Walid Moallem leans forward in the armchair of the Paris Intercontinental Opera. "It's all on the record," he snaps. It usually is. The Syrians can be up- front when you least expect it. Syria's Foreign Minister is one of their top negotiators, a man who knows Israel's diplomats almost as well as they know themselves, who understands all the traps of the Middle East. Tell me who murdered Rafiq Hariri, I ask him. And Mr Moallem grins bleakly and reaches into his jacket pocket. His beefy hand emerges clutching a wad of pale green Syrian hundred-pound notes. "Tell me the answer and you can take all my money," he says. He may see evil among Syria's enemies but he will speak no evil, certainly not of the French. "We are building trust with the French," he says. Syria is ready to co-operate on the prevention of illegal immigration, against "what you in the West call 'terrorism'" and opening a developed economic partnership. And Mr Moallem can be a bit preachy into the bargain.
Walid Moallem leans forward in the armchair of the Paris Intercontinental Opera. "It's all on the record," he snaps. It usually is. The Syrians can be up- front when you least expect it. Syria's Foreign Minister is one of their top negotiators, a man who knows Israel's diplomats almost as well as they know themselves, who understands all the traps of the Middle East.
Tell me who murdered Rafiq Hariri, I ask him. And Mr Moallem grins bleakly and reaches into his jacket pocket. His beefy hand emerges clutching a wad of pale green Syrian hundred-pound notes. "Tell me the answer and you can take all my money," he says.
He may see evil among Syria's enemies but he will speak no evil, certainly not of the French. "We are building trust with the French," he says. Syria is ready to co-operate on the prevention of illegal immigration, against "what you in the West call 'terrorism'" and opening a developed economic partnership. And Mr Moallem can be a bit preachy into the bargain.
Editorial Comment: That a private corporation is given control and responsibility of the US elections is absurd. The 20 facts reported below are only one of the reasons why U.S. citizens should abstain from voting in the 2008 elections for president and the other national elections. The second reason to vote not to vote is the fact that the people are offered up choices selected by the corporations meaning that the voter really has no honest choice in the elections. Candidates who truly oppose the system entrenched in Washington have no realistic possibility of winning an election. The third reason to vote not to vote is the fact that there are no essential differences among the viable candidates running for office. Relative to the presidential elections, all one has to do for confirmation of this fact is to look at the voting records and speeches of John McCain and Barack Obama and his running mate, Hillary Clinton. McCain is spawned by the same warmongering psychopathology that bred George W. Bush. Barack Obama is an African-American face on the white power structure, making him arguably more dangerous than McCain. Why has his campaign been labeled with the theme of "change"? Does the reader seriously think that Barack Obama represents real change in the political and economic structure in Washington? Does the reader seriously believe that he would be permitted to be the Democratic candidate for president were he to go against the system that got him where he is today? With rare, exceptions (mostly face-saving), the presidential, senatorial and house candidates have all consistently voted to fund the Bush policies and the war on Iraq.
Editorial Comment: That a private corporation is given control and responsibility of the US elections is absurd. The 20 facts reported below are only one of the reasons why U.S. citizens should abstain from voting in the 2008 elections for president and the other national elections.
The second reason to vote not to vote is the fact that the people are offered up choices selected by the corporations meaning that the voter really has no honest choice in the elections. Candidates who truly oppose the system entrenched in Washington have no realistic possibility of winning an election.
The third reason to vote not to vote is the fact that there are no essential differences among the viable candidates running for office. Relative to the presidential elections, all one has to do for confirmation of this fact is to look at the voting records and speeches of John McCain and Barack Obama and his running mate, Hillary Clinton. McCain is spawned by the same warmongering psychopathology that bred George W. Bush. Barack Obama is an African-American face on the white power structure, making him arguably more dangerous than McCain. Why has his campaign been labeled with the theme of "change"? Does the reader seriously think that Barack Obama represents real change in the political and economic structure in Washington? Does the reader seriously believe that he would be permitted to be the Democratic candidate for president were he to go against the system that got him where he is today? With rare, exceptions (mostly face-saving), the presidential, senatorial and house candidates have all consistently voted to fund the Bush policies and the war on Iraq.
OTTAWA: Video recordings released Tuesday showing interrogations of the only Canadian held at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba provide an unprecedented glimpse inside the compound. The mood of the detainee, Omar Khadr, just 16 years old at the time of the interrogations, in February 2003, swings from calm and indifference to rage and grief in the recordings, which were released by his lawyers. The video footage, which provides the most extensive videotaped images from inside Guantánamo Bay, shows Khadr pleading with a Canadian intelligence agent for help and, at one point, shows him displaying chest and back wounds that had still not healed months after his capture in Afghanistan. The poor-quality recordings were made by the U.S. military, and were given to Khadr's lawyers by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service under the terms of a court order.
OTTAWA: Video recordings released Tuesday showing interrogations of the only Canadian held at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba provide an unprecedented glimpse inside the compound.
The mood of the detainee, Omar Khadr, just 16 years old at the time of the interrogations, in February 2003, swings from calm and indifference to rage and grief in the recordings, which were released by his lawyers.
The video footage, which provides the most extensive videotaped images from inside Guantánamo Bay, shows Khadr pleading with a Canadian intelligence agent for help and, at one point, shows him displaying chest and back wounds that had still not healed months after his capture in Afghanistan.
The poor-quality recordings were made by the U.S. military, and were given to Khadr's lawyers by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service under the terms of a court order.
Barack Obama today ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan to deal with terrorists within its borders, pledging that the United States would strike at al-Qaeda operatives in this burgeoning "terrorist sanctuary" if Islamabad would not. In a major foreign policy speech in Washington, the Democratic presidential nominee promised to shift the "single-minded" US focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, where he said any future attack on America would originate. "It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," Mr Obama said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taleban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia.
Barack Obama today ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan to deal with terrorists within its borders, pledging that the United States would strike at al-Qaeda operatives in this burgeoning "terrorist sanctuary" if Islamabad would not.
In a major foreign policy speech in Washington, the Democratic presidential nominee promised to shift the "single-minded" US focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, where he said any future attack on America would originate.
"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," Mr Obama said.
"Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taleban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON: Preparing to travel to two countries where U.S. forces are at war, Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, detailed a five-point foreign policy strategy Tuesday, its top goals being an end to the Iraq war and more troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. While U.S. voters are consumed with the No. 1 issue this presidential election year, the precipitous economic downturn at home, Obama and his presumed Republican opponent, John McCain, are sharply divided on war strategies. McCain says Obama's pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office amounts to surrendering that country to militant forces. Obama, however, says McCain's readiness to prolong the U.S. military presence is only coddling the Iraqi government, hurting the status of the United States globally and distracting from the need to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In remarks prepared for delivery in Washington on Tuesday, Obama said the United States must stop "pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military."
WASHINGTON: Preparing to travel to two countries where U.S. forces are at war, Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, detailed a five-point foreign policy strategy Tuesday, its top goals being an end to the Iraq war and more troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
While U.S. voters are consumed with the No. 1 issue this presidential election year, the precipitous economic downturn at home, Obama and his presumed Republican opponent, John McCain, are sharply divided on war strategies.
McCain says Obama's pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office amounts to surrendering that country to militant forces. Obama, however, says McCain's readiness to prolong the U.S. military presence is only coddling the Iraqi government, hurting the status of the United States globally and distracting from the need to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In remarks prepared for delivery in Washington on Tuesday, Obama said the United States must stop "pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military."
Barack Obama laid the foundations for a new US foreign policy today ahead of his trips to Europe and the Middle East, promising to work with allies to tackle the threats of the 21st century with a push comparable to the Marshall Plan, a policy enacted after the second world war.In his biggest speech on foreign policy since he entered the presidential race in February last year, he said the US has "paid a price for foreign policy that lectures without listening".Ranging over the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa and the United Nations, he set out five goals for his presidency: ending the war in Iraq; finishing the war with al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan; ending US oil dependency; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; and rebuilding US alliances.
Barack Obama laid the foundations for a new US foreign policy today ahead of his trips to Europe and the Middle East, promising to work with allies to tackle the threats of the 21st century with a push comparable to the Marshall Plan, a policy enacted after the second world war.
In his biggest speech on foreign policy since he entered the presidential race in February last year, he said the US has "paid a price for foreign policy that lectures without listening".
Ranging over the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa and the United Nations, he set out five goals for his presidency: ending the war in Iraq; finishing the war with al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan; ending US oil dependency; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; and rebuilding US alliances.
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says a "single-minded" focus on Iraq is distracting the US from other threats. Today, he promised to end the war and shift resources to fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama, embroiled in sharp debate with Republican White House rival John McCain over Iraq, said the lengthy commitment of combat troops there diminished US security and standing in the world. "By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said in a speech designed to lay out his views on the war ahead of his planned trip to Afghanistan and Iraq soon. "As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be," Obama said. "This is a war that we have to win."
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says a "single-minded" focus on Iraq is distracting the US from other threats.
Today, he promised to end the war and shift resources to fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Obama, embroiled in sharp debate with Republican White House rival John McCain over Iraq, said the lengthy commitment of combat troops there diminished US security and standing in the world.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said in a speech designed to lay out his views on the war ahead of his planned trip to Afghanistan and Iraq soon.
"As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be," Obama said. "This is a war that we have to win."
The US will once again stand tall by raining genocide on ill-tempered nomadic goat herders with RPGs, led by a terrifyingly muscular arch-enemy with his own mobile dialysis unit.
Silly.
So far, not convinced. And on dKos, the people are loving that 'Back to the Stone Age' vibe.
So. We'll see.
Sure, Obama might really enjoy invading Pakistan. I for one doubt he cares. It does make him more electable to posture in this way, however, and that's what counts right now. Once in office you "make an effort" and then don't actually do it. Political expediency trumps all.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. The US will not be invading anything of substance there and nothing at all without the wink and nod approval at least of the Pakistani government. This is just tough talk during a dog-and-pony show. Call me when the troops cross into Pakistan en masse and then I'll believe this claptrap.
Now, were this McCain, I wouldn't doubt him for a second.
Sure, Obama might really enjoy invading Pakistan. ... It does make him more electable to posture in this way, however
Sounds like a dangerous bunch of people... When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Posturing doesn't bother me. That's just how the game is played. Always has been, always will be, in any country with competitive elections.
What I'd be concerned about, if I were Obama, is the fact that McCain is now changing his positions to match Obama's on a lot of foreign policy issues (Afghanistan, Iran, etc). Given the behavior of the press, that makes Obama vulnerable to charges that he's copying McCain's positions (and the GOP operatives are already spinning it that way), even though it's clearly the other way around.
And if McCain keeps doing that in his effort to appear as Not Bush, Obama can't stick to his positions on these issues. He needs to move left to differentiate himself, so that the press doesn't start pushing the "They agree on everything!" stuff, which McCain would obviously love.
That, of course, could be a good opportunity to shift "the center" in the overall debate, but, as the press seems to have an unquenchable thirst for charging Obama with flip-flopping even where it's completely imaginary, it's not the easiest thing in the world to do smoothly. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
But what I think might happen is Obama making something more than a half-assed effort to get bin Laden. Doing so would send his approvals into the 80s or 90s and allow them cover to declare victory and get out.
The reason I think him declaring victory and getting out is a possibility is because of the fact that I think failing to do so would almost certainly make Afghanistan the new Iraq, and Obama the new Bush, in the eyes of the voters.
The benevolent dictator kind of talk over at dKos is silly. From the perspective of a politician with survival instincts, getting out makes sense. Bush can't run again, but Obama would be facing reelection in 2012. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The benevolent dictator kind of talk over at dKos
Not that that's terribly surprising, of course, since candidates always have a certain group that will defend them no matter the circumstances. That's what bases are. It's just the nature of the beast. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
General Motors Corp., buffeted by a U.S. sales collapse and three years of losses, will suspend its dividend for the first time since 1922, cut the management payroll by 20 percent and sell assets to raise at least $15 billion in the next 18 months.
What's good for General Motors... Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
SEC to limit 'short selling' of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac shares From the LA Times, July 15,'08 Money & Co. Blog 10:55 AM, July 15, 2008 It's bear-hunting season on Wall Street. The Securities and Exchange Commission is invoking emergency powers to limit "short selling" in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares, as well as in stocks of major brokerages, Chairman Christopher Cox told Congress today. And the SEC will consider extending the order to the rest of the market as well. Short sellers borrow stock and sell it, betting the price will drop. If their bet is correct they can buy new shares later at a lower price, repay the borrowed stock, and pocket the difference between the sale price and the repurchase price. Christophercox The SEC will require traders to "pre-borrow" shares of Fannie, Freddie and major brokerages before selling them short, Cox said. That then would lock up those shares, preventing them from being borrowed by other short sellers. In effect the SEC is trying to limit so-called naked shorting, which is selling stock without actually having the shares in hand or located. Naked shorting already is illegal, but the rule against it hasn't been widely enforced.
It's bear-hunting season on Wall Street.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is invoking emergency powers to limit "short selling" in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares, as well as in stocks of major brokerages, Chairman Christopher Cox told Congress today. And the SEC will consider extending the order to the rest of the market as well.
Short sellers borrow stock and sell it, betting the price will drop. If their bet is correct they can buy new shares later at a lower price, repay the borrowed stock, and pocket the difference between the sale price and the repurchase price.
Christophercox The SEC will require traders to "pre-borrow" shares of Fannie, Freddie and major brokerages before selling them short, Cox said. That then would lock up those shares, preventing them from being borrowed by other short sellers. In effect the SEC is trying to limit so-called naked shorting, which is selling stock without actually having the shares in hand or located. Naked shorting already is illegal, but the rule against it hasn't been widely enforced.
Its one thing to have rules. Quite another to enforce them, apparently. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Volkswagen, Europe's biggest car maker, has said it plans to build a 620 million euros ($1billion) factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee in a bid to boost the German automaker's lagging US sales. The site, one of at least two in the US South that Volkswagen examined, was picked by Volkswagen Group's supervisory board. The plan calls for the first cars to roll off the assembly line in 2011. Europe's biggest carmaker has failed for years to achieve profits in the United States, where Asian competitors have regularly upstaged its range of mass-produced front-wheel drive cars. "The United States is an important market for our volume strategy," Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn was quoted as saying.
The site, one of at least two in the US South that Volkswagen examined, was picked by Volkswagen Group's supervisory board.
The plan calls for the first cars to roll off the assembly line in 2011. Europe's biggest carmaker has failed for years to achieve profits in the United States, where Asian competitors have regularly upstaged its range of mass-produced front-wheel drive cars.
"The United States is an important market for our volume strategy," Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn was quoted as saying.
The reality is, it would take between five to ten years to see any of that oil. Everybody admits this. Everyone knows this. You have to do the exploration, then you have to build the rig, which takes a huge amount of time. So it takes -- we're talking about as long as a decade to see any of this oil. So when you press people who are selling this drill in ANWR, more offshore oil drilling, also drilling into the shale in places like Montana, what they actually say is that the reason why it will lower prices at the pump, you know, soon, this summer, is because it will send a message to the stock market, it will send a message to the oil speculators that more supply is on the way. So, essentially, what they're saying is, let's play the market, let's collectively play the market. And that's why it's significant that yesterday, in the face of Bush's announcement -- and it was a significant announcement, because it was a real indication of the seriousness of this administration to really make this their, you know, final push in office, and they could well win, because this media campaign is really bringing public opinion on side, and we know that the Democrats are pretty weak in the face of that public opinion, and the only thing that they could fight this with is with real commitment to green policies. And, you know, don't hold your breath. Goodman: What does this offshore drilling, lifting the ban -- how would you relate this to what's happening in Iraq right now and what's happening at the Oil Ministry and the pushing through the permanent occupation that the Bush administration is pushing hard for? Klein: Well, I think we're seeing the Bush administration in its final months just handing out a series of gifts to the oil and gas industry, both at home, pushing for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and then in Iraq, the prize, the biggest prize of all, which is allowing foreign multinationals to gain control of Iraq's oil fields. And we're seeing a two-stage process now, and it isn't over yet, where first there was the service -- the short-term service agreements, no-bid contracts, that were announced. They haven't been signed yet, but they're going to the big oil companies that were kicked out of Iraq in the '70s. They're coming back. Goodman: Explain how that works, these no-bid contracts, how it is -- who's signing these contracts? Klein: OK. Well, at the moment, Iraq does not have an oil law, so Iraq can't sign long-term exploration agreements, although they are doing it in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we've heard about this with Hunt Oil. But that's -- those are illegal contracts. They're very precarious. There could be future expropriations. It's really risky to go that route, because there isn't a law. And we know it's been a major push of this administration to get the Iraqi parliament to accept a US-backed oil law. This has been sold as a symbol of Iraqi unity. That's not the way it's seen in Iraq. In Iraq, the reason why it has been years in resisting this oil law is because nationalizing the oil in Iraq was the centerpiece of the anti-colonial struggle, as it was in neighboring nations throughout the Arab world. And it is not just a pro-Saddam idea. It is not just a Baathist idea. It's the core of Arab nationalism. And that victory is being protected by many political forces in Iraq, and most notably by the oil workers' unions in Iraq, who said, "We don't need these foreign multinationals to get the oil out of the ground. We can do it ourselves. We can bring in technical support without giving away management control, without giving away ownership control."
The reality is, it would take between five to ten years to see any of that oil. Everybody admits this. Everyone knows this. You have to do the exploration, then you have to build the rig, which takes a huge amount of time. So it takes -- we're talking about as long as a decade to see any of this oil.
So when you press people who are selling this drill in ANWR, more offshore oil drilling, also drilling into the shale in places like Montana, what they actually say is that the reason why it will lower prices at the pump, you know, soon, this summer, is because it will send a message to the stock market, it will send a message to the oil speculators that more supply is on the way. So, essentially, what they're saying is, let's play the market, let's collectively play the market.
And that's why it's significant that yesterday, in the face of Bush's announcement -- and it was a significant announcement, because it was a real indication of the seriousness of this administration to really make this their, you know, final push in office, and they could well win, because this media campaign is really bringing public opinion on side, and we know that the Democrats are pretty weak in the face of that public opinion, and the only thing that they could fight this with is with real commitment to green policies. And, you know, don't hold your breath.
Goodman: What does this offshore drilling, lifting the ban -- how would you relate this to what's happening in Iraq right now and what's happening at the Oil Ministry and the pushing through the permanent occupation that the Bush administration is pushing hard for?
Klein: Well, I think we're seeing the Bush administration in its final months just handing out a series of gifts to the oil and gas industry, both at home, pushing for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and then in Iraq, the prize, the biggest prize of all, which is allowing foreign multinationals to gain control of Iraq's oil fields. And we're seeing a two-stage process now, and it isn't over yet, where first there was the service -- the short-term service agreements, no-bid contracts, that were announced. They haven't been signed yet, but they're going to the big oil companies that were kicked out of Iraq in the '70s. They're coming back.
Goodman: Explain how that works, these no-bid contracts, how it is -- who's signing these contracts?
Klein: OK. Well, at the moment, Iraq does not have an oil law, so Iraq can't sign long-term exploration agreements, although they are doing it in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we've heard about this with Hunt Oil. But that's -- those are illegal contracts. They're very precarious. There could be future expropriations. It's really risky to go that route, because there isn't a law. And we know it's been a major push of this administration to get the Iraqi parliament to accept a US-backed oil law. This has been sold as a symbol of Iraqi unity. That's not the way it's seen in Iraq.
In Iraq, the reason why it has been years in resisting this oil law is because nationalizing the oil in Iraq was the centerpiece of the anti-colonial struggle, as it was in neighboring nations throughout the Arab world. And it is not just a pro-Saddam idea. It is not just a Baathist idea. It's the core of Arab nationalism. And that victory is being protected by many political forces in Iraq, and most notably by the oil workers' unions in Iraq, who said, "We don't need these foreign multinationals to get the oil out of the ground. We can do it ourselves. We can bring in technical support without giving away management control, without giving away ownership control."
great interview with amy goodman, read the rest! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
