Hannah's Blog

Out, Out, Damned Spot

That's rich!! The National Spy Agency violates the privacy of millions of Americans, listening to their most intimate conversations, tracing commercial transactions, and intercepting their mail and, when somebody finally blows the whistle to call the cops, they call out the dogs to find who "ratted" the spymasters out.

If you think this kind of language isn't appropriate to describe our government's actions, you're absolutely right. But that's because the government's behavior is totally out of bounds. Our government is acting like a bunch of common criminals--merchants of terror and their henchmen, relying on pay-offs and secret deals to keep them one step ahead of the law.

This close association between the lawman and the lawbreakers is what makes it easy to pervert; makes it hard not to cross the line. Easy to argue that the law has to be broken to catch the crooks. Not to mention that skirting the line generates a sense of excitement.

But I don't think that's what this is about--a bunch of lawmen gone bad. No, the multiple layers of secrecy, piled up in the last five years, are giving off the stench of a giant cover-up. Moreover, as each layer wears thin and cracks and the stench just gets worse, both the obsession and the frustration level increase. It's the 21st Century version of Lady MacBeth and her damned spot.

So, what is it that's being hidden? What's worth perverting the whole legal system and subjecting the whole nation to a meaningless search and seizure regimen? Because, you know, the whole thing makes no sense. Sifting through millions of random communications might make sense if you knew what you were looking for or collecting data for a marketing scheme (which is a possibility, but you wouldn't need a governmental prompt for that), but this wholesale approach seems particularly ill-conceived. Which may well be why the participants are blowing the whistle. When a project is almost certain to fail, the temptation to tamper with the results and generate the appearance of success increases exponentially, along with the risk that innocent people will be injured.

Perhaps that's the key. More innocent people are being put at risk because some innocent people died needlessly. Maybe it's not a case of the barn being locked obsessively after the horse was stolen, but of locking the barn obsessively after the horse was sold to be rendered.

888888

http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm

Bush Coup

Obviously, the CIA does not want to be charged with initiating the violations of the Constitution and international law about which some of its members are beginning to talk to the Washington Post. However.........

Surely the Washington Post is aware that no bureaucracy comes forward with the kind of comprehensive program of official secrecy set up by the Bush administration in a couple of days. So, the references to orders and directives and legislative presentations being prepared after September 11, 2001 are disingenuous. The take-over of the American government was well prepared long before the supposed "trigger" occurred. How else were all these individuals bereft of any qualms about violating the constitution already in place?

Of course, when one considers events from the perspective of a well-prepared coup, then one has to consider that the triggering event was part of the plan. Which would account for the failure to do a complete forensic analysis of that particular crime.

One has to wonder to what extent the shroud of secrecy into which our rights to privacy are being sucked is just an elaborate cover-up of the crime of the century.

****

Representative Nancy Pelosi made here concerns known early. What, exactly, they were is still not clear as of January 3, 2006 since her letter and the response from the National Security Adviser are both classified and heavily redacted as released. At the least, these provide evidence that secrecy is being employed to keep information from the public. Since it's my experience that such behavior merely protects people from being accountable for their performance in their jobs, it's not a practice I appreciate.

~~~~~~~~~~~
October 11, 2001

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director National Security Agency Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755 Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

Dear General Hayden:

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression,

[redacted]

being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information

[redacted]

without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis

[redacted]

I believe you have a much more difficult case to make

[redacted]

Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

Sincerely, /s/ NANCY PELOSI Ranking Democrat
#

Hayden's response

18 October 2001

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence H-405, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Pelosi:

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.

[redacted]

Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter.

Michael Hayden

Craig Murray

December 29, 2005
Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in coordinated exposé of UK government lies over torture.

*******
Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any
documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?"

Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this clear... the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use." - Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, election hustings, Blackburn, April 2005

**********

I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture... On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood. - Ambassador Craig Murray, memo to the Foreign Office, July 2004

Letter #1

Confidential

FM Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)

TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts

16 September 02

SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism

SUMMARY

US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.

DETAIL

The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.

Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.

Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.

The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.

This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years - but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary - the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.

We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.

Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.

MURRAY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter #2

Confidential

Fm Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)

To FCO

18 March 2003

SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY

SUMMARY

1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL

2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid - more than US aid to all of West Africa - is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He - and they - are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).

6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terrorâ?¦ removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.

MURRAY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Transcript of facsimile sent 25 March 2003 from the Foreign Office]

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor

Date: 13 March 2003

CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD

Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.

[signed]

M C Wood
Legal Adviser

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter #3

CONFIDENTIAL

FM TASHKENT (Ambassador Craig Murray)

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04

INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK

SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

SUMMARY

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL

4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true - the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;

"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/04/timeline_of_cra.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

When Jack Straw declares that "the British government does not support torture" does he simply mean that they don't and won't pay for it?

Liars--Then and Now

American health

If healthy Americans living in a healthy environment is a serious goal, then we're going to have to make sure that the Congress we elect this November is prepared to deliver a universal health coverage program. 'Cause it shouldn't make any difference whether you get sick in Mississippi or Minnesotta, Maine or California. Getting the right medical attention where and when you need it should be a given.

Unfortunately, reforming the bloated patch-work of medical providers that's been stitched together over the past fifteen years has gotten just a bit more complicated. A bunch of politicians, it turns out, want to practice medecine, instead of just figuring out how to pay for it.

So, that's a new wrinkle that has to be ironed out. There's nobody in his right mind who's going to go for the likes of Tom Delay playing doctor. Never mind making rules about what goes on between patient and doctor.

Bombing Iraq

The largely untold story. When the American military "confirms surge in airstrikes" is it insurgent?

Who's killing and who's being killed? When bombs are being dropped on Iraqi villages and towns, it's almost certain that Iraqis are being killed.

Publishing the story on Christmas Eve does not suggest a high priority.

Military Confirms Surge in Airstrikes

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 24, 2005; Page A14

U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have surged this fall, jumping to nearly five times the average monthly rate earlier in the year, according to U.S. military figures.

Until the end of August, U.S. warplanes were conducting about 25 strikes a month. The number rose to 62 in September, then to 122 in October and 120 in November.

Several U.S. officers involved in operations in Iraq attributed much of the increase to a series of ground offensives in western Anbar province.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

U.S. Airstrikes Take Toll on Civilians
Eyewitnesses Cite Scores Killed in Marine Offensive in Western Iraq

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 24, 2005; Page A01

RAMADI, Iraq -- U.S. Marine airstrikes targeting insurgents sheltering in Iraqi residential neighborhoods are killing civilians as well as guerrillas along the Euphrates River in far western Iraq, according to Iraqi townspeople and officials and the U.S. military.

Just how many civilians have been killed is strongly disputed by the Marines and, some critics say, too little investigated. But townspeople, tribal leaders, medical workers and accounts from witnesses at the sites of clashes, at hospitals and at graveyards indicated that scores of noncombatants were killed last month in fighting, including airstrikes, in the opening stages of a 17-day U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Anbar province.

"These people died silently, complaining to God of a guilt they did not commit," Zahid Mohammed Rawi, a physician, said in the town of Husaybah. Rawi said that roughly one week into Operation Steel Curtain, which began on Nov. 5, medical workers had recorded 97 civilians killed. At least 38 insurgents were also killed in the offensive's early days, Rawi said.

In a Husaybah school converted to a makeshift hospital, Rawi, four other doctors and a nurse treated wounded Iraqis in the opening days of the offensive, examining bloodied children as anxious fathers soothed them and held them down.

"I dare any organization, committee or the American Army to deny these numbers," Rawi said.
[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301471.html

Short history of Iraq

What I heard about Iraq in 2005

What I heard about Iraq in 2005
Eliot Weinberger, LBR

December 27, 2005

In 2005 I heard that Coalition forces were camped in the ruins of Babylon. I heard that bulldozers had dug trenches through the site and cleared areas for helicopter landing pads and parking lots, that thousands of sandbags had been filled with dirt and archaeological fragments, that a 2600-year-old brick pavement had been crushed by tanks, and that the moulded bricks of dragons had been gouged out from the Ishtar Gate by soldiers collecting souvenirs. I heard that the ruins of the Sumerian cities of Umma, Umm al-Akareb, Larsa and Tello were completely destroyed and were now landscapes of craters.

I heard that the US was planning an embassy in Baghdad that would cost $1.5 billion, as expensive as the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero, the proposed tallest building in the world.

I saw a headline in the Los Angeles Times that read: 'After Levelling City, US Tries to Build Trust.’

I heard that military personnel were now carrying 'talking point’ cards with phrases such as: 'We are a values-based, people-focused team that strives to uphold the dignity and respect of all.’

I heard that 47 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11 and 44 per cent believed that the hijackers were Iraqi; 61 per cent thought that Saddam had been a serious threat to the US and 76 per cent said the Iraqis were now better off.

I heard that Iraq was now ranked with Haiti and Senegal as one of the poorest nations on earth. I heard the United Nations Human Rights Commission report that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children had doubled since the war began. I heard that only 5 per cent of the money Congress had allocated for reconstruction had actually been spent. I heard that in Fallujah people were living in tents pitched on the ruins of their houses.

I heard that this year’s budget included $105 billion for the War on Terror, which would bring the total to $300 billion. I heard that Halliburton was estimating that its bill for providing services to US troops in Iraq would exceed $10 billion. I heard that the family of an American soldier killed in Iraq receives $12,000.

I heard that the White House had deleted the chapter on Iraq from the annual Economic Report of the President, on the grounds that it did not conform with an otherwise cheerful tone.

Within a week in January I heard Condoleezza Rice say there were 120,000 Iraqi troops trained to take over the security of the country; I heard Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat from Delaware, say that the number was closer to 4000; I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'The fact of the matter is that there are 130,200 who have been trained and equipped. That’s a fact. The idea that that number’s wrong is just not correct. The number is right.’

I heard him explain the discrepancy: 'Now, are some getting killed every day? Sure. Are some retiring at various times or injured? Yes, they’re gone.’ I remembered that a year before he had said the number was 210,000. I heard the Pentagon announce it would no longer release Iraqi troop figures.

I heard that 50,000 US soldiers in Iraq did not have body armour, because the army’s equipment manager had placed it at the same priority level as socks. I heard that soldiers were buying their own flak jackets with steel 'trauma’ plates, Camelbak water pouches, ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, drop pouches to hold ammunition magazines, and load-bearing vests. I heard they were rigging their vehicles with pieces of scrap metal as protection against roadside bombs, since the production of armoured Humvees had fallen more than a year behind schedule and the few available armoured vehicles were mainly reserved for officers and visiting dignitaries.

I heard that the private security firm Custer Battles had been paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights at Baghdad airport at a time when no planes were flying. I heard that US forces were still unable to secure the two-mile highway from the airport to the Green Zone.

I heard that the President’s uncle, Bucky Bush, had made half a million dollars cashing in his stock options in Engineered Support Systems Inc, a defence contractor that had received $100 million for work in Iraq. Bucky Bush is on the board of directors. I heard Dan Kreher, vice-president of investor relations for ESSI, say: 'The fact his nephew is in the White House has absolutely nothing to do with Mr Bush being on our board or with our stock having gone up 1000 per cent in the past five years.’

I heard that a Pentagon audit of only some of the Halliburton contracts had found $212 million in 'questionable costs’. I heard that eight other government audits of Halliburton were marked 'classified’ and not released to the public.

I heard that African-Americans normally form 23 per cent of active-duty troops, but that recruitment of African-Americans had fallen by 41 per cent since 2000. I heard that a US Military Image Study prepared for the army had recommended that, 'for the army to achieve its mission goals with Future Force Soldiers, it must overhaul its image as well as its product offering.’

I heard that the military was developing robot soldiers. I heard Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon say: 'They don’t get hungry. They’re not afraid. They don’t forget their orders. They don’t care if the guy next to them has just been shot.’ I heard him say: 'I have been asked what happens if the robot destroys a school bus rather than a tank parked nearby. The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions. We will not entrust a robot with that decision until we are confident they can make it.’

*

In March, on the second anniversary of the invasion, I heard that 1511 US soldiers had been killed and approximately 11,000 wounded. There was no way of knowing exactly how many Iraqis had died.

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'Well, if you have a country of 25 million people and you have x thousands of criminals, terrorists, Baathists, former regime elements who want to blow up things and make bombs and kill people, they can still do that. That happens in most major cities in the world, most countries in the world, that people get killed and there’s violence.’

I heard that, along with banning photographs of the caskets of American soldiers, the administration was actively preventing photographs being taken of the wounded, who were flown in from Iraq late at night, transferred to military hospitals in unmarked vans, and unloaded at back entrances.

I heard about despair. I heard General John Abizaid, commander of US Central Command, say of the insurgents: 'I don’t think that they’re growing. I think that they’re desperate.’

I heard about hope. I heard General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say: 'I came away more positive than I’ve ever been. I think we’re getting some momentum built up.’

I heard about happiness. I heard Lieutenant General James Mattis say that 'it’s a lot of fun to fight’ in Iraq. I heard him say: 'You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. I like brawling.’

I heard that Donald Rumsfeld had created his own intelligence agency, the Strategic Support Branch, 'designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary’s direct control’, without the oversight laws that apply to the CIA, and that it was employing 'notorious figures’ whose 'links to the US government would be embarrassing if disclosed’. I heard about the practice of 'extraordinary rendition’, by which suspected terrorists are kidnapped and flown to countries known to torture prisoners, or to secret US prisons in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

I heard that there were 3200 prisoners in Abu Ghraib, 700 more than its capacity. I heard Major General William Brandenburg, who oversees US military detention operations in Iraq, say: 'We’ve got a normal capacity and a surge capacity. We’re operating at surge capacity.’ A year before, I had heard the President promise 'to demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq’s new beginning’. I heard that outside the prison there is a sign that reads: 'No Parking. Detainee Drop Off Zone.’

I heard that some American soldiers had made a heavy metal music video called 'Ramadi Madness’, with sections entitled 'Those Crafty Little Bastards’ and 'Another Day, Another Mission, Another Scumbag’. In one scene, a soldier kicks the face of an Iraqi who is bound and lying on the ground, dying. In another, a soldier moves the arm of a man who has just been shot dead, to make it appear that he is waving. I heard a Pentagon spokesman say: 'Clearly, the soldiers probably exercised poor judgment.’

I heard that the army released a 1200-page report detailing the torture of Iraqi prisoners at a single military intelligence base during a few months in 2003. In response to the report, I heard Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Martin say: 'The army’s a learning organisation. If we have some shortfalls, we try to correct them. We’ve learned how to do that process now.’

I heard a US soldier talk about his photographs of the 12 prisoners he had shot with a machine-gun: 'I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open. I shot this guy in the groin. He took three days to bleed to death.’ I heard him say he was a devout Christian: 'Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up, and gunned them all down.’

*

In April I heard General Richard Myers say: 'I think we’re winning. OK? I think we’re definitely winning. I think we’ve been winning for some time.’

I heard Major General William Webster, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, say: 'We think the insurgency is weakening over time. Some of these attacks appear to be very spectacular and well co-ordinated, but, in fact, are not.’

I heard Lieutenant General James Conroy of the marines say that American troop withdrawals would soon begin, because 'Iraqis are starting to take care of their own situation.’ I heard Rear Admiral William Sullivan report to Congress that there were 145,000 'combat-capable’ Iraqi forces. I heard Sabah Hadum, a spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, say: 'We are paying about 135,000, but that does not necessarily mean that 135,000 are actually working.’ I heard that as many as 50,000 may be 'ghost soldiers’ – invented names whose pay is collected by officers or bureaucrats.

I heard Staff Sergeant Craig Patrick, who was training Iraqi troops, say: 'It’s all about perception, to convince the American public that everything is going as planned and we’re right on schedule to be out of here. I mean, they can bullshit the American people, but they can’t bullshit us.’

As many countries pulled their small numbers of troops out of Iraq, I heard the State Department announce it would no longer use the phrase 'Coalition of the Willing’.

I heard that of the 40 water and sewage systems in Iraq, 'not one is being operated properly.’ I heard that of the 19 power plants that had been rebuilt by the US, none works correctly. I heard a US official blame this on the 'indifferent work ethic’ of Iraqis.

I read, in the New York Times, that thanks to the 'sustained momentum’ of the 'military operation’, the 'administration’s goal of turning Iraq over to a permanent, elected Iraqi government’ was 'within striking distance’. I heard General Richard Myers say: 'We’re on track.’ And I heard Major General Adnan Thabit say: 'We are gaining more victories because people are now co-operating more with us.’

I heard General John Abizaid predict that Iraqi security forces would be leading the fight against the insurgents in most of the country by the end of 2005. I heard General George Casey, commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, say: 'We should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.’

I heard that the insurgents had been driven out of the cities and into the desert and that they were having trouble finding new recruits. I heard Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno say: 'They’re slowly losing.’

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'We don’t have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy.’

*

A few weeks later, I heard Lawrence di Rita, a Pentagon spokesman, admit that 'there’s been an uptick’ in violence. I heard Pentagon officials dismiss this as 'desperate attacks by desperate individuals’, but I heard General Richard Myers now say about the insurgents: 'I think their capacity stays about the same. And where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago.’

I heard that a report by the CIA National Intelligence Council had stated that 'Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalised" terrorists,’ providing 'a recruitment ground and the opportunity for enhancing technical skills’. I heard that it said that Iraq was a more effective training ground than Afghanistan, because 'the urban nature of the war in Iraq was helping combatants learn how to carry out assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other kinds of attacks that were never a staple of the fighting in Afghanistan during the anti-Soviet campaigns of the 1980s.’

I heard that the State Department refused to release its annual report on terrorism, which would have shown that the number of 'significant’ attacks outside Iraq had grown from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004. I heard Karen Aguilar, acting co-ordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department, explain that 'statistics are not relevant’ to 'trends in global terrorism’.

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'Goodness knows, it doesn’t take a genius to blow up a building.’

I heard that in the month of April there were 67 suicide bombings. I heard Colonel Pat Lang, former chief of Mideast operations at the Defense Intelligence Agency, say: 'It’s just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We’ve been in a civil war for a long time.’

I heard that 1600 US soldiers were dead. I heard that every week more than 200 Iraqis were dying in the suicide bombings.

I heard Condoleezza Rice, on a surprise visit to Iraq, say: 'We are so grateful that there are Americans willing to sacrifice so the Middle East will be whole and free and democratic and at peace.’ On that same day, the bodies of 34 recently killed men were found in a mass grave; a high official in the Ministry of Industry was shot dead; a leading Shia cleric was shot dead; and the governor of Diyala province survived a suicide bombing, though four others in his entourage did not and 37 nearby were wounded.

I heard Donald Rumsfeld, asked whether we were winning or losing the war in Iraq, reply: 'Winning or losing is not the issue for "we", in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the words "winning" and "losing" in a war.’

I heard a truck driver named Muhammad say, 'With my own eyes I’ve seen the Americans, when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb, open fire on all the civilian cars around them,’ and another driver, from Fallujah, say: 'If Bush is a real man, he should walk down the street alone!’

I heard that the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, has 3000 Kurdish peshmerga soldiers stationed around his house.

I heard the President proclaim a 'critical victory in the War on Terror’ with the capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, whom the President said was a 'top general’ and the number three man in al-Qaida. I heard him say: 'His arrest removes a dangerous enemy who was a direct threat to America and for those who love freedom.’ A few days later, I heard that the man had probably been confused with someone else with a vaguely similar name. I heard that a former associate of Osama bin Laden in London had laughed and said: 'What I remember of him is that he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.’ I never heard this reported in the American press.

At the dedication of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, I heard the President compare his War on Terror with Lincoln’s war against slavery.

I heard the President say that Iraqi forces now outnumber their American counterparts.

*

In May I heard that there were three suicide bombings every day.

I heard a journalist ask the President: 'Do you think that the insurgency is getting harder now to defeat militarily?’ And I heard the President reply: 'No, I don’t think so. I think they’re being defeated. And that’s why they continue to fight.’

I heard a human rights worker say: 'In Baghdad today, four clerics (three Sunni and one Shia) were assassinated. The bodies of two other Sunni clerics who had been abducted last week were found. A suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle in the Abu Cher market killing nine Iraqi National Guard troops and injuring 28 civilians. Two engineering students were killed when a bomb (or rocket) struck their classroom at a local school. The dean of a high school in the Shaab neighborhood was assassinated. One judge, two officials from the Ministry of Defence and one official investigating corruption in the previous interim government were assassinated. In all, 31 dead, 42 injured and 17 abducted. Rumours abound in Baghdad about who is responsible for all the attacks but no one has claimed responsibility. And yet compared to some days in recent weeks here in Baghdad the number of dead and injured was fewer. So comparatively speaking it was a fairly quiet day here in Baghdad.’

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'We don’t do body counts.’ But then I heard the Pentagon releasing body counts. It said 1600 insurgents had been killed last year in Fallujah, but then I heard that the marines had discovered 'few bodies’ after the city was captured, and months later a 'martyrs’ cemetery’ was found to contain only 79 graves. I heard that the army had completely destroyed a 'guerrilla training camp’ near Lake Tharthar, killing all 85 insurgents, and I heard the television news report that this was 'the single biggest one-day death toll for militants in months, and the latest in a series of blows to the insurgency’. But then I heard that some European journalists visited the camp the next day and the insurgents were still there. Then I heard US officials claim that the insurgents must have dragged away their own dead. But then I heard a reporter ask how all 85 dead insurgents could have dragged themselves away. And I heard Major Richard Goldenberg reply: 'We could spend years going back and forth on body counts. The important thing is the effect this has on the organised insurgency.’

I heard about despair. I heard Colonel Joseph DiSalvo, commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, say: 'What we’re seeing is the terrorists are in desperation.’ I heard him say: 'By the end of the summer, the terrorists will be captured, dead or, in the least, severely disrupted.’

I heard Dick Cheney say: 'The level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.’

I heard Porter J. Goss, director of the CIA, say that the insurgents were 'not quite in the last throes, but I think they are very close to it.’

I heard Dick Cheney later explain: 'If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period. When you look back at World War Two, the toughest battle, both in Europe and in the Pacific, occurred just a few months before the end. And I see this as a similar situation, where they’re going to go all out.’

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'Last throes could be a violent last throe, or a placid and calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary.’

*

I heard Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, say: 'Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.’

I heard Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman say of the insurgents: 'We can’t kill them all. When I kill one, I create three.’

I heard that Congressman Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina and the man who renamed French fries 'freedom fries’, was now calling for the withdrawal of US troops. I heard him say: 'The American people are getting to a point here: how much more can we take?’ I heard Congressman Mike Pence, Republican from Indiana, explain why he is opposed to a timetable for withdrawal: 'I never tell my kids when my patience is going to run out, because they’ll usually try it.’

I heard Condoleezza Rice speak about a 'generational commitment’ in Iraq.

I heard the President say: 'We have put the enemy on the run, and now they spend their days avoiding capture, because they know America’s armed services are on their trail.’

I heard him tell the American people: 'As we work to deliver opportunity at home, we’re also keeping you safe from threats from abroad. We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home.’

I heard the President say: 'See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.’

*

I heard that US troops had killed the number two man in al-Qaida in Iraq. I heard that US troops had killed another man who was the number two in al-Qaida in Iraq. I heard that US troops had killed yet another man who was the number two in al-Qaida in Iraq.

I heard that in Baghdad 92 per cent of the people did not have stable electricity, 33 per cent did not have safe drinking water, and 25 per cent of children under the age of five were suffering from malnutrition. I heard that there were two or three car bombings a day, on some days killing a hundred people and wounding many hundreds more.

I heard General William Webster say: 'Certainly saying anything about "breaking the back" or "about to reach the end of the line" or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.’

I heard a 'high-ranking army officer’ say: 'There’s simply not enough forces here. There are not enough to do anything right; everybody’s got their finger in the dyke.’ I heard that the soldiers of Marine Company E had set up cardboard dummies of themselves to make it appear that they had more men in battle.

I heard the President say: 'I’d say I spend most of my time worrying about right now people losing their life in Iraq. Both Americans and Iraqis. I worry about my girls. I used to worry about my wife, until she hit an 85 per cent popularity figure. Now she’s worried about me. You know, I don’t worry all that much, other than what I just described to you. I attribute that to – I’ve got peace of mind. A lot of it has to do with my particular faith, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a lot of people pray for me and Laura. I’m sleeping pretty good. Seriously. I get asked that. There’s times when I hadn’t been. I’ve got peace of mind.’

*

In 2005 I heard about 2001. I heard that on 21 September 2001, the PDB (President’s Daily Brief), prepared by the CIA, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the September 11 attacks.

I heard Condoleezza Rice say: 'The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaida and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaida. Or we could take a bolder approach.’

I heard Karl Rove say: 'Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.’

In 2005 I heard about 2002. I heard that on 23 July 2002, eight months before the invasion, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, reported in a secret memo to Tony Blair that he was told in Washington that the US was going to 'remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD’. However, because 'the case was thin, Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.’

I heard that this 'Downing Street Memo’ was a scandal in the British press, but I didn’t hear it mentioned on American network television for two months. During those two months, ABC news had 121 stories on Michael Jackson and 42 stories on Natalee Holloway, a high-school student who disappeared from a bar while on holiday in Aruba. CBS news had 235 stories about Michael Jackson and 70 about Natalee Holloway.

I heard that in the second half of 2002, the US air force and the RAF dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq as they had done in all of 2001. I heard that the objective was to provoke Saddam into giving the allies an excuse for war.

I heard that the primary source of information about Saddam’s mobile biological weapons labs and germ warfare capability, used by Colin Powell in his presentation at the United Nations and in the President’s 2003 State of the Union address, was an Iraqi defector held by German intelligence. The Germans had repeatedly told the Americans that none of the information supplied by this defector, an advanced alcoholic, was reliable. He had been given the code-name Curveball.

I heard that the primary source of information about the tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons buried under Saddam’s private villas and under Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad and throughout Iraq was a Kurdish exile called Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. He was sponsored by the Rendon Group, a Washington public relations firm that had been paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the Pentagon to promote the war. (Rendon, among other things, had organised a group of Iraqi exiles in London, called them the Iraqi National Congress, and installed Ahmad Chalabi as their leader.) I heard that after al-Haideri failed a lie-detector test, administered by the CIA in Thailand, his stories were nevertheless leaked to journalists, most prominently Judith Miller of the New York Times, which published them on the front page.

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'Well, you never know what’s going to happen. I presented the President a list of about fifteen things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started. And the fact that the oilfields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, the fact that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn’t happen. The bridges could have been blown up. There could have been a fortress Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people fighting to the death. So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen.’ I heard a journalist ask him: 'Was a robust insurgency on your list that you gave the President?’ And I heard Rumsfeld reply: 'I don’t remember whether that was on there.’

In 2005 I heard about 2003. I heard a US marine, who was a witness to the event, say that the story of the capture of Saddam Hussein was a fiction. Saddam had been caught the day before in a small house, and then placed in an abandoned well, which was invented as the 'spider hole’ where he was hiding. I never heard about this marine again.

In 2005 I heard about 2004. I heard that, during the attack on Fallujah, the President had suggested to Tony Blair that the headquarters of the al-Jazeera network in Qatar should be bombed. I heard that Blair persuaded him that it wasn’t such a good idea.

*

Because it was difficult for the military to attract new recruits, I heard that an army directive recommended 'alleviating the personnel crunch by retaining soldiers who are earmarked for early discharge during their first term of enlistment because of alcohol or drug abuse, unsatisfactory performance, or being overweight, among other reasons’. I heard that the Pentagon had asked Congress to raise the maximum age for military recruits from 35 to 42.

I heard that the US military was actively recruiting in Latin America, offering citizenship in exchange for service. I heard that Hispanic-Americans make up 9.5 per cent of the actively enlisted, but 17.5 per cent of those given the most dangerous assignments.

I heard that the government had offered $15,000 cash bonuses to National Guard personnel who agreed to extend their enlistment. I heard that the government never paid, and cancelled the offer after many had signed up.

I heard that in veterans’ hospitals, the only televison news that is permitted is the Pentagon Channel, a 24-hour news station that features programmes like Freedom Journal Iraq.

I heard Rory Mayberry, a former food manager for Halliburton in Iraq, say that they routinely served the troops food that had expired by as much as a year. I heard that they would salvage food from convoys that had been attacked. I heard him say: 'We were told to go into the trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.’

I heard that, in a poll of American soldiers in Iraq, more than half rated their unit’s morale as 'low’ or 'very low’.

I heard the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine say that one in four veterans required medical treatment and that it expected that as many as 240,000 would suffer from some form of post- traumatic stress disorder. I heard a soldier say: 'My nightmares are so intense I woke up one night with my hands around my fiancée’s throat.’

I heard that members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas were demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers who had died in Iraq, claiming that the war was divine retribution for American immorality. I heard that they held signs depicting 'homosexual acts’, with the words 'God Hates Fags’; 'God Hates America’; 'Thank God for IEDs [roadside bombs]’; 'Fag Soldiers in Hell’; 'God Blew Up the Troops’; and 'Fags Doom Nations.’

I heard that headstones in Arlington National Cemetery were now being inscribed with the slogans 'Operation Enduring Freedom’ and 'Operation Iraqi Freedom’ along with the traditional name, rank and date of death of the deceased soldier. I heard Jeff Martell, who makes headstones for the cemetery, say: 'It just seems a little brazen that that’s put on stones. It seems like it might be connected to politics.’

*

On the first anniversary of the 'transfer of sovereignty’, I heard that there had been 484 car bombs in the last year, killing at least 2221 people and wounding at least 5574. I heard 890 US soldiers had been killed in the last year and that there was now an average of 70 insurgent attacks a day. That same day I heard the President say: 'We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we’ll fight them there, we’ll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.’

I heard him say: 'Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania.’

I heard him say: 'Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the War on Terror.’

And I remembered that, three years before, to justify the invasion, he had said: 'Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground.’

*

I heard Tom DeLay, then still the House majority leader, say: 'You know, if Houston, Texas was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody’d go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways.’

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say that the Shias 'are reaching out to the Sunnis and allowing them to come into the constitutional drafting process in a very constructive and healthy way. So there’s an awful lot good that’s happening in that country.’

I heard Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, say: 'I think we have a clear strategy for success, and there is great progress being made on the ground. We are succeeding and we will succeed.’

I heard the President say: 'We have a clear path forward.’

I heard that Halliburton had built a wall around the Green Zone, made of 12-foot-high, five-ton concrete slabs, topped with concertina wire. I heard that mortars fired into the Green Zone often fell short and landed in the neighbourhoods just outside the wall, and that frustrated suicide bombers, unable to get into the Green Zone, would blow themselves up outside the wall. I heard Saman Abdel Aziz Rahman, the owner of the Serawan Kebab Restaurant, which is next door to a restaurant where a suicide bomber at lunchtime had killed 23 people, say: 'We are the new Palestine.’ I heard Haider al-Shawaf, who lives on al-Shawaf Street, now bisected by the wall, say twice, in English: 'It was very nice street. It was very nice street.’

I heard the President say: 'America will not leave before the job is done.’ I heard Dick Cheney predict that the fighting would be over by the time the administration ends in 2009.

*

After Amnesty International compared American treatment of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners to the Gulag, I heard the President say: 'It’s an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of, and the allegations by, people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble – that means not tell the truth.’

I heard that most of the insurgent violence in Iraq was personally directed by a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I heard that rumours of his presence had led to the US bombings of Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, Samarra, and a village in Kurdistan, but each time he had narrowly escaped. I heard that he had been seen recently in Jordan, Syria, Iran and Pakistan. I heard that he was closely linked with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the government of Syria. I heard that he was the bitter enemy of bin Laden, the secularist Saddam and the secularist Syrian government. I heard that he had died in Afghanistan. I heard that, after an injury in Afghanistan, his leg had been amputated in a hospital in Iraq, which was proof of Saddam’s connections to terrorism. I heard he was still walking on two legs. I heard he was one of the hooded men in a video showing the decapitation of a young American, Nick Berg, although the men never removed their hoods. I heard that he had died recently in Mosul when eight men blew themselves up rather than surrender to the US forces who had surrounded their house. I heard Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, an important Shia cleric in Baghdad, say that Zarqawi had been killed long ago, but the US was using him as a 'ploy’. I heard the President compare him to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. I heard that he had fewer than a hundred followers in Iraq.

I heard that there could be as many as a hundred groups responsible for the suicide bombings and I heard that many of them were connected to Ansar al-Islam, which had many more followers in Iraq than Zarqawi and had actual ties to Osama bin Laden before the war. Ansar al-Islam was almost never mentioned in administration speeches or in the press, since it is a Kurdish group, and all Kurds are presumed to be allies of the US.

I heard that unemployment for young men in Sunni areas was now 40 per cent. I heard that the annual per capita income was $77, half of what it was the year before; and that only 37 per cent of families had homes connected to a sewage system, half of what it was before the war.

I heard General George Casey say: 'Iraq slowly gets better every day.’ I heard Lieutenant Colonel Vincent Quarles, commander of the 4-3 Brigade Troops Battalion, say: 'It’s hard to see all the progress that has been made. But things are getting better.’

I heard that the Pentagon was supposed to deliver a report to Congress on the training and capability of the Iraqi security forces, but that it had missed the deadline and was reluctant to release the report. I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'It’s not for us to tell the other side, the enemy, the terrorists, that this Iraqi unit has this capability, and that Iraqi unit has this capability. The idea of discussing weaknesses, if you will, strengths and weaknesses – "this unit has a poor chain of command," or "these forces are not as effective because their morale’s down." I mean, it would be mindless to put that kind of information out.’

I heard General William Webster say that the insurgents’ ability 'to conduct sustained, high-intensity operations, as they did last year – we’ve mostly eliminated that.’ In the next few days, I heard that suicide bombings in Baghdad had increased, including one at a school that killed some two dozen children, and the explosion in the central square of a stolen truck of liquefied gas, killing at least 71 people and wounding 156 others. I heard that the highest-ranking diplomat from Algeria had been kidnapped. I heard that the highest-ranking diplomat from Egypt had been kidnapped and killed. I heard that no Arab country would send an ambassador.

I heard an unnamed 'senior army intelligence officer’ say: 'We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents, but they’re being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge.’ I heard him say that the US military was having a hard time understanding the insurgency’s unlikely coalitions of secular Baath Party members and Islamic militants.

I heard that, after a car bomb killed several children, the Task Force Baghdad 3rd Infantry Division released a statement quoting an 'Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified’: 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.’ A few weeks later, after a car bomb killed 25 people near the al-Rashad police station, I heard that the Task Force Baghdad 3rd Infantry Division released a statement quoting an 'Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified’: 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.’

I heard that the administration had decided it would no longer refer to a War on Terror. The new name was the Global Struggle against Violent Extremism.

I heard General Richard Myers say: 'I’ve objected to the use of the term "War on Terrorism" before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution. And it’s more than terrorism. The long-term problem is as much diplomatic, as much economic – in fact, more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.’

I heard that the administration had decided it would no longer refer to the Global Struggle against Violent Extremism, which was too long. The new name was now the old War on Terror.

I heard the President say: 'Make no mistake about it, we’re at war. We’re at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. We’re at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill.’

I heard Abdul Henderson, a former marine corporal, say: 'We were firing into small towns. You see people just running, cars going, guys falling off bikes. It was just sad. You just sit there and look through your binos and see things blowing up, and you think, man they have no water, living in the third world, and we’re just bombing them to hell. Blowing up buildings, shrapnel tearing people to shreds.’

*

I heard a 'former high-level intelligence official’ say: 'This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next we’re going to have the Iranian campaign.’ I heard Condoleezza Rice say that an invasion of Iran 'is not on the menu at this time’.

I heard that John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the United Nations, had said: 'There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power in the world – and that is the United States – when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along.’ I heard that he keeps a bronze hand grenade on his desk.

I heard the President say: 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table.’ I heard the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, say: 'The President makes decisions based on what is right for the American people.’

I heard about despair. I heard the President say: 'As democracy in Iraq takes root, the enemies of freedom, the terrorists, will become more desperate.’ I heard about hope. I heard him say: 'These terrorists and insurgents will fail. We have a strategy for success in Iraq. As Iraqis stand up, Americans and Coalition forces will stand down.’

I heard an unnamed 'top US commander’ question how the current Iraqi Ministry of Defence, largely staffed by civilians appointed by the US, would be capable of maintaining an army: 'What is lacking are the systems that pay people, that supply people, that recruit people, that replace the wounded and AWOL, and systems that promote people and provide spare parts.’ I heard that the ministry had deposited $759 million in the personal bank account of a former money trader.

*

I heard a White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, say: 'The President knows one of his most important responsibilities is to comfort the families of the fallen.’ I heard Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey had been killed in Iraq, describe her meeting with the President.

I heard her say: 'He first got there, he walked in and said: "So who are we honouring here?" He didn’t even know Casey’s name, he didn’t, nobody could have whispered to him: "Mr President, this is the Sheehan family, their son Casey was killed in Iraq." We thought that was pretty disrespectful to not even know Casey’s name, and to walk in and say: "So who are we honourin’ here?" Like: "Let’s get on with it, let’s get somebody honoured here." So anyway, he went up to my oldest daughter, I keep calling her my oldest daughter but she’s actually my oldest child now, and he said: "So who are you to the loved one?" And Carly goes: "Casey was my brother." And George Bush says: "I wish I could bring your loved one back, to fill the hole in your heart." And Carly said: "Yeah, so do we." And Bush said: "I’m sure you do." And he gave her a dirty look and turned away from her.’

As the President moved to his ranch for a six-week summer vacation, Cindy Sheehan camped out at the entrance, demanding another meeting, which the President refused. I heard him say: 'I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life. I think the people want the President to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising.’

I heard that privately he had said: 'I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch. She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.’

*

I heard that 82 per cent of Iraqis were 'strongly opposed’ to the presence of foreign troops and 45 per cent supported armed attacks against them. Less than 1 per cent believed that the foreign troops had made the country more secure.

I heard 'top military commanders’ say that we could expect 'some fairly substantial reductions’ in troops by next spring. I heard them add that the reduction would come after 'a short-term bulge in troop levels’.

I heard that 1100 bodies were brought to the Baghdad morgue in one month, many with hands bound and a bullet in the head. I heard that between 10 and 20 per cent were too disfigured to be identified. I heard that in the Saddam era the number was normally around 200. I heard that doctors were ordered not to perform post-mortems on bodies brought in by US troops.

On a single day, I heard that fighting had broken out between two Shia militias in Najaf, leaving 19 dead; that the bodies of 37 Shia soldiers, each killed with a single bullet to the head, had been found in a river south of Baghdad; that Jalal Talabani had escaped an assassination attempt in which eight of his bodyguards were killed and 15 injured. On that same day, I heard an 'unnamed White House official’ say that the Iraqis were 'making substantial and real progress’.

I heard Condoleezza Rice say: 'It’s a lot easier to see the violence and suicide bombing than to see the rather quiet political progress that’s going on in parallel.’ I heard her say that the insurgency was 'losing steam’.

As riots broke out in Baghdad over the lack of electricity, I heard Nadeem Haki, a shop-owner in Baghdad, say: 'We thank God that the air we breathe is not in the hands of the government. Otherwise they would have cut it off for a few hours each day.’

I heard General Barry McCaffrey say, after returning from an inspection of Iraq: 'This thing, the wheels are coming off of it.’

*

I heard that the President’s approval rating had fallen to 36 per cent, lower than Nixon’s during the summer of Watergate. I heard that 50 per cent now believed that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake. I heard Trent Duffy say that the President 'believes that those who want the US to begin to change course in Iraq do not want America to win the overall War on Terror. He can understand that people don’t share his view that we must win the War on Terror – but he just has a different view.’ I heard that the President, at a strategy meeting, had said: 'Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say? I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamn please. They don’t know shit.’

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: 'It’s been alleged that we’re not winning. Throughout history there have always been those who predict America’s failure just around every corner. At the height of World War Two, many Western intellectuals praised Stalin. For a time, Communism was very much in vogue. Those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through.’

I heard General Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, say that the US would withdraw a significant number of troops within a year. I heard him say: 'We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the Coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.’ The day before, I heard the President say that withdrawal would 'only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free countries. So long as I’m the President, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the War on Terror.’

I heard the President, still on vacation at his ranch, say: 'A time of war is a time of sacrifice.’ I heard a reporter ask him if he planned to do any fishing, and I heard the President reply: 'I don’t know yet. I haven’t made up my mind yet. I’m kind of hanging loose, as they say.’

I heard that the US was now spending $195 million a day on the war and that the cost had already exceeded, by $50 billion, US expenses in all of World War One. I heard that $195 million would provide 12 meals a day for every starving child on earth.

*

I heard the President, at North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego, compare the War on Terror to World War Two. I heard him quote the words of Captain Randy Stone, a marine in Iraq: 'I know we will win because I see it in the eyes of the marines every morning. In their eyes is the sparkle of victory.’ In a long speech, I heard him briefly mention Hurricane Katrina, which had struck a few days before and which, at the time, was believed to have killed tens of thousands. I heard him say: 'I urge everyone in the affected areas to continue to follow instructions from state and local authorities.’

I heard that the emergency response to the hurricane had been hampered because 35 per cent of the Louisiana National Guard and 40 per cent of the Mississippi National Guard, as well as much of their equipment and vehicles, were in Iraq. Approximately 5000 Guards and troops were eventually deployed; in 1992, following Hurricane Andrew in Florida, George Bush Sr had sent in 36,000 troops. I heard that the Guardsmen in Iraq were denied emergency two-week leave to help or find their families. I heard they were told by their commanders that there were too few US troops in Iraq to spare them.

A few weeks after the hurricane, I heard the President say: 'You know, something we – I’ve been thinking a lot about how America has responded, and it’s clear to me that Americans value human life, and value every person as important. And that stands in stark contrast, by the way, to the terrorists we have to deal with. You see, we look at the destruction caused by Katrina, and our hearts break. They’re the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it. We’re in a war against these people. It’s a War on Terror.’

*

On the day after an estimated 200,000 people demonstrated against the war in Washington, a pro-war rally was held on the Mall. I heard Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama, address the crowd: 'The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty and spreading that around the world. I frankly don’t know what they represent.’ The crowd was estimated at 400.

I heard that, along with the $30 billion appropriated by Congress, the US Agency for International Development was also seeking private donations: 'Now you can donate high-impact development assistance that directly improves the lives of thousands of Iraqis.’ I heard that USAID’s 'extraordinary appeal’ had raised $600, but I heard Heather Layman, spokeswoman for USAID, say that she was not disappointed: 'Every little bit helps.’

In 2003, Dick Cheney had said: 'Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice-president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.’ I heard that he was still receiving deferred compensation and owned more than 433,000 stock options. Those options were worth $241,498 in 2004. In 2005 they were worth more than $8 million. Along with its $10 billion no-bid contracts in Iraq, Halliburton was hired to expand the prison at Guantanamo and was among the first to receive a no-bid contract for Hurricane Katrina relief.

I heard the President say: 'At this moment, more than a dozen Iraqi battalions have completed training and are conducting anti-terrorist operations in Ramadi and Fallujah. More than 20 battalions are operating in Baghdad. And some have taken the lead in operations in major sectors of the city. In total, more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq. Our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are operating with increasing effectiveness.’

An Iraqi battalion has about 700 soldiers. The next day I heard General George Casey tell Congress that the number of 'combat ready’ Iraqi battalions had dropped from three to one. I heard him say: 'Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time.’ When asked when the American people can expect troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, I heard him reply: 'I don’t want to get into a date. I wouldn’t even want to go there, wouldn’t even want to go there.’

I heard Colonel Stephen Davis, commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team 2, tell a group of Iraqis that the US was not leaving: 'We’re not going anywhere. Some of you are concerned about the attack helicopters and mortar fire from the base. I will tell you this: those are the sounds of peace.’

I heard General George Casey say that the insurgency 'is failing. We are more relentless in our progress than those who seek to disrupt it.’

I heard General John Abizaid say: 'The insurgency doesn’t have a chance for victory.’

I heard Condoleezza Rice say: 'We have made significant progress.’

I heard Major General Rick Lynch, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, say: 'Zarqawi is on the ropes.’

As the administration celebrated the approval of the long-delayed constitution, I heard Safia Taleb al-Suhail – the daughter of a man who was executed by Saddam Hussein and who, in a staged moment during the State of the Union address, embraced the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq – say: 'When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened – we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It’s a big disappointment.’

I heard an Iraqi Shia sergeant say: 'Just let us have our constitution and elections in December and then we will do what Saddam did – start with five people from each neighbourhood and kill them in the streets and then go from there.’

*

I heard Melvin Laird, secretary of defense under Nixon during the Vietnam War, call for the withdrawal of troops. I heard him say of the President: 'When troops are dying, the commander in chief cannot be coy, vague or secretive. His West Texas cowboy approach – shoot first and answer questions later, or do the job first and let the results speak for themselves – is not working.’

I heard Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser and a close friend of Bush Sr, say: 'I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes. You encourage democracy over time, with assistance and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neo-cons do it.’ They 'believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required. How do the neo-cons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelise.’ I heard him say that America is now 'suffering from the consequences of this brand of revolutionary utopianism’.

I heard Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, say that foreign policy had been 'hijacked’ by the 'Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal’. I heard him say that Rumsfeld was 'given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw itself in a closet somewhere’. I heard him say: 'If something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence.’

*

I heard that 2000 US soldiers had been killed in Iraq; that 15,220 had been wounded in combat, including more than 7100 who were 'injured too badly to return to duty’; and that thousands more had been 'hurt in incidents unrelated to combat’.

I heard that a spokesman for the US military in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, had sent an email to journalists asking them to downplay the marker of 2000 dead: 'When you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq. The 2000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives.’

I heard that 65 per cent of Americans now believed that the Iraq war was based on falsified information; only 42 per cent considered the President 'honest and ethical’ and only 29 per cent considered Dick Cheney 'honest and ethical’.

I heard the President say: 'Anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.’

I heard Dick Cheney say: 'The suggestion that’s been made by some US senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.’

A few days later, I heard Dick Cheney complain that the 'liberal’ media had distorted his remarks. As evidence, I heard him cite a headline that read: 'Cheney says war critics "dishonest, reprehensible".’ Then, in the same speech, I heard him say: 'I will again say it is dishonest and reprehensible. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety.’

*

I heard Congressman John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, a marine colonel decorated in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and a prominent military hawk, with tears in his eyes call for the withdrawal of US troops within six months. I heard Scott McClellan say: 'It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing.’ I heard Congressman Geoff Davis, Republican from Kentucky, say: 'Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, as well as Abu Musab al Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can’t do that there, so they’ve brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress.’ I heard Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, Republican from Ohio, say: 'Cowards cut and run. Marines never do.’

I heard the President say: 'Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing US forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.’

I heard that, at an extraordinary 'meeting of reconciliation’, a hundred Shia, Sunni and Kurdish leaders had signed a statement demanding 'a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable’.

I heard that their statement also said: 'National resistance is a legitimate right of all nations.’

I heard Congresswoman Jean Schmidt say: 'The big picture is that these Islamic insurgents want to destroy us. They don’t like us. They don’t like us because we’re black, we’re white, we’re Christian, we’re Jew, we’re educated, we’re free, we’re not Islamic. We can never be Islamic because we were not born Islamic. Now, this isn’t the Islamic citizens. These are the insurgents. And it is their desire for us to leave so they can take over the whole Middle East and then take over the world. And I didn’t learn this just in the last few weeks or the last few months. I learned this when I was at the University of Cincinnati in 1970, studying Middle Eastern history.’

*

I heard that, in Fallujah and elsewhere, the US had employed white phosphorus munitions, an incendiary device, known among soldiers as 'Willie Pete’ or 'shake and bake’, which is banned as a weapon by the Convention on Conventional Weapons. Similar to napalm, it leaves the victim horribly burned, often right through to the bone. I heard a State Department spokesman say: 'US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.’ Then I heard him say that 'US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.’ Then I heard a Pentagon spokesman say that the previous statements were based on 'poor information’, and that 'it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.’ Then I heard the Pentagon say that white phosphorus was not an illegal weapon, because the US had never signed that provision of the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

I heard that US troops had accidentally come across an Interior Ministry bunker in Baghdad with more than 170 Sunni prisoners who had been captured by Shia paramilitary groups and tortured, some with electric drills. I heard Hussein Kamal, the deputy interior minister, say: 'One or two detainees were paralysed and some had their skin peeled off various parts of their bodies.’ I heard a State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, say: 'We don’t practise torture. And we don’t believe that others should practise torture.’

I heard that the Senate, after an hour of debate, voted to deny habeas corpus protection to prisoners in Guantanamo. The last time the US suspended the right to trial was during the Civil War.

I heard that a human rights organisation, Christian Peacemaker Teams, was distributing a questionnaire to inmates released from Iraqi prisons. Those surveyed were asked to check 'yes’ or 'no’ after each question:

Stripped of your clothing (nude)?
Beaten by hand (punches)?
Beaten by stick or rod?
Beaten by cables, wires or belts?
Held at gunpoint?
Hooded?
Had cold water poured on you?
Had a rope tied to your genitalia?
Called names, insults?
Threatened or touched by dogs?
Dragged by rope or belt?
Denied prayer or wudhu [ablution]?
Forced to perform sexual acts?
Were you raped or sodomised?
Did someone improperly touch your genitalia?
Did you witness any sexual acts while in detention?
Did you witness any rapes of men, women or children?
Urinated on or made to touch faeces, or had faeces thrown at you?
Denied sleep?
Denied food?
Witnessed any deaths?
Did you witness any torture or mistreatment to others?
Forced to wear woman’s clothes? [Question for men only]
Were you burned or exposed to extreme heat?
Exposed to severe cold?
Subjected to electric shock?
Forced to act like a dog?
Forced in uncomfortable positions for a
lengthy period of time?
Forced to stand or sit in a painful manner for lengthy periods of time?
Lose consciousness?
Forced to hit others?
Hung by feet?
Hung by hands or arms?
Threatened to have family killed?
Family members detained?
Witnessed family members tortured?
Forced to sign anything?
Photographed?

I heard a man who had been in Abu Ghraib prison say: 'The Americans brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house.’

*

I heard that the Lincoln Group, a public relations firm in Washington, had received $100 million from the Pentagon to promote the war. As well as bribing Iraqi journalists, often with monthly stipends, the Lincoln Group was writing its own articles and paying Iraqi newspapers to publish them. I heard that the articles, intending to have local appeal, had titles such as 'The Sands Are Blowing toward a Democratic Iraq’ or 'Iraqi Forces Capture al-Qaida Fighters Crawling like Dogs’. I heard a Pentagon spokesman, Major General Rick Lynch, say: 'We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction.’ I heard him quote the al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri: 'Remember, half the battle is the battlefield of the media.’

I heard that the average monthly war coverage on the ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts, combined, had gone from 388 minutes in 2003, to 274 in 2004, to 166 in 2005.

I heard that 2110 US troops had died in Iraq and more than 15,881 had been wounded. Ninety-four per cent of those deaths had come after the 'Mission Accomplished’ speech, the first two sentences of which were: 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.’ I heard there were now an average of a hundred insurgent attacks a day and an average of three American soldiers dying, the highest violence and casualty rates since the war began.

I heard that the President, in response to the increasing criticism, was going to reveal a new strategy for Iraq. On 30 November 2005, the administration issued a 35-page report: 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’. On a page headed 'Our Strategy Is Working’, I read that, on the 'Economic Track’, 'Our Restore, Reform, Build strategy is achieving results’; on the 'Political Track’, 'Our Isolate, Engage and Build strategy is working’; and on the 'Security Track’, 'Our Clear, Hold and Build strategy is working.’ General goals would be achieved in the 'short’, 'medium’ or 'long’ term. The report ended with 'The Eight Strategic Pillars’ ('Strategic Pillar One: Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralise the Insurgency; Strategic Pillar Two: Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance’), like the Five Pillars of Islam or Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I heard that the 'Strategy’ contained few specific details because it was the 'public version of a classified document’. Then I heard that there was no classified document.

That same day, I heard the President address the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. I heard him say: 'We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.’ I heard him say: 'To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.’ In a front of a huge sign that read plan for victory, he stood at a podium bearing a huge sign that read plan for victory. I wondered whether 'plan’ was a verb.

That same day, I heard that members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams had been kidnapped by members of the Swords of Islam.

4 December 2005

Bomb Iraq --Anthem

The New American (Bush) Anthem

If You're Happy And You Know It - Bomb Iraq
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/anthem.html

R.I.P.

This is a picture of a woman of a certain age (98 years, to be precise) resting on the "box" her grandson made for her eventual cremation. That event will occur in the next few days, depending on the holiday schedule of those who provide such services.

I thought I was ready to go into detail about why this is the first day of my life, but the explanation for why I suddenly feel free is going to have to wait.

*****
December 26

Didn't want to leave the impression that it was somehow too hard to describe my new-found freedom. It was just that with the holiday rushing at us, I just didn't have the right focus. There were so many other things to attend to. And just wallowing in the luxury of so much leisure and free time was really irresistible--including the opportunity to indulge long, unhurried walks in the early morning. I really hadn't realized how every activity, especially in the last few months, had to be rushed because it was impossible to predict when an apparently lethargic person would suddenly demand instant attention and, if it wasn't immediately forthcoming, would just take off. A leisurely shower was out of the question. It was as if the sound of the water pump was a signal that someone's attention was not properly fixed.

To say that Emilie Margarete Pontzen (that was her full name which, even after her brief marriage was ended, she never changed) needed to be the center of attention is to put it mildly. It wasn't just that she needed to be focus of other people's interest, the more the better, but she needed to hold that attention with her speech.

Which is why the fact that I, her only child, always hated the sound of her voice is truly ironic. How could nature play such a trick? There's been some suggestion that it was nurture, rather than nature, or the lack thereof, which generated the sensation of being repulsed by the maternal voice, but there's not one behavior or act I could associate with that. I just know that as a very small child of two or three, when I was a regular at the neighboring farmer's table, I already cringed when I heard from her voice that I was about to be taken home. That I was going to be examined for flees when we got back to our two-room hut wasn't that onerous an experience. Though it may account for the somewhat extreme sense of personal privacy I've exhibited ever since. Or maybe that was just a reaction to the fact that she had almost none--a characteristic she ascribed to the fact that she'd been in the theater where people were used to being on display while taking care of their personal hygiene needs.

No, I'm pretty sure it was just the voice that turned me off, combined with an accute sense of hearing on my part. Part of the problem with that voice was that it was always too loud. I could not speak in a whisper and seemed entirely incapable of modulation in response to its surroundings. There were just two settings: loud on or off. And off was definitely not the default.

Since the owner of the voice box, at least during the sixty-four years of my existence, tended to relocate every two years, on average, getting a new audience for that voice was not that much of a problem. And, of course, the relocations themselves were the subject of introductory recitations and, after those were done, there was always a long history to recount. I suppose one could say that her whole life was lived in pursuit of an audience. Perhaps others found the voice just as grating and managed to absent themselves in response, thereby contributing to the sensation that it was time to move on. Perhaps they even felt guilty and that accounts for many faithful correspondants--people who were content to keep in touch via letters over many decades. Certainly the recipient as often as not found herself at a loss as to why these people were still writing; why they were sharing experiences in which she obviously had no interest. If they weren't available to talk to, then the only thing worth noting was their expressions of support, praise and good wishes for her continued existence.

Obviously, I was never able to effectuate a permanent absence. And, living at some distance wasn't much consolation either since it meant that I developed a strong resistance to answering the phone to avoid hearing her voice at the other end. In addition, if opportunities to "converse" were sparse, each conversation had to be that much longer to make up for the neglect. Of course, that was the case when she shared the house as well.
Any conversation with anyone else, whether in person or on the phone, had to be paid for by conversing with her, as compensation for her deprivation. Because that's how any interaction, even attending to the evening news on the TV, was interpreted--as a deprivation of attention that was her due and, therefor, an occasion of resentment.

Telephone conversations in which she was not a participant were a particular source of distress. Not only was she not the one speaking, her interruptions to assert her presence were likely to be ignored and that was really irksome. No matter how much the other members in the household reduced the number or length of telephone conversations, she accused them of "spending all their time on the phone." During the last year, answering the phone was almost as certain as taking a shower to elicit a demand for attention via the ringing of her little brass bell.

The spouse considered my giving her a bell to ring for assistance a bad idea. Partly, I suspect, because his progressive deafness let him shut out the voice, but not the bell. But, what he didn't realize was that the bell was part of my continuing efforts to minimize the number of times she would have reason to talk to me. If she rang the bell, which, as often as not, she actually refused to use, then it gave me the opportunity to start and stop the verbal interchange--to ask what was needed and then to absent myself to get it. Performing a task was always preferable to giving a listen to her musings. And it wasn't just because over 60+ years the musings were rather invariable, usually prompted by resentment of someone else's success or the failure to give her whatever she perceived to be her due.

I say "perceived" with good reason because getting her due, or more, did not provide any satisfaction. While she recognized, for example, that I had long provided for her physical well-being, she referred to my, behind my back, as "the boss." And to my face she conceded that I had been "a good nurse." My reality as her daughter was a foreign concept and, indeed, during some of her periods of reduced rationality in the last year, she forgot that she was a mother entirely. Or perhaps that was actually increased rationality, since she hadn't ever been much of a mother.

I think I began to realize that when she got her first dog after having been without one since before I was born. Because I suddenly recognized that her manner of talking to the dog, grooming it rather incessantly, and expressing her displeasure with its behavior were exactly the same as I remembered from when I was a child. The dog, a schnauzer, did not respond well. It bit her from time to time, but I suppose she appreciated that it shared her antagonism towards all males, even if it had to be locked in the bathroom when any visitors arrived. That her bridge group had to be seated before the dog could be let out was yet another opportunity to dominate the situation. Why people put up with this regimentation week after week is beyond me. But I did appreciate their forbearance since these social encounters, as did her string of foreign students who wanted to practice their English, provided me with some hours of independence. On the other hand, the dog's antagonistic behavior added yet another reason for curtailing our own inclinations to host friends and relations.

The dog having to be walked, four and five times a day, did insure a level of physical activity which kept her basically healthy. But when the dog began to suffer from various infirmities, she simply had it put to sleep and then focused on here loneliness, a factual condition since she had, yet again, terminated her association with our household (having shared it for about six years--three times as long as when she first retired in 1970). So, she decided to relocate closer to where I had moved in Georgia, to an apartment in a large complex where, I suspect, she expected a larger audience. It didn't materialize and within about two years she was spending much of most days sitting in her rooms, doing nothing but waiting for me to attend to her needs.

Even the first summer, when we went off to New Hampshire, she called every morning to let us know she was still living. That was not an ideal situation but since we knew who was calling, we could decide whose turn it was to answer the phone. Then, when it got to the point where she was no longer leaving the apartment, we determined to have her come live with us while building on a necessary addition to the house kept me too busy to do much talking.

But, she resisted coming with us to New Hampshire until we promised to get her another dog to keep her company while I was busy with gardening and the rest of the family. The stray mutt we found in an ad in the paper wasn't nearly as temperamental as the schnauzer. In addition, though I'm not keen on pets of any kind, I made sure that this one got some real attention, including an obedience class where it learned to walk slowly to accommodate a doddering old lady. Even so, as we all expected, it eventually got to the point where the dog was too frisky (going after a squirrel) and she ended up hitting her head on the curb. After that, walking the dog became my responsibility. Or rather, I took it on. The old lady seemed quite ready at times to have it put away since she wasn't able to care for it as she wanted. Every couple of weeks, whether or not the dog was to be killed became a topic of conversation. But "the boss" never agreed to it.

Don't think that this was reassuring. My failure to participate in putting the dog away was consistent with my failure to "help" her out of her misery, as well. Though it remained doubtful to the very end that she actually wanted out. After all, she'd been talking about her imminent death for thirty-five years. So, it seems fair to conclude that this was just one of her favorite attention getting spiels. She even tried it on the hospice nurses who came every week in the last three months. They seemed relieved to be able to respond with a rather flip assertion that that's not their job, since I was able to assure them that this conversational gambit hadn't ever been supported by any relevant act.

As recorded elsewhere, in the last three weeks she left her bed less and less but the volume of conversation increased even as it made less and less sense. At times she was talking to long-dead relatives and obviously reliving child-hood memories. Then, about a week before her voice was finally stilled, she announced that she would probably die because she had finally decided that she wanted to live. But, that was a fleeting position or perhaps just a fleeting moment of clarity. During the last two days, her utterances, albeit punctuated by brief silences, became almost constant day and night, until I had to turn down the monitor just to get a few hours of sleep, counting on the sounds of real distress to wake me up.

So, when she'd taken her final raspy breath and I could detect no more motion, I had to keep checking for an hour and a half to convince myself that the voice I had heard my entire life was finally stilled and I was free.

There are some things that one cannot change.

To Impeach--Or Not

Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush
by FRANCIS A. BOYLE
professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law

ARTICLE I

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE II

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office

ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 86, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.)

Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush
by FRANCIS A. BOYLE
professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law

2003

http://www.warnewsradio.org/show/

Variability Ends?

Today has not been a good day for the Omi. Although her chatter in the early hours of the morning were intelligible, as the day has progressed, her utterances are less and less distinct. She ate just half of her cereal and a partial jar of fruit and has drunk very little water.

For much of the afternoon she's been making moaning noises, interrupted by silences when her breathing is very shallow. Arms and legs still move seemingly at random. I can't tell if her apparent lassitude is intentional.

*****

A rather tedious night with one or another sequence of non-sensical sounds being rather continuous. I turned down the monitor so I would be awakened by only the loudest. None got be out of bed until about 4:30, when I'd obviously had enough rest. I brought her some water and a dose of the elixyr. It's not making any difference.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 21
Most of yesterday was spent moaning and groaning. She did surface in a responsive frame of mind about mid-morning and I fixed her cereal and she ate about two-thirds of it. The elixyr went down, but barely. Swallowing has to be prompted. Otherwise, she just lets things run down her throat and that causes choking and coughing.

It was clear that direct communications right up close are still being understood, but no explanations or answers to questions are forth-coming. And efforts to speak are limited by an inability to complete a sentence.

Towards late after noon, I fed her a jar of Hawaiian delight and that went down well. The tapioca gives it a consistence that keeps it from running and the prompt to swallow has time to work. I do think that swallowing is not longer automatic. As a result, fluids are getting into her air-way and she's having to cough more and more to clear it out.

It was mostly quiet until close to midnight when the chattering (unintelligible or German) started up. Actually, "chattering" is not a good word. What she does is she makes utterances (sometime one word, sometimes more) that sort of errupt in no particular order and at no regular rate. I'm not sure whether they are connected to a breathing pattern I observed when I was watching her, which involved a gradual slowing of the rate and increasing shallowness until it almost seemed to halt, as the mouth dropped open, and then, as if there was a little jolt, the breathing would resume more strongly and regularly. One is reminded of a water pump that is sucking air and then recovers as there is more fluid to pump.

At one point during the night the utterances were pretty lucid and I heard her calling the dog, perhaps in an effort to take her leave from her "Gypsie." She's not said "good-bye" to the dog before. I think it was Monday she took her leave from Julian and me and shook our hands rather formally.

And so it goes. In another couple of hours the sun will be up. The days are supposed to get longer, starting today.

******
6:00PM
Although I've been able to administer a couple of doses of elixyr and a couple of droppers of water during the day, most of the time the Omi has seemed nearly comatose, although her arms and head move rather jerkily from time to time.

Her breathing continues irregular. There's obviously some fluid building up and breathing stops for up to ten seconds at a time and then resumes with a bit more emphasis. She coughts from time to time, but it's not productive. She's not been able to help with the changing of the Depends, though she's not resistant to being moved as she was during earlier times of illness.

Sorry if this sounds too clinical. I've looke up breathing irregularities on the internet and the pattern we are seeing seems to be pretty typical of what is referred to as "active dying." If people want to accommodate the desire to end life at home, then that's what the survivors have to be prepared to experience.
*****

Not yet. Although there was some babbling late last night, the verbalizations weren't comprehensible, unlike the night before when the Omi was calling her dog.

The breathing irregularity has become more regular in the sense that the on/off cycles are now about of equal length, about ten seconds. It's eerie how one holds one's own breath when one is listening hard.

****

3:00PM
Breathing is regular, rasping caused by a film of mucous at the back of the throat. There's no response to being touched or talked to. Eyes are partly open but register no recognition.

The nurse is expected some time this afternoon. Perhaps she'll clear the mucous.

5:15PM
The end

For Shame

Is the Congress not shamed that this is a true report from the 21st Century?

Rev. Dr. Linda M. Maloney is from the St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Enosburg Falls, VT. We see Linda often at DFA headquarters, and she joins us online today to share the story of her arrest in Washington, D.C. last week.

At Christmas time many people read, reread, or see a movie or play of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. (My personal favorite is the Muppets version.) That 19th-century Victorian story of redemption and rescue warms our hearts every year. So it feels rather strange?not to say downright creepy?to see its plot being enacted in reverse in our own country in the twenty-first century. The House of Representatives has (by two votes) passed a budget resolution that would take away Tiny Tim's crutches, along with his Christmas goose, and give the money to Ebenezer Scrooge. This is the real "Christmas scandal" of 2005, thus why I decided to raise my voice and lay down my body in protest of it when I traveled to Washington, D.C. last week.

The protest on Capitol Hill, supported by more than seventy other prayer vigils around the country, was hosted by Sojourners and Call to Renewal, a coalition of churches and faith-based organizations that serve the poor. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, spoke of it as an "altar call," and indeed, it felt very much like a revival. After an evening of prayer and a morning of training, those of us who had volunteered to risk arrest went forward at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation to receive our red stoles. During the previous evening's prayer we had learned more details of the House bill, which proposed to cut some 235,000 people off from food stamps and to cut Medicaid funding for coverage of such things as eyeglasses, hearing aids, and?yes?crutches.

As I walked from Union Station to the church on Wednesday morning I was greeted and blessed by a homeless man sitting in the park with his belongings in a shopping cart. He asked for nothing. The same was true of the homeless woman who wished me well as I returned to the station that evening. During the protest itself, I was surrounded by other clergy and lay people from all over the United States whose hearts were broken, as mine was, by the assault on the poor represented in this budget. The logic of paying for aid to Katrina victims by cutting programs that serve those same people escapes us. Moreover, while cutting $35-50 billion from aid to poor people, student loans, Head Start, and other valuable programs, the Congress proposes more than $60 billion in tax cuts targeted almost exclusively at the rich.

Shortly after 10 a.m. Wednesday we processed from the church to the Cannon House Office Building. The temperature was below freezing, but the skies were clear. Our hearts were both heavy with the burden of our sorrow and light with our hope in the power of the Gospel. At the Cannon building we held a media presentation, with songs and prayers and addresses from such leaders as Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, the Rev. Robert Edgar of the National Council of Churches, and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action. I met other Episcopalians in the group, as well as Lutherans, U.C.C. pastors, Unitarian Universalists, Presbyterians, United Methodists, Catholic sisters, and members of a variety of Free Church traditions, including many African Americans and Latino-Americans.

At around 11 a.m. we moved to the front steps of the Cannon building, where we knelt to sing and pray. By prearrangement, the Capitol police surrounded us and warned us, three times, to disperse or be arrested. After the third warning, the arrests began. In total, 115 of us were arrested, handcuffed, put on buses, and taken to a detention center that had been set up in a police warehouse in Southwest Washington. Our demonstration was being used as a training event for police cadets, who were present by the dozen to cuff us, escort us to the buses, and process us at the center. We were, of course, a far more polite and compliant group than they are otherwise likely to handle?but if our country continues to make war abroad and pay for it by cutting services at home, the Capitol police may have a lot more demonstrations to deal with in the future.

A high point of the day for me happened soon after I boarded the bus. My hands were cuffed behind my back with some very uncomfortable hard plastic bands and, after more than an hour in the freezing weather, my nose was running. I asked one of my fellow detainees to turn his back and see if he could reach into my pocket for a tissue, but about that time one of the young officers-to-be, seeing us standing up, came to find out what was happening; he took the tissue from my pocket and wiped my nose for me.

It was a more difficult day for those who had to wait in the cold for the third or fourth bus, and then had to stand for hours in line, still handcuffed, waiting to be processed. But they got to enjoy a delicious moment that the first busload didn't see: someone came out of the Cannon building carrying a copy of Jim Wallis's bestselling book, God's Politics, and asked him to autograph it?which he did.

We were all charged with "incommoding" for blocking the entrance to a federal building. The charge carries a maximum penalty of $250 fine and/or ninety days in jail, but by prearrangement we agreed to "post and forfeit." We each paid $50 and that was that.

For the first of us (I was number 3), the whole affair lasted about five hours. The first five of us were released about 4:30 in the afternoon and people from Sojourners shuttled us back to the church, where we retrieved our belongings and were debriefed. I was back at the home of friend's a few hours later, and returned home on Thursday.

I know that my experience was not even close to what it is like to be arrested for crime, or suspected crime. It was in some ways almost like being in a play. And yet it was real, and deadly earnest: we were prepared to have the agreement fall apart and find ourselves detained all night or sent to D.C. jail. (One of the sergeants told us that the police crew had to remain with us as long as we were at the processing center, which was some incentive to move us through quickly!)

This is the first time I have been arrested. I managed to avoid it during the Civil Rights struggle and the Vietnam era (I had small children at home). This time I could find no way around it. With all the cuts to services in Franklin and Grand Isle counties, including the loss of the food shelf at my own church (St. Matthew's in Enosburg Falls), I could not do less. I knew that I could not, a week from now, look on the face of the one who was born poor and laid in a manger, who later announced his mission by saying: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor," if I did not go forward when called.

Some try to make this an issue of left versus right. It is not. It is an issue of humanity and community versus inhumanity and individualism. Some say it is not the government's job to care for the poor. But "the government" is us, our instrument for carrying out our agenda and purpose as a nation. We pay taxes for the good of our nation, our community, so that we may live in peace, enjoying "the blessings of liberty." How can we even imagine a peaceful community in which millions of our own citizens, most of them children, are desperate, hungry, cold, and sick? Are these children less entitled to the blessings of liberty because they were born to parents who are poor? Jesus was one of those. What shall we say to him this Christmas about how we have cared for "the least of these," his sisters and brothers?

During Advent and at Christmas, the Christian churches read nearly every week from the prophet Isaiah. I hope we will not see fulfilled these words of the prophet: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan." Instead, I hope, and I pray, that we will prove ourselves a nation of compassion, of justice, and of faith, ready to pray confidently with Tiny Tim: "God bless us, every one!"

?Rev. Dr. Linda M. Maloney

Iraqi Dispatch

*Dirty Means, Genocide and Mass Destruction
Dedicated to the UN, UNSC and the Intel Society* /
By Sabah Ali

White flags on top of houses and cars, plenty of American and Iraqi
military vehicles, too many check points and blocks on the road, many
frightening walking patrols, curfew after sunset, heaps and heaps of
destroyed houses
,
shops, offices, the only bridge
,
hospitals

and medical care centers, walls covered with bullets shots, and election
posters?empty faces with bleak looks wandering in the streets. This is
the picture of Al-Qa?im

after the ?Steel Curtain? military operation which began on November 5,
2005 with 3,000 American and Iraqi troops participating in it.

?You are filming our miserable condition so that Bush would pity us?!
You want to soften his heart?? asked a tiny, skinny young villager
disapprovingly, with obvious resignation. She was holding a very heavy
cooking gas tube, trying to climb the river bank
.
After the only bridge which connects Rummana to Al-Qa?im was severely
bombed, citizens had to cross by boat
.

Our driver was impatient with blocked roads, he took the nearest dusty
detour whenever he saw a queue. We arrived in Qa?im around six pm; the
darkness was already thick. Our car was almost shot by the Americans,
but the driver was very quick in going down the side road. ?That?s how
families get killed? said Abu Adel, a lovable old man who asked for a
lift, and who was very keen on showing us his high education by using
broken English phrases. Abu Adel was very angry because some Iraqis make use of the refugees? misfortune and ask for double or triple rents. He
preferred to put his family in a hut rather than being blackmailed.

Electricity is cut for more than a month now, after the main station was
bombed, and the converters were bombed and the wires were cut. In the
morning Al-Qa?im looked horrible. The General Hospital was 90%
destroyed, the medical care centers, the schools, shops, houses?

The Biggest Hospital

in the Western Area

Dr. Hamdi Al-Aaloossy, the director, came to meet us outside his office.
He canceled a meeting with the reconstruction committee, ?They are just
ink on paper, those meetings,? he said. Dr. Hamdi is usually a very calm
and considerate man. This time he was really sad and fed up. The
destruction this time was ultimate. He was repeating a line from a
classical Arabic poem about how to complete building while others
destroy what is built. He showed us the gynecology
,
the pediatric
,
the emergency

departments, the blood bank, the new doctors? house. All of them
completely destroyed. ?They were hit by several missiles. Thanks heavens
there was no one here, just a mentally retarded and epileptic cleaning
worker.? Dr Hamdi was especially sad about the gynecology dept. It was
newly rebuilt in record efforts and time, with the help of The German
Red Cross. It was not opened yet. All the machines and equipment were
destroyed, even the ambulances in the hospital garage were bombed
.
They were empty. There were 5 of them. Two were destroyed in the garage.
A third was destroyed when the driver Mahmood Chiad Abid tried to rescue
a family in Karabla on October 1, 2005, killing him. The rest show
obvious evidences of shots.

?But if the hospital was empty, why was it bombed? Usually the Americans
say that there were terrorists inside?!?

?I assure you that not a single body was found under the rubble, neither
any injured person. They attacked the hospital on Nov 7, two days after
the major attack on Qa?im. There were no patients, no staff and no armed
men. There was one doctor, however, who decided to stay in the hospital.
But during the bombing she hid in a neighboring house. 90% of the
hospital was destroyed. I call upon the Health Ministry, the Iraqi
Government, the Iraqi and international organizations to help us rebuild
whatever we can. Of course the departments which are bombed are beyond repair, as you see, they have to be built anew, but we can rehabilitate the other ones. The HM did not send any delegation to see the damage and estimate the expenses. It is more than a month now, and the hospital is still not working.?

Al-Qa?im general hospital is one of the most important hospitals in the
far western area of Iraq. It covers the whole area from Haditha to the
borders, where there are hundreds small towns and villages. There are
several medical care units connected to it. In Haditha there is a
similar general hospital that covers the area from Haditha city beyond
till Ramadi. Both hospitals are now severely damaged and burnt.

Dr. Hamdi put 5 big tents for the medical, pediatric, and emergency
consultation departments in the hospital?s garden. The other ones are
for medicine and furniture store. A small bare room was used as labor
room (where there were no equipments whatsoever to examine the mother or the baby, just two beds). We attended an emergency operation. The
operation theater?s windows, walls, and doors were broken, but the staff
did their best to keep everything clean and sterilized. Everything went
well. ?You are heroes,? I said. ?No, just doing our best,? the doctor
replied.

But they were heroes, to work in such conditions. Many of the medical
staff donated blood to patients and went back to work immediately. They
have severe shortage in oxygen tubes, so they rationed it to be used
only in emergency operations. They have no more than ten tubes. ?With
people like you, there is always hope,? we said. Dr. Hamdi smiled, ?We
never lose hope.? No media coverage was present to show the Al-Qa?im
tragedy.

A Family of 17 killed in few seconds

Modhhir Najim Abdulla, a security officer in the hospital took us to his
uncle?s bombed house

where 17 women, children, and civilians were killed. The house of Arkan
was just heaps of concrete blocks; the roof was flattened to the ground.
There were 5 families living there. Not one of them was a stranger or a
fighter.

?I just want to know why, I want a justification? Modhhir began, ?the
bombing began on Nov 5, loud speakers were saying stay at home, do not
move out, and we did. 15 minutes later the bombing began. They did not
announce evacuation. We had no chance to leave.? On Nov 7, we heard that
our uncle?s house was bombed. We could not go to check; we went to the
nearest American troops and told them. They accompanied us, and this is
what we found.?

Modhhir was not crying, but his voice was full of rage. His sister
(Najla?) who was the wife of his cousin too, was pregnant in her 9th
month. She was supposed to have cesarean operation because she was a
week late for her due time. ?I can not describe her and her baby when we
removed the bodies.? Another cousin?s baby was only 25 days. A third
child?s body was not found until 2 days later. Modhhir brought the
family?s IDs, death certificates, and photos.

They are: (name, age, relation to Arkan and cause of death)

Arkan Abdulla Family:
1-Alia Amir, 50, wife, smashed scull, broken ribs, burns and injuries in
the chest and abdomen
2- Asma?a Arkan, 23, daughter, suffocation
3- In?am Arkan, 14, daughter, smashed scull
4- Lubna Arkan, 12, daughter, injury in the head and suffocation
5- Abdul Razzaq Arkan, 10, son, broken ribs and suffocation
6- Mahmood Arkan, 22, son, broken scull and suffocation

Saddam Arkan Abdulla Family
7- Khatar Dahham, 28, daughter in law, injuries and broken scull
8- Dhuha S. Arkan, 10, grand daughter, broken scull and injuries in head
9- Abdulla S. Arkan, 9, grandson, intestine tear
10-Thammir S.Arkan, 4, grandson, broken ribs, bleeding inside chest and
broken legs
11- Amir S. Arkan, 7, grandson, smashed scull, suffocation and legs injury
12- Yahia S. Arkan, 3, grandson, smashed scull
13- Saja S. Arkan, 2, grand daughter, smashed scull, tissue tear and
broken ribs

Fanar Arkan Abdulla Family
14- Najla?a Najim, 22, daughter in law, smashed scull, suffocation
15- Leila Fanar Arkan, fetus, given birth and death certificate at the
same time
16- Ahmad Salih Amir, 25 days, nephew, injuries in head, chest and ribs.
17- Khattab Mahmood Arkan, 2, grandson, smashed scull

?Who of these do you recognize as terrorist? This one, this, or may be
this?? The pictures were of women in a party, many children in different
occasions?This is my sister, this is her son, this is my youngest
cousin?.etc. He was pointing to the faces and naming them. I felt that
the list was endless. ?Please stop,? I said.

?Why do you think your uncle?s house was bombed?? I asked.

?I do not know. I want them to answer this question. They bombed three
houses in this street. In the other one 7 children and women were
killed. It is Fuad?s house, there. The third one was empty, but it is no
more than ruins. You can see it. Maybe they had wrong information about
these houses, I do not know, may be they made a mistake?but these are
not excuses. Even the American soldiers, the Iraqis, the CNN reporter
were crying when they saw what happened to my family.? The family was
buried in the garden.

The American troops played a classical, colonial, very dirty trick of
divide and conquer in Al-Qa?im. They allied with one big tribe, Al bu
Mahal, against another very big one, Al-Salman. They used one as
informants against the other. These people may make mistakes, or they
may give wrong information for different reasons, but innocents get
killed in the process. In the last ?Steal Curtain? operation, thousands
were arrested, and informants from the other tribe were used to pick
those who were thought to be insurgents. This story was repeated in many
places: Rumanna, Karabla, and Al-Ebeidy. Of course anyone who is branded
as a collaborator (traitor) is killed. Qa?im is one example of what is
happening in different parts of Iraq.

Faud?s house was just across a dusty yard. Again it was no more than
scattered bricks and cement blocks. Nassir, a cousin was called to
describe what happened.

?We did not know, only by chance. Our house was raided, I was upset and
decided to visit my uncle Faud?s house. The whole area was empty, only
the American troops were filling the place. When I approached the house,
it was as you see it now. I heard the voice my cousin Salaam and, and
his sister Anwar calling for help. They were injured. But other 7 were
killed. Cousin Isam (35), his wife (25), his children Hani (7) and
Reem(3), his sister (20), Salaam?s bride, Sheima? (20), and Quteiba were
all killed.

The stories of buried families under the rubbles became familiar in
Qa?im. In Mohssin Mohammad?s house, near the electricity station, a
family of 20 were killed, and in Mohssin Hommadi?s house 35 were killed,
we were told? ?We used the food refrigerator to put the human bodies,?
A., an employee in the hospital said.

A did not leave Qa?im during the last attack. He described what happened.

?On Nov 5, at 3 am the troops were dropped in the Railway and the Saray
areas. At the same time, the bombing never stopped. Electricity was cut,
and water too. The bombing was random. The tanks dashed in the street
savagely. They bombed everything, even a small door. We were two
families staying in the whole street. My gate was already broken because
of the bombing. I crawled to open the inner doors. They were about 40
when they raided my house. They asked about terrorists and weapons. They
searched the house, and found nothing. They were attacked while they
were in my house. In 6 minutes 3 houses were destroyed in retaliation.
They told us to close our ears and open our mouths when they bomb. A
journalist accompanying them operated my generator and began to send his story from my house. They dug trenches in the neighboring Hadg Thammer house, opened big holes in the walls, and ruined the roof.?

AM, another employee from Rummana said, ?We saw 14 airplanes bombing, we eard that there is a major attack on Huseiba. 5 days later we heard that the attack was on Karabla and Ebeidy which was hit by 50 missiles from dawn to sunrise at 6 am. A man said that they used white phosphorus.

?How did he know that??

?He said that when the dead were buried, their clothes were intact, but
the bodies were like ashes when they were held. In Rummana they
collected all the men, and the Iraqis who accompanied them would point
to some who are then taken away. The troops are still occupying the
schools and the medical center. They tell the families to leave then
they blast the house. They did that with 15 houses in Rummana. In one
month, at least 150 were killed in Rummana. On Nov 15, they forced the
families to spend the night outside in Ebeidy. Two newly born babies
died in the cold.?

Next day we tried to go to Rummana. It was worse than AM described. The
bridge, was bombed twice. First, no cars were able to cross, only on
foot. Then, it was bombed again in three pieces, which raise their heads
from the Euphrates as eternal witness of the American colonial barbarism.

To see more photos, click here
.

_______________________________________________
(c)2004, 2005 Dahr Jamail.
All images, photos, photography and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the http://DahrJamailIraq.com website. Website by photographer Jeff Pflueger's Photography Media http://jeffpflueger.com .

One Smart Man

One smart man is all it takes. Senator Jay Rockefeller is one smart man.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those who have difficulty with cramped hand-writing:

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concerns regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflect on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.
Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller

A Valiant Effort

'Twas a valiant effort, but the fact is that cheerleaders do not win games and a bull horn and a flight-suit do not make a commander-in-chief. Though the cow-girls may be effective in distracting the crowds in the stands, it's the action on the field that determines the result of the game. And in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam, it's "game over" and all that's left is to hand the turf over to the cleaning crew.

Our cheer-leader in chief may still be hyped, giving it one more yell and leaping into the air to impress and entertain the press, but this game is done, and the U.S. has now lost two must-win encounters in a row. Clinton took the nation across that bridge into the 21st Century and the Bush/Cheney team managed to insure that there was nothing but smoke and mirrors on the other side.

The question is how could the U.S. be so wrong, twice? Why is it that the lessons of Vietnam all got lost? How could we forget so soon that people who still get around on foot cannot be defeated by dropping bombs on them from the air; that destroying the forests or the cities where they hide just scars the land, leaving the people even more determined to resist the invaders?

It's become almost a convention to decry the loss of the world's good will after the attacks of 9/11 but that good will is largely an illusion or, at best, a temporary resurgence of affection for an America that had been squandering for decades the stature it had earned in the Second World War. Vietnam wasn't the only occasion when the nation's reputation for coming to the aid of the invaded was over-thrown in favor of becoming the invader. There were also the countries of the Caribbean, of which the delegation of Negroponte to Iraq reminds us, though their permanent occupation turned out not to be a big issue.

Perhaps that's the problem--a series of low-key invasions led to the conviction that murder on a large scale would not be resisted either. And then, of course, it was to the competitors' advantage to have America, prompted in part by an exageration of their prowess, waste her youth and her treasure on fruitless adventures. That the Soviets got their comeupance in Afghanistan isn't nearly as impressive now that the warlords are ascendant again.

When you come right down to it, trying to compete with warlords by calling oneself "war president" and dubbing the troops "war fighters" in a global war on an emotional reaction (terror) doesn't make it so. The fact is that unless it's declared by the people (through their representatives in Congress) and managed by the generals, a military intervention is not a war.What's happening in Iraq is vandalism, pure and simple. The land is being reduced to rubble because there is no other team to engage and frustration needs an escape.

So, there's no war to be won and, since Saddam's surrender, no game either. All there is in Iraq is another loss of pride, prestige, treasure and trust, which it may well take to the end of this century to rebuild. The New American Century was a mirage in the deserts of the Middle East that's gone up in smoke in the cities of Iraq.

Democratic Agenda

The holiday season is a time for promises and commitments. Howard Dean leads off:

1. "Democrats in Congress have drafted strong ethics bills. With a Democratic Majority we will pass those bills so that we can stop the scandals that are going on in Washington..."

2. "Democrats will always defend America. But when we deploy American troops, we will start by telling the truth to the American people, to our soldiers, and to our allies."

3. "We will create...jobs by making America energy independent...We can invest in energy efficiency, conservation and other American energy sources to create jobs everywhere in our country."

4. "Democrats are the only party to have balanced the budget in America in the last thirty eight years. We will do it again. We think it is wrong to pass our bills along to our children."

5. "We also think it's wrong to cut things like funding for crutches and school lunches for poor children. What Democrats will deliver is a balanced budget and a tax code that works for middle class Americans.

6. "We will deliver a health care system that works for everyone. Thirty six countries around the world have some kind of system that is both affordable and covers everyone. It's not easy, but these countries manage to balance their budgets at the same time. So can we."

7. "Democrats will deliver a strong public education system. High standards must be coupled with greater respect for the role of parents and local decision making. If we want American jobs to stay in America, we have to have more American children succeeding in science, math and literacy."

8. "We are all in this together, and we are all part of God's community. Together we can stand for honesty, hard work, respect, and opportunity for each American. Together America can do better."

IMPEACH BUSH

INDICT--IMPEACH--REMOVE

THE WHOLE 9/11 CREW

Last night I saw the current occupant of the Oval Office assert that he ordered the National Security Agency to spy on thousands of American (the New York Times says 500 at a time) because Mohammed Atta and his motley Middle Eastern crew escaped detection in the months leading up to their spectacular demise. That is a lie.

Anyone who watched Senator Specter's hearing knows that Atta had not only been identified while he and his cohorts were cavorting around the country from Florida to L.A. and Reno to Portland, Maine, but Atta's name and picture were displayed for all to see in a diagram put up by one of our security analysts.

Of course, we didn't actually get to hear the analyst provide his evidence because, like the members of Congress Bush claims to have kept informed about his illegal orders, he was effectively kept from speaking by the threat of prosecution for the crime of treason. And since the Bush Department of Justice seems to take its orders from someone who has no respect for the Constitution or the law and who still commands the police powers of the state, that's not an idle threat. Not to mention that under the provisions of the Patriot Act, it would not be impossible for a suspected "enemy of the state" to be disappeared, not just gagged, to keep him from revealing the truth.

Considering that the deaths of tens of thousands in Iraq, not to mention the destruction of their cities, are still being justified by the lie cloaked in the mushroom cloud, Americans can consider themselves lucky that it's only the violation of their civil rights, their private communications and the security of their persons on which the treasure of the nation, as well as a swelling debt to foreign nations, has been spent.

But to what purpose? If the stated reason is a lie, what's the truth? Since there were no WMD, why was Iraq invaded and why are the American people being subjected to constant surveillance of their communications?

One is tempted to conclude it's just a matter of personal hubris, the desire of one incurious and increasingly furious George to demonstrate his ability to control the nation. But, like the conclusion that Nixon's hubris led him to disregard the rule of law, that would be a mistake. The stakes are much bigger. This is the work of empire builders, of people who appreciate that those one seeks to rule cannot be killed off and, having determined that by controlling what people think and speak global domination can be maintained, the empire builders are busy taking over the system of electronic communications.

So, what's Iraq's role in that scheme? What are the permanent bases and the largest American embassy anywhere really for? While my guess is that the WMD scam was designed to hide the introduction of American missiles and nuclear warheads into the Iraqi countryside as part of the effort to "project power" in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Baghdad Embassy looks more and more like the NSA Annex in the Middle East. When one follows the carreers of Intelligence Community retirees, it's pretty clear that information technology and the control of electronic communications is where the action is expected to be for the rest of the 21st Century.

Of course, their assumptions may be mistaken. Information and thought control may not be the efficient and effective strategy towards global control they expect. Moreover, it might just turn out that, regardless of what they are led to think and believe, that's not what determines how people behave. If received ideas were the primary motivating agent, there'd never be any self-less deeds. And there certainly wouldn't be any heros who sacrifice their careers and their livelihoods for the truth.

Bet that's something the Diddler in Chief doesn't even comprehend.

Invariability

When does variability become invariable?

The brain did a lot of dreaming but came up with nothing usefull over-night. Might be because just befor we turned it, the 98 year old took off on her own about thirty seconds after I left the room and, before we knew it, she had fallen in the hallway to the bathroom. The spouse was no more than six feet away, but she was quick as a flash.
So, what did I do? I yelled at her, berated her roundly, got admissions of wrong-doing and agreement that I should just leave her there. Then she asked for a pillow for her head and at that point the spouse and I agreed that she must be OK, got her on her feet and assisted her the rest of the way to the toilet. I have to admit that I was sorely tempted to administer a spanking. She tried to explain that that's just how 98 year olds are and I told her I wasn't buying--that she'd been a stubborn, self-centered, unco-operative person my entire life. And that's the truth.

********
Yesterday was, on the whole, unexceptional. The only ill effects of the fall the day before seemed to be a little soreness in the right leg, the claim that she could no longer walk even as she walked, and more frequent summons to do this or the other.

One of the things she was intent on was deboning the boiled chicken for the dog. Which she did for several hours, after commenting that the broth from the chicken served at lunch was really tasty and she could see why the dog likes chicken and rice. That cheerful mood dissipated as the afternoon progressed and by dinner time she was not interested in eating and went to bed somewhat earlier than usual. I affixed the Depends with duct tape (yes, that's become necessary again) and was awakened about eleven by the sound of crinkling plastic. By the time I got down to her room, she was resnapping her pj top and pretending to have done nothing, though the duct tape had been worked on. I told her to go to sleep and leave the Depends alone.

About 2:30 there were plaintif calls for help and I went down and helped her to the commode, after removing the Depends as she asked. I replaced it with a fresh one but didn't apply the tape, since it seemed unlikely that the bladder would leak much in the next four hours. Hardly had I got back into bed when there were more calls, followed by the request that I "hit her on her head" and the insistance that she was dying. I gave her some tea and some of her elyxir and told her to go back to sleep. Which she did.

By morning she had again removed the Depends and the bed was damp, but the sheets needed changing anyway. As I did that, I remonstrated with her that, as usual, she hadn't done what she was asked. She asked, "what?"
Although I explained about the Depends and not walking around without assistance and, in general, not doing what she is asked, I realized that it is hopeless--though it does make me feel better to express the frustration.

I should, however, be used to it by now. After all, I learned a long time ago, as a child, never to ask her for anything because the response was invariably, "no." Her justification then was that if children get what they want,they will be spoiled. Regardless of how modest the request. If one wanted anything at all, it was best to just wait and see if she thought of it herself. But, even presents were tricky because if one was insufficiently appreciate, the apparent generosity quickly turned to resentment. Indeed, resentment could make it's appearance on a regular basis--whenever someone failed to do what was expected, but, of course, never requested. The least painful strategy (emotionally) turned out to be not to want, not to ask, and not to get attached to anything one was given, because liking the gift more than the giver was also a cause for resentment and accusations.

Though one might think this is a terrible way to live, it obviously doesn't interfere with longevity. Indeed, longevity might be the curse of the selfish.

Well, dinner went off fairly well after a quiet afternoon. Half-way through the Omi suggested that we leave her here and take a train out west. Now that she's gone to bed she's afraid she'll die tonight. The sleep aid should kick in soon. She's like an over-tired child.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Twas another short night. About 2:30 in the AM, I heard the rustling of plastic and by the time I got downstairs she had walked over to the commode and sat down without removing the Depends. I'm not sure she's not sleep-walking when she gets out of bed in the middle of the night. It may be time to put up some sort of rail since she's really not steady on her feet.

After I got her back to bed and she drank some tea and some of her elixyr and she had a chance to tell me she's dying and thank me for everything, she went back to sleep, with the light on. The dark seems to be frightening, even with a night light.

Oh, yes, and I had to fix another hot water bottle for her chest. She says her heart hurts, but it sounds like gas. Don't know if the spinach, which she likes very much, is supposed to have that effect.

********
December 2---
Another short night after five or six wake-ups. About 2:30 there were plaintif cries of help and I discovered the Omi sitting, almost all the way undressed, on the side of the bed, obviously wanting to use the commode.
She'd finally managed to remove the depends and shreds were strewn all around the bed. Urine production has really decreased, so the bed wasn't actually wet.

When I got her settled back in and told her to go to sleep, she said she had to go to school but didn't think she'd make it. Yesterday afternoon she was talking about building a room in Lengries, the town where her parents lived and died and which she never really liked (it's in the country and she's a city girl). She thought her parents would like it there and lots of people would come, but then decided it was probably too late. She just wants to be doing things, but thinking about Lengries did make her feel good (I'd suggested the day before that she think about something pleasant while she tried to go to sleep).

These middle of the night events still strike me as unreal--like there's another person. Her aspect is different, too. Her eyes tend to be wide open although she doesn't seem to see or recognize me and her speech is impersonal as well. Talking about going to school suggests that perhaps she's reverting to being a little girl.

Funny. When I showed nurse Judy the picture we had taken of the Omi sitting on the coffin-box, she said she wouldn't have recognized her as the person now sitting in the chair. And that was only last Saturday, when she had obviously pulled herself together, gotten dressed in street clothes and interacted with the family. It didn't surprise me since I've seen it before. The sociable person comes and goes.

******
Another somewhat short night. Found her at 9:30 on the commode from which she couldn't get up by herself. Sleep aide doesn't seem to keep her asleep. Then around one I was awakened by the noise of crinkling plastic and found her trying to get undressed under the covers. Put on duct tape, even though it probably won't work with the new kind of undergarment we picked up by mistake.

She woke at six and asserted that the dog needed to go out. The dog obviously didn't think so since she walked out into the kitchen, noticed it was still pitch dark, and climbed back into her chair. I gave the Omi some of her elixyr for her pain. About nine-thirty she was ready to get up but again collapsed as if near death in her easy chair. Gave her some more elixyr and by the time her hot cereal was done, she was able to eat and then read the paper.

Should note that both nurse Judy and I noticed a lot of gas rumbling around in her stomach. Quite a bit escaped yesterday, about the same time that the spouse reported feeling poorly. Our thinking now is that some frozen Pepperidge Farm layer cake may have been to blame. It's the only thing I didn't eat any of and it's something that Omi had quite a bit of until the spouse ate the last piece on Thursday night.

Anyway, today the Omi is feeling increasingly better. Did her nails this morning and then had a whole scrambled egg for lunch. Now she's reading the entertainment section of the paper which has a profile of Martha Graham.

Shared my suspicions with the younger son and he came back with the information that someone did tests on the ice put in drinks in fast food restaurants and 60% came back from the lab with evidence of contamination with e-coli. People don't wash their hands and the ice machines don't get cleaned properly. Yet another reason for not eating out.

*****
Some time in the afternoon, the Omi wanted to know if the lady across the street couldn't take her to bridge at the University. Had to explain that the lady across the street here doesn't play bridge--that she was thinking of her acquaintance in Georgia, over 1200 miles away, and that it was too far for anyone to come to play cards.

A trip to the commode was really tiring and caused heavy breathing and the realization (a first, really) that it was a silly idea to think about going to play bridge when she's feeling her age so much.

Dinner was uneventful, at the dining room table, and she even asked for pudding afterwards, in addition to finishing her gin and tonic. But then she was definitely ready for bed and had to sit and rest as soon as she got in her room.

The production of urine still seems to be decreased and bright orange in color. And, there's always the contriction in the chest when she's standing for even a couple of minutes. But, her mental outlook is better.

This morning, December 4th, she woke and wanted to get away from the ghosts in her room--wanted them to leave her alone, but was unable to describe them or identify them as other than that they were bothering her. I expect she was awakened from a dream. She hardly ever knows when she's been dreaming. Said she was tired and went back to bed after a trip to the commode. I gave her some elixyr in tea. (should look that word up and check the spelling)

Time to walk the dog. I've got to return to regular exercise.

*************
Later--This being Sunday, the Omi preferred to have breakfast in bed, but didn't eat it all. She did tell me again how much she appreciated my looking after her and told me to take it easy now.

Just before lunch she was willing to finish her cereal and proclaimed it tasted good and then she announced that she was ready to get up and sit in her easy chair.

Getting upright is a problem. The color drains from her face and I suspect that the heart is having difficulty pumping the blood to her brain. The hearbeat seems to be consistently elevated. Her bladder is not being very productive and the stools are rather dark and accompanied by tissues that seem to disassociate themselves in water.

On the other hand, her mental acuity is somewhat better than usual. She's been responding to the spouse in context, making reference to the cake that made them both ill.

As an aside, the spouse continues to check on Majory Milne. Today, when he called, she couldn't remember whether she'd had lunch. Though she did know that she'd had breakfast. Then she suggested that she'd like some fish chowder from the Market. Five minutes later she called back to assert that she wanted the 'cup' not the 'bowl.' These old women are all the same. It's important for them to set conditions and give precise directions. Also, they prevaricate. The spouse caught Majory in a lie the other day. But, we've gotten really good at dealing with these quirks and to take them in stride.
It is interesting how persistent the impulse to give orders and to prevaricate is.

*********
December 6
It seems pretty obvious that a lot of energy gets expended during the night, trying to remove the Depends. Yesterday morning, she had obviously been successful, despite my getting up to reprimend her in the middle of the night. So, in the morning she awoke with the announcement that she'd been trying to do the laundry, but couldn't work the machine. Obviously a dream. But the bed was wet--not very since urine production continues to be reduced.
It was still a pretty active day. At one point she asked again if Dr. Nelson couldn't be gotten to find her a nurse. I think the intent is to replace me with someone who will be more amenable to doing her bidding, like when she had a house-keeper during her young woman-hood.
But most of this scheming occurs while she's lying down. As soon as she gets up, she's experiencing shortness of breath and chest pains. The heart continues to beat at an accelerated rate (making her feel warmer than she's ever felt in her life), but it seems to be having a harder time dealing with gravity.

Putting the duct tape on rather tightly had the result of making the Depends immune to removal. But, I was awakened at least four times with the sounds of the effort, which would subside after a few minutes. So, I didn't bother to get up and check.

The consequence of all this night-time activity seems to be tiredness today. She did get up about 9:30 for breakfast--not all eaten, like yesterday--and was ready to go back to bed about 11:00.

*******
December 7
A rather uneventful night ended with a demand to get up at 6:15. At that point, most of her clothing had already been removed, although she claimed to have just done it.

The trip to the commode was tiring and resulted almost immediately in shortness of breath and expressions of distress. She went back to bed and I gave her some of the elyxir in a bit of tea. About nine she woke and insisted she had to "get out of this place" which turned out to be an airplane on which she was the only passenger. (Yesterday she wanted to be rid of the ghosts that were bothering her).

After a while she realized that she was home and agreed to have breakfast. She ate the whole bowl of cereal, which I fed her in bed, and then went back to sleep. Nurse Fran came about 11:15 and ascertained that not much has changed. The blood pressure is a little higher and the pulse is elevated as before. The latter probably accounts for the fatigue and shortness of breath associated with getting vertical.

This afternoon, after having been up for lunch (just some tea and a jar of fruit) she went back to bed for a "nap" which lasted most of the afternoon. However, while she was sleeping she solved the problem of getting people whose legs don't work new legs. The particulars are impossible to explain (by her own admission) but she seems happy to have this "project." Even just taking a few sips of team has become strenuous and requires a rest.

Urine production continues to be minimal and dark orange in color, suggesting that the kidneys are failing.
*****
Did I mention that the Omi never got out of bed yesterday except to use the commode? Although she ate all her breakfast hot cereal, she had virtually no lunch and only pudding for dinner (potato crowns with sauce didn't go down). Since I was going out to my once a month meeting, I didn't argue.

When I got back, she was still awake and wanting to know if I had fun. I changed the Depends and tucked her in for the night and at 3:30 she called to have the diaper removed so she could use the commode. Getting up was strenuous and she returned to bed convinced that this was the end. I didn't think the signs were right and persuaded her to take some of her elixyr and try to go back to sleep. That worked until about 4:30 when she needed more reassurance. About 7:30 she was ready for another dose of her elixyr, along with some tea and then announced that she wanted a sleeping pill so she could sleep. I gave her one Nytol. That lasted until about 11:00 when she was awakened by the slamming door (the spouse went out) and informed me that she couldn't play three games at once. No doubt she'd been dreaming. Since it was about time, I administered another dose of the elixyr after she refused to eat but a few spoonfulls of the cereal I had fixed. Then she went back to sleep.

*****
December 9

A good night without interruptions. When the Omi awoke, she took her juice but found it hard to drink. Later she said that she was losing water (peeing) and I told her that was OK because getting up is really a strain.

Mid-morning she only ate about a third of her cereal. Eating, too, is a strain.
About a half-hour ago she called out "when are they coming to take the body" and I found her sitting on the side of the bed. I explained, again, that they don't collect live bodies and that she was still breathing and talking and moving around. Then she said that she had to pee and observed that "doesn't count as dead" either. I had to laugh.

Then she decided that she's recovering a little every day and that she's going to get people new legs and her grandson would have to help. We need to call him. I suppose he's got special standing because he made the box.

Somehow she keeps vacillating between wanting to be dead and fearing that she's dying. Lesson--the issue is really complex and I wouldn't want to be in a position to make a decision to assist someone who's not comatose.

About three this afternoon, she was suddenly sitting up on the side of the bed, ready to go to dinner. After I explained it was a bit early, she agreed to sit in her easy chair and have some tea. Went to sleep before it cooled in the cup. Woke her to take a few sips and then she announced she needed to use the commode. That took a lot out of her and she just wanted to get back to bed.

Of course, as long as the plumbing is working, it's unlikely that the end is near. I guess. She's still on this roller-coaster where one minute she's dying and the next she's on the road to recovery. I'm thinking that she has to reach a point where she actually accepts that she's going to die and then does. There's a difference between accepting and willing.

****
At 1:30 AM the Omi demanded to have her Depends diaper removed. I did, and replaced it with another. At 6:00 AM I was summoned to be told that she needs to find "geduld" for herself. Geduld, of course, means patience. And nobody can disagree with that assessment, but it's really beyond my capabilities to help her do that. I gave her some juice and another dose of elyxir and she went back to sleep.

When she awoke about 9:30 she declared herself ready for breakfast, but only ate half. By the time that was consumed, it was well past ten, so I gave her some more of the elyxir and she's been sleeping since. Even the slamming of the back door does not seem to wake her.

Oh, yes, she also said that her continued existence is boring. When I suggested that since not many people live to 98 and she's not done it before, so it ought not to be boring, she didn't object. I'm thinking she's achieving some sort of peace, but I could be wrong. We'll just have to see.

******
Sundays are never good. The Omi called out about 3:30 AM. I think she was repeating her address--perhaps even in her sleep. I put on the light, changed the Depends and gave her a warm cloth for her forehead. She complained of headache.

About 4:30 there was another alert. Gave her some medecine and suggested she go back to sleep. She announced that she was probably going to die because now she'd decided she didn't want to. Told her it doesn't work that way but she didn't look like she was going to die today anyway. Then at six she seemed wide awake and asked for a nail-file to do her nails and was ready to eat breakfast--only half, it turned out. She said she didn't want anymore because it wouldn't help her die.

A trip to the commode mid-morning was, as usual, stressful. When she's lying down she forgets that standing up causes shortness of breath. Her sense of self-awareness continues to be poor. That makes it hard to know what's actually wrong or bothering her. The blood-blister on her heel is slowly healing. So that process seems unaffected--as are the eliminatory processes, albeit somewhat diminished.

******

A few hours sitting up in her easy chair, most of them spent sleeping, made her feel not well and she spent the rest of the day in bed. She managed to finish her hot cereal for lunch and then a jar of baby fruit. For supper I fixed a scrambled egg, but she only ate half and a few sips of tea.

Everything was quiet until about 9:30 when there were suddenly shouts for help. She needed to get back into her bed, although that's where she was. About midnight there was another episode of needing to get back into bed. I expect she was dreaming and woke up confused. (In the afternoon, she started to separate the sheet from her comforter because she didn't want the neighbors to take it). Thereafter there were periodic comments, mostly in German, that didn't make much sense but about three o'clock she insisted she needed help to "get out of here." I asked where was she wanting to go and she said "to the street. Maybe the gentlemen can help us." I said, "no, we're not going anywhere," gave her some medicine, held her hand, put a warm cloth on her forehead, and waited for her to go back to sleep. It was a very fitfull process. The hands and eyes would suddenly wander, not really seeing and purposeless.

I'm thinking that all my life I've done things that I wouldn't recommend to others. This "do it yourself" habit is really not for everyone.

Now it's 4:30 and she's back to her critical mode--the service in this place is not good, the patients are kept waiting too long. She'll tell the doctor when he comes. What I'm wondering is if I will actually miss the demands and complaints and that grating voice when they are gone. All my life I have heard that unmodulated voice and calculated from afar whether it was saying anything worth attending. Lots of people found it fascinating, but not for very long. Wonder if they felt relief when it was gone.

Noon--The Omi has spent most of the morning talking gibberish off and on. The medicine seems to have calmed her somewhat but she refuses food and even water. At the moment, she's staring at the ceiling talking about her brother who was killed in France in 1940; claims he brought a slip of paper telling her he was shot at 11:00AM. Wants to know if they are going to collect his dish.

At one point she said she saw her daughter on the ceiling as well. Now that's a bit disconcerting. Said she was trying to feed the dead.

While her color was a bit off this morning, sort of yellowish, some red has returned to her cheeks. The breathing is normal and the voice is strong.

Suddenly, she got up, sat on the edge of the bed and wanted to go to her easy chair. That wasn't easy. She's not able to stand on her own. But, she can sit and cross her legs and announce they were supposed to come get her at 12:00 o'clock.

Three-thirty--apparently sleeping soundly. The chattering and broken sleep has stopped. Perhaps, come nightfall, it will start up again.

********
Despite my checking on her every half hour, she managed to surreptitiously, under the covers, take off her pj's and her depends and then pee in the bed. She didn't have any difficulty whimpering that she was sorry.

After I had everything changed and got her back into bed, I made it clear, once again that people who are dying do not get undressed in secret. Then I asked if she wanted some pudding and she consented to eat. So, it was all a ruse, again. She's playing crazy in hopes that will get her moved to another venue where she can be in charge. No matter how often I explain that's not going to work, she tries again. She's really totally resistant to being directed in her behavior. It's amazing that one can survive that way for such a long time.

Since her afternoon exertions seemed to have worn her out, I left on the light and the door to her room open, so I would be alerted by the spouses "correction" of those conditions upon his return. And so it was. About 11:30, I got up and went downstairs to do a quick check and give a dose of medicine, if she was awake.

The spouse did alert me that he thought she was getting undressed under the covers. Not "getting," it turned out. She had managed to wiggle out of her pj's AND the duct-taped Depends and was in the process of removing the top. I remonstrated and put everything back on and gave her the medicine and a drink of water and then listened as she coughed off and on for a half hour.

About 2:30 I was summoned, wished a good morning, and told she'd just figured something out about a city's population. I responded that it was really too early to be up and that I needed to go back to sleep and she should too. By 4:00 she'd obviously tired of trying that and started talking (loudly) again. I went down to see what was up and she told me that she'd "behaved" (all clothes still on) but that she needed to use the commode. So, I helped her up and, as is now not unusual, she experienced some distress in her chest (didn't happen yesterday while I was changing the sheets). By the time she got back in bed she was moaning that she was dying and I gave her a dose of medicine, held her hand while she calmed down, and then left her to go back to sleep. Which is where we are at now.

*******
The rest of yesterday was largely unexceptional. She ate half her cereal at breakfast (juice with medicine at about seven) and the rest about lunch time. In addition, she had a jar of baby fruit and towards dinner time asked what there was to eat and I made her a scrambled egg, of which she ate half. Also had a bit of chocolate pudding, and quite a bit of water. Indeed, she announced that after hating it her whole life, she now prefers the water to anything else. (Well, we'll see how long that lasts).

While we were doing lunch, I noticed that the Depends had been half undone again and she tried to give me some story about how when she was on the stage, she had to get dressed and un-dressed all the time. See, when it's in the wrong, the brain is still agile.

Anyway, I prepared her for the night with a Nytol and a dose of the elixyr and a suggestion that she try to sleep more than a couple of yours. She said she'd try three. I suggested eight would be better. Sure enough, at 11:30 she started yakking (it was incomprehensible, even the intonational pattern sounded like Swedish, or something). That went on for about an hour. Then she called my name and I went down and she told me something about a most expensive ring and playing golf--i.e. more nonsense, but in German and English.

So, I gave her a drink and a dose of medicine and told her to go back to sleep. She asked what she would do without me and then, for about another hour, as I lay in my bed, she went on about how "the good child wasn't letting her sleep" and that " it was time to sleep." I think she finally did because I know I did, until she woke me calling my name at 4:00.

Again we had a conversation about what she should do--go to sleep. And I put a warm cloth on her forehead and closed the door, hoping for the best. She did say "Ich seh schwartz" meaning she doubted that she could sleep and her wide open eyes (I could see the whites) would tend to back her up.
But, as of now, all is silent. It's the mid-night hours that seem most bothersome.

*******
I'm finding it hard to do a running commentary during the day. After the night-time agitation, the Omi slept until about nine and I was just fixing her breakfast cereal when the hospice nurse arrived to do a quick assessment.
The vital signs remains essentially unchanged, but the Omi shifted from being attentive to looking comatose in the nurses presence. When nurse Fran had left, it didn't take much to rouse her to eat at least half of her hot cereal. Then she asked if the doctor was a real doctor and I had to explain about the nurse being a real nurse, but I don't think it registered.

Anyway, she went back to sleep, more or less and didn't rouse until after noon, when she did have a jar of fruit. Ate the rest of the cereal later, when she announced she was hungry.

I had suggested during the night that she try counting sheep to go back to sleep and she did a couple of times during the day. It took a while for it to register that what was coming over the monitor was counting. She was asleep during supper time and we enjoyed a broiled chicken in peace, along with a visit from the first son who'd come with birthday greetings and a new router to set up the wireless system in the house.

When the Omi woke up, she was glad for a little visit but didn't know what to make of her grandson's query about how she was doing. Wanted to know why he asked and was it because she looked so bad. Everything is always about her and now that she's hard of hearing its even more so.

Tried to get her to eat the rest of the pudding, but she didn't want much. The elixyr and the Nyton went down with a lot of water and then she went to sleep rather easily. About 11:30 she was back to counting--usually a few numbers in the 90s and then she'd end with "Enough, finito, genug." That went on, off and on, for a couple of hours and it wasn't until nearly 2:00 that she called my name and said she was hungry. So, I went down and fed her the rest of the pudding and gave her another dose of the elixyr, hoping that would put her back to sleep. I guess it did and I got to sleep until almost five.

In the interest of fairness, I should report that after she got her pudding, she observed that she was being "spoiled." But then, when I told her to go back to sleep because it was only 2:00 in the morning, she immediately came back that she hadn't told me to get up at 2:00. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and suggest that she didn't remember calling. Short term memory seems to be about gone.

Soon after I came down I heard her counting again, went in and told her the time and suggested she go back to sleep and she wanted the light to stay on. Then, about a half hour ago she called to have the Depends removed. That usually means she wants to use the commode and, after I moved it close to the bed, she did, successfully.

(If you don't want to know the particulars of a person's defecation habits, skip next paragraphs)

Ever since the Omi has been more or less bed-bound, bowel movements have been a bit of a problem. We've tried various softeners and eating more roughage and I finally settled on having her drink prune juice every morning. That's how I've avoided having to resort to an enema which is what became necessary the first time she spent much time in bed with pneumonia.

Once the system seemed to be working pretty well (I kept track on movements on a calendar), there was a pattern of many trips to the bathroom (each a little success) on one day and then none for two days or so. When there was a major success it was followed by a lengthy wash and the few times when she forgot to flush, I noticed that the use of paper was really minimal.

I mention this because since she's having to use the commode for all excretory functions, I find that I have to prepare bundles of paper for her to use, each of which needs to be inspected and each of which I have to prompt her to deposit in the commode bucket.

At first I thought she'd just forgotten how to clean herself, but now I'm thinking that it was a firm habit to resist having bowel movements until she was in a situation where she could have a wash afterwards. In other words, we're looking at a life-time of willed constipation so the evacuation of the bowels could be handled appropriately, in her own bathroom. And whenever it got too bad, she'd just give herself an enema. (I always wondered why she had a douche bag in her cabinet, since there was obviously never any opportunity for its usual use after intercourse).

I wonder how common this pattern, if it is a pattern, is in other cultures. I know the French are accustomed to using a bidet, but I didn't think it was used for routinely washing after moving the bowels. Also, when I think back to the apparent confusion about what to do with used toilet paper on the part of recent immigrants to New York city from places like Puerto Rico and Cuba (throwing it in the toilet was obviously not their custom and employers didn't think to provide waste receptacles), it occurs to me that the problem was in adjusting the eliminatory routine to the requirements of a time-conscious work-place--a problem which employers weren't prepared to give any thought to at all, especially since they all had their own wash-rooms. Funny that designation for a space where less and less washing actually occurs. Even nurses have taken to using anti-bacterial sprays instead of soap and water. Not a good thing, in my opinion.

End of morning report.

Mid-day report for December 15

I didn't replace the Depends after the successful trip to the commode, but half an hour later she insisted that it be taken off. Obviously not remembering what happened a short time ago. About an hour later, I went to make a correction--too late. Had to change the sheets but was fortunate that this time the laundry-man hadn't already left.

Breakfast was still being refused but after a while there was a lot of moaning and groaning and I decided she was probably hungry. The hot cereal (most of an eight ounce bowl) was consumed as by a snapping turtle--couldn't wait for the next spoonful.

Afterwards she took a nap and was awakened by the ringing of the phone. Must have been dreaming since she was sure there were tubes in her arm that needed to be removed. Also, she claimed not to know who I was. Didn't recognize her dog either because it didn't respond to her calling its name. Wanted to know my name and to go home. (this is a recurrent problem--been going on since 2002 on St Simons) Fed her a whole container of organic chocolate pudding for lunch and then she went back to sleep.

Meanwhile Julian had a visit with Majorie Milne who's having trouble swallowing and doesn't recognize how often she ends up choking and coughing. He visits with her every day now, but she's going to have to have more constant attention soon. People wanting to be on their own on their own terms are a problem.

********
December 16

Lots of chatter last night for hours, but it wasn't until 1:30 that she called me to tell me something about heads and boxes. I gave her some elixyr and a drink of water and told her to go to sleep. That seems to have worked until about 3:30 when I awakened to the sound of ripping--the Depends was being attacked. I got up and remonstrated and things were quiet until 5:30 when she demanded that the diaper be removed. I complied, but insisted on putting on a fresh and tried to explain about her not feeling the wetness even though she could see where the bladder had leaked. Trying to explain about osmosis is useless.

On the whole, she's pretty lucid this morning. Wanting to know what the elixyr is for and would she die if she didn't take it. The answer, of course, is "no." She'd just be even more uncomfortable and hurting.

------------
Well, it's been pretty much non-stop talk this morning. She's had half her cereal and promises to get some sleep, but is still talking. The explanation she gave was that she's changed her mind about dying and now wants to live longer and talking lets her know she's alive. Doesn't make much sense and she herself concluded that she's crazy. Have to agree, but less so now than at other times.

December 17--Saturday

The rest of Friday was uneventful in the sense that there was no change from the level of confusion. She ate the usual quantity of food and woke from naps obviously confused about what she was into--cooking up a chicken for the dog or making a pot of rice, all while she lay sleeping.

No Nytol at bed-time. It wasn't wanted and it obviously did do any good anyway. Almost like clock-work she started talking about 10:30 and that went on for an hour until she decided she needed water. I delivered that and told her to go back to sleep. Then, after midnight, the script changed and the topic was either getting her to a hospital to die, or out of the hospital to be home with her daughter. I managed to ignore the rambling until about three when she again called my name. I don't even remember what she wanted, just that I gave her some elixyr, a warm cloth on her forehead and a new hot water bottle which she cradled to her stomach. After that there was mostly silence, punctuated by moaning and groaning, which actually ring false.

The desire to live seems to have been short-lived.

******
December 18

The first half of the day yesterday continued very voluble. After being told I should sing because it was Christmas, an orange was requested, for the same reason. Since it's not Christmas yet, neither was delivered. Besides, I don't sing. I mid-morning sponge-bath went well and was appreciated.

After lunch (the rest of breakfast and some fruit), silence descended. Then, about four I noticed some scrabbling under the blankets and surmised that the Depends was to be changed. Indeed, she'd moved her bowels and never made a peep. So, that was a new experience!

I don't if she was cowed by the experience of having to be cleaned up, but, although she agreed to a scrambled egg for supper, she hardly ate any and went to sleep. I had to rouse her for her elixyr and decided to give her an alprazolam, in hopes that it would calm her enough to prolong her sleep.

That seems to have worked. There wasn't any talking and no groaning either until about 4:00 AM when she started clearing her throat rather emphatically. After a while she called for assistance and when I went in she wished me a cheerful good morning, in German, inquired after my health and assured me that hers could be worse. Then she was thirsty and found again that the water tastes good.

Still later she requested a typewriter, so she could express herself more quickly and explained that she's trying not to be too stupid since she's got a really smart daughter. The language of this morning is almost entirely German and the stock phrases are those of polite company. It's strange. It's almost as if there's another person there.

Uncertain about what she was to do next, perhaps eat something, I brought out a container of prune puree (Gerber's) and that went down lickety-split. When it was done she asked if she should sleep now to regain some strength. Who could disagree. Now all is quiet again. It's all of 5:30 in the morning.
****

The Omi slept through almost until noon and asked for a hot water bottle before I came back from the store. She didn't however signal that another bowel movement had taken place. So, that appears to be a new constant now.

I fixed her daily bowl of cream of wheat (eight ounces of mil, big pat of butter) for lunch and she ate it all. A little later she finished off the chocolate pudding and then had a little doze. Supper was a modest amound of curry sauce and rice which was too hot at first and then not to her liking. She cleaned her palate with some more pudding--just a little bit.

I think I'll try the alprazolam again. It did seem to lessen her distress.
********

Monday morning---talking has been going on for about four hours. It's 6:30 now. Just shook her hand good-bye. She says she's going to die now. Doesn't look like it to me, but who am I to say?

I think I'll start a new post.

Limited Government

How did it happen that the proponents of limited government, who pass themselves off as Republicans, have managed to generate the largest national debt, spending money like drunken sailors on things most Americans don't want?

If you need a list of particulars, let's start with the following.

Thousands of dead people in Iraq.
Thousands drowned and disappeared in New Orleans.
Military equipment, weapons and troops contaminated with depleted uranium.
Tens of thousands of veterans languishing in clinics and hospitals without proper care.
Tons of contaminants pumped into our water and air.
Electronic surveillance gadgets in every public and private nook, collecting streams of information that are about as useful as the solar wind.

If the quest for American domination, in whose name these results were achieved, was ever real, it must be obvious by now that, like the bull in the china shop, the American rampage has concluded with the surrender of our national autonomy, our ability to determine our own destiny.

When the national debt was created as an investment in our national assets and owed, primarily, to our own citizens, that debt was actually a credit against our social requirements in the future. Now that the debt is owed in large part to foreign nations, it means that America is at their beck and call. The nation's autonomy is gone and the notion that bullying behavior and waving sabres will get our status back is sheer folly.

Where did we go wrong? Was it just a misunderstanding of what "limited government" meant--a reactive pose by people who simply resent being told what to do and who aim to destroy the restraints of regulations designed to promote the health. safety and welfare of the general population? Was it just a matter of the crooks having got hold of the reins and taking us over the clif, or was it "limited" in the sense of being not quite capable of performing at the level expected of a normally competent and intelligent person.

Certainly, the nominal leader of the current administration has gone out of his way to demonstrate to all and sundry his limited capacity for rational thought, truth telling and the performance of his job--i.e. managing the assets of the nation for the general welfare. But, considering the large cadre of supposedly capable and qualified assistants we are paying to give him good advice and provide prudent choices, one has to consider that this demonstration of personal limitations isn't truthful either.

Perhaps what we are seeing is the grandest diddle of all time. If only there weren't so many dead and more to die, unless it's brought to a halt and soon. Who's going to ride to the rescue and take back the reins?

Feinstein gets some answers

Memorandum
December 14, 2005
TO:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
FROM:

Alfred Cumming
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
SUBJECT:
Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information

This responds to your request for a discussion of Congress and its role as a consumer of national intelligence, and for a listing and a description of some of the U.S. Intelligence Community's principal intelligence products, including an identification of those which the executive branch routinely shares with Congress, and those which it does not.

Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions - information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress - that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence.

Authorities Governing Executive Branch Control Over National Intelligence

The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. (6) Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be "the owner" of national intelligence.

The President's otherwise exclusive control over national intelligence, however, is tempered by a statutory obligation to keep Congress, through its two congressional intelligence committees, "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities..." (7) Current law also prevents the executive branch from withholding intelligence information from the committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (8)

In 2004, Congress further strengthened its claim to access to national intelligence when in approving legislation reforming the intelligence community it directed that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) provide the legislative branch access to national intelligence. (9) Previously, the head of the Intelligence Community was legally charged with providing the legislative branch national intelligence, but only "where appropriate." (10) Congress never defined, either in statute, report language or during debate, what it considered to be "appropriate," essentially leaving the executive branch free to adopt its own interpretation of congressional intent in this instance. The impact of the newly enacted, and unqualified directive, is dependent, as is generally the case, upon how aggressively Congress asserts it statutory prerogative.

Despite conflicting legal authorities governing congressional access to national intelligence, the U.S. Judicial Branch has not addressed the issue, since no case involving an executive-legislative branch dispute over access to intelligence has reached the U.S. courts. (11) Absent a court ruling more clearly defining executive and legislative branch authorities in this area, which most observers view as unlikely, the executive branch has contended that it is under no legal obligation to provide Congress access to all national intelligence. By contrast, Congress, through its congressional intelligence oversight committees, has asserted in principle a legal authority for unrestricted access to intelligence information. The Committees, historically, have interpreted the law as allowing room to decide how, rather than whether, they will have access to intelligence information, provided that such access is consistent with the protection of sources and methods. In practice, however, Congress has not sought all national intelligence information. (12) Unless there has been a compelling need, the intelligence committees generally have not routinely sought access to such sensitive intelligence information as intelligence sources and methods. When they have cited such compelling need for access, the committees generally have reach an accommodation with the executive branch usually, but not always.

Perhaps, in part, because of these differing legal views, the executive and legislative branches apparently have not agreed to a set of formal written rules that would govern the sharing and handling of national intelligence. (13) Rather, according to one observer:

The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard- and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to. (14)

In 2001, and again in 2002, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) directed that the Director of Central Intelligence (15) prepare a comprehensive report that would examine the role of Congress as a consumer of intelligence, and explore the development of mechanisms that would provide Members tailored intelligence products in support of their policymaking responsibilities. (16) The Director never produced such a report.

More recently, the SSCI included language in its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2006 intelligence authorization bill (S. 1803) requiring that the Intelligence Community, upon the request of the either the chairman or ranking member of either of the congressional intelligence committees, provide "any intelligence assessment, report, estimate, legal opinion, or other intelligence information," within 15 days of the request being made, unless the President certifies that the document or information is not being provided because the President is asserting "a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States." (17)

Congressional Access to Intelligence Information Not Routinely Provided in Four Areas

The executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information:

the identities of intelligence sources;

the "methods" employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence;

"raw" intelligence, which can be unevaluated or "lightly" evaluated intelligence, (18) which in the case of human intelligence (19) sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals (20) and imagery (21) collection methods are employed; and,

certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. (22) The PDB emphasizes current intelligence (23) and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers. (24)

Reasons for Congress Not Receiving Routine Access to Certain Intelligence.

In not providing Congress routine access to source identities, executive branch officials cite the need to protect against "leaks" or unauthorized disclosure of information that the Intelligence Community generally considers to be the most sensitive in its possession. As more individuals are briefed about sources, it is contended, the greater is the risk that this information will be disclosed, inadvertently or otherwise. Such leaks could jeopardize current or future access to possibly valuable intelligence, and endanger the lives of intelligence sources providing the information.

Executive branch officials similarly point to security-related concerns in explaining why Congress is not routinely provided intelligence methods, particularly collection methods. As in the case of source protection, officials argue that effective intelligence collection demands that the methods - human and technical -- used to collect the intelligence be protected by limiting the number of individuals witting of those methods.

Officials, in part, also cite security concerns in withholding raw intelligence. Because raw intelligence sometimes is derived from a single source, the source is arguably more vulnerable to identification and ultimate exposure. Even when intelligence is collected from multiple sources, as is sometimes the case when signals and imagery intelligence collection efforts are employed, knowledge of those collection methods can sometimes be determined from the underlying raw intelligence.

They cite two additional reasons for restricting congressional access to raw intelligence. First, they contend that it would be "dangerous" if a Member of Congress were to gain access to, and possibly make policy decisions based upon, raw, unevaluated intelligence that has not been placed in context. Second, they argue that as a practical matter Congress lacks the physical capacity to securely store the volume of raw intelligence the Intelligence Community generates. (25)

Finally, executive branch officials restrict congressional access to written intelligence products - including the PDB - that are tailored to the needs of individual policymakers. They assert that it would be inappropriate to provide these products to Congress because they are tailored to the specific needs of individual policymakers, and often include information about the policymaker's contacts with foreign counterparts, as well as the reactions of those counterparts. (26)

Although PDB consumers have access to all such intelligence, it should be noted that intelligence sources, methods and operational information historically have been tightly restricted within the executive branch, as well. Intelligence Community analysts, for example, have rarely if ever have had access to such information. To the limited extent that they have, their access has been based largely upon their need to know the information for the purposes of conducting analysis. (27)

While congressional intelligence officials have not routinely requested access to the types of intelligence information discussed above, they have questioned the executive branch's security concerns with regard to certain raw intelligence, noting that it generally is more widely available to executive branch officials. (28) Their comments suggest that they dispute whether Congress is less capable than is the Executive in its ability to evaluate and safeguard sensitive intelligence. (29)

Exceptions to The Practice of Not Routinely Sharing Certain Intelligence With Congress

Although Congress generally has not had access to information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods, raw intelligence or intelligence products tailored to high-level policymakers - including PDBs - it is noteworthy that Congress occasionally has sought and obtained such intelligence information from the executive branch.

For example, while investigating Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert action operations in Nicaragua in the 1980s, the intelligence committees requested and were provided the identities of certain intelligence sources. The committees also sought and obtained access to certain raw intelligence. On other occasions, committee members have requested and obtained raw intelligence in order to verify certain Intelligence Community judgements contained in various National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). (30)

Intelligence committee staffers, occasionally, have successfully obtained access to PDBs, and PDB articles, during the course of conducting investigations and general oversight. (31) The Bush Administration, however, appears to have been more reluctant to share such information than have some of its predecessors. In 2002, for example, President Bush rejected a request by the Congressional Joint Inquiry investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks to review the August 6, 2001, PDB, which contained an article titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S. (32) The Bush Administration also denied a request by the SSCI to review PDBs relevant only to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists as part of the Committee's review of the Intelligence Community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. (33)

While denying Congress access to certain PDB articles, the Bush Administration has provided such access - albeit limited - to two commissions: the 9/11 Commission (34) and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (hereafter, cited as the WMD Commission). (35)

Congress Generally Has Routine Access to Most "Finished Intelligence"

Congress generally receives access to most finished intelligence products that are published for general circulation within the executive branch. (36) A finished intelligence product is one in which an analyst evaluates, interprets, integrates and places into context raw intelligence. (37)

Although congressional access is limited to such finished products, the volume of such products provided to Congress has increased over time. (38) Between 1947, when the National Security Act establishing the CIA was enacted, and the mid-1970s, the executive branch shared relatively little intelligence with Congress, and access to it was quite limited. But after two special congressional investigative committees headed by former Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Otis Pike launched investigations of the Intelligence Community in the mid-1970s, the executive branch permitted the Community to increase the volume of intelligence information it provided to Congress. (39)

Congress Also Has Access to Intelligence Information Through Briefings

Although Congress receives numerous written intelligence products, it receives the preponderance of its intelligence information through briefings, which generally are initiated at the request of congressional committees, individual members or staff. (40)

Such briefings can include a discussion of more sensitive information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods, particularly when the briefings involve the congressional intelligence committees. But even then, if the intelligence analyst determines that such information is particularly sensitive, he may choose to brief only the chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees, or in lieu of the committee leadership, the committees' majority and minority staff directors. (41) Or, based upon the executive branch's perspective that it is not legally obligated to provide Congress access to all intelligence, the analyst could choose not to share the sensitive information with anyone in Congress.

Classified Intelligence Products Which Generally Are Routinely Shared With Congress
National Intelligence Community (NIC).(42)

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) express the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community, and thus represent the most authoritative assessment of the DNI with respect to a particular national security issue. NIEs are considered to be "estimative" intelligence products, in that they present what intelligence analysts estimate (not predict) may be the course of future events. Coordination of NIEs involves not only trying to resolve any interagency differences, but also assigning confidence levels to the key judgments and rigorously evaluating the sourcing for them. Each NIE is reviewed and approved for dissemination by the National Intelligence Board (NIB), which is comprised of the DNI and other senior Intelligence Community leaders within the Intelligence Community.

Intelligence Community Assessments (ICAs) are research papers 20-30-pages or more in length that provide a detailed data logic trail on key national security issues. They differ from NIEs in that they are less "estimative." National Intelligence Officers are expected to coordinate ICAs with other Community analysts, noting any disagreements in analytic judgements. Thus, ICAs are Community-coordinated, and are disseminated only after NIC Chairman approval.

Intelligence Community Briefs (ICBs) are estimative intelligence products that are formatted as six-page, quick-turn-around, analytic papers focusing on particular issues. Before ICBs are disseminated to intelligence consumers, National Intelligence Officers overseeing their drafting and coordination are expected either to resolve any analytic disagreements or note any such continuing disagreement between Intelligence Community analysts. Thus this product is classified to be "Community-coordinated."

Sense of Community Memos are one-page memoranda that evaluate current or day-to-day events. They are Community-coordinated and approved by the NIC chairman for dissemination.

Conference Reports are memoranda-for-the-record of conferences that the NIC sponsors on various topics. In addition to Intelligence Community personnel, participants can include experts from outside the Community.

CIA Directorate of Intelligence. (43)

The Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB), known for decades as the National Intelligence Daily and viewed by the CIA as one of its flagship products, (44) is a daily publication containing six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering an array of topics. The SEIB's format and content, although generally similar to that of the President's Daily Brief, usually contains less information in order to protect intelligence sources and methods. (45) It is disseminated to several hundred senior executive branch policymakers and to the congressional oversight committees, and although prepared by the CIA, the SEIB is produced in coordination with other Intelligence Community producers. It is viewed as a current intelligence product in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. (46)

Serial Fliers (SFs) are short and concise memorandum-style products, generally a few pages in length, on a discrete topic of current relevance. SFs generally do not contain summaries, but may contain graphics or maps.

Intelligence Assessments (IAs) are the primary vehicle for in-depth research, and can focus on larger analytic questions or provide great detail on a more narrow, but complex issue. IAs generally are from 5 to 25 pages or more in length; they always contain a "Key Findings" or "Summary" section and often include graphics, maps and other supporting material.

Strategic Perspective Series (SPSs), like IAs, are based on extensive research, but are focused on a key strategic issue - frequently at the direction of the Directorate of Intelligence leadership. SPS papers often cut across analytic disciplines or regions. Examples include Muslims in the EU: Reshaping Islam and Transforming Europe, and China's Global Strategic Ambitions. SPSs use an IA format, but carry the SPS moniker. SPS papers a "Key Findings" or "Summary," and may include graphics, maps and other supporting material.

Research Projects/Papers (RPs) are the primary vehicle used to explore new analytic research areas and to develop the Directorate of Intelligence's corporate knowledge of a given issue. A research project may culminate in a SF, IA or SPS - or, depending upon the results, may be disseminated only within the Intelligence Directorate and Intelligence Community, serving as a "capital-building" research paper.

Leadership Profiles (LPs) are biographic assessments of foreign leaders, generally 1-2 pages in length. They often are tailored for a particular meeting or event. Whenever possible, LPs contain a photo of the leader being assessed.

Situation Reports are short reports that comment on current, fast-breaking events. Up to two or three situation reports can be issued daily, if warranted.

Department of Defense.

Military Intelligence Digest (MID) is produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency and is seen as a military-oriented counterpart to the SEIB. It is viewed as a current intelligence product in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. The MID can include analysis of topic covered in the SEIB, but it also includes articles of particular interest to the defense department, and can provide a different analytic perspective. It is principally prepared for the use of defense department policymakers, but is circulated elsewhere in the executive branch and provided to the congressional intelligence committees. (47)

Classified Intelligence Products Which Generally Are Not Routinely Shared With Congress

The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President orally by a small cadre of senior Intelligence Community analysts. As previously mentioned, it consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics (48) and is viewed as a current intelligence product, in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. (49) The PDB is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain sensitive intelligence source and operational information. Thus its dissemination is limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers.

Presidential Daily Brief Memoranda are products containing responses to questions posed by the President and any of the small number of designated senior policymakers who receive the PDB. After briefing the handful of designated policymakers, members of the analytic briefing team return to CIA each morning, and task Intelligence Community personnel to provide answers to the various inquiries posed during the each briefing session.

Senior Executive Memoranda are tailored analytic products that also can be produced in response to policymaker questions arising from PDB briefings. (50)

National Terrorism Brief (NTB) is prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center, is appended to the daily PDB, and is briefed to the President by the DNI.

The Director's Daily Report is prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used by the FBI Director to verbally brief the President. (51)

Red Cell analyses are products that are speculative in nature and sometimes take a position at odds with the conventional wisdom. (52)

Raw intelligence is unevaluated intelligence.

TDs (Telephonic Disseminations) are raw intelligence reports disseminated by the CIA's Directorate of Operations. TDs are slightly finished intelligence, in that they contain some commentary as to the credibility of the source providing the intelligence.

Chief of Station (COS) Reports are reports prepared by the CIA's chief representative in a particular country and contain the COS's views of the current situation. The COS can share his reports with the resident ambassador for comment, but is under no obligation to incorporate any comments by the ambassador into his final report.

1. Reportedly "furious" about what he apparently believed to be unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Congress, President Bush on Oct. 5, 2001, ordered that the provision of classified information and sensitive law enforcement information be restricted to the Republican and Democratic leaders of both the Senate and House, and to the chairmen and ranking members of the two congressional intelligence committees. Until the President issued his order, and in keeping with prior practice, all Members of the intelligence committees had access to most such information. Bush agreed to rescind his order after several days, following a personal telephone conversation between the President and Sen. Bob Graham, then-chairman of the Senate's intelligence committee, and after negotiations between White House staff and Graham. See Bob Woodward, Bush at War, pp. 198-199. (Simon and Schuster).

2. The Senate established its intelligence oversight committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), in May 1976. The House of Representatives followed suit in July 1977, creating the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

3. Central Intelligence Agency website [http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/analytica_products_section.html].

4. To the extent that Members of Congress are entitled access to intelligence information, it is by virtue of their elected positions. Members are not subject to background checks, nor are they issued security clearances, as are congressional staff who are provided access to classified information.

5. This memorandum does not directly address the quality of Intelligence Community (IC) collection and analysis, but rather limits its focus to the degree of access to intelligence information enjoyed by federal government policymakers - including Members of Congress - and the degree to which that access enables them to assess its quality.

There exists extensive commentary which does address the quality of the Intelligence Community's collection and analytic capabilities, including more recently that contained in a report issued by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. See WMD Commission, Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005 [Hereafter, cited as the WMD Commission Report].

6. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 17.

7. Sec. 501 [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. [ct (50 U.S.C. 501[a][1]). Some observers have asserted that this language was intended to create an obligation to provide information for oversight purposes rather than establishing a legal requirement that the executive branch provide Congress substantive intelligence information. But they have noted that the congressional intelligence committees have viewed this as a "distinction without a difference," and that the committees have asserted a need for access to substantive intelligence in order to conduct oversight. See L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, February 1997, p. 11.

8. Sec. 501 [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(2)(e).

9. P.L. 108-458, Sec. 102A.(a)(1)(D) [50 U.S.C. 403-1].

10. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation spelling out the duties of the then-titled position of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), requiring that the DCI provide Congress substantive intelligence information "where appropriate." See Title VII of the FY 2003 Intelligence Authorization Act.

11. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 17.

12. Ibid, pp. 17-18.

13. Ibid, p. 23.

14. Ibid, p. 23. With regard to an "experience-based" system and providing the congressional intelligence committees with operational intelligence, the executive branch generally limits the provision of such information to the Committees's Chairmen and Ranking Members. This despite there being in law only one provision - Section 503 of the 1947 National Security Act as amended - permitting the Executive to do so, and only the limited cases pertaining to the notification of covert action activity.

15. In 2004, Congress eliminated the position of Director of Central Intelligence and established a new position, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to head the Intelligence Community. See P.L. 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 1001, Subtitle A, Sec.1011.

16. S.Rept. 107-63, p. 6 (accompanying S. 1428) , and S.Rept. 107-149, p. 10 (accompanying S. 2506).

17. In the 109th Congress, S.1803, Sec.508.

18. Unevaluated raw intelligence consists of intelligence that has not been analyzed; lightly evaluated raw intelligence can include, for example, a brief description of the credibility of the source providing the information.

19. Human intelligence, or "HUMINT," is espionage i.e. spying, which consists largely of sending agents to foreign countries, where they attempt to recruit foreign nationals to spy. See Mark L. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, CQ Press, 2003, p. 74.

20. Signals Intelligence, or "SIGINT," refers to the interception of communications between two parties, but also can refer to the pick-up of data relayed by weapons during tests and electronic emissions from modern weapons and tracking systems. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, p. 71.

21. Imagery Intelligence, or "IMINT," also referred to as photo intelligence, is generally considered to be a picture produced by an optical system akin to a camera, but can also refer to images that can be produced by infrared imagery and radar. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, pp. 63-64.

22. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22, 2004, p. 254. (Hereafter, cited as the 9/11 Commission Report.) The PDB format does change to suit the preferences each president. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, p. 48.

23. See the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission,

Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005, p. 181. Current intelligence is defined by the Intelligence Community as being that intelligence which; addresses day-to-day events; apprises intelligence consumers of new developments and related background; warns of near-term consequences; and, signals potentially dangerous situations that may occur in the near future. See U.S. Intelligence Community web page [http://www.intelligence.gov/2-business_cycle5.shtml].

24. According to the 9/11 Commission, the exact number of policymakers who receive the PDB varies by administration. In the Clinton administration, up to 25 officials had access to the PDB. By contrast, the Bush administration, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, limited the distribution of the PDB to six officials. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 254 and p. 533.

25. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 26.

26. Ibid, p. 25.

27. In the wake of the Intelligence Community's much-criticized October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Intelligence Community is now more rigorously evaluating the credibility and authentication of intelligence sources, from whom information is derived and used to form and support NIE judgements. Moreover, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Deputy Director for Intelligence Jami Misick, in a speech to analysts in March, 2004, said, "Analysts can no longer be put in a position of making a judgment on a critical issue without a full and comprehensive understanding of the [intelligence] source's access to the information on which they are reporting...We are not brushing aside the Agency's [CIA] duty to protect sources and methods, but barriers to sharing information must be removed....If you [the analyst] work the issue[,] you need to know the information. Period." She also stated that then- Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet had instructed senior CIA officials to devise a "permanent and lasting" solution to the problem of failing to adequately share intelligence source information with analysts. See [http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/021104miscik.pdf].

28. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 26.

29. With regard to protecting classified information, the executive and legislative branches each have criticized the other for failing to adequately guard against unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Neither branch, however, has suggested it is without fault. Rather, the debate, as often as not, has centered, to varying degrees, on the relative number of unauthorized disclosures that can be traced to each branch, the degree of sensitivity of such disclosures, and whether each branch has been sufficiently aggressive in its attempts to identify and penalize the perpetrator.

30. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 12. An NIE expresses the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community, and thus represents the most authoritative assessment by the Director of National Intelligence with respect to a particular national security issue. It is considered to be an "estimative" intelligence product, in that it addresses what intelligence analysts believe may be the course of future events.

31. Ibid, p. 25.

32. The Joint Congressional Inquiry was known formally as the Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11

, 2001[the Joint Inquiry's full report is available at [http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm]. Leadership of the Joint Inquiry unsuccessfully sought access to the August 6, 2001, PDB. After several days of discussions with executive branch representatives, Members decided not to pursue the request. The 9/11 Commission did gain access to this particular PDB article, and it was later declassified. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 533 and p. 261 for the declassified text of the article.

33. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,

U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, S.Rept. 108-301, July 9, 2004, p. 3.

34. The 9/11 Commission received access to about four years of articles from the PDB related to Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and key countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, including all the Commission requested. The White House declined to permit all commissioners to review these documents. The Commission selected four representatives, including its chairman, vice chairman, and executive director to review the documents. The executive director prepared a detailed summary, which was reviewed by the White House for constitutional and especially sensitive classification concerns, and then made available to all commissioners and designated commission staff. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 533.

35. The WMD Commission was provided limited access to a number of PDB articles relating to Iraq's WMD programs. See WMD Commission Report,

p. 18.

36. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 24.

37. U.S. Intelligence Community web page [http://www.intelligence.gov/2-business_cycle5.shtml].

An NIE represents an example of a finished intelligence product.

38. CIA estimates that in 2004 it provided Members of Congress more than 1,000 briefings and 4,000 publications, including finished intelligence, books, maps, etc.

39. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence,"

Center For Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. iii. According to Snider, most of the voluminous number of finished intelligence reports provided to the congressional intelligence committees is read by no one. (p. 25 of Snider's monograph). He cites intelligence members and staff who say they are too busy to read all the finished intelligence reports that provided daily, and some who state that it is not worth their time, or the time of the Member, to do so. Although the context of the comments is not entirely clear, they could, among other possibilities, represent a commentary on the quality of some of the intelligence products received by the two intelligence committees, or simply indicate that the products in every instance simply do not address the particular issues of concern to a Member or staff.

40. Ibid, p. 26.

41. Ibid, p. 27.

42. Congress has access to most intelligence products produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), a center of strategic thinking within the U.S. Government, reporting to the DNI and providing the President and senior policymakers with the analysis of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community. The Council is headed by a chairman and is comprised of National Intelligence Officers (NIOs), who are viewed as the Intelligence Community's senior substantive specialists. NIOs are assigned areas of functional or geographic responsibility, and are responsible for producing a variety of written intelligence products, ranging from brief analyses of current issues to "over- the-horizon" estimates of broader global trends.

43. The CIA's Directorate of Intelligence is responsible for analyzing intelligence.

44. CIA web site [http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/analytica_products_section.html].

45. 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 254-255.

46. Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, CQ Press, 2003, p. 48.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid, p. 254.

49. WMD Commission Report, p. 181. The WMD Commission criticized the quality of PDBs, asserting that, "...many of the same problems that occurred with other intelligence products occurred with the PDBs, only in a magnified manner." According to the Commission, PDBs "often failed to explain, or even signal, the uncertainties underlying their judgments..." and "...PDB articles discounted information that appeared to contradict the prevailing analytical view..." The Commission also said that by emphasizing current intelligence, the PDB could "...adversely affect the consumers of intelligence..." by creating over time "...a greater perception of certainty about ...judgements than is warranted."

50. WMD Commission Report, p. 182.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid, p. 406.

The Diddle Continues

The hard truth is that the success of the Diddler depends on the credulity of his audience, the willingness to suspend critical thinking and accept whatever's on offer.

The latest chapter in the Crawford Diddle seems to have been written the other day in Philly before an audience that laughed at the notion that 30,000 Iraqi people had died.

The question this little happening raises is whether the audience laughed because the Diddler's assertion about the number of Iraqi dead struck them as ludicrous or because the "act" was a source of genuine amusement. And that, in turn, if the answer is the latter, raises the question of how much longer Americans are going to expect to be entertained, rather than informed by their President.

But, for the present, what we should consider is the purpose of the distraction created by the Diddler's ludicrous numbers. Was it to distract us from the addition of yet another "in" word to define events in Iraq as other than they really are? Was the substitution of "incursion" and it's conjunction with "ongoing violence" just a slip of the tongue or was it intended as a substitute for "insurgency," the previous designation for actions by supposed external agents that are actually being carried out by the Iraqi resistance? Is it just another version of the same script that would have the true believers convinced that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was dominated by an external force from which it is being liberated by the U.S? If so, then that would really be standing history on its head, now wouldn't it?

The enormity of the illusion that's being created and maintained is perhaps beyond the comprehension of serious and objective observers of the White House. So, they consider it more rational to conclude that it is the Diddler himself who's deluded. But I don't think so. The throw-away observation, that if he doesn't like a question he'll change it, provides a clue that both the question about civilian deaths and the answer were, as are all appearances in public, scripted. The throw-away line was yet another example, like the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the Oval Office, of hiding the truth in plain sight.

And the truth is? That the American public is to be deceived as long as credulity holds out. The Diddler will not be reborn as a teller of truth.

****

Robert Novak's suggestion that Bush knows who "outed" Valerie Wilson is probably on the mark. The "wife who works for the CIA" is likely how Bush identified her himself when the discussion turned to how Wilson's truth-telling ought to be dealt with. So, it will be interesting to see how, if ever, he comes clean. Like Cheney, Bush had every right to mention and consider the significance of her employment in the Agency. What's questionable is why he's letting his subordinates take the blame. Is there a gene for loyalty that the Bushes just happen to lack?

Wonder if Jack Abramoff will be talking about that.

Who Lives-Who Dies-Who Decides

The basic principle on which conservative beliefs are based is the conviction that, regardless of guilt or innocence, the state, not the individual, gets to decide who lives and who dies. This is the principle that directs conservatives whether the issue is physician assisted suicide, medical intervention for pregnant women, the currently in-active military draft, the imposition of the penalty of death, or, most recently, the provision of medical services to the indigent.

The justification for giving the state the right to determine who lives and who dies rests on the belief that human beings are basically immoral and that the state (society) needs to be able to rid itself of those who absolutely refuse to comply with its directives. That this belief also informs our country's relationship with other nations is evident in the recently adopted strategy of pre-emptive attack and its demonstration in the assault on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis have been put to death simply because their leader was alleged to have refused to follow U.S. directives.

While the designation of the state as the sole arbiter of life and death might seem to conflict with the description of the U.S. as a god-fearing nation, man's ability to perceive himself as the enforcer of god's will on earth is not deterred by the apparent hypocrisy. In any event, there it is. Individuals have no rights other than those the state deigns to bestow on its good and faithful servants.

In other words, rights are rewards that must be earned. Which is why non-citizens have no civil or human rights, as Justice Roberts has recently ruled and as Judge Alito will doubtless agree.

But., while most Americans are likely to conclude that the denial of rights to aliens and miscreants doesn't affect their own, the basic premise, that the state has sole jurisdiction over life and death, most certainly does. Because it is this principle which accounts for why the nation is unable to set up a rational universal medical care program. Who's going to trust a state making arbitrary life and death decisions with making decisions about one's health?

Of course, in a democracy, the state gets its powers from the people and the people can, ostensibly, take them back. Will we? I sure hope so. Our lives depend on it.

Greeting card

http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=0261976204

Lust

The Special Relationship

The bombs go off ...
The legs go off ...
The heads go off

The arms go off ...
The feet go off ...
The light goes out

The heads go off ...
The legs go off ...
The lust is up

The dead are dirt ...
The lights go out ...
The dead are dust

A man bows down before another man ... And sucks his lust

Harold Pinter, August 2004

Thoughts on yet another public execution:

Just want to make the point that the death penalty is no more about the person put to death than elections are about the candidates. The important thing is the agent, the one who acts, not the thing or person acted upon, whether its killing a convict or marking a ballot.

Of course, in the case of the death penalty, the agent is doubly wrong because the victim of the execution isn't even the real target of the act. The real target is the American public which is supposed to be impressed and intimidated by the execution to behave itself and hopefully avoid a similar fate. And, since most individual people who kill don't think of the consequences for themselves, the "deterrent" value is practically void. But the example of official killing may well give license to those deranged individuals whose sense of super importance leads them to identify themselves with the power of the state to execute those who disagree with them, and go and do likewise. Which may well account for why those countries, in which the penalty of death is an official prerogative, tend to have a higher illegal execution rate than those that don't.

The public execution of a miscreant is really symptomatic of a bigger problem--the notion that the appropriate response to a killing is more killing.

That's actually the logic on which Iraq is based. Three thousand people were killed on one day in New York and Washington and as a response the US sent off thousands more to kill and die in another land--one that did not actually have a hand in the first event.

But, even if it did, the logic that the appropriate response to a killing is more killing seems particularly flawed.

One could say that this pattern reveals a sort of blood lust--that the sight of people bleeding and dying provides a rationale for seeing more of it. And perhaps that's a basic predatory response, but predators kill to eat. The sight and smell of blood alerts them to a convenient meal; it doesn't prompt them to go on a rampage of killing.

So, if the human exhibits blood lust, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that, as in so many other instinctual response behaviors, there's been a perversion of the natural in man. That in this case, as in many others, man, instead of substituting brain power for hormone driven instincts,perverts the natural intent.

It's common to define bad human behavior as animalistic, though we know that's wrong, and that judgement is usually made in the context that human behavior ought to be morally superior to the rest of nature. But human blood lust isn't at all natural; it's perverse.

*****************************************************************************
What does it tell us that the German meaning of "Lust" is playful desire?

Is it the object (in this case blood) that makes it perverse?

Who Stole Christmas?

Harvey Korman has the answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5569010

Ask any American who's been unemployed for nine months this year thanks to our "steadily rising" economy how merry their Christmas will be.

Or ask one of the thousands who found out this summer just how little their government cares about their safety, when their incompetent and callous president deserted them for days and days in a horrific flood, as corpses floated by in a river of filth and vandals had their way with the town. Those who were lucky enough to survive had little or nothing to return to. Now the cameras are off and the whole episode has faded predictably from the public mind. But somewhere countless families are struggling merely to put their lives back together, many so poor they could not have afforded cars to escape the storm that displaced them. How plentiful do you think their Christmas celebrations will be this year?

Or ask a soldier whose tour of duty has been extended indefinitely thanks to quasi-legal "stop-gap" policies so that a group of powerful men who never served can continue their power grab / geopolitical experiment. What a lovely gift.

Or, more importantly, why don't we ask the thousands of parents, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, and best friends who won't spend this Christmas with someone they love. Or, for that matter, any other Christmas. Ever. Because that person died by bullet or bomb, thousands of miles away, in a place they should never have been sent. Every kid who was deprived of a parent will grow up knowing that other more fortunate kids weren't. Those kids' parents had the luxury of "other priorities."

Now ask any of these people if they give a damn about what the BUSHES put on their STUPID HOLIDAY CARDS. I dare you.

The next time any bobblehead talks about the "war on Christmas," you can wholeheartedly agree.

Then be sure to identify its real targets.

Our Man at UNICEF

One of the Bush cronies has been rewarded for collecting lots of money in Ohio and sending it out of state by being named Representative to UNICEF.

Presumably, a man known for bait and switch real estate schemes back home didn't compose his statement to the UNICEF Executive Board himself, but he should still be responsible for it and ashamed of having made it.

Remarks by William O. Brisben, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Children?s Fund (UNICEF), to the UNICEF Executive Board, September 28, 2005

Thank you Mr. President.

I want to thank UNICEF as well as the countries represented in this room who have offered their assistance following the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, and now Hurricane Rita. The American public has been overwhelmed with the world?s generosity. More than 115 countries and nearly a dozen international organizations have stepped forward with offers of assistance. Although we could not accept all of the offers, we appreciate each offer of assistance made.

Why was it not possible for the US to accept all offers? Certainly, the residents of New Orleans still need all the help they can get.

We appreciate the careful and extensive work that UNICEF staff has undertaken on the Medium Term Strategic Plan. Overall the Plan offers a coherent vision for UNICEF programming over the next four years.

In particular, we are pleased with the focus on data, evidence and measurable results, especially in child survival; with the attention given to the humanitarian response function; with the emphasis on the role of the supply division; and with recognition that pilot projects, partnerships, research and advocacy must be undertaken strategically. We are also pleased with the treatment of the family as the center actor in the development of children.

No doubt, Brisben and his cronies are pleased that data is being collected. That will make it easier to propose schemes to skim off some funds for themselves.

Results-based advocacy can be a powerful tool in helping children survive and thrive. When it is paired with good research, strategic focus, and skilled communication, effective Goodwill Ambassadors and UNICEF staff can educate, encourage and cajole their audience to put children first.

Advocacy, however, is rarely sufficient by itself, and is not credible without strong programs that go beyond the rhetoric. The United States believes that UNICEF is at its very best converting goodwill and dollars into actions that meet children?s needs in health, education, nutrition, and protection.

In keeping with this mandate, this Plan reflects international commitments to measuring progress towards the child survival, health and education goals set out in the Millennium Declaration and the Core Commitments to Children in Emergencies. UNICEF plays a vital role in achievement of these international commitments through its support for national capacity building. We would like to see that support more clearly tracked in the MTSP through the addition, where possible, of indicators that measure UNICEF?s support for national capacity building in the MTSP?s five focus areas.

More record keeping. That's the ticket.

The United States very strongly supports democracy, freedom and human rights, but is concerned by the implications of closer ties between the rancorous and often paralyzed human rights apparatus and the much more functional UN funds and programs such as UNICEF. Improving child welfare is principally a matter of setting policies that improve health, education, and overall security; it is a matter of political will and resources rather than asserting rights.

And who exactly is responsible for the "rancorous and often paralyzed human rights apparatus," if not the United States which refuses to recognize that adults have rights, much less children?

We share the human rights concerns that motivate UNICEF to focus on marginalized and vulnerable children and families. We believe, however, that making the achievement of ?rights? is not a reliable method of organizing programs.

We also believe the Plan needs to stress the central role of families in child survival and well being to reflect and encourage UNICEF programs to support and empower families and communities. Parents and caregivers should be explicitly recognized and supported as the primary partners of UNICEF in helping children grow to adulthood in good health and with opportunities for a better life. In this context, we continue to advocate for the expansion of initiatives in life-skills training beyond the most fundamental elements of hygiene and skills training to cover broader youth development incorporating prevention of HIV/AIDS, and the promotion of involved and responsible fatherhood and motherhood.

Obviously, recognition and support do not involve the delivery of life's necessities as a right.

I would be remiss if I did not address avian influenza. Many of us are particularly worried about the H5N1 avian influenza virus, and we?re right to worry.

Pandemic flu is an urgent health challenge, and we urge UNICEF to develop a plan on how they can best contribute to global preparedness and response. In addition, we recommend that each UNICEF country office establish a point person for avian influenza and help the host country develop a robust avian influenza preparedness and response plan. When avian influenza spreads UNICEF country offices will play a key role.

This recommendation looks a lot like what FEMA was tasked to do in response to Katrina and Rita.

Thank you. You're not welcome

Who Is Jackson Thomas Stephens?-II

Funny what one finds when one looks up the connections of famous people. Jackson Thomas Stephens, it turns out, is also a sometime associate of General Wesley Clark, not really a surprise since Clark, like Hillary Clinton, is now from Arkansas.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/1/rem.htm

Does anybody remember that Clark was once in charge of Panama?

Is it significant that Wilkes, the guy who bribed Randy "Duke" Cunningham, got a contract to digitize tons of old documents from Panama that the pentagon said it didn't need converted?

Is anybody checking to see if what goes out to be digitized actually comes back and that this isn't a grand scheme to scrub the documentary archives before classifications expire?

Should we be concerned that document archives are being handled by people like Wilkes and the fellow who directed the Swifties during the last election, William E. Franke?

Who is Jackson T. Stephens?

Two things in particular interest me in the story of Mr. Wilkes. The first is that William E. Franke, known to us as the manager of the Swiftboat Vets is also into the document conversion soft-ware business (Justice Department, Ohio Dept of Transportation, Ohio Secretary of State) as the founder of an outfit in St. Louis, known as Gannon Technologies.

Since the fellow's name is Franke, one might suspect that the reason he named his outfits "Gannon" is because he wants to appear connected to the Gannon who was a big-wig in the CIA until he retired.

Being a suspicious person, I'm beginning to think that all this document conversion is part of a big scam to manipulate the innards of the government acquisition process.

The second thing that's interesting is that Brent Wilkes is connected to one Jackson T. Stephens, one of Poppy's old friends and one of Georgie's biggest contributors, as well as one of Clinton's main supporters in 1992. Makes one think that perhaps Bill was a sponsored candidate, who was meant to lose, and Ross spoiled the game, or perhaps Poppy decided that he really preferred to rule from the shadows as he'd been doing for a couple of decades.
*******
Just for a lark, I decided to have a look at Georgie's biggest contributors yesterday, as a preliminary to launching a "shame on you" campaign targeting those people who should have know better than to sell the American public that turkey.

First name I came up with was one Jackson T. Stephens.

And before I knew it a bunch of interesting connections popped up, including some developed by our friend at the Mad Cow Morning News. There may be truth or it may all be fiction, but it is sort of amusing. Here's my preliminary list:

BCCI
Club for Growth
Beverly Enterprises
Boone, Boone & Boone
NSA
Worthen Bank Group
Michtar Riady
Brent Wilkes
World Finance Corp (sells furniture in addition to making loans)
Kyle Dustin Foggo
MZM, Inc (sells furniture) reminds me of the Israelis who were driving around the South Carolina back country with a van full of furniture, information that seemed relevant to the fellow tracking Mohammed Atta
William DeWitt
Robert Bass
Mercer Reynolds

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37d95a0809ce.htm...
tells us that:
[...]
Stephens is the chairman of Stephens Inc., the nation's largest investment bank off Wall Street. Its home office is located in little ol' Little Rock, Arkansas. He and his brother, Witt, built the Stephens Inc. empire out of a bible, belt buckle and bond business. In 1994, Stephens Inc. was listed as one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food (# 10), Wal-Mart (# 113) and Alltel (# 12). Interestingly, it was Stephens who staked Sam Walton when he started Wal-Mart in 1970, and financed Tyson's takeover of Holly Farms in 1988. (Stephens, Tyson and Walton (1917-1992), all billionaires from Arkansas.) Stephens sold a 275 phone exchange to Alltel when they broke into the phone market, and guaranteed in 1990 that Alltel would get Systematics by refusing to sell his 10% stake in Systematics to anyone but Alltel. In many ways Arkansas is the house that Jack built. Unfortunately, for the folks in East Liverpool, Ohio, and the Tri-State area (WV, PA, OH) who were saddled with Von Roll's hazardous waste incinerator, Arkansas was never big enough for Stephens.
[...]
This is where things get complex. Jackson Stephens, as noted above has been partners with an Indonesian Tycoon, Mochtar Riady*. His son, James Riady was a co-president of Worthen Bank (Federal News Service, July 17' 1997). In 1994, Stephens' family interests owned approximately 55% of Worthen bank's outstanding stocks (Worthen proxy, March 29, 1994). Worthern provided the Clinton campaign with a $2 million dollar financing deal that basically saved the Democratic National Party from a cash shortage in the early 1992 Presidential campaign (The Spectator, October 1992). The Riadys own a company called The Lippo Group*.
[...]

WTI has links, too, with the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton worked on many Stephens projects involving municipal and state bond work. Stephens made an effort to secure bond financing for WTI through the Ohio Water Development Authority in 1987. Documents obtained by TAS, including a December 14 application for $139 million in state bond financing, listed Stephens as the proposed lead managing underwriter. While Charles A. Waterman of Brickler and Eckler served as counsel for Stephens on a number of WTI projects, the Rose Firm was retained during the 1980s to do bond work for Stephens as well. The Yamada report on Sussman's conflict-of-interest mentioned Hillary's work for the Stephenses, and noted that it was Hillary who recommended the compromised Sussman for his EPA job overseeing WTI.

[...]
When Lafarge obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge for sand and gravel in a section of the Ohio River directly facing WTI, the circle of conflicts-of-interest was finally closed. Since at least April 1991, while Hillary was a board member of the parent company, Standard Lafarge has been permitted to dredge the Ohio River for sand and gravel to make cement. While the dredging clearly benefits Lafarge's cement-making operation, the consequent deepening of the Ohio River will allow waterway access to the WTI incinerator. Since the original permit allowed for a port structure, and since WTI has run into opposition due to its use of roadways to haul hazardous waste, opening the Ohio River to WTI would solve a number of its problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~

And that reminded me of an intresting story:

May 14, 2003

Alexander-Harbour's Two-Party System
Firms agree to disagree about politics, but find success in an unorthodox alliance.
By KATE ACKLEY

The office along the Georgetown waterfront shared by the Harbour Group and the Alexander Strategy Group might be the only one in Washington with a foosball table and two Segway Human Transporters. But these aren't the only signals that this is not your typical D.C. lobbying outpost.

An even more telling sign is what lobbyists from both firms call "the demilitarized zone"- a six-foot-wide intersection of hallways dividing the territories of the all-GOP Alexander Strategy Group and the die-hard Democratic Harbour Group.

But when a big group of the 30 people who work for the two firms gather in the shared conference room for a Chinese take-out lunch, the camaraderie is strong and party labels blur.

At least until Karl Gallant, an Alexander Strategy partner, pipes up. Suggesting a decidedly Republican addition to the office's "toy" collection, Gallant cracks, "I want to put in a firing range."

Friendly rivalry is, in essence, the business model Harbour and Alexander have adopted. They moved in together in November, but each firm retains its own strongly partisan identity. They have their own compensation and partnership structures, and their own retirement and health care plans.

The Alexander Strategy Group is independent and owned by founder Edwin Buckham and the eight other partners. The Harbour Group is owned by Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman-the 300-lawyer firm headquartered on the third floor of the same waterfront building. Founder Joel Johnson and two other Harbour partners have equity shares in the company.

Partners in both lobby shops believe they are on to a good thing. And they project the two firms will bring in a combined $10 million for this year.

The alliance, Johnson says, grew out of a "working relationship," when both firms represented the U.S.-Malaysia Exchange Association on trade issues and matters related to cooperation, including the war on terror.
[...]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And more recent doings of Alexander Strategy Group. Interesting perhaps in connection with the reports that the captives in the CIA prisons in Europe have been relocated to North Africa.

Not a Client to Bring Home to Mom
Eritrea "signed Alexander Strategy Group, a firm with strong Republican ties, to a contract worth more than $300K a year to improve its ties with the United States." According to Amnesty International ?torture, arbitrary detention, 'disappearances' and ill-treatment of political prisoners, are common in the Horn of Africa nation. Human Rights Watch reports "The Eritrean government has lobbied the United States to use Eritrea's Red Sea ports as military bases in the war against terrorism." The contract "forbids the [Alexander Strategy Group] from discussing its work without the consent of Eritrea." The Alexander Strategy Group's other clients include the Nuclear Energy Institute , Blackwater USA and PhRMA. Source: O?Dwyer's PR Daily (reg. req'd), August 10, 2004

~~~~~~~~~~
What are we to conclude from the Wilkes/Cunningham connection? Obviously, the culture of corruption in Washington is not new and Ohio has been a major venue for some time.

When I was in college in western PA in the early '60s, Ohio already had a reputation for being ruled by the mob.

The connection between organized crime and garbage (waste) has a long history. Now it looks like document conversion has provided another route into the public till. And the unifying characteristic is that the promised services are never delivered. In the case of hazardous waste that means that instead of being treated and disposed of, so as not to be a hazard to living things any longer, the stuff is just dumped into land, water or air, whence it is taken up by living organisms who then die prematurely, if they're lucky. If they're unlucky they live long miserable and painful lives coping with chronic disease, birth defects and mental disabilities.

Though Jackson T. Stephens no longer owns WTI, on the banks of the Ohio River, his legacy survives:

Ohio River towns cope with pollution
Worries about jobs and hazards collide

Ohio River communities built around promises of economic opportunity and secluded riverside homes have fewer than 6 percent of Ohio's residents.

Yet the factory-dotted land near the river produces one-fourth of the state's toxic waste and 68 percent of its air pollutants, according to a newspaper analysis.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/NEWS0104/512050393/1008/NEWS01

Finally, it might be noted that the lifting of water standards in the Ohio River is being considered by the EPA, supposedly to accommodate "aging" waste-water treatment plants. I say "supposedly" because there's no reason for plants to be aging. Not only is it possible to upgrade them so the water that comes out meets drinking water standards, but the decades of financing these utilities with user fees should have provided sufficient capital for up-grading. Of course, if the feds had continued to provide grants for wastewater, instead of harzardous waste generators, the "problems" could have been addressed long ago.

But garbage and waste are not glamorous issues, so the bureaucracy and the politicians tend to shun them and the mobsters move in. They're the scavengers of the system and, just as in nature, scavengers tend to be conduits of disease (corruption). If you're not a good housekeeper, your house and everything in it will be consumed by rot and vermine--nature's scavengers.

The Wilkes Connection

Subject: Military contractor Brent Wilkes- San Diego County finance co-chairman of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign and the state finance co-chairman for President Bush.

Why is Cunningham's name the only one getting primetime coverage. What about the guy dealing out the money?
They are living high on taxpayers dollars.

http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Contractor+%27knew+how+to+grease+the+wheels%27+%7C+The+San+Diego+Union-Tribune&expire=&urlID=16463518&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego.com%2Funiontrib%2F20051204%2Fnews_1n4adcs.html&partnerID=616

THE CUNNINGHAM SCANDAL
Contractor 'knew how to grease the wheels'

ADCS founder spent years cultivating political contacts

By Dean Calbreath
and Jerry Kammer
STAFF WRITER / COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

December 4, 2005

In government documents, he is referred to as "co-conspirator No. 1": a man who gave more than $630,000 in cash and favors to former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for help in landing millions of dollars in federal contracts.

ADCS has received at least $80 million in government contracts since 1996. Its $11 million headquarters is located in Poway.

Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes ? whom Justice Department officials identify as the co-conspirator ? has long been active in local political circles, serving as the San Diego County finance co-chairman of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign and the state finance co-chairman for President Bush.

Wilkes has not been charged with a crime in the Cunningham case. The former Rancho Santa Fe congressman announced his resignation Monday after pleading guilty to charges of tax evasion and conspiracy. Three other men ? Washington defense contractor Mitchell Wade, businessman Thomas Kontogiannis and financier John T. Michael, both of New York ? also have been identified as co-conspirators.

Wilkes' story shows how gifts, favors and campaign contributions can be used to gain lucrative business from the government.

Over the past 20 years, Wilkes has devoted much of his career to developing political contacts in Washington. He and his associates have spent at least $600,000 on political contributions and $1.1 million on lobbying beyond the gifts mentioned in the Cunningham plea agreement, as they cultivated such politicians as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis.

And since 1996, he has received at least $95 million in government contracts for the small family of firms based in his $11 million headquarters in Poway, including ADCS Inc. and Group W.

Brent Wilkes, founder of ADCS Inc., is identified by officials as "co-conspirator No. 1" in the Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery case.
Those who know Wilkes describe him as gregarious and ambitious, a person who can make friends easily and toss them aside just as quickly.

Born in San Diego County in 1954, Wilkes graduated from Hilltop High School in 1972, along with his football teammate and best friend Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, currently third-in-command at the Central Intelligence Agency. Wilkes and Foggo were roommates at San Diego State University, were best men at each other's weddings and named their sons after each other.

Wilkes' career in political relations dates to the early 1980s, shortly after Foggo joined the CIA. Foggo was sent to Honduras to work with the Contra rebels who were trying to topple the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, according to sources within the CIA.

Making connections
Wilkes had moved to Washington, D.C., and opened a business named World Finance Corp. about three blocks away from the White House. One of his chief activities, sources say, was to accompany congressmen ? including then-Rep. Bill Lowery of San Diego, whom Wilkes met during his participation in the SDSU Young Republicans organization ? to Central America to meet with Foggo and Contra leaders.

A number of sources who have had business dealings with Wilkes say he hinted at that time and afterward that he was affiliated with the CIA. CIA sources say he was never employed by the agency.

By the time Wilkes returned to San Diego in the late 1980s, he had established relationships with members of the House Armed Services, Intelligence and Appropriations committees.

Neither Wilkes, Foggo nor Lowery responded to requests for comment.

By 1990, Wilkes was working for Aimco Financial Management in La Jolla. His chief duty was to bring in politicians, including Lowery, to talk to Aimco clients about how new laws might affect their finances.

Aimco ran into trouble after securities regulators accused its founder, Marvin I. Friedman, of taking $268,000 of a client's funds in 1991.

Wilkes left Aimco in 1992 to take a job as a political consultant for Audre Inc., a Rancho Bernardo firm that specialized in automated document conversion systems, which converted maps and engineering drawings into a format that could be edited via computer.

Audre, which was nearly bankrupt at the time, was eager to get more federal contracts. Shortly after Wilkes' arrival, the 35-person firm, headed by San Diego businessman Tom Casey, began donating thousands of dollars to key members of Congress.

"Wilkes was a political operator," said former Audre engineer Dirk Holland. "He was pretty slick. He knew how to grease the wheels."

Said a former business associate of Wilkes: "He knew that it pays to get a sponsor. He knew that's the way the game is played, and he convinced Tom Casey that that's what it's all about."

Between 1992 and 1997, Audre employees and family members donated $77,000 to members of Congress.Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, who got $7,250, and Cunningham, who got $5,050, became prominent backers of automated document systems in Congress.

"Our job as San Diego congressmen is to do our best to make sure our guys get a fair shot," Hunter said recently. "And Brent Wilkes and Tom Casey were aggressive and enthusiastic promoters of a breakthrough technology."

Audre was able to increase its influence by teaming up with Evergreen Information Technologies, a Colorado company that specialized in computerizing federal contract information.

Casey had been one of the founders of Evergreen in the early 1990s and served on its board of directors. Evergreen gave $22,000 in political donations, often targeting the same politicians on the same dates as Audre.

According to charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, $20,000 of Evergreen's donations were illegal. Evergreen Chief Executive Barry Nelsen asked staffers to write $1,000 checks, leaving the "payee" line blank, according to SEC documents. Nelsen then gave the checks to lawmakers and repaid his workers in violation of federal law, the SEC charged in 1993.

Nelsen did not fight the charges and was fined $65,000. He says he made the donations ? none of which went to Hunter or Cunningham ? so Congress would push the Navy to work with his firm.

Getting noticed
"I went to Tom Casey and said, 'How do we get some money or political heat or something to make the Navy do what they should do?' " Nelsen said. "So up pops Brent Wilkes."

Nelsen said Wilkes identified which politicians should be given donations.

The lobbying by Audre, as well as that of other software companies, was effective. Congress created an automated document conversion program, which provided $190 million in contracts between 1993 and 2001.

Audre won more than $12.5 million of those contracts, largely provided through earmarks that let legislators add pet projects to the budget.

"An earmark is usually devoted to a particular company or particular project that is tied to a particular congressman," said Michael Surrusco, director of ethics campaigns at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.

Earmarks are typically added to budget bills after they have been passed by the Senate and the House and the differing versions are being resolved in a conference committee. Because those meeting occur outside public view, the earmarks can be a way of avoiding scrutiny or accountability.

The earmarks were included in the budget even though the Pentagon never asked for funds for automated document conversion. In 1994, the General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office, which monitors federal spending, found that the military did not need automated systems because it already had its own systems to digitize documents.

That did not dissuade Audre's supporters in Congress.

"I operate under the idea that not all good ideas come out of the Pentagon," Hunter said.

Two dozen firms vied for funding from the automated document conversion program. Their success depended on lobbying influential legislators, said Richard Gehling, who headed Audre's federal sales in the late 1990s.

Once Congress has appropriated money for programs, Pentagon officials decide how to apportion the money among prequalified contractors. These officials are very mindful of the desires of members of Congress who were crucial in funding the program, contractors and program managers said.

Gehling described Audre's technique for obtaining government contracts during a deposition in a lawsuit he filed in 2000 to gain back pay from the company.

A successful sale to the military, he maintained, "normally boiled down to who the House or Senate member was and how much pressure they put on the undersecretary (of Defense) about getting the funding for their constituents."

Audre attorney Ian Kessler asked: "That, in turn, depends upon how much political muscle, how much influence (a company has) with a particular congressperson?"

Gehling: "The majority of the time, it's (whichever company) has the most clout."

Kessler: "You mean the most political clout?"

Gehling: "Who's paid more."

Kessler: "Paid more in terms of political contributions?"

Gehling: "Fundraisers. Sponsoring."

To build more political backing for Audre, Wilkes asked Casey in 1994 to budget at least $40,000 a month for lobbying, far beyond what the money-losing company had been spending, according to two sources at the company.

When Casey balked, Wilkes quit the firm. Six months later, Wilkes launched ADCS Inc., customizing a German system called VPMax to compete for contracts to convert government documents. It was a family affair. Most of the company's top executives were related to Wilkes or his wife, Regina.

The Pentagon rated VPMax as faster, easier and cheaper than Audre. VPMax cost $6,035 per unit, compared with $11,479 for Audre's PC system and $29,950 for its Unix system.

Even so, Hunter backed Audre, partly because it was a U.S.-made product.

"I did oppose having a German firm get the business," he said recently, although the German creator of VPMax was getting little more than licensing fees for the ADCS project.

Casey played on that sentiment. When talking to Hunter about ADCS, Casey called it "the German software." Hunter, in turn, asked Maj. Gen. John Phillips, the Pentagon's chief purchasing officer, to "whenever possible, use [document conversion] products that are made in the United States by American taxpayers."

In May 1995, just as Wilkes was launching ADCS, Hunter ? who had just been named chairman of the Armed Services Committee ? let Audre use his office for two weeks to demonstrate its newest release to Pentagon officials.

Two weeks after the demonstrations ended, Audre sold $1.2 million of the software to the military for testing.

"When you're in a position like Hunter was, you have a lot of clout, and we're not supposed to rock the boat," said a former Pentagon procurement official who declined to be named.

At that point, Wilkes started donating money to Cunningham, who sat on a House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Pentagon budget. Since October 1995, he and his associates have given $71,500 to Cunningham's campaign and political action committee. Cunningham became an ADCS booster.

"The success achieved by ADCS Inc. is an asset to the San Diego business and technological communities," Cunningham said in a 1997 endorsement that was printed in ADCS' pamphlets and press releases. He predicted VPMax would lead to "a stronger, more efficient national defense."

In 1996, Casey pressed Hunter to find out why the military was not buying more of Audre's software. Hunter demanded a Pentagon investigation.

A report from the Pentagon's Inspector General responded that "little demand exists" for automated document conversion systems. Aside from a Navy base in Ventura County, Port Hueneme, no military installation said it needed the systems. Much of the software Congress had funded was languishing in storage.

Such criticism did not dissuade Hunter.

According to Gehling's deposition, Hunter pushed the military to buy $2.5 million in Audre software in February 1997.

"There were still problems with the software," Gehling said. "It's always been flaky. It's still flaky."

Under pressure from Cunningham, the Pentagon shifted the money from Audre to ADCS. At the time, Cunningham said he only wanted the military to pick the best contractor possible. Donald Lundell, who was then Audre's chief executive, accused Cunningham of being swayed by Wilkes' campaign contributions.

At the time, Cunningham rejected any criticism of his actions.

"I'm on the side of the angels here," he said then, adding that anyone who questioned his role "can just go to hell."

Questionable projects
By then, the document conversion program was drawing fire from Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who included it on a list of $5.5 billion "objectionable" earmarks that Congress had tacked onto the military budget.

In July 1997, McCain accused the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee, where both Hunter and Cunningham sat, of "virtually ignoring the request of the Pentagon and impeding the military's ability to channel resources where they are most needed."

McCain said that "with military training exercises continuing to be cut, backlogs in aircraft and ship maintenance, flying hour shortfalls, military health care underfunded by $600 million, and 11,787 servicemembers reportedly on food stamps," Congress should not be funding "a plethora of programs not requested by the Defense Department."

McCain was largely ignored. Three months later, Congress earmarked $20 million for document conversion systems. The earmarks hit $25 million the next year, including ADCS' biggest project: a $9.7 million contract to digitize documents in the Panama Canal Zone, which was to be handed to Panama in 1999.

The idea for the project came about at a time that Hunter and Cunningham were both warning that the People's Republic of China might try to take over Panama once U.S. forces left. The project was based on the idea that the U.S. should have blueprints of public buildings in Panama in case of a Chinese takeover.

Wilkes began lobbying for the project in early 1998, targeting Rep. Robert Livingston of Louisiana, who chaired the Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands and Cunningham, who served on the subcommittee on defense.

As the Appropriations Committee earmarked the budget, Wilkes, his wife Regina, Wilkes' nephew and lobbyist Joel Combs, attorney Richard Bliss and Rollie Kimbrough, a Democrat who headed a Washington, D.C., company that partnered with ADCS on the project, contributed a total of $28,000 to the three Republican lawmakers.

The project passed without the Pentagon's support, since most of the documents in Panama had little military value. Many of the documents that were of military value already were being photocopied, faxed or scanned into computers.

But Wilkes got a contract to convert millions of documents into computer-readable format, including reams of papers that dated to the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt. By Wilkes' own description, ADCS was using its most expensive technology to scan engineering drawings from the 1870s and images of boats from the 1910s.

Louis Kratz, an assistant undersecretary of defense, tried to block funding for the project, arguing there were more pressing needs at the Army's Missile Command, the Air Force's Logistics Center and an Air Force Pacific Base project.

Kratz was rebuffed by Cunningham as well as Hunter, who wanted the Pentagon to give Audre a $3.9 million contract to perform document conversion on an Abrams tank project.

Kratz later told The Washington Post that he had never encountered such "arrogance" and "meddling" as he had from Cunningham and Wilkes. John Karpovich, who helped run the document conversion program at the Defense Department before his retirement, said Wilkes infuriated Pentagon staff by claiming that the document conversion money belonged to him.

"Brent came in and said, 'That's our money,' " Karpovich recalled. "He said, 'The congressmen put the money in there for us.' "

Kratz eventually freed the funds, delaying the Air Force and Missile Command projects. But he also asked the Inspector General to investigate how the projects got funding.

In June 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General reported that several important projects had lost funding because "two congressmen" pressured defense officials to shift the money to the Panama and Abrams tank projects. The shift in funding was causing some military officers to "lose confidence in the fairness of the selection process," the Inspector General reported.

Lavish living
The money from Panama and other ADCS contracts ? ranging from Gateway computer systems to military sound technology ? helped fund a heady lifestyle for Wilkes and his associates.

In 1999, Wilkes and his wife bought a $1.5 million home in the Poway hills. He soon bought a second home: a $283,500 town house in the Virginia suburbs near Washington, D.C. During his visits to Washington, he made his rounds in a chauffeur-driven Mercedes. At the Capital Grille, a favored hangout of legislators and lobbyists, he rented a personalized wine locker with his best friend Foggo.

Wilkes spread his taxpayer-provided funds throughout his company, taking executives on periodic retreats to Hawaii and Idaho.

In Honolulu, Wilkes stayed at suites at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel or rented the beachfront mansion of the late hairstyling mogul Paul Mitchell, which typically goes for $50,000 a week.

In Idaho, Wilkes' team stayed at the posh Coeur d'Alene Resort, where Wilkes paid $2,500 a night for a 2,500-square-foot penthouse suite, featuring an indoor swimming pool and outdoor Jacuzzi, said former employees and sources in Idaho.

For dinner, Wilkes would take his team to Beverley's restaurant, where a group meal could easily cost several thousand dollars. For recreation, they would fish, Jet Ski or play at the resort's exclusive golf course, famed for its 14th hole on a man-made floating island in Lake Coeur d'Alene.

There were retreats to Hawaii and Idaho at least once a year, said one source inside the company, with visits to Idaho typically occurring in spring or summer and visits to Hawaii in fall or winter.

Wilkes made no bones about where his money was coming from. His jet-black Hummer bore a license plate reading MIPR ME ? a reference to Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests, which authorize funds in the Pentagon.

Wilkes shared the benefits of his largesse with the politicians who helped him. He took Cunningham on several out-of-state trips on his corporate jet. Cunningham has produced no records showing that he paid for food, lodging or transportation while traveling to resorts with Wilkes, although he does have receipts for several campaign trips on Wilkes' jet.

Wilkes also bought a small powerboat that he moored behind Cunningham's yacht, the Kelly C, at the Capital Yacht Club in Washington, D.C. The boat was available for Cunningham's use anytime Wilkes was not using it.

But what landed Wilkes in trouble with federal prosecutors was his gifts to Cunningham. According to Cunningham's plea agreement, "Co-conspirator No. 1," gave $525,000 to Cunningham on May 13, 2004, to pay off the second mortgage on Cunningham's home in Rancho Santa Fe.

Co-conspirator No. 1 also gave $100,000 to Cunningham on May 1, 2000, which went into Cunningham's personal accounts in San Diego and Washington, D.C. And he paid $11,116.50 to help pay Cunningham's mortgage on the Kelly C.

The plea agreement charged that in return for the payments, Cunningham "used his public office and took other official action to influence U.S. Department of Defense personnel to award and execute government contracts."

Wilkes befriended other legislators, too. He ran a hospitality suite, with several bedrooms, in Washington ? first in the Watergate Hotel and then in the Westin Grand near Capitol Hill.

He also kept his donations flowing, targeting people with clout over the Pentagon budget: $43,000 to Jerry Lewis, who now heads the Appropriations Committee; $35,500 to Hunter, who heads the Armed Services Committee; and $30,000 to Tom DeLay, who flew on Wilkes' jet several times and has been a frequent golfing buddy.

Over the past three years, Wilkes' lobbying group in Washington ? Group W Advisors ? also paid about $630,000 in lobbying fees to Alexander Strategy Group, a firm headed by DeLay's former chief of staff Ed Buckham and staffed with former DeLay employees.

The firm has a well-publicized reputation in Washington as a conduit to DeLay's office.

"The Alexander lobbyists' sales pitch was, 'Either you hire me or DeLay is going to screw you,' " an anonymous source identified as a top Republican lobbyist told the Congressional Quarterly weekly last month. "It was not really a soft sell."

Besides donating money to DeLay's campaign, Wilkes also has given money to a political action committee that DeLay helped organize: Texans for a Republican Majority. The group is under investigation for allegedly breaking Texas law to divert corporate contributions into its drive to redraw the state's election districts.

DeLay was indicted in late September over his activities with the group.

One of the group's biggest contributors was PerfectWave Technologies, one of Wilkes' companies, which donated $15,000.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert also flew on Wilkes' jet several times, sources say, although Hastert's expense records show no payments for such trips.

Besides its military work, ADCS also vied for state and municipal contracts, both for document conversion services as well as mapping systems to help speed police, firefighters and emergency workers to crime sites or fires.

As Wilkes vied for contracts, he donated to state and local politicians, such as San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts and Assemblyman George Plescia of Poway. The kickoff for Plescia's political campaign was held in ADCS' headquarters; Plescia was about to marry Wilkes' government affairs manager Melissa Dollaghan.

Other than Wilkes' donations to federal campaigns, his biggest contributions went to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Besides helping coordinate the Schwarzenegger campaign's finance activities in San Diego County during the 2003 recall election, Wilkes and his wife donated $42,400 to Schwarzenegger, the maximum allowable. The next year, Wilkes allowed Schwarzenegger to use ADCS' headquarters as a local office for his 2004 workers' compensation initiative campaign.

Schwarzenegger appointed Wilkes as a board member of the Del Mar Race Track Board in 2004 and the State Race Track Leasing Commission this year.

None of the employees would comment, and company officials shooed a reporter and a photographer away from the property.

The headquarters building was erected in 2003 at a cost of $11 million when the company was receiving a steady stream of government contracts. According to the architectural firm that built it, the building boasts a 100-seat theater, a 2,000-square-foot kitchen, and 32,000 square feet of office space, including a large sandbox lined with surfboards, which was designed to bring an element of fun into the workplace.

Sources who have worked at or done business with ADCS say the company has shrunk in size from more than 135 employees at its heyday to about 45 or fewer today. The headquarters is largely empty, the sources say.

Dean Calbreath: dean.calbreathATuniontrib.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That Wilkes is an old acquaintance of Jackson T. Stephens probably didn't hurt.

Stephens is the chairman of Stephens Inc., the nation's largest investment bank off Wall Street. Its home office is located in little ol' Little Rock, Arkansas. He and his brother, Witt, built the Stephens Inc. empire out of a bible, belt buckle and bond business. In 1994, Stephens Inc. was listed as one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food (# 10), Wal-Mart (# 113) and Alltel (# 12). Interestingly, it was Stephens who staked Sam Walton when he started Wal-Mart in 1970, and financed Tyson's takeover of Holly Farms in 1988. (Stephens, Tyson and Walton (1917-1992), all billionaires from Arkansas.) Stephens sold a 275 phone exchange to Alltel when they broke into the phone market, and guaranteed in 1990 that Alltel would get Systematics by refusing to sell his 10% stake in Systematics to anyone but Alltel. In many ways Arkansas is the house that Jack built. Unfortunately, for the folks in East Liverpool, Ohio, and the Tri-State area (WV, PA, OH) who were saddled with Von Roll's hazardous waste incinerator, Arkansas was never big enough for Stephens.
[...]
This is where things get complex. Jackson Stephens, as noted above has been partners with an Indonesian Tycoon, Mochtar Riady*. His son, James Riady was a co-president of Worthen Bank (Federal News Service, July 17' 1997). In 1994, Stephens' family interests owned approximately 55% of Worthen bank's outstanding stocks (Worthen proxy, March 29, 1994). Worthern provided the Clinton campaign with a $2 million dollar financing deal that basically saved the Democratic National Party from a cash shortage in the early 1992 Presidential campaign (The Spectator, October 1992). The Riadys own a company called The Lippo Group*.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WTI has links, too, with the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton worked on many Stephens projects involving municipal and state bond work. Stephens made an effort to secure bond financing for WTI through the Ohio Water Development Authority in 1987. Documents obtained by TAS, including a December 14 application for $139 million in state bond financing, listed Stephens as the proposed lead managing underwriter. While Charles A. Waterman of Brickler and Eckler served as counsel for Stephens on a number of WTI projects, the Rose Firm was retained during the 1980s to do bond work for Stephens as well. The Yamada report on Sussman's conflict-of-interest mentioned Hillary's work for the Stephenses, and noted that it was Hillary who recommended the compromised Sussman for his EPA job overseeing WTI.

[...]
When Lafarge obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge for sand and gravel in a section of the Ohio River directly facing WTI, the circle of conflicts-of-interest was finally closed. Since at least April 1991, while Hillary was a board member of the parent company, Standard Lafarge has been permitted to dredge the Ohio River for sand and gravel to make cement. While the dredging clearly benefits Lafarge's cement-making operation, the consequent deepening of the Ohio River will allow waterway access to the WTI incinerator. Since the original permit allowed for a port structure, and since WTI has run into opposition due to its use of roadways to haul hazardous waste, opening the Ohio River to WTI would solve a number of its problems.

Georgia 1st District

Jim Nelson is aiming for the First District Congressional seat in Georgia.

A communciations sampler:

Dear Dr. Nelson

Our group met last evening and a good part of the time was spent discussing your candidacy. The
consensus of the group was that we agree that time is of the essence, but that we have many
questions about your policies and your approach to the race. I had prepared a small package for
review which included the "issues" page from your website and the letter you had sent to the
county Democratic chairpersons. I was quite sure I had seen more specifics on an earlier site
(jimforgeorgia) and tracked that down this morning and sent the information on to the members.

We decided that we would like answers from you to specific questions and the group will be
preparing these over the next few days. We don't meet officially again until January but will use
email to reach a decision as to whether to support your application to the national DFA as soon as
we receive your information. If we should decide to do so, I trust that you have information as
to how we would proceed.

>> Jann,
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge there is no group in
>> Savannah. I understand your reluctance to support someone early in the game. But, consider
>> that it takes a lot of money to win a Congressional race, most of that money will come from
>> outside the district from national PACs and other sources. Those groups give depending on the
>> amount of support a candidate has gotten on his or her own from within their district. Baring
>> some revalation about Jack Kingston (who already has over $800k), this race will be won or lost
>> in the next couple of months. If you and all the other groups in the area wait too long it
>> won't matter, and Jack Kingston will continue to by your Representative. I would encourage you
>> to look at his voting record. As progressives, liberals, populists, or just plain democrats we
>> need to work together now if we are going to change things in Washington later.
>>
>> Just something for you to consider. And, an explanation of why I am working hard at this time
>> to raise money and get endorsements. If I can answer any specific questions, I will be happy
>> too. But if we are going to end this unnecessary war in Iraq, keep vital programs for the most
>> needy among us, and get control over skyrocketing deficits we are leaving to our children, we
>> need to act. That is the primary reason I have decided to get off the bench where all I did was
>> complain about how things are going, and get in the game myself.
>>
>> Jim Nelson
>> www.ElectJimNelson.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jann Swanson"
>> To: jim@electjimnelson.com
>> Subject: Re: 1st District Race
>> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:56:23 -0800 (PST)
>>
>
>>> >
>>> > We are meeting this evening and you are on our agenda. In the past
>>> > the group (and we are small)
>>> > has been reluctant to endorse anyone early in the game (this was
>>> > the case with the Brunswick
>>> > Mayoral race in which there was an excellent progressive
>>> > candidate). I suspect that the consensus
>>> > will be that we need to wait and see if other candidates come
>>> > forward before committing.
>>> >
>>> > There was an active DfA chapter in Savannah but I have been trying
>>> > to contact them for months and
>>> > they seem to have disappeared.
>>> >
>>> > Jann Swanson
>>> >
>
>>--- jim@electjimnelson.com wrote:

>> Jann,
>>
>> I have been in communication with DFA about getting their endorsement. They indicated I need to
>> fill out a formal application, which I am doing, and get a letter from a local group. You seem
>> to be the only group in the area. What do I need to get your group's endorsement? I think if
>> you read the many articles I have written over the years, you would find my positions very much
>> in line with those expressed by DFA.
>>
>> Jim Nelson
>> www.electjimnelson.com
>>

There was an intervening communication from Dr. Nelson in which he referred me to his website for
more information.

>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jann Swanson"
>> To: jim@electjimnelson.com
>> Subject: 1st District Race
>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:29:31 -0800 (PST)
>>
>
>>> >
>>> > Dr. Nelson;
>>> >
>>> > I am the organizer of the Glynn County Democracy for America group
>>> > in Brunswick. We are small but
>>> > growing and very interested in the defeat of Rep. Kingston. Both
>>> > Monica Smith, the DFA
>>> > coordinator in New Hampshire, and Reeney Adams,the Dem. Chair in
>>> > Camden County have forwarded me
>>> > their correspondence with you.
>>> >
>>> > Our next DFA meeting will be Tuesday, Dec. 6 and I would like to
>>> > put a discussion of your
>>> > candidacy on our agenda. I wonder if you could forward me either
>>> > some campaign materials if you
>>> > have any put together as yet or perhaps a little more information
>>> > about you than was in your
>>> > letter to the county chairs.
>>> >
>>> > Such information can be sent to this email address or to:
>>> >
>>> >

How it is in Iraq

Yosfiya: The 21st Century Nazis Are Here

illustrated with photographs of the people and the devastation can be found here-----

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq2.htm

Yosfiya: The 21st Century Nazis Are Here

Sabah Ali (20 Nov 2005)

Those who follow the American occupation of Iraq news may be familiar with a term used in media almost two years ago: The Triangle of Death, an area south of Baghdad, which constitutes of three relatively small towns; Yosfiya, Mahmoodiya and Latifiya. Of course it has nothing to do with death; on the contrary it is situated in one of the greenest, most beautiful and peaceful areas of Iraq, full of fruit orchards, vegetable farms where the Tigris and the Euphrates and many smaller canals flow calmly through the rural areas and hundreds of small villages. It also used to be one of the most important industrial areas in central Iraq, especially textiles. But it is branded Triangle of Death by the American troops now, because they face the largest number of attacks on the southern high way there.

The population is a mixture of Shiite and Sunni Arab tribes, as almost everywhere else in Iraq. It never happened in history that this area witnessed any sectarian conflict whatsoever. Directly after the occupation, and through 2004, news of American raids, arrests, big military operations were regular there. This year however, a new (dimension) was added, horrible stories of arrests, torture, and mass killing news were coming out, not only by the American troops, but also by the Iraqi police and Army units. These news rarely, almost never, find their way into the mainstream media, neither Iraqi nor international.

Yosfiya is almost part of southern Baghdad, maybe less than 30 kilometers. The biggest and most essential point here is now the Saqr (hawk) American military base, and prison where all detainees from south Baghdad are usually taken, to be moved later into bigger prisons like Abu Graib or Camp Bucca in Um Qasr (near Basra) or other unknown prisons. In the past this huge facility was a Scania bus factory. That is why Iraqis call it Scania prison. Mountains of garbage are thrown on both sides of the highway (the driver commented sarcastically that everything went down in Iraq except garbage, it went up), beyond that is the car graveyard, a very big area where damaged vehicles are collected to be sold for the cheapest price in a neighboring country. To make it worse, very long queues of cars stop endlessly here either to get fuel, waiting at many check points, or are stopped temporarily to let the American or Iraqi military patrols pass. Expectedly, the way to Yosfiya which normally wouldn?t take more that 15 minutes, takes now at least 1.30 hour.

Our destination was a village called Qaraghool. But the driver explained that it is impossible to reach that village because it is besieged by the Iraqi and American troops for 3 months.

- ?this is the point?, we objected , ?we want to see how the villagers are surviving there?

- ?Not today please, trust me you cannot go today? he was firm.

Our first stop was Nasser Shneiter village, on the eastern side. This is no more than 14 houses of farmers from one family: Nasser, a Shiite family from Beni Saad tribe. On the dusty side way, a deserted house was destroyed, the walls split, the windows smashed, the okras left to dry un plucked, so are the cotton trees. The apiary boxes and the animals? yard were empty and deserted. The driver explained that the house was raided, bombed by sound bombs, two men were arrested, one of them, Nektal Rahman Adaay was killed during the arrest. The family,12, are now living with relatives.

Nasser village looked completely deserted. Nothing could be seen or heard except dogs? barking. Most of the houses were burnt out. We were filming the first, Hussein?s which was completely destroyed and burnt out except for Imam Ali?s picture, when a young man, covered with dust, appeared from no where and asked curiously what we were doing. He was very surprised to see journalists ?at last? as he said, and began relating what happened on November 5, 2005, the first day of Ramadan.

The Iraqi police Special Forces, Al-Hussein Brigades, came at dawn. There were around 20 pick ups full of them. They were hit on the highway very badly from a place behind the Yosfiya Water Project, east of the village. Tens of them were killed. Their cars were burnt. Some of them hid inside the village. The battle went on for 3 hours. In the end some of them managed to run away. In the afternoon, the same day, more forces returned back accompanied by the American troops and helicopters. They evacuated their dead, raided the houses, killed and arrested the men, humiliated the families, killed the cows and chicken, destroyed the yards, and set the village on fire.

?They dragged one of the men Abbass Oeid, more than 70 years, and beat him to death. Two other man, were arrested, Karim Motar, 50, and Riyadh Talab Jabr, 20. Their bodies were found three days later in Baghdad. They put police uniform on Karim?s body. Riyadh was naked. Both were savagely tortured, their bones, backs, and arms were smashed?.

?They believed that the village was colluding with the resistance?.

Ali Nasser, another man from the village furiously denied that this is true ?some of them were not killed, they managed to run away, they can testify about what happened., actually they hid in our houses and fought from there, we gave them protection, some families served them tea and bread. They say that the Sunnis are fighting them, we are Shiite, so why they burnt our village??

- Can you answer this question?

- ?I can not, I do not know, that is why I ask the government to come here and investigate. We have done nothing wrong, never hurt any body or broken any law. We were punished for a crime that we did not do. We were in the middle of the fire, this is our only fault?

Ali?s house was completely destroyed. The ceilings iron bars were dropping because of the fire. There were children beds, traditional Iraqi babies? swinging beds, babies? milk cans, smashed plates, all burnt to skeleton. Ali was not hesitant to talk in front of the camera.

-?I want the government to hear my question and answer me: why were we treated like this? The police brigades broke even the electricity converters, we do not have power for 40 days, of course water pumps do not operate and the plants are all dead. Our animals were killed, our women humiliated. They ask the women where did you hide the men, they grabbed the children from their hair and throw them to the ground. Riyadh?s mother was crying and begging them to leave her son; they hit her with the gun?s end, they smashed his head with a brick in front of her eyes, now she is dying. When his body was found it was skinned? Abbass was so old that he could not even walk, how he would be a terrorist!! He was beaten to death on the spot and his body was thrown in the drainage. When they searched the houses they did not find any indication that any of them had any thing to do with terrorism or weapons, so why? The government is working on turning every body against it. It is encouraging ordinary people to resist by treating them so savagely. They have no mercy. We have nothing left now, nothing?

Ali went to the police with some men to complain. The police accused the villagers of slaughtering the policemen. He tried to explain what he told us, that the village was caught in the middle of the fires, that the policemen bodies were found in the village because they used it as a shelter and were fighting there, that they were hit from the water project, but his attempts were useless. In fact the police threatened to arrest him. 24 people were living in Ali?s house, now they are scattered on five different places.

All Yosfiya men do not sleep in their houses, no matter if they were young, old, armed, or have nothing to do with the resistance; because the police arrest any men around. Women are left alone to face the situation. In Hilal?s house, deeper inside the farms we met Karima, a brave farmer, Hilal?s wife and a mother of many children. Nothing was left in her small house, everything was burnt out, even the flour, the sugar and the rice were destroyed.

-?I tried to save something, but I could not, they would not let me. They came in four helicopters and surrounded the whole area. They put the gun on my head and asked where the mojahideen are. They destroyed everything, even my medicines. They said you help the mojahideen with those medicines, and destroyed them. Troops from the police Scorpion brigade were hit in the area the day before, and they believed that we knew about the mojahideen?.

Three beautiful girls were looking at us and smiling. Ghofran was 10, Iman 7, and Ayat, 5. They were the daughters of Hamid, Hilal?s brother, who was arrested almost two years ago. ?I could not see, he is in Bucca, they do not let me go to see him? Ghofran said pointing to her uncle. Hamid was a school guard; he was arrested because the police believed that the school was used to hide some kidnapped foreigners.

In Abid Ahmad house the same story was repeated. The police forces were hit on the nearest paved road. They raided the house, destroyed the furniture, and burnt everything, including all the family and the land documents. Worst of all they burnt Abid?s new car which he just bought two months ago for 8 million dinars (more than $5000). Abid looks after a family of 18, including his father, mother, sister and 2 brothers apart from his own children. ?I have to pay 75.000 dinars just to get them new IDs, you can imagine?

Abid went to the police to complain. The police and the judge decided that he was innocent and deserved compensation ?but frankly speaking, I do not have any hope that I will get anything?.

OHIO Mess

With new legislation, Ohio Republicans plan holiday burial for American Democracy
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
December 6, 2005

A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor. Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal US Senate seat in 2006, are about to end.

House Bill 3 has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is about to be approved by the Republican-dominated Senate, probably before the holiday recess. Republicans dominate the Ohio legislature thanks to a heavily gerrymandered crazy quilt of rigged districts, and to a moribund Ohio Democratic party. The GOP-drafted HB3 is designed to all but obliterate any possible future Democratic revival. Opposition from the Ohio Democratic Party, where it exists at all, is diffuse and ineffectual.

HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over.

The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the US, starting with Georgia and Indiana. The ID requirements in particular have provoked widespread opposition from newspapers such as the New York Times. The Times, among others, argues that the ID requirements and the costs associated with them, constitute an unconstitutional discriminatory poll tax.

But despite significant court challenges, the Republicans are forcing changes in long-standing election laws that have allowed citizens to vote based on their signature alone. Across the US, GOP Jim Crow laws will eliminate millions of Democratic voters from the registration rolls. In swing states like Ohio, such ballots are almost certain to be crucial.

The proposed Ohio law will demand a valid photo ID or a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck or a government document with a current address. Thousands of Ohio citizens who are elderly, homeless, unemployed or who do not drive will be effectively disenfranchised. Many citizens, for example, rent apartments where the utilities are paid by landlords. In such cases, the number of people living in utilities-included apartment rentals could actually determine an election.

During the 2004 presidential election, Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, also issued statewide threats against ex-felons and people whose names resembled those of ex-felons. Thousands of such threats were delivered to registered voters who were never convicted of anything, or who were eligible to vote after being released from prison. In 2004 a "Mighty Texas Strike Force" came to Columbus with a specific mandate to threaten ex-felons with arrest if they dared to vote.

It is legal for ex-felons in Ohio to vote, even if they are in half-way houses or on parole. But HB3's identification requirement, combined with the confusion Blackwell has introduced into the process, will intimidate such Ohioans from voting in 2006 and beyond.

HB3 will also reduce voter rolls by ordering county boards of elections to send cards to registered voters every two years. If a card comes back as undelivered, the voter must rely on a provisional ballot. But tens of thousands of provisional ballots were arbitrarily discarded in 2004, and some 16,000 are known to remain uncounted to this day.

HB3 also imposes severe restrictions on voter registration drives. It allows the state attorney-general and local prosecutors wide powers to prosecute vaguely defined charges of fraud against those working to sign up voters. The restrictions are clearly meant to chill the kind of Democratic registration drives that brought hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls in 2004 (even though many were turned away in Democratic wards due to a lack of voting machines).

Those electronic machines will also be exempted from recounts by random sampling, even in close, disputed elections like those of 2000 and 2004.

In 2004, scores of Ohio voters reported, under oath, that they had pressed John Kerry's name on touchscreen machines, only to see George W. Bush's name light up. A board of elections technician in Mahoning County (Youngstown) has admitted that at least 18 machines there suffered such problems. Sworn testimony in Columbus indicates that votes for Kerry faded off the screen on touchscreen machines there. Other charges of mis-programming, re-programming, recalibrating, mishandling and manipulation of electronic voting software, hardware and memory cards have since arisen throughout Ohio 2004.

For the 2005 election, some 41 additional Ohio counties (of 88) were switched to Diebold touchscreen machines. Despite polls showing overwhelming voter approval, two electoral reform issues went down improbable defeat. Issue Two, meant to make voting easier, and Issue Three, on campaign finance reform, were shown by highly reliable Columbus Dispatch polls to be passing handily.

The Dispatch was within 0.5% on Issue One, a bond issue, and has rarely been significantly wrong in its many decades of Ohio polling. And even opponents of Issues Two and Three conceded that they were highly likely to pass.

On the Sunday before the Tuesday 2005 election, the Dispatch predicted Issue Two would pass by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided. But Tuesday's official vote count showed Issue Two failing with just 36.5% in favor and 63.5% opposed. For that to have happened, the Dispatch had to have been wrong on Issue Two's support by more than 20 points. Nearly half those who said they would support Issue Two would have had to vote against it, along with all the undecideds.

The numbers on Issue Three are equally startling. The Dispatch showed it winning with 61%, to just 25% opposed and some 14% undecided. Instead just 33% of the votes were counted in its favor, with 67% opposed, an almost inconceivable weekend turnaround.

No other numbers were comparable on November 8, 2005, or elsewhere in the recent history of Dispatch polling. The startling outcome has thus raised even more suspicion and doubt about the use of electronic voting and tabulating machines in Ohio, which account for virtually 100% of the state's vote count.

The federal General Accountability Office (GAO) has recently issued a major report confirming that tampering with and manipulating such machines can be easily done by a very small number of people. Charges are widespread that this is precisely what gave George W. Bush Ohio's electoral votes, and thus the presidency, in 2004, not to mention the suspicious referenda outcomes in 2005.

HB3 will make it virtually impossible for any challenge to be mounted involving any votes cast or counted on electronic machines or tabulators---meaning virtually every vote cast in Ohio.

Indeed, HB3 will raise the cost of mounting a recount from $10 per precinct to $50 per precinct. In 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell forced citizen groups to raise private funds for a recount, which he proceeded to sabotage. The process, which became a futile electronic charade, cost donors committed to democracy more than $100,000. Three partial, meaningless faux recounts resulted. To date more than 100,000 votes cast in Ohio remain uncounted, including some 93,000 easily-read machine-rejected ballots. .

During the 2004 election process Blackwell, manipulated the number of precincts in Ohio, and issued inaccurate information about their location and boundaries, making a meaningful precise number hard to come by. But with more than 10,000 precincts still in existence, HB3 would make funding an attempt at another recount in 2006 or 2008 cost more than $500,000.

Such an effort might also result in official retaliation. In 2004, Blackwell and Ohio Attorney-General Jim Petro---both of whom are now Republican candidates for governor---tried to impose stiff financial sanctions against attorneys who filed a legal challenge to the seating of the Ohio electors who gave George W. Bush the presidency. The Ohio Supreme Court disallowed the sanctions after the challenge was withdrawn. But HB3 would make such a federal election challenge illegal altogether.

With the electoral process in Ohio all but disemboweled, those hoping for a change of party in upcoming state and national elections are probably kidding themselves.

The 2004 election in the Buckeye state was riddled with deception, fraud, intimidation, manipulation and outright theft, all of which were essential to the triumph of George W. Bush. In 2005, four electoral reform ballot initiatives were allegedly defeated despite huge poll margins showing the almost certain passage of two of them. The most credible explanation for their defeat lies in electronic manipulation of voting machines, tabulators and memory cards which the GAO confirms have no credible security safeguards.

With campaign finance, voter registration, electronic voting, public recounts, district gerrymandering and overall electoral administration now firmly in the pocket of the GOP, and with Democratic opposition that is virtually non-existent on the issue of vote fraud and election manipulation, there is little reason to believe the Republican grip on Ohio will be loosened at any point in the near future.

In traditional terms, the scandal-ridden Ohio GOP would appear to be more vulnerable than ever. Governor Robert Taft has become the only Ohio governor to be convicted of a crime while in office. With an astonishing 7% approval rating, he has been compared to Homer Simpson by the state's leading Republican newspaper. Republican US Senator Mike DeWine appears highly vulnerable. The GOP has never won the White House without winning the Buckeye State.

But HB3 will solidify the GOP's iron grip on the electronic voting process and all that surrounds it. Unless they break that grip, Democrats who believe they can carry any part of Ohio in 2006 or 2008 are kidding themselves.

When it comes to 2008, can you say "Jeb Bush"?

--
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available at www.Freepress.org. Their WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO, written with Steve Rosenfeld, will be published by the New Press in 2006. Fitrakis was one of the attorneys targeted by Blackwell and Petro in 2004.

Shop NOLA

New Orleans is open for business but customers are still scarce. So, in time for the holidays, here's a list of some that can be contacted from all over the country. Expect more to be added later.

The link page is now up and adding more addresses every day

http://hannah.smith-family.com/nola.html

Arts, Crafts and Antiques

As You Like It - Silver Shop
(504) 897-6915 or 1-800-828-2311
http://www.asyoulikeitsilvershop.com
FOR THE SILVER CONOISSEUR

Aux Belles Choses
(504) 891-1009
http://www.abcneworleans.com/
FOR HOME AND GARDEN ENTHUSIASTS

Cole Pratt Gallery
(504) 891-6789
http://coleprattgallery.com/
Please note that orders are accepted through phone, e-mail or fax only.
FOR CONTEMPORARY FINE SOUTHEREN ART

The Private Connection
1 888 263 9693
http://www.theprivateconnection.com/
The Private Connection features arts of Indonesia, handcrafted gifts, jewelry, fashion and accessories, unique furniture and architectural pieces. The N.Y. Times named it "The most cheerful shop on the street.?
GREAT FUNKY ITEMS

Top Drawer Antiques
(504) 897-1004
http://topdrawerantiques.net
FINE, ANTIQUE FURNITURE

Jewelry

Melange Sterling - Silver Shop, Inc.
(504) 899-4796, 1-800-513-3991
http://melangesterling.com/
GREAT FOR A FLEUR DE LIS PEARL NECKLACE(http://melangesterling.com/product.php?catId=5&prId=29)

Mignon Faget, Ltd
(504) 891-2005
http://mignonfaget.com/
SUGGESTED ITEM: JEWELED DONKEY PENDANT (http://shop.mignonfaget.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=0691&Category_Code=ANIMAL_CRA)

Ruby Ann Bertram-Harker
(504) 897-0811 or (800) 826-7282
http://rubyannonline.com/
SUGGESTED ITEM: CARNIVAL CROWN PIN (http://rubyannonline.com/index.php?id=118)

Sabai Jewelry Gallery
(504) 899-9555
http://www.sabaijewelry.com/
SUGGESTED ITEM: SINGING THE BLUES BRACELET (http://www.sabaijewelry.com/store/scripts/store.cgi?action=view&link=Sabai_Jewelry/Bracelets&image=9mbr601g.jpg&img=&tt=&tfile=tn_9mbr601g.jpg)

Clothes
Jean Therapy
(504) 897-5535
http://www.jeantherapy.com/
DESIGNER JEANS

Orient Expressed Imports, Inc.
(504) 899-3060
http://www.orientexpressed.com/
CHILDREN?S HAND-SMOCKED CLOTHES

Perlis Clothing
http://www.perlis.com/
(504) 895-8661
SUGGESTED ITEMS: CAJUN CLOTHES COMPANY SHIRTS WITH CRAWFISH LOGO

Pippen Lane
(504) 269-0106
http://store.pippenlane.com/
FOR CHILDREN?S GIFTS

Chocolate

Blue Frog Chocolates
(504) 269-5707
http://www.bluefrogchocolates.com/
Chosen the Best Candy Shop in New Orleans for the last five years.
FOR THE CHOCO-HOLIC

Oliveaux
(504) 899-8120
http://oliveaux.com/
CANDLES AND CHOCOLATE AS STOCKING STUFFERS

Books

Octavia Books
(504) 269-5707
http://www.octaviabooks.com/
http://octaviabooks.booksense.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp
CHECK OUT THEIR STAFF PICKS AND LOCAL SECTION

SCSI

Talk about throwing money at a problem.

IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)

General Information

Document Type:
Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number:
RFA 267-06-001
Posted Date:
Nov 30, 2005
Original Due Date for Applications:
Jan 31, 2006
The Request for Application will be issued after December 16, 2005
Current Due Date for Applications:
Jan 31, 2006
The Request for Application will be issued after December 16, 2005
Archive Date:
Mar 02, 2006
Funding Instrument Type:
Cooperative Agreement

Category of Funding Activity:
Regional Development

Expected Number of Awards:
Not Available.
Estimated Total Program Funding:
$1,020,000,000.00
Award Ceiling:
$1,320,000,000.00
Award Floor:
$1,020,000,000.00
CFDA Number:
98.001 -- USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement:
No
Eligible Applicants
Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"

Agency Name
Agency for International Development, Overseas Missions, Iraq (CPA) USAID-Baghdad
Description
The United States Agency for International Development is seeking applications for an Assistance Agreement from qualified sources to design and implement a social and economic stabilization program impacting ten Strategic Cities, identified by the United States Government as critical to the defeat of the Insurgency in Iraq. The number of Strategic Cities may expand or contract over time. USAID plans to provide approximately $1,020,000,000 over two years to meet the objectives of the Program. An additional option year may be considered amounting to $300 million at the discretion of USAID. Funds are not yet available for this program.
Link to Full Announcement
IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)
If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
Feurtado, Yvette, Contracting Officer, Phone 962-6-590-6477, Fax 962-6-590-6333, Email yfeurtado@usaid.gov Feurtado, Yvette


You may return to Grants Opportunities at:
AID OM listed by [Posted Date]
AID Agencywide listed by [Posted Date]

AIDS Day--Bush Record Not Good

DNC: Howard Dean Marks World AIDS Day

12/1/2005 12:15:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter, Health Reporter

Contact: Damien LaVera of Democratic National Committee, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement in commemorating World AIDS Day:

"World AIDS Day is a day for all Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder with the global community in honoring the more than 20 million lives that have been claimed by one of the worst pandemics in history. For more than two decades, HIV/AIDS has brought unparalleled loss and tragedy to so many communities and families in this country and around the world.

"Sadly, the pandemic continues unabated. Each day, 14,000 people join the ranks of the infected, adding to the more than 40 million people around the world living with HIV/AIDS, including more than one million in the United States alone. Today, I join all Americans in remembering those we have lost, in standing shoulder to shoulder with those living with this disease, and in renewing our commitment to finding a cure.

"In keeping with this year's World AIDS Day theme, 'Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise,' I call on President Bush to honor the commitments he made to ending this terrible disease. The Bush White House has talked a big game on fighting AIDS, but has consistently shortchanged the President's initiatives and stood in the way of important global efforts to curb this disease.

"America can do better than a President who breaks his promise on a matter as important as AIDS. President Bush should join Democrats in fighting to end this tragedy, first by providing all of the money he pledged in 2003 and then by standing up to his friends in the pharmaceutical industry who are stonewalling an agreement to provide generic medicines to poor and developing countries."

The following is a fact sheet from DNC Research on President Bush's broken promises on combating the global AIDS pandemic:

BUSH HAS BROKEN HIS PROMISES ON GLOBAL AIDS

144 vs. 1: Cheney Intervened to Block Generic Drugs to Poor Nations. In December 2002, the Bush Administration was the sole country to reject a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement that would allow poor nations to import drugs to help their citizens suffering from diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. According to the Guardian, Vice President Dick Cheney "seized the reins" from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and squashed the deal after intense lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry. In a letter to Zoellick, the deans of several major U.S. medical schools said the administration's position came, "to the detriment of millions of people suffering from diseases throughout the world." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/02/03; The Guardian, 12/21/02; Washington Post, 12/21/02)

Bush Administration Still Delaying Introduction of Generic Drugs After Five Years. After months of stonewalling an agreement to provide generic medicines to poor and developing countries, the U.S. made concessions in August 2003 to allow a WTO agreement to take place. But in the continuing negotiations over the agreement, the U.S. is demanding exclusive access for brand-name drugs that would delay availability of cheaper generic drugs for five years. Unsurprisingly, deputy vice president Mark Grayson of the drug industry trade association PhRMA stated that they had a "collaborative relationship" with US trade negotiators in the talks. (Washington Post, 8/31/03; Wall Street Journal, 7/6/04)

Bush Shortchanges Global HIV/AIDS Fight Three Years In A Row. In 2005, Bush requested $2.8 billion for fighting global HIV/AIDS in 2005 and $2 billion in 2004, falling behind in his commitment to provide $15 billion over 5 years to fight HIV/AIDS worldwide. In his 2006 budget, Bush provided $3.2 billion. However, HIV/AIDS advocates say that the budget proposal "falls short" because Congress had authorized up to $3.8 billion for these programs. (CQ Today, 3/10/04, 2/2/04; Reuters, 1/22/05)

Bush Administration Slow To Distribute Funds For AIDS Initiative. In January 2003, Bush pledged to spend $15 billion over five years to fight AIDS and HIV. But the first round of grants were not announced until February 2004 -- over a year later. Rather than contribute to the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Administration insisted on create a new bureaucracy to oversee the unilateral Bush initiative that delayed badly need assistance. (New York Times Editorial, 2/16/04)

Bush Repeatedly Tried to Cut Funding for Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Bush's proposed budgets had twice tried to cut our support of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the UN lead initiative that serves more than 120 AIDS-afflicted countries (compared to the 15 targeted in Bush's bilateral initiative). His fiscal year 2004 budget tried to cut US support of the Fund by 43 percent, his fiscal year 2005 budget tried to cut US support by 64 percent, and his 2006 budget tried to cut US support by 13 percent. These proposed cuts come at a time when international experts are reporting that the Fund's needs are dramatically increasing. (Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, 6/23/04; American Prospect, April 2003; LA Times, 7/7/04; Kaiser Family Foundation HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet, 2/05)

Bush Administration Dramatically Reduced Participation in 2004 International AIDS Conference. The Bush Administration Health and Human Services (HHS) Department cut funding for the 2004 international AIDS conference by 86 percent ($3.1 million) and reduced official participation by 187 persons (79 percent). The reduced US participation forced the cancellation of dozens of presentations including many designed to train AIDS researchers in developing nations and foster international cooperation. Officials within HHS told the Washington Post that the cuts are political retaliation for an incident at the 2002 conference where AIDS activists booed Secretary of Health Thompson for the US's failure to address the global AIDS crisis. (Washington Post, 7/9/04

Mark Fiore--While

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/while.html

In the deep blue night when slumber blankets the land
Works a team of congressmen, using slight of hand
Between ten and two their plans come acreeping
For they know you're not watching while you are sleeping

We'll cut Medicaid, just shave it a little, they said
Then they cut food stamps and child support enforcement as you lay in you bed
We'll cut student loans. Education don't matter
Then sell off public lands so corporations grow fatter

They even voted to break up the 9th circuit court, no friend of the right
All while you were sleeping quite soundly that night
And soon there'll be more. probably tax cuts for the rich
Full speed ahead, don't give the moderates an inch

It's hard to believe all this after hours scheming
For as you awake, you'll wish you were dreaming.

Better than Vietnam

So now the history books about this decade are going to record that we destroyed the Iraqi army in order to rebuild it. If memory serves, in Vietnam we destroyed villages in order to save them. Since that obviously didn't work, it makes sense that we took on a bigger task this time.

Now, as then, the American military is starting to worry that our army will be destroyed in the process. That shouldn't be a concern. Nor should the probability that the Iraqi army will never be competent and they'll certainly never achieve the ability to protect the Iraqi people from an invasion like that launched by the US. Because, you see, there's not ever going to be conflict like this again.

There'll never be another mano-a-mano or tank-to-tank engagement. In the future it will be all missile-to-missile intercepts in the statosphere, way over our heads, so the fall-out can travel on the wind and nobody will ever be able to prove who's missile was responsible for all those people dying, slowly.

Since that's the plan, we might as well use up all that surplus hardware, which we'd otherwise have to put in storage and protect from terrorist elements, and let the poor people of the sub-continent transform the scrap into useful items, like they did the brass from Vietnam. Never mind that this time the scrap is contaminated with depleted uranium oxide and likely to cause cancers and birth defects for decades. Once we start keeping track of the incidence of disease and malformation, we'll have a good data base from which to calculate what the consequences of real nuclear fall-out from the missile wars are going to be.

So, in more ways than one, the cradle of civilization, where there are no village huts to burn and houses of stone have to be bombed to smitherenes, will provide us with lots of evidence. It's purpose will be to persuade the rest of the Eastern Hemisphere (and the Western, too) that it's better to let the US "project power" at its pleasure and to not even bother to "deny access"--the new definition of an offensive act. Though the official story is that the US is "spreading democracy," the people of Iraq can testify with absolute certainty that democracy is no respecter of the closed door or personal privacy. And, for those who have trouble understanding the language, there's lots of video to demonstrate what happens when Americans are "denied access." "Fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here," takes on a slightly different meaning when you consider that the Patriot Act establishes the same rules here as there.

But of course, if the lesson is well learned, then the attrocities perpetrated on the ground in Iraq not only won't happen here, but the mere threat of mass extermination by missiles colliding in the air or being shot down from satellites in space will be sufficient to make everyone behave. And, to be sure they know the score, the communications media won't just collect information about potential dissidents; they'll be sure to disseminate a steady stream of reminders about proper behavior, even as they provide us with games and virtual environments where any resentments that these restrictions on our freedoms might generate can be defused. Because, you see, when people's minds are under control, their hearts will follow.

Just think how much cheaper such a system will be. Where the word in the fifties was "plastics," the word in the twenty-first century is "electronics." The world will be ruled not by the people who have their finger on the nuclear button, but by the people who generate the power and keep the information flowing and controlled. While people are worried about fuel for vehicles to keep them running on the threadmill of the post-industrial age, the people who want to control them are busily building an electronic cage.

It's a scary prospect. Then I remember the ants building a nest in the wiring harness of our car and chewing up the insulation to short it out and I have to smile. God bless the ants and, oh yes, the lightning that periodically knocks out our computers.

Who knows what critters the missile defense installations being planned for Iraq will encounter? Allah knows.