate utopia but a ghoulish dystopia, where going to a simple business meeting can get you lynched, burned alive, or beheaded. These dangers are so great that in Iraq global capitalism has retreated, at least for now. For the neocons, this must be a shocking development: their ideological belief in greed turns out to be stronger than greed itself.

Iraq was to the neocons what Afghanistan was to the Taliban: the one place on Earth where they could force everyone to live by the most literal, unyielding interpretation of their sacred texts. One would think that the bloody results of this experiment would inspire a crisis of faith: in the country where they had absolute free reign, where there was no local government to blame, where economic reforms were introduced at their most shocking and most perfect, they created, instead of a model free market, a failed state no right-thinking investor would touch. And yet the Green Zone neocons and their masters in Washington are no more likely to reexamine their core beliefs than the Taliban mullahs were inclined to search their souls when their Islamic state slid into a debauched Hades of opium and sex slavery. When facts threaten true believers, they simply close their eyes and pray harder.

Which is precisely what Thomas Foley has been doing. The former head of ?private sector development? has left Iraq, a country he had described as ?the mother of all turnarounds,? and has accepted another turnaround job, as co-chair of George Bush?s reelection committee in Connecticut. On April 30 in Washington he addressed a crowd of entrepreneurs about business prospects in Baghdad. It was a tough day to be giving an upbeat speech: that morning the first photographs had appeared out of Abu Ghraib, including one of a hooded prisoner with electrical wires attached to his hands. This was another kind of shock therapy, far more literal than the one Foley had helped to administer, but not entirely unconnected. ?Whatever you?re seeing, it?s not as bad as it appears,? Foley told the crowd. ?You just need to accept that on faith.?
About the Author

Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and writer/producer of The Take, a new documentary on Argentina?s occupied factories.
Notes

1. Tofiq did say that several U.S. companies had expressed strong interest in buying the state-owned cement factories. This supports a widely held belief in Iraq that there is a deliberate strategy to neglect the state firms so that they can be sold more cheaply--a practice known as "starve then sell." [Back]

2. It is in Basra where the connections between economic reforms and the rise of the resistance was put in starkest terms. In December the union representing oil workers was negotiating with the Oil Ministry for a salary increase. Getting nowhere, the workers offered the ministry a simple choice: increase their paltry salaries or they would all join the armed resistance. They received a substantial raise. [Back]
This is Baghdad Year Zero, a feature, originally from September 2004, published Friday, September 24, 2004. It is part of Features, which is part of Harpers.org.

Flying with the Wind

If I had a newspaper, I'd want this cartoon as a lead for my letter of the day.

One of the peculiar things about this year's presidential campaign is that
the campaigns keep featuring their opponents in their ads. The latest one
everyone's talking about is John Kerry riding the waves with the wind at
his back.

Do the Republicans really think this is a strange thing for someone who's
promoting wind energy as an alternative source of power to be doing? What
could be more consistent?

I know, this is supposed to be a variant of the flip-flop theme. But
anyone who knows anything about the wind and the weather knows that neither
flags, nor vanes, nor windsocks, nor sails are flopping or flacid when
there's a good wind blowing. And they know that the direction of the wind,
which that trusty vane declares, is still a good way to tell what's coming
up. Which, of course, is what we expect of someone who's looking ahead.

People who don't pay attention to which way the winds blow are apt to be
surprised. Which, at the least, suggests that any directions they provide
us are not be relied on.

C-SPAN event

Sometimes even Washington Journal on C-SPAN is amusing.

PETER SLEN, HOST: Kenner, Louisiana, good morning.

CALLER (in a very airy voice): Good morning. I?m going to vote for President Bush because, after all, you know, God made us there, you know, in His image, free from any black color and all [Host looks up, surprised]. The only church that Kerry can go to is where they say the Black Mass, and that is in the Merriam-Webster Pocket Book dictionary, where it says that that is the devil worshippers. [Host looks uncomfortably off-camera, at producer?] So, definitely, I would never vote for, you know, Senator Kerry.
And that isn?t the only reason. Also, in the Bible, God said ? God ? that, uh, also, like (unintelligible) and faggots, that he says, anybody that lays down with another man and has sex with his own sex, and any woman that lays down with another woman and has sex should be put to death and their blood upon them. It also says that about interracial marriages and everything. So that?s the reason why I?m voting for my president, Bush.

SLEN: What do you do in, uh ?
CALLER: And that isn?t the only reason. They also have other reasons also. The other reason is political, because like the political terrorists, they?ve been out there for eight months, and they?ve been out on the road, and they?ve been talking about ? they?ve talked against our president. They put him down in every way. And God knows that that is wrong. He?s out there doing God?s work. He?s taking care of all our children.

Like when Clinton was in, he made ? he tried to make whores and faggots out of our little girls ? whores out of our little girls. He put the pornography in the schools. And God?s gonna condemn him for that.
SLEN: What do you do in Kenner?

CALLER (talking over question): And that?s the reason why ? he even went to the hospital and everything.
SLEN: Caller, what do you do in Kenner, Louisiana?

CALLER: Pardon me?
SLEN: What do you do in Kenner? Do you have a job?

CALLER: I?m a housewife.
SLEN: A housewife? Where do you go to church?

CALLER: I go to different churches. I go to, sometimes, in New Orleans, I go to the Cathedral. And I believe in my God, and I know that God is here to protect everybody. And if Kerry comes in ? God helped the whole world, because God loved ? Kerry ? oh, that?s another thing ?

SLEN (cutting her off): Thanks, caller. I?m afraid ? I?m afraid we?re out of time. I wish I could let you go on, but I?m afraid we?re out of time.

I have to admit that about half-way through the tanscript I had to laugh. Blog people, however were concerned. So, I tried to set their minds at ease. Julian backs me up in my interpretation.

First off, if I'm not mistaken, Kenner lies west of New Orleans in an area that is socially and economically isolated and also, most probably, impregnated by the pollution and contamination emanating from the oil and gas industries all around it.

On the other hand, being married to a man from that part of the world, I had to laugh at the rant. People around New Orleans have a really peculiar sense of humor which is mainly based on saying the opposite of what they mean. So, the people who think like them know they are funnin' and the people who they are makin' fun of think they are agreean' with them.
The spouse isn't in the house right now, but I'll save it and see what he says.
Peter on C-SPAN, btw, is one of their very best.

US is using Nuclear Weapons in Iraq

My letter for today to major media outlets. I don't expect it to be published. Take a look at the training video I reference.

When is your organization going to report that the United States and Britain are using nuclear weapons in Iraq--specifically "dirty bombs" which are hazardous to combatants and civilians alike?

When is your organization going to report on the soldiers and aid workers who are coming home with traces of man-made uranium in their urine?

When are you going to report to the American people that one of the reasons European nations are withdrawing some troops from the former Yugoslavia is because of the risk of being exposed to radiation in areas that have not yet been cleaned up from the bombing in the Kosovo conflict?

The tests have been run, the evidence is in and being presented to medical groups.  But, the people who are in the theater where hundreds of thousands of pounds of depleted uranium have been dumped have no information.

The United States Army has put together a training video.  It can be viewed at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3581.htm.  The troops in Iraq, however, have not seen it.

Sweet and Bitter

It is sweet to meet with old friends. Dean of the Yalies

Bitter Fruit

When our President couldn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Oval Office, he thought it was funny. But this is not a joking matter. All he'll have to do now to find some right there by his desk is invite Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone, four National Guardsmen from the 442nd in Orangeburg, New York for a visit. They'll be sure to bring some depleted uranium with them, safely encapsulated in the cells of their bodies, so they won't set off any Geiger counters at the door.

And these four veternas of the conflict in Iraq, who simply served in the kinds of jobs they do at home, as prison guards, police and firemen, and probably didn't win any medals for being hit with shrapnel, won't need to get a medal from the President either. No, they'll never need a medal to prove they served in a battle zone, because they'll carry that uranium, a VERY heavy metal, with them for the rest of their lives.

Though a small amount of that man-made uranium will be excreted in their urine, which is where it was actually discovered, their bodies will continue to be irradiated from the inside by the molecules they obviously inhaled into their lungs. Whether the irradiation of their cells eventually results in cancers that will kill them isn't known yet.

What they do know, so far, is that they don't feel good. Indeed, a trip to Washington, D.C. may be out of the question already, given the general weakened condition that Vega, Ramos,Matos and Yonnone are already having to deal with. So, maybe, if our President really wants to find some Weapons of Mass Destruction, he'll have to come to New York to see these "fellows" for himself.

(This story was first reported by the NY Daily News on April 3,2004)

No Clothes and Loony Tunes

Governor Howard Dean had the gumption "to say the emperor had no clothes when all the other Democrats were making for the closet."

Let me see if I've understood our Secretary of Defense. Iraq was ruled by
a dictator, kept in power by his military might. So, the Americans and
Brits invaded to topple the dictator and destroy his army. Except, it
turned out that the army wasn't all that strong. Instead of waiting to be
pulled out of their fox-holes in the desert, like in 1991, the Iraqi
soldiers headed for the nearest highway and started walking home.

For this behavior they deserved to be fired. Which was accomplished by the
temporary administrator the Americans put in place--the first step on the
road to democracy. Now, however, the next step on this road to democracy,
our new goal for the country, requires the creation of a strong and
well-trained military.

This is the part of the story that really makes me pause. I always thought
that democracy was based on the consent of the governed. Which is why it
doesn't require a lot of force. Indeed, only as much as is required to
defend us against the bad guys. And which is why we have a Secretary of
Defense, rather than a Secretary of War, or a military junta in charge of
the country.

Since when does democracy require a strong military to prop it up? Seems
to me we've entered the land of fantasy, where the emperor has no clothes
and his ministers are singing loony tunes.

A Star in the Star

GUESTWORDS: By E.L. Doctorow

The Unfeeling President

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, this spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

-

How to Lie with Economic Statistics

How to Lie With Economic Statistics

The Bush people have a new "policy memo" that purports to show that the economy doesn't look any worse than it did when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996. It will surprise no one that the memo is a pristine example of how to deploy economic statistics to distort and dissemble. I'll spare you a full catalog of the memo's disinformation, but allow me to point out what is perhaps the most egregious case. The memo shows that "debt as a percentage of GDP" dropped from 48.5% in 1996 to 37.5% in 2003.

Those figures are correct (you can find them in a Congressional Budget Office report. But as the graph below shows, the drop took place entirely on Bill Clinton's watch, from 1996 to 2001, when we paid down the debt. Under Bush, the debt has shot back up again to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and a senseless war in Iraq. The official projections, assuming Bush's policies stay in place, show the debt exploding to stratospheric highs as the Baby Boomers retire and the tax cuts continue to starve the government of revenue. That means we'll all be paying a heavy Bush Tax for Bush's economic misleadership, long after he and his cronies are gone.

Essentially, then, the memo gives Bush credit for Clinton's success at reducing the debt, when in fact Bush's record of borrow-and-spend has taken us in the other direction!

A more proper measure of a President's fiscal responsibility is the annual deficit, which is the size of the budget shortfall in a given year. In 1996, the deficit was just 1.4 percent of GDP. As a consequence of Clinton's economic program, the shortfall shrunk to almost nothing the next year, and then the budget went into surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Bush squandered those gains and plunged us back on to a path of unsustainable debt, leading to a deficit in 2003 more than double what it was in 1996.

Posted by Gabriel Braddock at 11:13 PM

Clearing Skies

Baghdad Bob

"They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."

"We are winning!"

In Memoriam--Vanessa Lang Langer

The following is an open letter by Donna Marsh O'Connor to Dick Cheney on the anniversary of her daughter's murder:

Dear Vice President Cheney:

Thank you for warning me about my vote for John Kerry. In this version of America, the one you all have crafted, clarity is very difficult to come by. Let me make myself perfectly clear: my daughter was murdered on 9/11/2001, on an absolutely clear, late summer morning. She was four months pregnant and, that morning, five minutes after the first of two planes hit the World Trade Center, she was told she was ?safe.? She was told to ?stay at her desk.? She was found whole and intact ten feet from an alley between Towers IV and V. I cannot tell you how I would have appreciated such a clear warning before September 11th, or even on September 11th. Before that day, there were warnings, clear warnings, but they only reached the desk of George W. Bush. And I note he did nothing to stop the events of 9/11.

Nothing.

I make these statements now because the Bush/Cheney administration and all of your followers are the greatest beneficiaries of the events post-9/11, and I take your warning as an indication of what you guys will bring to America if Kerry wins. Get this clear, Mr. Cheney, what you guys will bring to America. I fear you, believe it or not, more than I fear another attack by Osama bin Laden.

Because I take your warning as an admission of your ties to that event. Even, no especially, if that admission is not what you intended.

So thank you, once again. And, understand how truly thankful I am to hear you articulate what only I seem willing to articulate: That if Kerry wins, you will come back at us.

We are forewarned.

But know this: I will never again watch my values, and the values of my fellow Americans be trampled on by so much corruption, so much duplicity and so much unadulterated hate without speaking out. You are not a Republican. You have shamed Republicans. And many of them, I pray, will be voting with me, in hope as well as fear, for John Kerry.

Donna Marsh O'Connor
Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, WTC, Tower II, 93rd floor

From the Memory Hole

Some of the information I post on this blog is here not because I personally agree with it but because I am concerned that it not be lost. There's a persistent pattern in our media of things just sort of disappearing. Most often it's just a case of not enough attention being paid. But the following is a case of information having been scrubbed. Posting it here will, one hopes, prevent that from happening again.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
by George Bush Sr.

>>> On 21 September 2002, The Memory Hole posted an extract from an essay by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, in which they explain why they didn't have the military push into Iraq and topple Saddam during Gulf War 1. Although there are differences between the Iraq situations in 1991 and 2002-3, Bush's key points apply to both.

But a funny thing happened. Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent.

Because of this erasure, we're posting the entire essay below the portion we originally excerpted. Below that, you'll find a copy of the actual page from the magazine, courtesy of Bruce Koball and Boing Boing.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

U.S. Bases in Iraq

Consequence of Lies

Because of the lies told by the current Administration, America is now in Iraq, doing even more dammage than was done in 1991.
The use of munitions which employ depleted uranium is unconscionable in an urban environment.

In the following excerpts you will find the statement "if no-one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unaccpetable and thus be deleted from the arsenal."
What that tells me is that we are using weapons whose usefulness has not even been determined. So why do we have them in our arsenal? Is it because it is a convenient way to get rid of nuclear waste without having to satisfy safe diposal requirements?
This is another example of the cost being paid by someone else.

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/birthdeformities2.htm

"Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."

- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - US Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990'

The US was also well aware of the long-term dangers of DU contamination, and played it down, as the following memo and document make clear:

"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no-one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus be deleted from the arsenal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action reports are written."

- Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn, Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum, March 1st 1991

"Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental exposure from dust or smoke. [...] Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market, DU weapons will be used in future conflicts. The number of DU patients on future battlefields probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU. [...] DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed of in a licensed repository. [...] No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate the Persian Gulf war battlefields."

- Report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute: 'Health and Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the US army', June 1995

For a powerful 50 minute video, made in 1997, about Depleted Uranium got to
http://www.konscious.com/films/features/dishonor/mov_02a.ram

Real Player with dialup delivers pretty good quality.

For the Record

For the record, the following are ten lies that the current administration told to the American people and the world about Iraq. However, I will grant that #3 is not technically a lie. What a person "believes" is irrefutable--neither true or false. Which should, of course, teach us to be very cautious when that word is used. There is no truth in it.
Also, the assessment of #4 as a lie needs to be qualified. In this instance, the phrase "going back a decade" is dispositive. That is, there was contact ten years prior, but none since. Given that the information was being provided to validate current policies, the failure to clarify is clearly deceptive.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Reschedule

Bush's Brain--Redux

Dear Editor,

It's probably unfair for comedians to make use of our current President's
occasional mis-speaks.After all, we all come out with something that
either makes little sense or says the opposite of what we mean and then
find that we have to correct ourselves.

That the President's problem is perhaps a little more serious, that it
might be called "confabulation," an early indicator of a brain disfunction,
may be indicated by the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to correct
himself. He doesn't seem to be aware that he's said something
non-sensical.
Of course, he doesn't seem to be aware that much of what he says is
downright false, either.
The people who write his speeches obviously try to work around the problem
by providing him with short, simple sentences and letting him repeat as
often as possible what he "believes." Beliefs, you see, can't be proven to
be either true or false; nor does anyone expect them to change, even when
new evidence shows that they are wrong.
Whose purpose is served when the leader of our country is supported in his
tendency to "make up stories" by the speeches his speech-writers craft is a
question that really needs to be asked. Just as somebody should have asked
some questions when Ronald Reagan's mental capacities were beginning to
fail.

View image

$3 Trillion Diversion

The Washington Post reports on Bush funding proposals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html

I have a couple of comments on the WaPo article on the Administration's $3 trillion over ten years "health care" proposal.

First of all, since the country's TOTAL outlay for health care in 2002 was already $1.6 trillion in one year, three trillion over ten years is a drop in the bucket, especially if one considers that the population is aging. Not to mention that a good chunk of that will be consumed by inflation.

The WaPo also reports that:

"In his acceptance speech in Madison Square Garden on Sept. 2, the president called for the expansion of health savings accounts, which provide tax breaks for families and small businesses; creation of new tax-preferred retirement savings accounts; and creation of lifetime savings accounts, which allow tax-free savings for tuition, retirement or even everyday expenses."

Now that I've come to the conclusion that paying for medical services through insurance policies (private or public) is a bad idea and if I assume that at least some of the people in the administration have a good idea what they are doing, it looks to me that what is being proposed here is that the money which people put into insurance, which they may or may not get back, but which is certainly not taxed at the rate it would be if it were characterized as "savings" and provide more tax revenue in the long run, is going to be moved into a category where collecting taxes on it is more likely.
Although insurance companies are classified in the same category as financial institutions such as banks, credit unions and S&L Associations, the bottom line here would seem to be an interest in funelling more money into a sector that has experienced a considerable drop in revenue. That is--more business for banks and less for insurance companies. None of which, of course, will contribute one iota to improving the access and quality of medical care for the people who need it.

I think one of the things we have to keep in mind is that while common sense tells us that anything we set aside or intend to use in the future is in effect "saved," that's not how economists classify things.
So, for example, when we put money into an insurance policy, money on which we have paid an income tax (if it was earned), that money then belongs to the insurance company, which classifies it as income which is, naturally since this is a business, offset by all the expense associated with writing the policies and managing the money (expense of investing in stocks and bonds), and then, if the company has to pay out on its policies, it calculates those as a loss, which it deducts from any profit it might otherwise have and avoids having to pay taxes on what that profit might be. Indeed, if there's a big loss one year, it can be carried over to others to reduce the tax "burden" and get a refund.
On the other hand, if people put their money into a savings account, they have to pay taxes on whatever interest that account earns right away--or as these proposals suggest, keep records for ten years or longer and then pay tax at the end, if they haven't met all the provisions or the law has changed.

The final point made by the Post that I want to comment on:

"Another expensive part of Bush's agenda is the expansion of health savings accounts and creation of lifetime and retirement savings accounts. The new accounts are designed to have minimal cost in the first 10 years but have very large costs in the long run because they provide tax breaks when the money is withdrawn rather than up front."

What the article refers to as "expensive" is in terms of tax revenue that the government doesn't collect. For some reason, not getting income is referred to as a "cost" when it concerns the government. Why when somebody doesn't pay you is considered a cost, I don't know. Maybe because there's an underlying assumption that the government is somehow entitled to the money.
Anyway, what bothers me about this proposal is the same thing that's going to make the prescription drug support program entirely unfeasible--the requirement to collect and keep ever more records. But maybe that's the idea--make the paper-work requirements so onerous, that nobody will want the program.
I mean, the main benefit of the removal of the capital gains tax from owner-occuppied homes was that it was no longer necessary to keep records for all the "capital improvements" people made over the years of their ownership. Ditto for getting rid of the depreciation for residential investment property.
All of the recent proposals are going in the wrong direction. Making more business for accountants. So can we say that what we have here is a bailout for the financial and accounting sectors--those people who have been so profligate with other people's money?

BAd Man Bush

Blackcommentator on Kerry

This week's issue of The BlackCommentator comes out in support of Kerry for President, weakly:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/104/104_cover_kerry.html

Here's my response to the editor.

Just wanted to record support for your position on Kerry.  However, I think the quote you reference,

Asked his timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq, Mr. Kerry told a few hundred people in Canonsburg, Pa.: "My goal would be to get them home in my first term. And I believe that can be done." He said he would make it clear that "we do not have long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq."

is a very significant policy statement, since the redeployment of American forces FROM Europe to the Persian Gulf region was the REAL reason for the invasion of Iraq.  I suspect it will be shown that Saddam was offered a choice between "welcoming" in the Americans to set up shop in Iraq or being attacked.  Since he had already been tricked once by the elder Bush, he didn't go for the deal.  And what are his Arab neighbors saying?  Better him than me.
We keep forgetting that we have effectively been expelled from Saudi Arabia.  Qatar and Kuwait just aren't big enough.  Iraq seems ideal because it has large expanses of "unused" land and access to the Gulf.  Guam, to which "we" have been relocating submarines, is just a little too far away from our area of interest.  Sitting in Iraq and Korea we would effectively have China in a vise.
The reason it is significant coming from Kerry is because this redeployment has been in the works for a long time with "planning money" appropriated in many budgets. 
One wonders how much of that $87 billion he voted against was actually intended for the construction of new bases, rather than the reconstruction of what has been destroyed in Iraq.  Sending the National Guard over was not an unintended consequence of not having enough regular man-power.  Dispatching national guard units with all their heavy equipment was done on purpose.  They were supposed to build the bases and airfields the military needs.  Why else have they spent their time building roads in Kuwait while they waited until Iraq was safe?  Surely Kuwait has enough money to build its own roads now that its access to oil is secure.
You know, I can remember past elections where the mantra was that electoral politics should stop at the country's borders so as not to give our enemies an advantage by seeming to be conflicted about our international goals.  As a result, the American public never concerned itself with international relations, the one area where the executive actually has virtual autonomy.  And, as a result, all sorts of crimes have been committed against other people in our name.  Don't you think that ought to change?  Don't you think that regardless of who gets the Presidency we are going to have to pay closer attention to what's being done in our name?  Granted, Kerry can't be relied on to do the right thing.  But, should he be?  Where's our responsibility?

DFA Doings

This week we heard from several Dean Dozen members, including John Drury, Melina Fox, Amy Vasquez, Deborah Heinrich, and Ken Campbell. We had guest blogs from Kendra Lloyd-Knox, and also from U.S. Senator Tom Daschle.

On Monday, Governor Dean posted his weekly column. This particular edition, titled Labor Day, dealt with the middle class squeeze largely ignored by the Bush administration. Tuesday, we responded to Dick Cheney's irresponsible comments, and added a lighthearted entry on President Bush's problems with the English language.

Wednesday, the Log Cabin Republicans officially decided not to endorse President Bush and, the next day, Governor Dean sent out an email urging our supporters to help Senator Daschle compete with against Republican war chest. We also covered former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's letter chastising Zell Miller.

On Friday, we asked whether health care could actually get any more expensive (apparently so), and featured an article on the pattern of dishonesty throughout Bush's adult life.

Governor Dean made the news several times this week. Redlands Daily Facts featured an article on Dean's Message of Involvement on Tuesday, to be followed by Columbia Journalism Review's article on the Governor's critique of the media. On Friday, Governor Dean was featured in both the Brown Daily Herald and the Providence Journal for his appearance at Brown.
Posted by Mike Yedinak at 11:48 AM

Where Is ?

Demetrius Speaks

On Sunday September 5th we saw Gov. Dean at a rally for local candidates here in Ohio. Renee had gotten to see him in person at DemocracyFest but I never had before.

We had attended the Kerry rally in Newark, OH the previous Thursday. It was nice to hear The Nominee speak in person. It was a good speech. He made all the right points. I think there is hope for him. But, we still left less than completely inspired. We have 3 K/E bumper stickers that we still haven't been able to put on our cars. The car wore our "Anti-Bush/Pro-America" bumper sticker for the ride to Newark. I had printed a sign that I held up during the rally that read "Hit 'em Hard!". This was the closest I could come to "Don't Blow It!" that wouldn't get me escorted out of the rally. We had VIP tickets that were supposed to get us up close. But, they didn't end up making and difference. We ended up standing in deep roving right field - in the rose bushes, almost behind a tree. We'd dressed for the cooler weather we had before the rally and not the sun we ended up standing in. By Sunday we were probably not completely over the heat exhaustion. We weren't sure we were going to make the DFA rally... swell.

Also, we weren't able to line up a baby sitter. So, our only option was to go and bring the kids with us. Now, we've led a pretty Dean centered life for the last year or so and the kids are sick and tired of politics by now - and not afraid to say so. But, we explained to them as nicely as possible that we to a lot for them. They have a LOT of fun. And, this was something that Mommy and Daddy wanted to do and they were not going to ruin it for us... or else.

We made sure we got there plenty early - seeing how even our VIP tickets didn't get us up front for Kerry. Our local DFA people were still setting up when we got there. The rally had been moved inside to escape the heat. But the hall warmed up pretty fast once people started filling the room. The kids helped out by passing our flags and home-made sign/fans to people as they came in. We met a lot of blog friends in person. DearPru was there. Lynn and Linda in Cincinnati were there as were Paula and a number of Crushies from parts unknown. The speakers were great - full of energy. Mary Jo Kilroy, Jeff Seemann, our own Katherine Thomsen... Although the last few before Howard were really rushed. Katie barely had a minute to address the crowd. But, I guess Howard had another event he had to get to afterward. Tight scheduling...

Of course the crowd went crazy as Howard took the stage. We were right up front so I got some great shots that we will post. He gave a great speech and thanked all the local candidates. He really is great to see in person. There's just something about him that you can't get thru political coaching - a certain "genuine-ness". *This* is what was lacking from Kerry when we saw him. After he spoke he made a quick exit back up the stairs and the crowd filed out behind him. When we got up to the parking lot we saw a limo leaving. We knew he had another engagement. We thought we had missed him. But, we both thought it was very "un-Howardly" of him to just take off like that...

Renee was also going to go to the next event at Dennison University. I would take the kids home and she would stay to help clean up and get a ride with someone. So, I went back downstairs to find an electronic game that my son had brought to entertain himself with if he got bored. Then we were going to head home. I was very pleasantly surprised when I got back downstairs to find out that Gov. Dean was in the back of the room shaking hands and taking pictures with supporters. THIS was more like the Howard I knew. I didn't know how long he would be there. I didn't want to take a chance of missing him. But, I had to alert Renee and get her back downstairs! I tried calling her on her cell phone from my cell phone. (Don't you just love technology!) But, she apparently couldn't hear it ringing in her purse! (Don't you just hate technology!) I took the chance and ran back upstairs to get her. We rushed back downstairs and he was still there! He was standing with Katie and some other supporters talking.

We moved closer and waited our turn. I wanted to say something wonderfully clever, but nothing came to mind. (Isn't it always like that?) I introduced myself and commented that Renee had met him at DemFest and said how glad I was to finally have the pleasure. I always feel like he knows me (from People-Powered Graphics) and still *doesn't* know me - like Mr. Burns always has to be reminded of who Homer Simpson is... Renee commented that he called me on my birthday and he smiled a BIG smile and wondered out loud how that had gotten "all over the Blog". (Did he really expect that it *wouldn't* get all over the Blog?) I answered that it is a community... of course we share these things! We introduced the kids and Paula took several pictures of all of us with Gov. Dean. I commented that he was *so* much more 3 dimensional than the version we had at home... (gratuitous Flat Howard reference) I didn't see his smile from that until we loaded the pictures onto the computer at home.

Renee had suggested making a "Flat Demetrius" to attend in my place at one point when we thought I would just have to stay home with the kids. I'm glad we decided to go as a family. It was a great moment... While you have his attention you are really torn. You want to keep the Gov focused on you - just a little while longer. You want to say that thing that will make him laugh and throw his head back the way he does. You want him to remember your name from that point on. But, you know there are other people waiting for a piece of him and you know they are thinking the same thing as you. We watched him go back into the thinning crowd and we took pictures for a couple of people who had been waiting to meet him.

The weird irony is that we never did find my son's electronic game. I think an "angel" must have taken it so that I would find my way back downstairs to look for it and find Gov. Dean instead...
Posted by Demetrius at September 10, 2004 11:52 PM

Flip the Flop

Yep, Kerry's gonna flip the flop. Here's what he had to say to the Baptist Convention yesterday:

"I also know that George Bush has asked the question, 'Does the Democratic Party take African American voters for granted?' Well, here is my answer. The Book of Matthew reminds us, 1Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep?s clothing.1 [Matthew 7:15]. The president who in the last four years couldn?t even find time to meet with NAACP? the Black Caucus ? or the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The president who turns away from African American needs?who scorns economic justice and affirmative action?who traffics in the politics of division ? and then claims he is a friend of Black America can not conceal his identity no matter what clothes he wears. And here is the other part of my answer: We will march with you every step of the way to full equality for all Americans. This November we?re going to have a new march on Washington to bring your voice and our concerns right to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I?m ready to march with you. Will you march with me?"

The Jesus Thing

Trail Story

Funny story from the trail:
I met a sweet older woman and got to talking about healthcare. Like many of us, she was getting creamed by the rising costs. As we chatted, I noticed the "Ten Commandments" on a sign in her yard (a very common thing in many parts of my county ?churches give 'em out).

As we ended our talk, she said, "Well, you seem like an honest man, and you know your stuff... so I guess we'll have to vote for you..... I assume you're a Republican?"

"No, ma'am. I'm a Democrat."

This little lady literally jumped for joy: "Praise Jesus! The Democrats are back! Everyone get out here and meet this man." She brought out the whole family. She insisted that I put a yard sign up immediately, she even directed me to place it next to her Ten Commandments sign.

I'm sure some Republicans will ride by and scream "Blasphemy!" at our little front lawn metaphor for the way things ought to be: Separation of church and state, right there for the world to see.

?Ken Campbell
Candidate for SC State House

Starting Early

Insurance--What does it get you?

I guess I was feeling a little masochistic this morning and went and actually read MOST of Cheney's speech--couldn't do it all.
But, what I found is that I agree with much of the first part. One of the biggest problems we have in this country is insurance. The current administration has to rely on tax cuts and rebates so more Americans can "pay for catastrophic insurance premiums." And doctor "now pay $100,000 a year for an insurance policy just to be able to do business. A new doc fresh out of medical school has to come up with about $80,000 up front to be able to go into practice in my home state of Wyoming." And they are having to come up with another program to help people "acquire health insurance at reasonable cost."

Now, why is that? Is there some law that says doctors have to buy insurance before they can treat patients? If that's the case, can't the law be changed?
And when did we start to think that getting insurance and getting medical care are the same thing?
It isn't just the main occupant of the White House that seems to have a problem recognizing the difference between cause and effect.

I only learned a few days ago that finance and insurance are in the same industrial classification. Which actually makes sense since both are about collecting money from some people and giving it to someone else. And, to the extent that government is perceived as doing the same thing, insurance and finance people see government as a competitor--and a threat. Why? Well, because government actually takes a much smaller cut from the transaction. In fact, if government is on the up and up, it really takes no cut over and above its costs. And, of course, even the costs are less if only because the salaries of the executives at the top are much smaller.

This emphasis on insurance is really peculiar coming from a crowd that believes in preemptive action. I mean, if anything kicks in after the fact, it's insurance.
The whole point of insurance is to bail someone out of a mishap, after it happens. It does nothing whatsoever to PREVENT the mishap.
Indeed, in the medical field it may well contribute to mishaps because the practitioners are so stressed by having to make enough money to pay the insurance man, they don't have enough time and energy to focus on the task at hand.

Sometimes it seems that insurance payments are little better than those scapulars we used to wear around our necks to ward off the devil and his minions. I think putting them on each morning served to reminds us to be careful of our actions, which, of course, gave us a certain level of protection, but two little pieces of cloth with pictures were unlikely to deter the hosts of satan.
From the perspective of the insurance industry they're, of course, much better. It's a steady stream of income and, if they have to pay out, they just raise the rates on the next fellow to make it up.
Just think, the industry had a negative year for the first time ever in 2001. They had to pay out seven billion more than they took in. But in the previous three years, they took in 50 billion more than they paid out. What happened to those profits? Did the insurance rates get reduced?
Not mine.

W stands for ???????

W -
Who lies,
While hiding here at home during Vietnam.
Who derides military heroes Kerry, McCain, and Cleland - They
Went and came home injured or remorseful and spent.

W -
Who
Will use anything and anyone he needs to
Win, even stealing the thing again, if he
Wants.

W ?
Who never
Wrastled horses, only
Wrangled pints and snorted lines.

W ?
Why
Would he
Win again? Perhaps because the people
Would rather hide themselves behind the
Wanker
Who
Would risk the
World and render to
Waste the species, if he needs to, in his
Warmongering zeal and righteous
Wrath. As long as he keeps the
Wreckage and carnage far from them and their SUV?s.

W ?
We must stop this ceaseless
Worry and
Wrestle the country back from the
Wastrel, this
Wimp, this
Wannabe, this
Wetdrunk, this
Wart upon the soul of America.

Posted by Patricia Taylor at September 7, 2004 03:53 PM

Letter from New York

ARRESTED IN NEW YORK CITY!

by Sherry and Thom Bohlen

Sorry we haven't been up-to-date with our up-dates, but thanks to George Bush
and Mayor Bloomberg, weve been in jail!

Here's what happened: We'd joined a march organized by War Resisters League,
Schools of the Americas, Pax Christi, Veterans for Peace and others.
The event was framed with this statement:
Our aim is to confront the administration with the death and suffering for which they are responsible: more than 10,000 Iraiqs and Afghanis, as many as 1,000 Americans killed, thousands more wounded and scarred for life, as well as the economic victims of Bush policies the unemployed, the uninsured,
the undereducated. The Republicans have chosen to hold their convention in New York City to link George Bush and Ground Zero. Bush's policies have created ground zeros of death and suffering throughout the world and we hold him accountable for that.

Organizers asked people to gather at 3 p.m. on Tuesday at Church and Fulton Streets (just in front of Ground Zero). The plan was to march from Ground Zero up Broadway to Union Square and finally to Madison Square Garden where a die-inwould be dramatized to honor the fallen.

We arrived early to distribute Progressive Democrats of America fliers to the crowd as they gathered. An estimated 1-2,000 people had assembled. After a brief negotiation between organizers and police, a police officer clearly in charge of the event (whose badge read Shea) announced to the marchers over a megaphone that the march could begin. He cautioned marchers to:

1. Obey all traffic lights
2. Walk 2 X 2
3. Stay close to the fence and keep the sidewalk clear

As we were told to do, we waited for the traffic light to change before crossing Church Street to begin marching East on Fulton. As we began to walk along the south side of St. Paul's Church, we walked 2 X 2 and stayed as close to St. Paul's wrought iron fence as we could. When 100-200 had moved onto Fulton Street sidewalk, the march was halted by police at the front forcing marchers to spill into the whole sidewalk. The police (who numbered almost as many as the protesters) immediately closed off and
circled the marchers contained on the sidewalk. We couldn't move. We couldn't back up or leave. We heard no warning and were not allowed to disperse. We were enclosed by an orange net fencing and were told that we were being arrested.
At about 4:15 p.m., police began rounding us up, handcuffing us and putting us onto to buses to be taken away. We then began being told that we were not arrested but merely detained.
What followed was a 24-hour ordeal of being moved from a temporary holding facility and eventually to central booking. We were continuously moved from cell to cell chained to each other in chain-gang fashion. Conditions were deplorable. The cells were overcrowded and filthy and the food was not
edible.
As more and more people were brought into jail, we learned that similar sweeps had taken place across Manhattan. People were picked up at Union Square, Times Square, Madison Square Garden, the Library, and various other locations. It was a planned sweep to interrupt and shut down growing nonviolent protests to the Republican National Convention. Such is the America that George Bush has brought us to.

We do want to acknowledge that the rank and file police were overwhelmingly in support of us but seem to feel forced to satisfy the top brass to keep their jobs and feed their families. During our incarceration, we heard these comments from police:
* One police officer looked us in the eye and sadly said, I'm so sorry.

* Another said: You dont think that any of us want to be doing this do you?

* Another officer told us during the wee hours of the morning, that “We're doing this to keep the rich Republicans happy. “

* Another officer reminded us that: When you're feeling down and discouraged, remember why you're here and what you came to do.

* And my favorite story: When a young 17-year-old woman began to cry as she was being fingerprinted, the officer finger printing her gently said to her: “ Remember your cause and keep your mind on why you came here and on what you came to do. Remember all of those people who came before
you and did just what you did tonight for something they believed in.”

But the issue is much bigger than whether or not the police were with us or against us and whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian or a Green& whether you're pro-Israel or pro-Palestine& whether you're pro-life or pro-choice& whether you're progressive or conservative.
These are all diversionary divisive issues that are taking our focus from the real threat.
The real threat is to the very survival of our Democracy and our right to free speech and to dissent granted to us through the First Amendment to the Constitution!

Sherry and Thom Bohlen reporting from New York City

September 1, 2004

Nobody Wants Health Insurance

Dear Editor,

Given all the effort and ink that's been spent on trying to get a universal
national health insurance program set up without success, maybe it's time
to recognize that nobody really wants one.

That's not as radical a suggestion as it might seem at first; though
"nobody" is probably an exaggeration. Some members of the insurance
industry may well hold the opinion that the expansion of the 35% of the
health insurance market they now control represents an opportunity to make
a lot more money, especially if they can come up with some way to make sure
that really sick people get care paid for in some other way.
The fact remains that healthy people don't need insurance and insurance is
not what you want to rely on when you're sick.That's because insurance is
for events that are unexpected and relatively rare.
What people do want is prompt and proper medical care whenever and wherever
they get sick or injured. What they'd like, in addition, is ready access to
whatever medicines are available to prevent illness, especially
communicable diseases and infections.
What they'd also like is a reasonable guarantee that the medical care they
get, but have no way to judge for themselves beforehand, will be the right
kind. Which means there should be someone who monitors the providers on an
ongoing basis.And since people who pay out money have a natural interest
in what they are paying for, having medical care paid for by a national
program might even save money by doing double duty.
Since insurance salesmen and adjustors aren't trained to provide any of the
above, setting up a national health insurance program would seem to be a
lost cause. What we need is a national medical assurance program or a MAP.

Overthebridge for Kerry

View image

View image

View image
View image

View image

9/11 in pictures

In Memoriam

The following are reputed to be the passenger and crew lists from the four planes hijacked on September 11, 2001

While there has been an assertion by some investigators that the absence of any Arab sounding names on these lists is evidence for there having been no such persons on board, the omission of the purported hijackers from lists published by CNN, for example, may be the result of an impulse to "protect" surviving relatives from the truth. Anyway, in the interest of being as complete as possible, I am appending their names.

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11

American Airlines Flight 11, from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center with 86 people on board, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs

CREW

John Ogonowski, 52, of Dracut, Massachusetts, was the pilot of Flight 11. A lifelong aviation buff, he joined the Air Force after graduating from college and flew planes at the close of the Vietnam War. He joined American Airlines in 1979.
First Officer Thomas McGuinness, 42, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was Flight 11's co-pilot.
Barbara Arestegui, 38, was a flight attendant from Marstons Mills, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey Collman was a flight attendant.
Sara Low, 28, was a flight attendant from Batesville, Arkansas.
Karen Martin was a flight attendant.
Kathleen Nicosia was a flight attendant.
Betty Ong, 45, was a flight attendant from Andover, Massachusetts.
Jean Roger, 24, was a flight attendant from Longmeadow, Massachusetts.
Dianne Snyder, 42, was a flight attendant from Westport, Massachusetts.
Madeline Sweeney, 35, was a flight attendant from Acton, Massachusetts.

PASSENGERS

Anna Williams Allison, 48, of Stoneham, Massachusetts, was the founder of A2 Software Solutions. ,
David Angell, 54, of Pasadena, California, was the creator and executive producer of the hit NBC sitcom "Frasier."
Lynn Angell, 45, of Pasadena, California, was the wife of "Frasier" creator and executive producer David Angell.
Seima Aoyama
Myra Aronson, 52, of Charlestown, Massachusetts, was a press and analyst relations manager for Compuware Corp.
Christine Barbuto, 32, of Brookline, Massachusetts, was a buyer for TJX Cos.
Berry Berenson, 53, of Los Angeles, California, was an actress and photographer.
Carolyn Beug, 48, of Los Angeles, California.
Carol Bouchard, 43, of Warwick, Rhode Island, was a Kent County Hospital emergency room secretary.
Robin Caplin was from Natick, Massachusetts.
Neilie Casey, 32, of Wellesley, Massachusetts, was a merchandise planning manager for TJX Cos.,
Jeffrey Coombs, 42, of Abington, Massachusetts, was a security analyst for Compaq Computer. H
Tara Creamer, 30, of Worcester, Massachusetts, was a merchandise planning manager for TJX Cos.
Thelma Cuccinello, 71, was a Wilmot, New Hampshire, resident with 10 grandchildren.
Patrick Currivan
Andrew Curry Green was from Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
Brian Dale, 43, of Warren, New Jersey, was an accountant and attorney with Blue Capital Management.
David DiMeglio was from Wakefield, Massachusetts.
Donald Ditullio, 49, was from Peabody, Massachusetts.
Albert Dominguez, 66, was a baggage handler for Qantas Airways in Sydney, Australia.
Alex Filipov, 70, was an electrical engineer from Concord, Massachusetts.
Carol Flyzik, 40, was from Plaistow, New Hampshire.
Paul Friedman, 45, from Belmont, Massachusetts, was a consultant for Emergence Consulting.
Karleton D.B. Fyfe, 31, of Brookline, Massachusetts, was a senior investment analyst for John Hancock.
Peter Gay, 54, of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. vice president of operations for electronic systems based in Andover, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for more than 28 years.
Linda George, 27, of Westboro, Massachusetts, was a buyer for TJX Cos.
Edmund Glazer, 41, of Los Angeles, California, was the chief financial officer of MRV Communications.
Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, 41, of Needham, Massachusetts, was an assistant vice president, for TJX Cos.
Paige Farley Hackel, 46, was a spiritual adviser from Newton, Massachusetts.
Peter Hashem, 40, was an engineer from Tewksbury, Massachusetts.
Robert Hayes, 37, from Amesbury, Massachusetts was a sales engineer with Netstal.
Ted Hennessy, 35, was a consultant for Emergence Consulting in Belmont, Massachusetts.
John Hofer
Cora Holland, 52, of Sudbury, Massachusetts, was with Sudbury Food Pantry.
Nicholas Humber, 60, of Newton, Massachusetts, was the owner of Brae Burn Management.
John Jenkins
Charles Jones, 48, was a computer programmer from Bedford, Massachusetts.
Robin Kaplan, 33, of Westboro, Massachusetts, was a senior store equipment specialist for TJX Cos.
Barbara Keating, 72, was from Palm Springs, California.
David Kovalcin, 42, of Hudson, New Hampshire, was a Raytheon Co. senior mechanical engineer.
Judy Larocque, 50, of Framingham, Massachusetts, was the founder and CEO of Market Perspectives.
Jude Larson, 31, was from Los Angeles, California.
Natalie Larson was from Los Angeles, California.
N. Janis Lasden, 46, of General Electric was from Peabody, Massachusetts.
Daniel John Lee, 34, was from Los Angeles, California.
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, was the co-founder and chief technology officer at Akamai Technologies Inc.
Susan MacKay, 44, of Westford, Massachusetts, was an employee of TJX Cos.
Chris Mello, 25, was a financial analyst with Alta Communications from Boston.
Jeff Mladenik, 43, of Hinsdale, Illinois, was the interim president at E-Logic.
Antonio Montoya
Carlos Montoya
Laura Lee Morabito, 34, was the Qantas Airways area sales manager in Boston. She lived in Framingham, Mass.
Mildred Naiman was from Andover, Massachusetts.
Laurie Neira
Renee Newell, 37, of Cranston, Rhode Island, was a customer service agent with American Airlines.
Jacqueline Norton, 60, was a retiree from Lubec, Maine. She was traveling with her husband, Robert Norton.
Robert Norton, 82, was a retiree from Lubec, Maine. He was traveling with his wife, Jacqueline Norton.
Jane Orth, 49, of Haverhill, Massachusetts, was retired from Lucent Technology.
Thomas Pecorelli, 31, of Los Angeles, California, was a cameraman for Fox Sports and E! Entertainment Television.
Sonia Morales Puopolo, 58, of Dover, Massachusetts, was a retired ballet dancer.
David Retik was from Needham, Massachusetts. He was a general partner of Alta Communications.
Philip Rosenzweig of Acton, Massachusetts, was an executive with Sun Microsystems.
Richard Ross, 58, of Newton, Massachusetts, headed his own management consulting company, the Ross Group.
Jessica Sachs, 22, of Billerica, Massachusetts was an accountant with PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Rahma Salie, 28, was from Boston.
Heather Smith, 30, of Beacon Capital Partners was from Boston.
Douglas Stone, 54, was from Dover, New Hampshire.
Xavier Suarez
Michael Theodoridis, 32, was a consultant from Boston.
James Trentini, 65, was a retired teacher and assistant principal from Everett, Massachusetts.
Mary Trentini, 67, was a retired secretary from Everett, Massachusetts.
Mary Wahlstrom, 75, of Kaysville, Utah, was traveling with her daughter, Carolyn Beug.
Kenneth Waldie, 46, of Methuen, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. senior quality control engineer.
John Wenckus, 46, was a tax consultant from Torrance, California.
Candace Lee Williams, 20, was a student from Danbury, Connecticut.
Christopher Zarba, 47, of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, was a software engineer at Concord Communications.

THE HIJACKERS
FLIGHT 11
Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1, 1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his middle-class family.
Abdulaziz ALOMARI (11) Saudi Arabian. Little is known about him.
Walid AL-SHEHRI (11) From Khamis Mushayt in Saudi Arabia. Former teacher, who left his job allegedly to consult an Islamic holy man about his brother?s mental illness.
Satam AL-SUQAMI (11) Born June 28, 1976. Saudi Arabian. Islamic-law-school student at King Fahd University in Riyadh. College roommate of MOQED.
Wail ALSHEHRI (11) Born 7/31/73. Brother of Walid. Former phys-ed teacher who left his job because of ?mental illness.?

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77

American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 56 people aboard, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs.

CREW

Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.
David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight.
Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. S
Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.
Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.
Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.

PASSENGERS

Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health.
Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.
M.J. Booth
Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington.
Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.
William Caswell
Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington.
Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington.
James Debeuneure, 58, of Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington.
Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington.
Eddie Dillard
Charles Droz
Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp.
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.
Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.
Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington.
Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.
Dee Flagg
Richard Gabriel
Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.
Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.
Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc.
Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society.
Yvonne Kennedy
Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager.
Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding.
Norma Langsteuerle
Dong Lee
Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, worked for a biotech firm.
Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits.
Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN.
Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer.
Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems.
Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme.
Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer.
John Sammartino
Diane Simmons
George Simmons
Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women's gymnastics coach at the University of California.
Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York.
Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington.
Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia.
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland.
John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland.
Vicki Yancey
Shuyin Yang
Yuguag Zheng

FLIGHT 77 HIJACKERS
Hani HANJOUR (77)- Saudi Arabian Born August 13, 1972. Son of a wealthy businessman from the wealthy al-Faisaliyah section of Taif.
Khalid ALMIDHAR (77) Saudi Arabian. Veteran Al-Qaeda operative about whom little is known.
Majed MOQED (77) Saudi Arabian. Law student at the King Fahd University in Riyadh. The son of a head of the Baniauf tribe from Annakhil near Medina. Sometimes listed as the third ?logistics? person after ALMIDHAR and Nawaq ALHAZMI.
Nawaq ALHAZMI (77) "He told me once that his father had tried to kill him when he was a child. He never told me why, but he had a long knife scar on his forearm," said an acquaintance. Brother of a police chief in the coastal town of Jizan.
Salem ALHAZMI (77) Saudi.

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175

United Airlines Flight 175, from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, was the second hijacked plane to strike the World Trade Center South Tower) with 56 people on board. No alleged hikackers or anyone of Arab name or obvious descent.

CREW

Capt. Victor Saracini, 51, of Lower Makefield Township, Pennsylvania, was a Navy veteran.
Michael Horrocks was first officer.
Robert J. Fangman was a flight attendant.
Amy N. Jarret, 28, of North Smithfield, Rhode Island, was a flight attendant.
Amy R. King was a flight attendant.
Kathryn L. Laborie was a flight attendant.
Alfred G. Marchand of Alamogordo, New Mexico, was a flight attendant.
Michael C. Tarrou was a flight attendant.
Alicia N. Titus was a flight atteandant.

PASSENGERS

Alona Avraham, 30, was from Ashdot, Israel.
Garnet "Ace" Bailey, 53, of Lynnfield, Massachusetts, was director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings hockey team. Mark Bavis, 31, of West Newton, Massachusetts.
Graham Berkeley, 37, of Xerox Corp. was from Wellesley, Massachusetts.
Touri Bolourchi, 69, was from Beverly Hills, California.
Klaus Bothe, 31, of Germany was on a business trip with BCT Technology AG's chief executive officer.
Daniel Brandhorst, of Los Angeles, California, was a lawyer for PriceWaterhouse.
David Brandhorst, 3, was from Los Angeles.
John Cahill was from Wellesley, Massachusetts.
Christoffer Carstanjen, 33, of Turner Falls, Massachusetts, was staff assistant in the office of information technology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
John Corcoran "Jay" Corcoran, 44, of Norwell, Massachusetts, was a merchant marine.
Dorothy Dearaujo, 82, was from Long Beach, California.
Gloria Debarrera
Lisa Frost, 22, of Rancho Santa Margarita, California, graduated from Boston University this year.
Ronald Gamboa, 33, of Los Angeles, California, was a Gap store manager.
Lynn Goodchild, 25, was from Attleboro, Massachusetts.
The Rev. Francis E. Grogan, 76, of Easton, Massachusetts, was a priest at Holy Cross Church in Easton.
Carl Hammond, 37, was from Boston, Massachusetts.
Peter Hanson, 32, of Groton, Massachusetts, was a software salesman.
Susan Hanson, 35, of Groton, Massachusetts, was a student.
Christine Hanson, 3, was from Groton, Massachusetts.
Gerald Hardacre
Eric Hartono
James E. Hayden, 47, of Westford, Massachusetts, was the chief financial officer of Netegrity Inc.
Herbert Homer,48, of Milford, Massachusetts, worked for Raytheon Co.
Robert Jalbert, 61, of Swampscott, Massachusetts, was a salesman.
Ralph Kershaw, 52, of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts, was a marine surveyor.
Heinrich Kimmig, 43, chairman and chief executive officer of BCT Technology Ag, of Germany.
Brian Kinney, 29, of Lowell, Massachusetts, was an auditor for PriceWaterhouse Cooper.
Robert LeBlanc, 70, of Lee, New Hampshire, was a professor emeritus of geography at the University of New Hampshire.
Maclovio "Joe" Lopez Jr., 41, was from Norwalk, California.
Marianne MacFarlane
Louis Neil Mariani, 59, was from Derry, New Hampshire.
Juliana Valentine McCourt, 4, was from New London, Connecticut.
Ruth McCourt, 24, was from Westford, Massachusetts.
Wolfgang Menzel, 60, of Germany joined BCT Technology AG in 2000 as director of human resources. He is survived by his wife and one child. Menzel had planned to retire in six months.
Shawn Nassaney, 25, was from Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
Patrick Quigley, 40, of Wellesley, Massachusetts, was a partner at PriceWaterhouse Cooper.
Frederick Rimmele was a physician from Marblehead, Massachusetts.
James M. Roux, 42, was from Portland, Maine.
Jesus Sanchez, 45, was an off-duty flight attendant from Hudson, Massachusetts.
Kathleen Shearer was from Dover, New Hampshire.
Robert Shearer was from Dover, New Hampshire.
Jane Simpkin, 35, was from Wayland, Massachusetts.
Brian D. Sweeney, 38, was from Barnstable, Massachusetts.
Timothy Ward, 38, of San Diego, California, worked at the Carlsbad, California-based Rubio's Restaurants Inc.
William Weems of Marblehead, Massachusetts, was a commercial producer.

FLIGHT 175 HIJACKERS
Marwan AL-SHEHHI (175) Born in United Arab Emirates on 5/9/78.
Hamza ALGHAMDI(175) Born 11/18/80. From Beljurashi in southern Saudi Arabia. Was working in a ?humiliating? job as a stockboy in a housewares shop when he was recruited for the jihad.
Ahmed ALGHAMDI(175) From Beljurashi in southern Saudi Arabia. Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al-Qadi BANIHAMMAD (175-4) (aka Fayez Ahmed) Citizen of United Arab Republic.
Mohand ALSHEHRI (175) Former student at the Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic University in Abha, Saudi Arabia for one semester.

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93

United Airlines Flight 93, from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, California, crashed in rural southwest Pennsylvania, with 45 people on board, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs.

CREW

Jason Dahl, 43, from Denver, Colorado, was the plane's captain.
Leroy Homer, 36, from Marlton, New Jersey, was the first officer on board.
Lorraine Bay was a flight attendant.
Sandra Bradshaw, 38, of Greensboro, North Carolina, was a flight attendant.
Wanda Green was a flight attendant.
CeeCee Lyles of Fort Myers, Florida, was a flight attendant.
Deborah Welsh was a flight attendant.

PASSENGERS

Christian Adams
Todd Beamer, 32, was from Cranbury, New Jersey.
Alan Beaven, 48, of Oakland, California, was an environmental lawyer.
Mark Bingham, 31, of San Francisco owned a public relations firm, the Bingham Group.
Deora Bodley, 20, of Santa Clara, California, was a university student.
Marion Britton
Thomas E. Burnett Jr., 38, of San Ramon, California.
William Cashman
Georgine Corrigan
Joseph Deluca
Patrick Driscoll
Edward Felt, 41, was from Matawan, New Jersey.
Colleen Fraser
Andrew Garcia
Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey.
Lauren Grandcolas of San Rafael, California, was a sales worker at Good Housekeeping magazine.
Donald F. Green, 52, was from Greenwich, Connecticut.
Linda Gronlund
Richard Guadagno, 38, of Eureka, California, was the manager of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Toshiya Kuge
Waleska Martinez
Nicole Miller
Mark Rothenberg
Christine Snyder, 32, was from Kailua, Hawaii. She was an arborist for the Outdoor Circle.
John Talignani
Honor Wainio

FLIGHT 93 HIGHJACKERS
Ziad al-JARRAH (93) Born in Al Marj, Lebanon May 11, 1975. The son of a civil servant and a schoolteacher. Educated in a Catholic school in Beirut.
Ahmed ALNAMI (93) Born December 1977. Saudi, from the town of Abha. Former law student at the King Khaled University Islamic Law School in Abha.
Ahmed Ibrahim AL-HAZNAWI (93) Born October 11, 1980. Saudi from the village of Hezna. Son of an imam, and reportedly became one himself. Close to Hamza and Ahmed ALGHAMDI.
Saeed ALGHAMDI (93) Saudi, from Khamis Mushayt.

Electronic Hijack Page Vialls Investigations Home

Crew & Passenger Lists, Attack Aircraft 11 Sept 2001

Agatha's Arresting Experience

I went to jail for disbanding peacefully from protesting in front of the NY PUBLIC Library. That's nothing. 2 men were arrested in front of the library for playing their guitars.

A young woman (she was either 19 or 21), was arrested because she heard cool music and walked in its direction. She wasn't intending to protest, but she turned the street, walked into a police sweep, and got arrested.

An aside here... because Pier 57 and "downtown" were filled to maximum capacity, this girl had to sit in the paddy wagon for over 3 hours with very tight handcuffs. Plastic handcuffs are brutal. They have tiny little ridges (like the teeth in combs) that prevent the cuffs from sliding. The problem is that the teeth are on the inside, so they dig into your skin. This young woman's wrists got so swollen that she had no more wrists. Later on, when we were cuffed in metal daisy chains, she could easily slide off her cuff because she had no wrists. When officers came to uncuff her (we were on and off cuffs the entire time), she would joke "Don't bother!" and would slip off the cuffs. Most officers smiled, but one @sshole made her cuff tighter (she could still slide it off, though). The only medical treatment she got was an ice pack. That was either 12 or 16 hours into the ordeal (I can't remember).

Another aside, a long link of metal cuffs where 5 or more prisoners can be chained together is called a daisy chain. Cute, huh? Makes me think of daisy cutters.

Back to reasons for being arrested. One young man nearly got arrested. He was across the street from a demonstration in front of the FOX News building (we shouted, "Get the FOX out of here!" It was fun) and he started clapping. A police officer stormed up to him and told him he had to get in with the other protesters behind the barricade. The guy told me he rode off on his bike. He nearly got arrested for clapping.

A woman was on the sidewalk in front of her apartment spray painting a design on a T-shirt. The police arrested her. When she asked if she could retrieve her shoes and driver's license, the police said no. They took her away.

But this is the craziest story in my opinion: a man got arrested for climbing a tree. The police shouted at him to climb down. He followed orders, and he got arrested. When I told this to David, David joked that next, the man will be incarcerated for planting a flower. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.

I just clicked on refresh. IndySteve, no, the police did not have the temerity to fine me. Had they done so, then I would have plead not guilty. Instead, I went for an ACD. I was charged with 2 counts of disorderly conduct (#$%!@#!!!), but the ACD pretty much states I did nothing, they did nothing, and if I?m a good little girl, in 6 months, all will be forgotten. Golly gee, they?ll even expunge my fingerprints from the record! If I believed that, I would have to suck on my thumb fingerprint.

*********************************************

The Repulsive Convention is correct. And, I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars (probably in the millions) the city wasted incarcerating people who did not welcome the delegates and their cronies with hugs and kisses. Sections of midtown Manhattan were shut off so that the delegates could feel "safe" from us "crazies."

The NYPD set up Pier 57, a spiffy, brand new, temporary holding tank just for us protesters and innocent bystanders who got in the way. Here are pictures of Pier 57:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/114761

Check out the man in the green cap. I remember him. When I saw him, I cried out, "lawyer!" He's a member of the Lawyers' Guild. I don't know what any of us would have done without them, and they are continuing to do amazing work for free. And yes, the NYPD is incarcerating them as well.

Too bad there are no pictures of the floor. The building used to house buses, so the floor is covered with soot. Think of all the nasty black stuff that comes out of buses' exhaust pipes. That's what we had to sit on. But, by the time I got there, the police wiped off the corrosive oil. How kind of them.

Nonetheless, I have heard of people's skins breaking into rashes and blisters. I saw a woman asleep with her right cheek pressed to the floor. I wonder what happened to her.

We tried to make the best of it. My pen is now known as the "duck duck goose" pen (someone later asked me, where you in the "duck duck goose" pen?). A bunch of girls (teens, early twenties) decided to play duck duck goose. Only, they played:

anarchist, anarchist... cop!
democrat, green... republican!

I smiled looking at them, and then I thought about them playing in bus soot and looked at the fence and the razor wire behind them. I guess this is what the Republicans have in mind when they talk about loving children so much. I guess this is their vision of children being safe and happy, that is, the children who do not belong to them.

******************************************

What happened in NYC is thankfully far, far, far away from say China's prisons (I saw a very informative and saddening Falun Gong demonstration this week... go to www.fofg.org for info.), or even America's own Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, but the NYPD behaved reprehensibly and illegally, and the country has taken a step in a very bad direction.

In fact, the US started to do so earlier this year. I was waiting to get my stuff back from NYPD with Ed Tant, a columnist in the Athens Banner-Herald Georgia newspaper (everyone Google him; I read 3 great articles by him). He was arrested this week simply because he was doing his job taking pictures. Anyways, he covered the G-8 summit in GA earlier this year, and the police used intimidating tactics then as well.

We both agreed that the reason the RNC was in NYC was to run a dry run test to see how the police can handle suppression in case there is an October surprise and Bush establishes martial law. I used to think the RNC just came here to milk September 11 (and it did do so, and it was disgusting), but I think it goes much deeper than that. This was an experiment. If they can round up hundreds and hundreds of innocent, peaceful civilians in NYC, bastion of liberalism and dissent, they can do it anywhere in this country.

As Ed and I were leaving, we saw the feds walking around. Now _they_ are scary! They were dressed all in black, and whereas the police carry "boom boom" guns, the feds were carrying huge "tatatata" guns (sorry for my unsophisticated analysis of weaponry... I should visit the NRA site some time).

Evolution of a Story

The AP Changes "Boos" to "Ooohs" in Report on Bush and Clinton

By E & P Staff

Published: September 03, 2004 10:00 PM EST

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/icopyright_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000624935

Frances

francis

Health Insurance vs. Medical Assurance

Does anyone in America believe that health insurance is going to keep them healthy or make them well? Any more than car insurance keeps the car from crashing or even running? Any more than hurricane insurance keeps the hurricanes away?

After Hurrican Charley pummelled South Florida last month, several of the insurance companies announced to the press that they are now expecting a considerable LOSS. What kind of business offers to provide a service and then, when it actually has to deliver, sees itself as having suffered? Why, the insurance industry, of course--a misnomer, if there ever was one. As anyone knows, that's ever had to file a claim, there is absolutely nothing industrious about those pencil-pushers.
Which is actually understandable. The goal of the insurance business is to collect money, not dispense it. Insurance is for events that happen very rarely or, if they are inevitable like death, are a long time a-coming for most people. Insurance isn't meant to pay for things that most of us almost certainly need, such as medical attention.

I now have four grandchildren, two new this year, whose delivery has tested the medical services in four distant states: New Mexico, Florida, Virginia and Massachusetts. And in not one instance was the quality of the service an improvement over what I experienced in the District of Columbia almost forty years ago. This despite the fact that people like John Edwards have been calling the medical industry to account by filing law suits whenever the service was just too sloppy.
How can that be, that there's been no improvement in forty years? What about all that new equipment? What are they doing with it?
Well, if the increasing rate of surgical extractions is any indication of what's happening in the baby business (three out of four in my recent experience), the equipment is mainly for dealing with complications that could be avoided it the quality of care were higher to begin with.
Not to mention that "complications" are actually an opportunity for the medical industry to make more money. Where's the incentive to do things right the first time, if every mistake brings in more business?
It almost seems that medical equipment is like the highway system--the more you build, the more you need. In any event, the accumulation of medical equipment not only mandates that the providers of medical care become more specialized, it almost mandates that these specialized services are provided, if the equipment is not to go unused. Which is why we now have medical establishments ADVERTISING for new patients and offering free tests, just to see if there's something, anything to fix.
The industrial process has a couple of advantages. It produces a uniform product and, because of the repetition, the product can not only be made better (as mistakes are corrected) but it can be produced more cheaply. The problem with trying to apply this process to medical services comes mostly from the fact that, even if all the mistakes are eliminated by experience, every patient is still different and impossible to treat with uniformity. So, the only way to get high quality medical service is to individualize it. And that takes time, if only because most people have no idea what's actually wrong with them.
Which, of course, is why, in addition to the industrial process being wrong, the notion that medical service can be regulated by the market, where the buyer is assumed to know what he wants to purchase, needs to be discarded.
What most Americans want is the assurance that the medical service they need will be available when and where they need it. But, what particular medical service they need has to be decided by someone in the know. And that's why it's important for someone to be there in the middle, between the provider and the recipient. We thought that Health Maintenance Organizations would do the job, but when there's a profit to be made, the middlemen just seem to proliferate, increasing costs and providing nothing of additional value. Instead of becoming more efficient, the medical industry has just gotten more bloated.
So, what we need is an American Medical Assurance Program--let's put AMAP on the map.

Kinder Gentler Cheney

Porter's Neighborhood

The Gainesville Sun reported this morning that Janie S. Williams was elected to the Alachua County School Board. Ms. Williams credited her win to her involvement with her community. She's right. The Porter's neighborhood has come a long way since it used to be referred to as Porters' Quarters under the mistaken impression that the name referred to the fact that a lot of the residents used to be porters on the railroad. The real story is as follows, from a letter I wrote to the Gainesville Sun on June 28, 1980.

It may be of interest to the community, especially now that the historic survey has just gotten under way, that O.A. Porter, the developer of Porter's Quarters was a woman, Olivia A. Porter, wife of Watson Porter, a white physician and leading citizen of the community during the period of Reconstruction.
Watson Porter was also at one time Principal of the Union Academy (a freedman's school) and a strong supporter of Josiah T. Walls, the only black man from Gainesville thrice ellected, twice seated, to the U.S. House of Representatives during the time when a great majority of the citizens of Gainesville were black and ran the town until they were "persuaded" to refrain from approaching the ballot box. Olivia Porter's real estate dealings were not unusual for the time, since much of the land was owned and administered by women, the men-folk of both races being in a rather more precarious position, or just plain shiftess. A lot of them couldn't resist the urge to go West in search of gold and adventure.
Anyone with information on the history of Gainesville in its early days, especially before 1900, is encouraged to contact Mr. Steve Henson who is directing the historic survey from offices in the Thomas Center.

And what happened then? Well, on January 24, 1988 an op-ed by Nat Tillman was entitled "Porter's dream will offer homeownership to many"

Given current conditions, this paragraph from Tillman's essay may be of interest.

"The homes will be sold on 30-year fixed mortgages at 9 percent interest. Banks that are pooling their resources to finance the project at this rate include Barnett Bank of Alachua County, Florida National Bank, First City Bank, Gainesville State Bank and Sun Bank of Gainesville."
None of whom I would wager are still in business.

War on Terror is Abuse

I don't know if it's because I'm a mother or it's just a quirk of my personality, but there isn't anything that gets me as angry as seeing someone else abused. Whether it's a bureaucrat being arbitary, a law enforcement officer exceeding his authority, or a kid kicking his mother in the shins because she's not doing what he wants, I cannot resist interfering. For some reason, anger rises (maybe it's an adrenalin rush) and I cannot restrain myself. Which, I guess, is why this war on terror business is really starting to tick me off.

What if you had a kid who's really afraid of the dark. Whom would you blame? Well, there might be an older sibling or even an uncle or dad who've been telling him stories about frightful things that go bump in the night. And, if that's the case, you might tell the offenders to "just stop it," but the damage has already been done. Once the kid is terrorized, removing the prompt won't change his response to the dark.

Of course, another way to deal with this problem is to make sure that the kid never has to be in the dark. But, while this may work at home, it will have the effect of really inhibiting his ability to negotiate the real world. It just isn't possible to remain in the light all the time.

Now, I actually have a grandson who's afraid of the dark and drives me crazy because he can never "remember" to turn off the lights. But what's really interesting is his response to a dark space. Instead of entering cautiously and picking his way, he rushes for the spot where he expect to find a light, increasing his potential for stubbing his toe or toppling head over heals.

In other words, fear actually makes people behave recklessly, exposing them to dangers that they might not meet, if they hadn't been terrorized to begin with.

Which, I guess, is why I am doubly ticked off by this war on terror. Terror is an emotion which, having been generated, it very difficult to eradicate. However, given the proper support, it can be brought under control. Terror, like fear, can be overcome by the individual who experiences it; but not if the prompt is continually re-enforced.

And that, I would argue, is what the Bush administration is doing--re-enforcing the terror and, not coincidentally, making us all less safe and secure because the terror makes it increasingly difficult to know what we are about, stumbling in the dark.

Which is why I consider the war on terror to be abusive, meant to intimidate every single American citizen. Like an abusive sibling, it needs to be stopped. And until that can be accomplished, what we need to do is make it very clear that this manipulation needs to be resisted with every fiber of our being. That's the only way we can win.

The boogy man is not the problem. Though, of course, there are bad people out there. The real problem is the guy who would have us believe that being fearful will protect us.

Iraqi Dispatch

American Lawyer Finds New Evidence of Recent Torture in Iraq
Lisa Ashkenaz Croke, The NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=911

August 30 -- While the latest reports investigating the widely condemned events at Abu Ghraib prison attempt to close the book on the Pentagon's culpability with a somber critique, new evidence gathered for a class action lawsuit filed against two US-based private contractors could prove that the scandal at Abu Ghraib was far from an isolated series of incidents perpetrated by a few rowdy "bad apples" working the night shift during Ramadan.

An attorney representing former detainees says his recent fact-finding mission to Baghdad uncovered dozens of cases of physical and psychological abuse, sexual humiliation, religious desecration and rape in ten US-run prisons throughout occupied Iraq.

The NewStandard spoke with Michigan-based attorney Shereef Akeel, who interviewed some 50 former detainees about their time and treatment in US custody. Part of the legal team behind a class action lawsuit against the firms for their employees' involvement in prison abuse at US-run facilities in Iraq, the former immigration lawyer found himself traveling to meet face-to-face with the people he is representing in the American court system.

His team has documented abuse dating from July 2003 to as recently as last month, when an Iraqi boy just fifteen years old says his captors at an American facility raped him. "He was told to go on all fours naked and was sodomized from behind," Akeel conveyed the fifteen year-old's testimony. "He said they made him dance and he was crying."

A number of the incidents Akeel and his colleagues have recorded took place between January and July of this year. Emerging evidence that torture in US facilities continues months after the Abu Ghraib and other torture cases were revealed -- most of those having taken place in late 2003 and dismissed as the results of oversights corrected since -- could spell major problems for the US government and military.

Akeel and his colleagues are working in concert with the Center for Constitutional Rights to sue the US companies CACI International, Inc. and Titan Corp., which were respectively contracted to provide interrogators and translators to support the American military's efforts to obtain information from "security detainees" -- those thought to be involved in resisting the US occupation of Iraq. The Center for Constitutional Rights is a privately funded legal center that litigates on behalf of social movements and causes.

For its part, CACI International said in a press statement issued about the case: "CACI rejects and denies the allegations of the suit as being a malicious recitation of false statements and intentional distortions." The company added in its defense, "CACI has never entered into a conspiracy with the government, or anyone else, to perpetrate abuses of any kind." CACI also called the allegations of abuse "ill-informed" and "slanderous."

Titan Corp. spokesperson Wil Williams told The NewStandard his company's employees at US-run facilities in Iraq adhere strictly to their role as translators and are prohibited by company policy from engaging with prisoners in any other capacity. He said the class action lawsuit naming Titan is "baseless" and that Titan will "vigorously defend [against] it." He said it is "against company policy for any [employee] to engage in or observe" abusive behavior, and expressed confidence that had any Titan personnel so much as witnessed unlawful behavior, they would have reported it.

When asked if the witnesses identified the perpetrators as US military, mercenaries, Iraqis, private translators or others, Akeel sighed. "Honestly, the line was so blurred, and they were crossed all the time," he said. According to the testimony Akeel has collected, interrogators often donned US military uniforms, assailants entered cells naked or approached victims from behind, and at least one translator wielded an electrical stun device.

Williams was unaware that interpreters, whether representing Titan or not, were being accused of being in possession of any such devices. "A linguist is not supposed to be handling weapons," he said, adding that it is "beyond our imagination" that Titan employees would engage in abusive activities.

Regardless of the perpetrators' national or ethnic origins, Akeel and his clients hold the US military personnel who were involved in unlawful incidents and the corporations named in the suit responsible for abuse carried out in prisons controlled by the US military.

During the course of his investigation in Iraq, Akeel said, clear patterns emerged. According to Akeel, testimonials gathered individually from former captives held in US prisons all over Iraq indicate many of the common methods came into use across disparate, geographically distant detention centers.

Perhaps the most disturbing evidence Akeel found suggesting an overarching policy of abuse comes in the form of first-hand accounts that captors singled out religiously observant prisoners for particularly harsh abuse.

Akeel said former detainees told him that upon arrival at a US-run facility, they were each given a questionnaire asking them about their religious affiliation as well as their vices. In Akeel's words, the questions included: "Are you Sunni? Are you Shia? Do you drink? Do you not drink? Do you have a girlfriend?" Akeel said he found a consistent pattern among the cases: the stricter the religious observance a detainee reported to his captors, the more severe the treatment he would receive at their hands.

Akeel provided several examples of religious desecration, including stories of men who had purified themselves in an Islamic absolution ritual only to be subsequently doused with beer and alcohol by captors. At one prison, plaintiffs told Akeel, captors hung a picture of a pig on the wall toward which prisoners faced to worship and told them, "Pray to your pig."

In one horrific case recounted to Akeel, a naked woman wearing a strapped on sexual device raped an elderly man while he was fasting. The man said the woman came in silently behind him, "wearing a belt with a penis," Akeel relayed. The man told Akeel he could not determine whether his assailant was an American MP or a private contractor.

Akeel also uncovered a method, previously unknown to his legal team, by which captors were malicious in their matching of interpreters with the prisoners they would help interrogate. He said that in each interrogation case before him, the victim was assigned an interpreter with a "built-in-prejudice."

"All of the translators are of Arabic descent," Akeel said. "So they'd put an Egyptian Coptic [Christian] translator to look over the [Sunni Muslims]. It's like putting a Serb in charge of a Muslim [in the former Yugoslavia]. This is a pattern everywhere; [it was] very specific."

Akeel said he interviewed victims from across the social spectrum, "from lawyers to doctors, to kids, to the elderly, to housewives." He said US jailers and their contractors subjected all the plaintiffs to similar mistreatment.

One woman told Akeel she witnessed an imprisoned man and woman raped on her first night of incarceration.

Other witnesses said a group of naked male detainees was forced to serve food to naked female prisoners who begged the men to cover their eyes.

In another account, a doctor first taken to a presidential palace and made to stand there for hours on end, told Akeel that he was then taken to the Abu Ghraib prison where he watched a naked prisoner forced onto the running engine of a Humvee, leaving the man with irreparable burns.

Witnesses also told Akeel the famous Tikrit area stables of Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, now house Iraqi prisoners who are forced to urinate and defecate in the same stalls where they sleep.

Akeel returned from his mission to Baghdad last week. He said he is still processing everything he learned, and has agreed to provide The NewStandard detailed documentation confirming these accounts once he has organized the material. All of it, he said, will be introduced as part of the case against CACI and Titan.

One witness Akeel had hoped to interview will not be part of the lawsuit. Akeel said he was expecting to speak with a woman who had been raped at one US-run prison, and later discovered she was pregnant. Tragically, she killed herself before they could meet.

Copyright 1994 The NewStandard. TNS Middle East Editor Brian Dominick contributed to this article. This is the first in a series of articles documenting new allegations of torture not covered by official US military reports.