Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-21 by George Bush (10.18.07)

Dandelion Salad

by George Bush
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 18, 2007

Homeland Security Presidential Directive
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-21

Subject: Public Health and Medical Preparedness

Purpose (1) This directive establishes a National Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness (Strategy), which builds upon principles set forth in Biodefense for the 21st Century (April 2004) and will transform our national approach to protecting the health of the American people against all disasters.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) The term “biosurveillance” means the process of active data-gathering with appropriate analysis and interpretation of biosphere data that might relate to disease activity and threats to human or animal health – whether infectious, toxic, metabolic, or otherwise, and regardless of intentional or natural origin – in order to achieve early warning of health threats, early detection of health events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity;

(b) The term “catastrophic health event” means any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in a number of ill or injured persons sufficient to overwhelm the capabilities of immediate local and regional emergency response and health care systems;

(c) The term “epidemiologic surveillance” means the process of actively gathering and analyzing data related to human health and disease in a population in order to obtain early warning of human health events, rapid characterization of human disease events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity in the human population;

(d) The term “medical” means the science and practice of maintenance of health and prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and alleviation of disease or injury and the provision of those services to individuals;

(e) The term “public health” means the science and practice of protecting and improving the overall health of the community through disease prevention and early diagnosis, control of communicable diseases, health education, injury prevention, sanitation, and protection from environmental hazards;

(f) The term “public health and medical preparedness” means the existence of plans, procedures, policies, training, and equipment necessary to maximize the ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from major events, including efforts that result in the capability to render an appropriate public health and medical response that will mitigate the effects of illness and injury, limit morbidity and mortality to the maximum extent possible, and sustain societal, economic, and political infrastructure; and

(g) The terms “State” and “local government,” when used in a geographical sense, have the meanings ascribed to such terms respectively in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).

Background

(3) A catastrophic health event, such as a terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), a naturally-occurring pandemic, or a calamitous meteorological or geological event, could cause tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties or more, weaken our economy, damage public morale and confidence, and threaten our national security. It is therefore critical that we establish a strategic vision that will enable a level of public health and medical preparedness sufficient to address a range of possible disasters.

(4) The United States has made significant progress in public health and medical preparedness since 2001, but we remain vulnerable to events that threaten the health of large populations. The attacks of September 11 and Hurricane Katrina were the most significant recent disasters faced by the United States, yet casualty numbers were small in comparison to the 1995 Kobe earthquake; the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake; the 2004 Sumatra tsunami; and what we would expect from a 1918-like influenza pandemic or large-scale WMD attack. Such events could immediately overwhelm our public health and medical systems.

(5) This Strategy draws key principles from the National Strategy for Homeland Security (October 2007), the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December 2002), and Biodefense for the 21st Century (April 2004) that can be generally applied to public health and medical preparedness. Those key principles are the following: (1) preparedness for all potential catastrophic health events; (2) vertical and horizontal coordination across levels of government, jurisdictions, and disciplines; (3) a regional approach to health preparedness; (4) engagement of the private sector, academia, and other nongovernmental entities in preparedness and response efforts; and (5) the important roles of individuals, families, and communities.

(6) Present public health and medical preparedness plans incorporate the concept of “surging” existing medical and public health capabilities in response to an event that threatens a large number of lives. The assumption that conventional public health and medical systems can function effectively in catastrophic health events has, however, proved to be incorrect in real-world situations. Therefore, it is necessary to transform the national approach to health care in the context of a catastrophic health event in order to enable U.S. public health and medical systems to respond effectively to a broad range of incidents.

(7) The most effective complex service delivery systems result from rigorous end-to-end system design. A critical and formal process by which the functions of public health and medical preparedness and response are designed to integrate all vertical (through all levels of government) and horizontal (across all sectors in communities) components can achieve a much greater capability than we currently have.

(8) The United States has tremendous resources in both public and private sectors that could be used to prepare for and respond to a catastrophic health event. To exploit those resources fully, they must be organized in a rationally designed system that is incorporated into pre-event planning, deployed in a coordinated manner in response to an event, and guided by a constant and timely flow of relevant information during an event. This Strategy establishes principles and objectives to improve our ability to respond comprehensively to catastrophic health events. It also identifies critical antecedent components of this capability and directs the development of an implementation plan that will delineate further specific actions and guide the process to fruition.

(9) This Strategy focuses on human public health and medical systems; it does not address other areas critical to overall public health and medical preparedness, such as animal health systems, food and agriculture defense, global partnerships in public health, health threat intelligence activities, domestic and international biosecurity, and basic and applied research in threat diseases and countermeasures. Efforts in those areas are addressed in other policy documents.

(10) It is not possible to prevent all casualties in catastrophic events, but strategic improvements in our Federal, State, and local planning can prepare our Nation to deliver appropriate care to the largest possible number of people, lessen the impact on limited health care resources, and support the continuity of society and government.

Policy

(11) It is the policy of the United States to plan and enable provision for the public health and medical needs of the American people in the case of a catastrophic health event through continual and timely flow of information during such an event and rapid public health and medical response that marshals all available national capabilities and capacities in a rapid and coordinated manner.

Implementation Actions

(12) Biodefense for the 21st Century provides a foundation for the transformation of our catastrophic health event response and preparedness efforts. Although the four pillars of that framework – Threat Awareness, Prevention and Protection, Surveillance and Detection, and Response and Recovery – were developed to guide our efforts to defend against a bioterrorist attack, they are applicable to a broad array of natural and manmade public health and medical challenges and are appropriate to serve as the core functions of the Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness.

(13) To accomplish our objectives, we must create a firm foundation for community medical preparedness. We will increase our efforts to inform citizens and empower communities, buttress our public health infrastructure, and explore options to relieve current pressures on our emergency departments and emergency medical systems so that they retain the flexibility to prepare for and respond to events.

(14) Ultimately, the Nation must collectively support and facilitate the establishment of a discipline of disaster health. The specialty of emergency medicine evolved as a result of the recognition of the special considerations in emergency patient care, and similarly the recognition of the unique principles in disaster-related public health and medicine merit the establishment of their own formal discipline. Such a discipline will provide a foundation for doctrine, education, training, and research and will integrate preparedness into the public health and medical communities.

Critical Components of Public Health and Medical Preparedness

(15) Currently, the four most critical components of public health and medical preparedness are biosurveillance, countermeasure distribution, mass casualty care, and community resilience. Although those capabilities do not address all public health and medical preparedness requirements, they currently hold the greatest potential for mitigating illness and death and therefore will receive the highest priority in our public health and medical preparedness efforts. Those capabilities constitute the focus and major objectives of this Strategy.

(16) Biosurveillance: The United States must develop a nationwide, robust, and integrated biosurveillance capability, with connections to international disease surveillance systems, in order to provide early warning and ongoing characterization of disease outbreaks in near real-time. Surveillance must use multiple modalities and an in-depth architecture. We must enhance clinician awareness and participation and strengthen laboratory diagnostic capabilities and capacity in order to recognize potential threats as early as possible. Integration of biosurveillance elements and other data (including human health, animal health, agricultural, meteorological, environmental, intelligence, and other data) will provide a comprehensive picture of the health of communities and the associated threat environment for incorporation into the national “common operating picture.” A central element of biosurveillance must be an epidemiologic surveillance system to monitor human disease activity across populations. That system must be sufficiently enabled to identify specific disease incidence and prevalence in heterogeneous populations and environments and must possess sufficient flexibility to tailor analyses to new syndromes and emerging diseases. State and local government health officials, public and private sector health care institutions, and practicing clinicians must be involved in system design, and the overall system must be constructed with the principal objective of establishing or enhancing the capabilities of State and local government entities.

(17) Countermeasure Stockpiling and Distribution: In the context of a catastrophic health event, rapid distribution of medical countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, and therapeutics) to a large population requires significant resources within individual communities. Few if any cities are presently able to meet the objective of dispensing countermeasures to their entire population within 48 hours after the decision to do so. Recognizing that State and local government authorities have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens, the Federal Government will create the appropriate framework and policies for sharing information on best practices and mechanisms to address the logistical challenges associated with this requirement. The Federal Government must work with nonfederal stakeholders to create effective templates for countermeasure distribution and dispensing that State and local government authorities can use to build their own capabilities.

(18) Mass Casualty Care: The structure and operating principles of our day-to-day public health and medical systems cannot meet the needs created by a catastrophic health event. Collectively, our Nation must develop a disaster medical capability that can immediately re-orient and coordinate existing resources within all sectors to satisfy the needs of the population during a catastrophic health event. Mass casualty care response must be (1) rapid, (2) flexible, (3) scalable, (4) sustainable, (5) exhaustive (drawing upon all national resources), (6) comprehensive (addressing needs from acute to chronic care and including mental health and special needs populations), (7) integrated and coordinated, and (8) appropriate (delivering the correct treatment in the most ethical manner with available capabilities). We must enhance our capability to protect the physical and mental health of survivors; protect responders and health care providers; properly and respectfully dispose of the deceased; ensure continuity of society, economy, and government; and facilitate long-term recovery of affected citizens.

(19) The establishment of a robust disaster health capability requires us to develop an operational concept for the medical response to catastrophic health events that is substantively distinct from and broader than that which guides day-to-day operations. In order to achieve that transformation, the Federal Government will facilitate and provide leadership for key stakeholders to establish the following four foundational elements: Doctrine, System Design, Capacity, and Education and Training. The establishment of those foundational elements must result from efforts within the relevant professional communities and will require many years, but the Federal Government can serve as an important catalyst for this process.

(20) Community Resilience: The above components address the supply side of the preparedness function, ultimately providing enhanced services to our citizens. The demand side is of equal importance. Where local civic leaders, citizens, and families are educated regarding threats and are empowered to mitigate their own risk, where they are practiced in responding to events, where they have social networks to fall back upon, and where they have familiarity with local public health and medical systems, there will be community resilience that will significantly attenuate the requirement for additional assistance. The Federal Government must formulate a comprehensive plan for promoting community public health and medical preparedness to assist State and local authorities in building resilient communities in the face of potential catastrophic health events.

Biosurveillance

(21) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish an operational national epidemiologic surveillance system for human health, with international connectivity where appropriate, that is predicated on State, regional, and community-level capabilities and creates a networked system to allow for two-way information flow between and among Federal, State, and local government public health authorities and clinical health care providers. The system shall build upon existing Federal, State, and local surveillance systems where they exist and shall enable and provide incentive for public health agencies to implement local surveillance systems where they do not exist. To the extent feasible, the system shall be built using electronic health information systems. It shall incorporate flexibility and depth of data necessary to respond to previously unknown or emerging threats to public health and integrate its data into the national biosurveillance common operating picture as appropriate. The system shall protect patient privacy by restricting access to identifying information to the greatest extent possible and only to public health officials with a need to know. The Implementation Plan to be developed pursuant to section 43 of this directive shall specify milestones for this system.

(22) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall establish an Epidemiologic Surveillance Federal Advisory Committee, including representatives from State and local government public health authorities and appropriate private sector health care entities, in order to ensure that the Federal Government is meeting the goal of enabling State and local government public health surveillance capabilities.

Countermeasure Stockpiling and Distribution

(23) In accordance with the schedule set forth below, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop templates, using a variety of tools and including private sector resources when necessary, that provide minimum operational plans to enable communities to distribute and dispense countermeasures to their populations within 48 hours after a decision to do so. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure that this process utilizes current cooperative programs and engages Federal, State, local government, and private sector entities in template development, modeling, testing, and evaluation. The Secretary shall also assist State, local government, and regional entities in tailoring templates to fit differing geographic sizes, population densities, and demographics, and other unique or specific local needs. In carrying out such actions, the Secretary shall:

(a) within 270 days after the date of this directive, (i) publish an initial template or templates meeting the requirements above, including basic testing of component distribution mechanisms and modeling of template systems to predict performance in large-scale implementation, (ii) establish standards and performance measures for State and local government countermeasure distribution systems, including demonstration of specific capabilities in tactical exercises in accordance with the National Exercise Program, and (iii) establish a process to gather performance data from State and local participants on a regular basis to assess readiness; and

(b) within 180 days after the completion of the tasks set forth in (a), and with appropriate notice, commence collecting and using performance data and metrics as conditions for future public health preparedness grant funding.

(24) Within 270 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall develop Federal Government capabilities and plans to complement or supplement State and local government distribution capacity, as appropriate and feasible, if such entities’ resources are deemed insufficient to provide access to countermeasures in a timely manner in the event of a catastrophic health event.

(25) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure that the priority-setting process for the acquisition of medical countermeasures and other critical medical materiel for the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is transparent and risk-informed with respect to the scope, quantities, and forms of the various products. Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, shall establish a formal mechanism for the annual review of SNS composition and development of recommendations that utilizes input from accepted national risk assessments and threat assessments, national planning scenarios, national modeling resources, and subject matter experts. The results of each such annual review shall be provided to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the time of the Department of Health and Human Services’ next budget submission.

(26) Within 90 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a process to share relevant information regarding the contents of the SNS with Federal, State, and local government health officers with appropriate clearances and a need to know.

(27) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Defense, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall develop protocols for sharing countermeasures and medical goods between the SNS and other Federal stockpiles and shall explore appropriate reciprocal arrangements with foreign and international stockpiles of medical countermeasures to ensure the availability of necessary supplies for use in the United States.

Mass Casualty Care

(28) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall directly engage relevant State and local government, academic, professional, and private sector entities and experts to provide feedback on the review of the National Disaster Medical System and national medical surge capacity required by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) (Public Law 109-417) . Within 270 days after the completion of such review, the Secretary shall identify, through a systems-based approach involving expertise from such entities and experts, high-priority gaps in mass casualty care capabilities, and shall submit to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism a concept plan that identifies and coordinates all Federal, State, and local government and private sector public health and medical disaster response resources, and identifies options for addressing critical deficits, in order to achieve the system attributes described in this Strategy.

(29) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall:

(a) build upon the analysis of Federal facility use to provide enhanced medical surge capacity in disasters required by section 302 of PAHPA to analyze the use of Federal medical facilities as a foundational element of public health and medical preparedness; and

(b) develop and implement plans and enter into agreements to integrate such facilities more effectively into national and regional education, training, and exercise preparedness activities.

(30) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall lead an interagency process, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to identify any legal, regulatory, or other barriers to public health and medical preparedness and response from Federal, State, or local government or private sector sources that can be eliminated by appropriate regulatory or legislative action and shall, within 120 days after the date of this directive, submit a report on such barriers to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(31) The impact of the “worried well” in past disasters is well documented, and it is evident that mitigating the mental health consequences of disasters can facilitate effective response. Recognizing that maintaining and restoring mental health in disasters has not received sufficient attention to date, within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall establish a Federal Advisory Committee for Disaster Mental Health. The committee shall consist of appropriate subject matter experts and, within 180 days after its establishment, shall submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services recommendations for protecting, preserving, and restoring individual and community mental health in catastrophic health event settings, including pre-event, intra-event, and post-event education, messaging, and interventions.

Community Resilience

(32) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, shall ensure that core public health and medical curricula and training developed pursuant to PAHPA address the needs to improve individual, family, and institutional public health and medical preparedness, enhance private citizen opportunities for contributions to local, regional, and national preparedness and response, and build resilient communities.

(33) Within 270 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President for approval, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a plan to promote comprehensive community medical preparedness.

Risk Awareness

(34) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall prepare an unclassified briefing for non-health professionals that clearly outlines the scope of the risks to public health posed by relevant threats and catastrophic health events (including attacks involving weapons of mass destruction), shall coordinate such briefing with the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall ensure that full use is made of Department of Defense expertise and resources, and shall ensure that all State governors and the mayors and senior county officials from the 50 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the United States receive such briefing, unless specifically declined, within 150 days after the date of this directive.

(35) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a mechanism by which up-to-date and specific public health threat information shall be relayed, to the greatest extent possible and not inconsistent with the established guidance relating to the Information Sharing Environment, to relevant public health officials at the State and local government levels and shall initiate a process to ensure that qualified heads of State and local government entities have the opportunity to obtain appropriate security clearances so that they may receive classified threat information when applicable.

Education and Training

(36) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and thereafter maintain processes for coordinating Federal grant programs for public health and medical preparedness using grant application guidance, investment justifications, reporting, program performance measures, and accountability for future funding in order to promote cross-sector, regional, and capability-based coordination, consistent with section 201 of PAHPA and the National Preparedness Guidelines developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 (“National Preparedness”).

(37) Within 1 year after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, and consistent with section 304 of PAHPA, shall develop a mechanism to coordinate public health and medical disaster preparedness and response core curricula and training across executive departments and agencies, to ensure standardization and commonality of knowledge, procedures, and terms of reference within the Federal Government that also can be communicated to State and local government entities, as well as academia and the private sector.

(38) Within 1 year after the date of this directive, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, shall establish an academic Joint Program for Disaster Medicine and Public Health housed at a National Center for Disaster Medicine and Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The Program shall lead Federal efforts to develop and propagate core curricula, training, and research related to medicine and public health in disasters. The Center will be an academic center of excellence in disaster medicine and public health, co-locating education and research in the related specialties of domestic medical preparedness and response, international health, international disaster and humanitarian medical assistance, and military medicine. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense authorities will be used to carry out respective civilian and military missions within this joint program.

Disaster Health System

(39) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall commission the Institute of Medicine to lead a forum engaging Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, academia, and appropriate professional societies in a process to facilitate the development of national disaster public health and medicine doctrine and system design and to develop a strategy for long-term enhancement of disaster public health and medical capacity and the propagation of disaster public health and medicine education and training.

(40) Within 120 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the President through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and shall commence the implementation of, a plan to use current grant funding programs, private payer incentives, market forces, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements, and other means to create financial incentives to enhance private sector health care facility preparedness in such a manner as to not increase health care costs.

(41) Within 180 days after the date of this directive, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security, shall establish within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office for Emergency Medical Care. Under the direction of the Secretary, such Office shall lead an enterprise to promote and fund research in emergency medicine and trauma health care; promote regional partnerships and more effective emergency medical systems in order to enhance appropriate triage, distribution, and care of routine community patients; promote local, regional, and State emergency medical systems’ preparedness for and response to public health events. The Office shall address the full spectrum of issues that have an impact on care in hospital emergency departments, including the entire continuum of patient care from pre-hospital to disposition from emergency or trauma care. The Office shall coordinate with existing executive departments and agencies that perform functions relating to emergency medical systems in order to ensure unified strategy, policy, and implementation.

National Health Security Strategy

(42) The PAHPA requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services submit in 2009, and quadrennially afterward, a National Health Security Strategy (NHSS) to the Congress. The principles and actions in this directive, and in the Implementation Plan required by section 43, shall be incorporated into the initial NHSS, as appropriate, and shall serve as a foundation for the preparedness goals contained therein.

Task Force and Implementation Plan

(43) In order to facilitate the implementation of the policy outlined in this Strategy, there is established the Public Health and Medical Preparedness Task Force (Task Force). Within 120 days after the date of this directive, the Task Force shall submit to the President for approval, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, an Implementation Plan (Plan) for this Strategy, and annually thereafter shall submit to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism a status report on the implementation of the Plan and any recommendations for changes to this Strategy.

(a) The Task Force shall consist exclusively of the following members (or their designees who shall be full-time officers or employees of the members’ respective agencies):

(i) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, who shall serve as Chair;

(ii) The Secretary of State;

(ii) The Secretary of Defense;

(iii) The Attorney General;

(iv) The Secretary of Agriculture;

(v) The Secretary of Commerce;

(vi) The Secretary of Labor;

(vii) The Secretary of Transportation;

(viii) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

(ix) The Secretary of Homeland Security;

(x) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xi) The Director of National Intelligence; and

(xii) such other officers of the United States as the Chair of the Task Force may designate from time to time.

(b) The Chair of the Task Force shall, as appropriate to deal with particular subject matters, establish subcommittees of the Task Force that shall consist exclusively of members of the Task Force (or their designees under subsection (a) of this section), and such other full-time or permanent part-time officers or employees of the Federal Government as the Chair may designate.

(c) The Plan shall:

(i) provide additional detailed roles and responsibilities of heads of executive departments and agencies relating to and consistent with the Strategy and actions set forth in this directive;

(ii) provide additional guidance on public health and medical directives in Biodefense for the 21st Century; and

(iii) direct the full examination of resource requirements.

(d) The Plan and all Task Force reports shall be developed in coordination with the Biodefense Policy Coordination Committee of the Homeland Security Council and shall then be prepared for consideration by and submitted to the more senior committees of the Homeland Security Council, as deemed appropriate by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

General Provisions

(44) This directive:

(a) shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of executive departments and agencies, or heads of such departments and agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations and within the current projected spending levels for Federal health entitlement programs;

(b) shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals; and

(c) is not intended, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

h/t: CLG

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see
Bill Moyers: Jack L. Goldsmith discusses the Admin’s expanded view of executive power (article; video link)

Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video link)

Bush’s Executive Order on Lebanon Even Worse than the One on Iraq By Matthew Rothschild

Students: A Challenge For You by Davis Fleetwood (video)

Get Active! ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

davisfleetwood

LOOK!
By clicking these blue things, you travel to places you need to be:
say hello on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?i…
or on myspace:
http://myspace.com/davisisthehermit

New logo design by Manila Ryce:
http://www.youtube.com/ManilaRyceTLM

NO CURE FOR THAT (read/ write/ get creative):
http://www.nocureforthat.com

THEME MUSIC BY TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS:
http://myspace.com/twentyfourthousand…

see

60 Arrested at Protests in DC + No War No Warming Direct Action + Police (vids)

35 Percenters

Dennis Kucinich for President

Olbermann: George Carlin + Plame + Pete Stark (videos)

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

OCTOBER 23, 2007 KEITH OLBERMANN

George Carlin

Valerie Plame

Pete Stark Apologizes

Worst Person

heathr234

And the winner is……the CIA. Runners up Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh.

see

Plamegate Finale: We Were Right; They Were Wrong by David Corn

CBS confirms 2006 Raw Story scoop: Plame’s job was to keep nukes from Iran By Muriel Kane & Dave Edwards

CIA Leak/Plame Case

60 Arrested at Protests in DC + No War No Warming Direct Action + Police (vids) (updated)

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

60 Arrested at No War, No Warming Protests in Washington

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD


Hundreds of people converged on the U.S. Capitol Building to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush administration’s record on climate change. We speak to organizer Ted Glick, who is on the 50th day of a Climate Emergency Fast. [includes rush transcript]


No War, No Warming was the theme of a day of civil disobedience in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Hundreds of people converged on the U.S. Capitol Building to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush administration’s record on climate change. At least sixty-one people were arrested after some blocked a street near the Cannon House Office Building. Some of the protesters were in polar bear costumes. Before the arrests, independent journalist Robin Bell of Bell Visuals caught the polar bears’ arrival at the Capitol Building.

  • Polar Bears Protest

The musical voices of the polar bear protesters, among the hundreds who took part in the No War, No Warming day of action in Washington on Monday. (Video courtesy of Robin Bell of Bell Visuals, bellvisuals.com). Ted Glick was one of the organizers of the No War, No Warming protest. He is Coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and is now on the fiftieth day of a Climate Emergency Fast. He joins us on the phone from Washington.

  • Ted Glick, One of the organizers of Monday’s No War, No Warming protest. He is Coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council on the fiftieth day of a Climate Emergency Fast.

transcript

***

No War No Warming Direct Action

WHYNotNews

No War, No Warming, Rise Up!
by Ted Glick / September 18th, 2007

For months a movement has been developing that consciously and intentionally links the related issues of the war in Iraq/oil wars and the heating up of the earth that is disrupting the world’s climate. On Monday morning, October 22, in Washington , DC on Capitol Hill and elsewhere around the country, that movement will become visible as large numbers of people engage in nonviolent direct action to disrupt business as usual. We will be calling for an end to this criminal war and strong action to slow, stop and reverse global warming (www.nowarnowarming.org).

These issues are connected, of course, by oil. Everyone who’s got their head screwed on straight knows that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil. The US government is occupying Iraq both for its oil and to try to turn it into a US-friendly military base from which it can better control the entire region.

Why? It’s not just because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons are motivated by we’re-the-rulers-of-the-world ideology. There is actually a perverse logic to what they’re doing, particularly given their personal connections to the oil industry.

The US and the world are in a deepening energy crisis. Easily accessible oil and natural gas are getting hard to find even as the demand for and competition over energy throughout the world accelerates. There is agreement among those who study this issue that we are either right at or very soon will be at “peak oil,” a point where as much oil that is in the ground will have been found and used as there is oil still remaining. And the big problem is that those remaining reserves are getting harder and more expensive to bring out of the ground.

There is a common sense solution to this dilemma. Instead of war in Iraq escalating into war with Iran and who knows where else, the US could lead the world by using its technological know-how and resources to advance a worldwide clean energy revolution. We could rapidly undercut the appeal of Al-Qaeda by withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and promoting, instead, huge solar energy farms in this sun-drenched region of the world. We could help the formerly colonized countries of the Global South who are currently developing their economies by using greenhouse gas emitting coal or dangerous nuclear power. We could help them shift to renewable energy technology to obtain energy via solar panels, wind turbines, the tides or the earth (geo-thermal).

What kind of world do we face if we don’t stand up, if we don’t rise up to demand a serious course correction?

A report was put out this spring by the CNA Corporation, a national security think tank, written by six retired admirals and five retired generals, including the former Army chief of staff and George W. Bush’s former chief Middle East peace negotiator. In it, in the words of an Associated Press story, they “called upon the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.”

“The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger, instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. ‘The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,’ the 35-page report predicted.

“‘Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,’ former US Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. . .

“In a veiled reference to Bush’s refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the U.S. government ‘must become a more constructive partner’ with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.”

The options before us are crystal clear. Down one road, the one we’re now on, lies a cascading series of oil and water wars, climate disasters and ecological devastation. Down the other lies a turn toward peaceful resolution of conflicts, energy conservation, efficiency and a clean energy revolution, and social and economic justice.

Another world is possible, but for it come about another US is necessary, in the words of the recent US Social Forum. It’s a world worth fighting for, a world worth sacrificing for. Our children and their children are counting on us to do the right thing, and to do it now. The clock is ticking, and we need to act as if the future of human society depends upon what we do, because it really does.

Ted Glick is the Coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and co-founder of the Climate Crisis Coalition. His Future Hope columns are archived at ippn.org. Read other articles by Ted, or visit Ted’s website.

Parts 2-9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwxpkiyvE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NR2oIlz6QU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMkOi9OP994 Pigs and dancing polar bears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjLmBn5vZWY More protesting polar bears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYVPYlaMctI Pigs arresting protesters instead of Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6onE_3uQ5_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6onE_3uQ5_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S09ZKcNGAeQ

Critical Mass Bikers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcvQuCbMs_I

Ann Wright: Arrest Bush Not Our Windmill

Police mistakenly arrest a windmill rather than Bush

Protesters evade police entrapment

Updated: 10.25.07

More Police Arresting Protesters

In a major show of revitalization, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) used guile and speed to combat the overwhelming numbers and fierce tactics of the Capital police. Once again flexing it muscles in the face of what it considers Fascism, SDS was in the thick of the struggle to bring the reality of the Iraq War home to the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNvh7TZqWU4

Arresting a 13 yr old girl!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2bEBiZGxyw

Time To Choose By Charley Reese

Dandelion Salad

By Charley Reese
ICH
10/23/07 “KFS

Most politicians, when they talk about reducing spending, chatter on about cutting waste and fraud. That’s OK, but it’s a mere nick on the federal budget. If you really want to reduce spending, you must dismantle the overseas empire.

Excluding Iraq, Afghanistan and the other facilities in the Gulf states that have been built since the Republican war, the Pentagon lists 702 overseas bases in 130 foreign countries on which are stationed more than 250,000 uniformed troops. There are also dependents and civilian employees on many of those bases.

One of the oldest military clichés is that the generals always want to fight the last war over again. Well, there’s some truth to that. In fact, though, we will never again fight World War II, so why in the heck do we have bases still in Germany, Italy, Japan, Guam and South Korea?

Just whom do we expect to fight from these bases? How do they contribute to the defense of the U.S.? They don’t. They are, frankly, a residue of World War II and a reminder that the military is, after all, a bureaucracy and hates the very idea of “losing” any facilities and billets. We don’t need to have troops permanently stationed in any of these countries. Nor do we need to maintain our membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is a residue from the Cold War.

I don’t wish to disillusion anyone, but Asia and Europe are not our responsibilities. If there is any need for defense, it is the responsibility of the countries on those continents. We know from personal experience that Japan and Germany can field large and competent armies if they should decide they need them. They do not need our protection.

At the present, there are only two countries in the world that have the capability of waging war against us. Those are China and Russia. In both cases, the war would be fought with intercontinental ballistic missiles. We are never going to see a land war with either of those countries. It should be the No. 1 priority of our foreign-policy establishment to see that we never have a war at all with either of these countries.

Wars start when empires wish to expand. That was the cause of the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. The Korean and Vietnam wars were civil wars in which our politicians involved us. The wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are again wars of an empire trying to expand. In these cases, we are the empire, and you might as well face the ugly truth that our invasions of both countries were no different from the Nazi invasions that led to World War II. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had attacked us or were even capable of attacking us.

In Afghanistan, we could have gone after al-Qaeda without overthrowing the Taliban government. In the case of Iraq, like Adolf Hitler did with Poland, we simply published a pack of lies to justify our invasion.

Americans need to realize that we are not the police force of the world. It is not our responsibility to overthrow dictators or effect regime change in other people’s countries. It is not our responsibility to stop slaughters such as seem to be a permanent feature of Africa.

If we could only learn to mind our own business and see to the needs of our own people, we could lead a peaceful, prosperous and happy existence. As for the terrorists, they are mainly a problem for intelligence and police. If any military force is necessary, one company of Rangers or Marines would be enough.

You can’t have a free republic and an empire. It is time to choose.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

© 2007 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Ecuador wants military base in Miami By Phil Stewart

The Imperial Presidency by Ralph Nader

Bush, Hunger and Death by Fidel Castro Ruz

Dandelion Salad

by Fidel Castro Ruz
Prensa Latina
Havana, Oct 23, 2007

Cuban President Fidel Castro stated that US statesman George W. Bush threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons.

In his Tuesday’s article entitled “Bush, Hunger and Death,” the Cuban Revolution leader said that the danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush’s recent initiative to transform foods into fuel.

“Such crucially important issues are the ones attracting the attention of the representatives of the countries that will be meeting on Tuesday, October 30, to discuss the Cuban project condemning the blockade,” expressed the island’s president referring to the presentation of that document at the UN.

Prensa Latina issues below reflections by the Cuban president:

REFLECTIONS BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF:

BUSH, HUNGER AND DEATH

For the first time, just before the UN discusses, as it does every year, the project of the Cuban resolution condemning the blockade, the President of the United States announces that he will adopt new measures to accelerate the “transition period” in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force.

On the other hand, the danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush’s recent initiative to transform foods into fuel while, calling on strategic security principles, he threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons.

Such crucially important issues are the ones attracting the attention of the representatives of the countries that will be meeting on Tuesday, October 30, to discuss the Cuban project condemning the blockade.

In elections where voting is not mandatory, our people have just given their verdict, with more than 95 percent of the electorate casting their vote at 37,749 polling stations, in ballot boxes guarded by school children. That is the example provided by Cuba.

Fidel Castro Ruz

October 22, 2007

5:48 p.m.

h/t: Global Research

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Imperial Presidency by Ralph Nader

Dandelion Salad

by Ralph Nader
Monday, October 22. 2007

Mired in the disastrous Iraq quagmire, opposed by a majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent news conference, he volunteered that he told our allies that if they’re “interested in avoiding World War III,” Iran must be prevented from both developing a nuclear weapon or having “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

To what level of political insanity has this Washington Caesar descended? Only two countries can start World War III—Russia and the United States. Is Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed to military action against Iran, persists with its position, Bush may risk World War III? If not, why is this law-breaking warmonger, looking for another war for American GIs to fight, while his military-age daughters bask in the celebrity lime light?

Why is he using such catastrophic language?

Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III. His own intelligence agencies say that, even assuming that the international inspectors are wrong and Iran is moving toward developing the “knowledge” of such weapons, it can’t build its first such weapon before 3 to 5 years at the earliest.

Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk suicide, surrounded as it is by countries armed to the nuclear teeth, such as Israel and the United States? This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah.

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran—a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years—which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

Moreover, the undeniable historical record shows that U.S. companies received licenses from the Department of Commerce, under Reagan, to ship Saddam the raw materials necessary to make chemical and biological weapons. Saddam used such lethal chemical weapons, with the tolerance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, on Iranians to devastating effect in terms of lives lost.

Then George W. Bush labels Iran a member of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq, ignoring a serious proposal by Iran in 2003 for negotiations, and shows what his language means by invading Iraq.

The authoritarian Iranian government is frightened enough to hurl some defiant rhetoric back at Washington and widen its perimeter defense. Seymour Hersh, the topflight investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine has written numerous articles on how the crowding of Iran, including infiltrating its interior, has become an obsession of the messianic militarist in the White House.

The Pentagon is more cautious, worrying about our already drained Army and the absence of any military strategy and readiness for many consequences that would follow Bush’s “bombs away” mentality.

Then there is the matter of the Democrats in Congress. After their costly fumble on Iraq, the opposition Party should make it very constitutionally clear, as recommended by former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo in a recent op-ed, that there can be no funded attacks on any country without a Congressional declaration of war, as explicitly required by the framers of our Constitution.

But the Democrats are too busy surrendering to other Bush demands, whether unconstitutional, above the law or just plain marinated in corporate greed. Some of this obeisance was all too clear in the Democrats questioning of Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey.

After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet announced a vote against Mukasey, even after he evaded questions on torture and argued for the inherent power of the President to act contrary to the laws of the land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent constitutional authority to do so.

This position aligns Mukasey with the imperial views of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales on the “unitary Executive.” In short, reminiscent of the divine right of Kings, the forthcoming Attorney General believes Bush can say that ‘he is the law’ regardless of Congress and the judiciary.

After two recent lead editorials demonstrating its specific exasperation over the Democrats’ kowtowing to the White House, the New York Times added a third on October 20, 2007 titled “With Democrats Like These…” The editorial recounted the ways Democrats, especially in the Senate, have caved on critical constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding the Bush-Cheney policies and practices of spying on Americans without judicial approval and accountability.

Accusing the Democrats of “the politics of fear,” the Times concluded: “It was bad enough having a one-party government when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.”

There is more grist coming for the Times’ editorial mill. Last week, the first African-American chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel (D-NY), declared that Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, Jr., fresh from Wall Street, had persuaded him, during a decade of increasing record profits, to lower the porous corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%.

“We can live with that,” Chairman Rangel declared.

Would the working families in his District, who would be paying a higher tax rate on their modest income, agree?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The True Cost of War for Oil By Bonnie Bricker and Aadil E. Shamoo

Dandelion Salad

By Bonnie Bricker and Aadil E. Shamoo
ICH
10/23/07 “Counterpunch

“We’re Not There for the Figs”

“We have to decide, as a nation, whether our need for Middle Eastern oil is more important to our future than our conduct as a moral and ethical people.” Which brave presidential candidate would lay it on the line so clearly? None yet. And that’s the problem with the national debate on the war in Iraq, and possibly, our foray into Iran as well.

Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, has declared that “…the Iraq war is largely about oil” in his recently released memoirs. “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are,” said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. “They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.”

Yet, although anti-war activists decried the “blood for oil” connection from the beginning of the war, no honest conversations have occurred in the public to involve Americans in this discussion.

This is the debate that Americans should be having: on the one hand, America’s economy is fueled by our use of energy to run our lives–fueling our cars and SUVs, our industry, our homes. The United States uses 25% of the world’s oil and but we’re only 4% of the world’s population.

We like to be cool in the summer and warm in the winter, and we love the freedom of choosing to use as much energy as we want. We also don’t like anyone telling us that we have to change our ways. If we keep using energy the way we always have, we’re going to need a dependable source of it to ensure that our children and grandchildren have access to the same way of life. But we have competitors for oil in the world marketplace–China, especially–and many argue that if we don’t lock up Middle Eastern oil for ourselves now, we won’t have it for our use in the very near future. That will mean paying even more for energy and allowing other nations to rev up their economic engines at our expense.

On the other hand, the cost of ensuring this oil supply is a hefty one. Americans are losing lives. A generation of veterans will be suffering through the vast wounds of this war. Our actions in Iraq have led to as many as a million Iraqi deaths and many more wounded, and displaced 4.4 million Iraqis. We have, in the name of “The War on Terror”, created so many U.S. enemies around the world, that our college-age students sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when abroad in the hopes of disguising their American identities.

As a result of this war, many Americans have come to accept that U.S. policy will include the moral and ethical disruptions of war–even when we have not been attacked by the people we invade, but rather are invading a weakened nation for the resource we desire.

Americans deserve this discussion so we can decide who we are and how we wish to solve this problem. Is it feasible or naïve to think we can use alternative energy sources instead of oil to address our needs?

Is it possible to change our habits and our lives to accommodate lower energy needs–or will too many Americans reject any change in habit?

And finally, are we really the noble Americans we like to think that we are, if we allow death and destruction of this magnitude to occur in our name?

We’re still waiting to hear the honest debate from our presidential candidates, from our media, and even with our friends and neighbors.

Bonnie Bricker is a teacher and contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, where this essay originally appeared.

Adil E. Shamoo, born and raised in Baghdad, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He writes on ethics and public policy. He is an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus. Both authors can be reached at: ashamoo@umaryland.edu .

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Give ‘em Hell Dennis! (video)

Ecuador wants military base in Miami By Phil Stewart

Dandelion Salad

By Phil Stewart
ICH
(Reuters)

NAPLES

Ecuador’s leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador’s Pacific coast.

Correa has refused to renew Washington’s lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.

“We’ll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami — an Ecuadorean base,” Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

“If there’s no problem having foreign soldiers on a country’s soil, surely they’ll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.”

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.

It offers a fact-sheet on the base at:

http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/topics_of_interest/manta-fol.html


Correa, a popular leftist economist, had promised to cut off his arm before extending the lease that ends in 2009 and has called U.S. President George W. Bush a “dimwit”.

But Correa, an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told Reuters he believed relations with the United States were “excellent” despite the base closing.

He rejected the idea that the episode reflected on U.S. ties at all.

“This is the only North American military base in South America,” he said.

“So, then the other South American countries don’t have good relations with the United States because they don’t have military bases? That doesn’t make any sense.”

© Reuters2007All rights reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Cheney raises anti-Iran rhetoric By Jim Lobe

Dandelion Salad

By Jim Lobe
Asia Times
Inter Press Service
Oct. 22, 2007
WASHINGTON

In the harshest speech against Iran given by a top George W Bush administration official to date, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday warned the Islamic Republic of “serious consequences” if it did not freeze its nuclear program and accused it of “direct involvement in the killings of Americans”.

“Given the nature of Iran’s rulers, the declarations of the Iranian president, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region – including the direct involvement in the killing of Americans – our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions,” Cheney warned in a major policy address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

“The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences,” he added. “The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

In his nearly 30-minute speech, an uncompromising defense of the Bush administration’s record in the Middle East, Cheney also claimed that, with Washington’s “surge” strategy working well against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the “greatest strategic threat that Iraq’s Shi’ites face today in consolidating their rightful role in Iraq’s new democracy is the subversive activities of the Iranian regime”.

And he accused “Syria and its agents” of using “bribery and intimidation … to prevent the democratic majority in Lebanon from electing a truly independent president”.

“Lebanon has the right to conduct the upcoming elections free of any foreign interference,” he declared, adding, “The United States will work with Free Lebanon’s other friends and allies to preserve Lebanon’s hard-won independence, and to defeat the forces of extremism and terror that threaten not only that region, but US countries [sic] across the wider region.”

Cheney’s speech comes at a moment of rising tensions between the US and Iran. Just last week, Cheney’s boss, George W Bush, warned during a brief press appearance that Tehran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon – or even the expertise needed to make one – could lead to a new world war.

“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters, although the White House later insisted that the president was merely making a “rhetorical point” and still believed that the nuclear issue could be resolved diplomatically.

Two days later, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had resigned and would be replaced by a less prominent diplomat Saeed Jalili. Although the government later announced that both Larijani and Jalili will attend talks Tuesday in Rome with European Union (EU) foreign-affairs chief, Javier Solana, the move was widely interpreted in Washington as a major victory for the hardline anti-Western faction behind President Mahmud Ahmadinejad against more pragmatic elements in the regime.

While Jalili lacks experience, noted Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii, “What Jalili does have is a very close relationship with Ahmadinejad. As such, the move, if it is confirmed, reflects yet another enhancement of Ahmadinejad’s fortunes in Iranian politics.”

Like Ahmadinejad, Cheney has long been seen as the leader of hardline forces within the administration, and the mere fact that his speech – which must have been cleared at the highest levels – was as belligerent as it was, especially in accusing Iran of “direct involvement in the killings of Americans”, suggests that the hawks are trying to take the offensive.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Pentagon chief Robert Gates has made such an unequivocal accusation; indeed, Gates has tried to downplay such charges when they have been voiced by military commanders in Iraq.

The forum chosen by Cheney to deliver his speech was in many ways as significant as its timing and context. WINEP, a generally hawkish think-tank, was founded some 20 years ago by the research director of the highly influential lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and is funded by many of the same donors.

AIPAC, in turn, has led a high-powered effort to persuade Congress to impose tough new sanctions against Iran and foreign companies that do business with it, and, more recently, to have Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard declared a “terrorist” organization.

As Cheney himself noted Sunday, his own national security adviser, John Hannah, once served as WINEP’s deputy director. While WINEP does not take specific positions on pending legislation or policies, it is generally regarded as at least sympathetic to AIPAC’s efforts and often provides the research AIPAC uses in its lobbying activities.

Cheney’s speech was remarkable on several counts, beginning with the fact that it came less than a week after Gates gave a much more restrained presentation on US Middle East policy and the threat posed by Iran to a yet more-hawkish pro-Israel group, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

While Gates called Tehran’s government “an ambitious and fanatical theocracy”, he also stressed the importance of diplomatic pressure and, in marked contrast to Cheney, dwelt much more heavily on the threats posed by al Qaeda and other Sunni jihadi movements.

Indeed, the rhetorical differences – including Gates’ effort to distinguish between Sunni jihadism and Iran and Cheney’s attempts to blur the two – could not be more pronounced.

Cheney’s speech was also notable for its aggressive and unapologetic defense of the Bush administration’s conduct of its “war on terrorism”; its insistence that the “surge” has turned the tide of the war in Iraq; and its repetition of neo-conservative notions about the importance of reacting with “swift and dire” punishment against challenges to US power in the region and the possibility that Tehran is deeply threatened by the emergence of “a strong, independent, Arab Shi’ite community” in Iraq.

He charged that Iran is a “growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East”, and he recited a long litany of grievances against it. “This same regime that approved of hostage-taking in 1979, that attacked Saudi and Kuwaiti shipping in the 1980s, that incited suicide bombings and jihadism in the 1990s and beyond, is now the world’s most active state sponsor of terror,” he declared, quoting the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus for the proposition that it is fighting a “proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq”.

“Fearful of a strong, independent, Arab Shi’ite community emerging in Iraq, one that seeks guidance not in Qom, Iran, but from traditional sources of Shi’ite authority in Najaf and Karbala, the Iranian regime also aims to keep Iraq in a state of weakness that prevents Baghdad from presenting a threat to Tehran,” he added, blaming the Quds Force, an elite branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, for providing “weapons, money and training to terrorists and Islamic militant groups abroad, including Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; militants in the Balkans, the Taliban and other anti-Afghanistan militants; and Hezbollah terrorists trying to destabilize Lebanon’s democratic government.”

He also strongly implied that Washington continues to seek “regime change” in Tehran, noting that “the irresponsible conduct of the ruling elite in Tehran is a tragedy for all Iranians” and insisting that “the spirit of freedom is stirring Iran … America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny; the day that our two countries, as free and democratic nations, can be the closest of friends.”

Iran, indeed, dominated the last 10 minutes of the speech. By contrast, Lebanon received only two paragraphs while the administration’s efforts to renew US-Palestinian peace talks drew only the briefest of mentions.

Bush, he said, has “announced a meeting to be held in Annapolis later this year to review the progress towards building Palestinian institutions, to seek innovative ways to support further reform, to provide diplomatic support to the parties, so that we can move forward on the path to a Palestinian state”.

(Inter Press Service)

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

On the Eve of Destruction By Scott Ritter

Dandelion Salad

By Scott Ritter
Truthdig
Oct 22, 2007

Don’t worry, the White House is telling us. The world’s most powerful leader was simply making a rhetorical point. At a White House press conference last week, just in case you haven’t heard, President Bush informed the American people that he had told world leaders “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” World War III. That is certainly some rhetorical point, especially coming from the man singularly most capable of making such an event reality.

Continue reading

US Army Lures Foreigners with Promise of Citizenship By Cordula Meyer

Dandelion Salad

By Cordula Meyer in Washington
ICH
10/22/07 “SPIEGEL


More than 30,000 foreign troops are enlisted in the US Army, many of them serving in Iraq. Their reward for risking their lives for their adopted country is US citizenship.

When Anna Maria Clarke, 26, was a teenager living in the western German city of Mannheim, she already had a weakness for smart uniforms, particularly on American soldiers, and for war movies like “Full Metal Jacket.” It was an attraction that Clarke, a German citizen, felt early on and still feels today.

The parents of 25-year-old Julieta Ortiz immigrated to the United States from Mexico City, dirt-poor but ambitious. They worked hard picking strawberries in California, determined that their daughter would have a better life. Four years ago, Julieta suddenly found a way to that better life — a difficult path, but one that would lift her out of the poverty of her childhood.

Jose Figueira, 31, spent much of his life listening to his father proudly recount his experiences as a soldier in the Portuguese army. Figueira, who grew up in Massachusetts, yearned to have something he could be just as proud of. “I wanted to prove that I’m a good citizen, that I’m willing to stand up for everything I love about this country.”

They may have different reasons for joining the US Armed Forces, but all three are now among the more than 30,000 foreign soldiers fighting for America — not as Americans, but as a Mexican, a Portuguese and even a German. Without its foreign soldiers, the United States would have trouble coming up with enough troops to meet the demand in Iraq. The foreigners, for their part, take the dangerous job mainly for its biggest reward: US citizenship.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has granted US citizenship to 32,500 foreign soldiers. In July 2002, US President George W. Bush issued an executive order to expand existing legislation to offer a fast track to citizenship to foreigners who agree to fight for the US Armed Forces. About 8,000 non-Americans have joined the US military every year since then.

The foreigners already represent 5 percent of all recruits. They even make up the majority of soldiers from some New York and Los Angeles neighborhoods. Four years and 3,800 US deaths after the beginning of the Iraq campaign, fewer and fewer American citizens are willing to fight in a war opposed by a majority of the US population. But despite the Iraq war’s lack of popularity, US generals are demanding 180,000 new recruits a year.

The Pentagon already spends $3.2 billion a year on recruitment, even sending its recruiters to high schools to persuade 17-year-olds still a year away from graduation to enlist.

The US military learned long ago that foreign recruits are often the most dedicated Americans. Anna Maria from Mannheim, looking girlish with her red ponytail, had always dreamed about the US military. She was attracted to the American soldiers living in Germany, who seemed so relaxed about life. When she fell in love, it was always with an American GI. Her soft spot earned her the nickname “Ami-Anna” (“Yankee Anna”). Of course, she married a GI. She began secretly watching her husband’s fellow soldiers doing their push-ups and sit-ups in the morning. Then she started exercising, lost 25 kilograms (55 pounds), passed the admission test and survived US Army boot camp in Texas.

Over 100 Germans

Now Airman First Class Clarke works in the human resources department at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. But the reality of the war shows up on her desk sometimes. Part of Clarke’s job is to make sure that the bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq make it home as complete as possible.

Of course, Clarke expects to be sent to Iraq herself at any time. She says that she would even have enlisted without the promise of her new US citizenship, but it’s important to her nonetheless. “After all,” she says, “I could be killed for this country. It’s nice to know that it’s actually my country.” There are currently 128 Germans serving in the US military — more than from any other European country except Great Britain.

Most foreign recruits come from Latin America and the Caribbean. Latino rights groups in the United States, fearful that immigrants are being used as cannon fodder, object to the somewhat shady practice of offering citizenship in return for military service. But it happens to be a fact of life “that immigrants always have the more difficult jobs,” says military expert Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He is more concerned about the fact that many US citizens are already serving their third tours of duty at the front. Increased recruitment of foreigners, says O’Hanlon, could help lighten the burden.

O’Hanlon has even proposed recruiting potential new citizens for military service in selected countries, like the Philippines or Uganda, a proposal the Pentagon is considering.

Military recruiters have been particularly successful in immigrant communities. “Immigrants want to prove to American society that they are especially patriotic,” says Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War, a liberal anti-war organization. “The recruitment officers take advantage of this and promise citizenship in return.” Patriotism was a strong motivator for Jose Figueira to join the US military. “I wanted to prove that the Americans could trust me,” he says. “I wanted to prove that I belong here.”

Sergeant Figueira, a member of the National Guard, is no military buff. He’s realized, after serving in Iraq, that the reality of war is more than he expected. He talks about Baghdad, about roadside bombs and snipers. He also talks about the many hours he spent under enemy fire repairing the vehicles in his convoy after a bomb attack. He saw soldiers being killed, and the tears come to his eyes when he talks about the experience. Nevertheless, he says, he would return to Iraq at any time.

It’s people like Figueira who demonstrate that immigrants “are indispensable for the military,” says Margaret Stock, a lawyer and lecturer at the legendary US Military Academy at West Point. “They are more successful and they’re less likely to give up,” she adds. Besides, immigrants are a good investment for the military. “You get more bang for your buck,” says Stock.

It is for these reasons that the military is now deliberately targeting immigrants for recruitment, especially those who speak Arabic or Farsi — but also Latinos, the largest immigrant group in the United States. Corporal Julieta Ortiz, Mexican by birth, joined the Marines “because I wanted to make something out of myself and because citizenship means a lot to me.” Being a US citizen helps her advance in her career, because, as she says, “I couldn’t become an officer” as a foreigner in the US military. She is now an architecture student and wants to work for the government in the future. She glosses over the potential risks of serving in Iraq. “It’s worth it to me,” says Ortiz.

“People with no prospects see the military as a way out of poverty,” says Jorge Mariscal, a professor of Latino Studies at the University of California, San Diego. The uniform means money — money for college and money to pay bills. “Immigrants are taken advantage of,” says Bill Galvin, who is against the war and advises soldiers in Washington who want to get out of the military before their contracts are up. “Those who have no other options are the most likely to end up in combat.”

A US Flag, and a Certificate of Citizenship

One of them was Juan Alcantara, 22, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic who grew up in New York’s Washington Heights neighborhood.

Alcantara survived his first year in Iraq, but then the recent troop surge began and, under an executive order issued by President Bush, Corporal Alcantara was told he would be kept on in Iraq for another six months. He had been scheduled to return home on June 28. His girlfriend gave birth to their daughter on June 29. On Aug. 6, a bomb exploded while Alcantara was searching a house in the town of Baqubah, north of Baghdad. Alcantara was killed in the blast.

His mother, Maria, now sits in her apartment in Washington Heights, wiping the tears from her eyes. She once told her son that the three most important things in life are: “God, family and your country.”

She says that the army promised Juan “up to $50,000 for college, plus a $20,000 bonus, his choice of any of 200 jobs and a full-time position.” He filled out the application on the plastic-covered couch in her living room. The mother says that she wept the first time her son came home in his new dress uniform. “He was so elegant, so handsome.”

She prayed when he was ordered to go to Iraq. Was Corporal Juan Alcantara really convinced that he was defending his country? The mother nods. She truly wants to believe all the things the officers told her during the memorial service and at the funeral, when they handed her a US flag, the Purple Heart, an award for wounded soldiers — and Juan’s certificate of citizenship. Everyone at the ceremony assured her that her son was a hero.

Juan Alcantara is the 103rd foreign soldier to become a US citizen posthumously — after dying in the Iraq war. His mother keeps the framed certificate and the letters of condolence in a blue plastic bag.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Give ’em Hell Dennis! (video)

Dandelion Salad

Kucinich2008

Truman Dinner
10-19-07
Camera: Tim McHugh

see

Kucinich: Bush Close to Igniting WWIII by Monisha Bansal

The “Impeach Bush” Playing Card Deck + Elizabeth Kucinich on Impeachment (video)

Kucinich tops other Dem Presidential leaders in key CA straw poll + video

Kucinich Campaign update 10-22-07 (video)

Caspian Summit: Putin Puts Forward A War-Avoidance Plan by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

Dandelion Salad

by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
Global Research, October 22, 2007

Putin has grasped the fact that what the Cheney Crowd is threatening is World War

The visit to Tehran on Oct. 16, by Russian President Vladimir Putin was officially billed as his participation in the second summit of the Caspian Sea littoral nations, convoked to deal with legal and other aspects of resource-sharing in the oil-rich waters. Although that summit did take place as scheduled, and important decisions were reached by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Iran, the main thrust of Putin’s visit was another: The Russian President’s trip–the first of a Russian head of state since the 1943 Tehran conference of war-time powers–was geared to register his government’s commitment to prevent a new war in the region, at all costs. That new war is the one on the strategic agenda of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, against Iran.

Putin’s participation in the summit, especially, his extensive personal meetings with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, constituted a spectacular gesture manifesting Russian support for war-avoidance factions in the Iranian government, in their showdown with Cheney’s neocon war party. As one Iranian political source put it, Putin’s visit was tantamount to saying to Washington: If you want to start a war against Iran, then you have to reckon with me, and that means, with Russia, a nuclear superpower. Perhaps not coincidentally, Putin right after his return to Moscow, stated in a worldwide webcast press interview, that his nation was developing new nuclear capabilities. His Iran visit was, as one Arab diplomat told me, a message to the warmongers in Washington, that Russia is still (or again) a superpower, and is treating the Iran dossier as a test for its status as a great power.

The Caspian Sea summit was, in and of itself, productive. Although the legal status governing the sharing of the sea’s resources, was not solved, the points agreed upon in the final document of the summit constitute a great step forward in cooperation among the participating countries. Most important, the summit explicitly rejected the possibility that any one of its countries could be used for mounting aggressive acts against Iran, or any other country. It also explicitly endorsed the right of all countries to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. There was no mention of “concerns in the international community” about possible military applications of Tehran’s program, or the like.

Putin’s main point, which he reiterated at every possible opportunity, was: Conflicts can and must be solved through diplomatic, peaceful means. In his address to the summit on Oct. 16, Putin praised the Caspian Sea countries’ problem-solving formulae, “respecting each other’s interests and sovereignty, and refraining not only from any use of force whatsoever, but even from mentioning the use of force.” Putin went on to explain: “This is very important, as it is also important that we talk about the impossibility of allowing our own territory to be used by other countries in the event of aggression or any military actions against any one of the Caspian littoral states.” In short: The U.S. cannot count on Azerbaijan, as a launching pad for operations against Iran.

The final document also announced the decision to form a Caspian Sea Cooperation organization.

But, even more important than the summit itself, were the bilateral meetings that Putin held with Iran’s President and Supreme Leader, who is the ultimate authority in the country. Ayatollah Khamanei does not routinely receive foreign visitors to Iran, thus his meeting with the Russian President took on a special significance. During their meeting, Putin reportedly presented Khamenei with a proposal for reaching a solution to the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. According to the Iranian state news agency IRNA, Khamenei told Putin: “We will ponder your words and proposal.”

Although details of the proposal have not been made public, some news outlets reported that Iranian “hardliners” had said the proposal called for a “time-out” on UN sanctions if Iran were to suspend uranium enrichment. “The main reason for Putin’s visit to Iran was to convey this message personally to the ultimate power in Iran,” one Iranian official was quoted as saying. Khamenei reportedly told Putin that Iran was serious about continuing its nuclear energy program, including enrichment, but was not interested in “adventurism.” If Putin did propose a “time-out,” that would be coherent with what International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director Mohammad ElBaradei has been campaigning for. It may be that Moscow’s offer went beyond that of the IAEA chief.

The {Tehran Times} reported that Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council and chief negotiator on the nuclear issue, told reporters that Putin had made a “special proposal,” and that Khamenei said it was “ponderable.”

According to a well-informed Iranian source I spoke to, Tehran would be willing to suspend its enrichment program, on condition that it received something tangible in return. This, would be a significant shift, since Iran has, to date, refused any such idea. Iran would {not}, however, be willing to give up its nuclear program as North Korea has done. Suspension of enrichment activities would be temporary, in order to facilitate negotiations, which should be oriented towards tangible results, said this source.

Whether or not this was Putin’s message is unclear. Larijani’s surprise announcement on October 20, that he was resigning, cast shadows over the situation. After Larijani had reported on the Russian president’s proposal, Ahmadinejad denied any such had been made. This led to a series of wild speculations in the press, that the “hardliners,” on orders from Ahmadinejad, were ousting Larijani and rejecting the proposal from Moscow. It must be remembered, however, that the ultimate decisions are made by Ayatollah Khamenei, and that Larijani, according to Iranian wires, will continueto attend meetings of the Supreme National Security Council, in the capacity of representative of the Supreme Leader.

In addition, Russia’s state radio RUVR reported on Oct. 16, that Putin proposed that the so-called North Korean recipe be used to settle Iran’s nuclear problem. But what he meant was perhaps not the same recipe in formal terms. His remarks were reported, just before his meeting with Ahmadinejad. Putin argued, convincingly, that U.S. threats to use armed force against North Korea had proven futile. Such threats would hardly prove efficient with regard to Iran either, he said. Trying to frighten anyone, the Iranian leaders in this case, Putin said, is a waste of time. “They are not afraid, believe me.” What should be done, he continued, is to arm oneself with patience and search for a settlement. But this is hardly possible without a dialogue with the people of Iran and Iran’s leadership. If we do have a chance to maintain direct contact, we shall do it in a bid to achieve a positive joint, let me stress it, joint result, the Russian leader said in conclusion. Thus, Putin may not have been proposing that an approach be adopted exactly like that used for North Korea — which, had already tested a nuclear weapon– but that the diplomatic process used with Korea also be used with Iran.

– Strategic Understanding Between Tehran and Moscow –

Whatever was agreed upon behind the scenes between Putin and his high ranking Iranian counterparts, the official, rather extraordinary bilateral statement which was released after their talks, speaks volumes about Russia’s commitment to a peaceful solution to the Iran crisis.

The joint statement, in the version translated by Itar-Tass on Oct. 17, was not just a list of points of agreement, but, taken as a whole, constitutes a far-reaching commitment by both sides, to strengthen what has become a strategic understanding between Moscow and Tehran, clearly oriented towards a war-avoidance policy. The statement begins with the assertion that, “The sides confirmed that mutually beneficial cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other areas, as well as cooperation on the international stage, meet the national interests of the two sides and play an important role in supporting peace and stability in the region and beyond.” Economic cooperation is central in this regard, especially as concerns the energy sector: “The sides spoke in favor of increasing efforts to further expand economic ties between the two countries, especially in areas like the oil and gas, nuclear power, electricity, processing and aircraft-building industries, banking and transport.”

As for nuclear energy–the issue being manipulated as a pretext for war–the statement says: “The sides noted bilateral cooperation in the area of peaceful nuclear energy and confirmed that it will continue in full compliance with the requirements of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In this regard they also noted that the construction and launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable.”

In addition, the joint statement noted a contract for five Tu-204-100 aircraft to be supplied to Iran, as well as the need to create the conditions for advancing joint investment in Russia and Iran. Regarding regional infrastructure projects, the statement asserted the agreement “to continue work on the development of the north-south international transport corridor, including its automobile, rail and maritime components, in the interest of further strengthening trade and economic ties between Russia and Iran, as well as other countries of the region.

The two sides also reached agreement on “pressing regional problems,” and stressed cooperation to achieve stability and security in Central Asia. Here the role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which Iran is an observer, was highlighted.

As for the Caspian Sea region, the statement asserts that “the relevant norms of the agreements of 1921 and 1940 between Iran and the former Soviet Union remain in force until there is a convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea.” Furthermore, the two sides “advocate the exclusion from the Caspian of military presence of non-Caspian littoral states,” a clear rejection of any U.S. intentions to establish a presence in the region.

The joint statement also declared an identity of views between Tehran and Moscow on crucial foreign policy issues. They called for “building a fairer and more democratic world order which would ensure global and regional security and create favorable conditions for stable development … based on collective principles and the supremacy of international law with the United Nations Organization playing a central coordinating role….” They explicitly ruled out Cheney-style saber-rattling: “The sides confirmed their refusal to use force or threat of force to resolve contentious issues, and their respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states.”

In the context of statements of their commitment to fight terrorism, the two sides also addressed the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and “confirmed Russia’s and Iran’s intention to continue to take part in the post-war reconstruction of Afghanistan, and are interested in strengthening its statehood and the process of that country becoming a peaceful, democratic, independent and flourishing state.”

Iraq was also an important feature of the agreement. The two sides “expressed vigorous support for Iraq’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and for an end to foreign military presence in that country on the basis of the relevant schedule.” It should be noted that Putin, in his international webcast on his to Moscow, made this a central point of his polemic against Washington. Also, the joint statement called for a “just settlement” to the Middle East conflict, which may indicate renewed flexibity on Iran’s part, to accept agreements which thePalestinians (united) might make.

Finally, in a short but clear paragraph, the two “noted the need to settle the issue of Iran’s nuclear program as soon as possible by political and diplomatic means through talks and dialogue and expressed hope that a long-term comprehensive solution will be found.”

In sum, the joint statement goes far beyond any earlier definition of relations between Russia and Iran, and sends a clear message to the war party in Washington and London, that they can no longer consider Iran in isolation, but must recognize that the country has become a strategic partner of Russia, whose leadership is determined to prevent war.

– Europeans Should Know Better –

What Putin achieved in Tehran must have sent shivers up and down the spines of Cheney and his de facto sympathizers at home and in Europe. President Bush indulged in one of his typical ranting sessions Oct. 18, in remarks to the press, in which he threatened that were Iran to achieve the knowledge required to build a bomb, then that would mean World War III were just around the corner. In Europe, members of the coalition of the spineless, had already weighed in against Putin, even attempting to dissuade the Russian leader from going to Iran. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have pressured Putin, during their Moscow visit, to join them in threatening Iran with new sanctions, if it did not meet their expectations on the nuclear issue. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had delivered a similar message. During his visit to Wiesbaden, Germany, for the Petersburg Dialogue, on Oct. 14-15, Putin was again besieged by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others, with demands he get tough with Tehran.

And, in case the message had not registered, a wild story was circulated internationally, that a team of suicide bombers was primed to blow themselves and Putin up, as soon as he set foot on Iranian soil. While Iranian officials denounced the obvious psywar attributed to “foreign” intelligence services, Putin tossed the story off with a laugh, saying, were he to heed such warnings, he would never leave his home.

The point to be made is that Putin–unlike his European interlocutors–has grasped the fact that what the Cheney crowd is threatening is world war, not some political power play, and has therefore stuck to his guns. That Russia has been aware of the dangers inherent in Cheney’s planned Iran war, is nothing new. In his speech to the Munich Wehrkunde meeting early in 2007, Putin had lashed out in most undiplomatic terms, against the pretensions of the would-be leader of a presumed unipolar world, to dictate world affairs through military fiat. And, regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, Russia has been consistent in stating its position that if, 1) Iran abides by international commitments to the NPT and IAEA regime, then 2) Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology must be guaranteed, and 3) that program must not be misconstrued as a weapons program, and thus used as a pretext for military aggression.


Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7151

Tomgram: Chalmers Johnson, 12 Books in Search of a Policy By Tom Engelhardt

Dandelion Salad

By Tom Engelhardt
October 22, 2007

They came in as unreformed Cold Warriors, only lacking a cold war — and looking for an enemy: a Russia to roll back even further; rogue states like Saddam’s rickety dictatorship to smash. They were still in the old fight, eager to make sure that the “Evil Empire,” already long down for the count, would remain prostrate forever; eager to ensure that any new evil empire like, say, China’s would never be able to stand tall enough to be a challenge. They saw opportunities to move into areas previously beyond the reach of American imperial power like the former SSRs of the Soviet Union in Central Asia, which just happened to be sitting on potentially fabulous undeveloped energy fields; or farther into the even more fabulously energy-rich Middle East, where Saddam’s Iraq, planted atop the planet’s third largest reserves of petroleum, seemed so ready for a fall — with other states in the region visibly not far behind. Continue reading